Legalize Marijuana?

[xFear of Napalm]

If you don't care to look at evidence provided by people who spend an extremely large amount of their time trying to find answers, then why should I even bother.

No one here actually spent time to really research their answers. And also, studies are usually inconsistent compared to the experiences of the masses of people who smoke marijuana.

 

[04mucklowd]

Smoking da heeeeeeeerb

 

[Systemdertoten]

Honduras, just like Mexico, is torn apart by conflicts by drug traffic groups, so I voted Yes.

 

[Chapuunka]

To me, outside sources that affect your judgement should generally be avoided. Whether marijuana is one of these things or not, I haven't been convinced. Not having done a whole lot of research into the issue, most what I've heard is fairly conflicting, keeping me from making a stance on the personal effects of using marijuana.

Now, from a legal and economic viewpoint, it makes a lot of sense to legalize marijuana. Along with all the other reasons previously mentioned in this thread, it's already too late to stop people from using marijuana, so it's just a waste of effort and money to try.

 

[maggot]

i stopped reading here. lol

what i mean by this, it is important for kids not to get involved with these kind of things, to not continue reading is ignorant in its own sense. it shows that you only agree with your own opinion. and it also shows you shouldnt have such a pro-weed stand, because you have the mentality of a child.

You do realize the the gateway effect of marijuana is almost entirely due to its prohibition in the first place, right? If it was legal then people wouldn't be going into alleys and buying it from the same people that sell heroin.

yeah, right. so i guess peer pressure and the actual feeling of being high has nothing to do with it being a gateway drug? or that because its illegal and i have to buy from a drug dealer that its more of a gateway? what about 'dealers' that ONLY sell pot? im sure you know a few of those... i know i do.

You do know what sarcasm is, and who kirjava is, right? (You definitely don't.)


So, It's morally acceptable, but it's still okay to give people prison sentences for having it? Is that what you're saying? (I assume so, seeing how you did say it.)

i sure do know who kirjava is. and i know what sarcasm is. but his statement has a sarcastic flaw. and actually xFear of Napalm gives the answer himself. studies are usually inconsistent compared to the experiences of the the masses of people who smoke marijuana. so, where the us (in comparison to GDP) spends considerably less in welfare provisions than the netherlands. so, while you might not see them on the street, you see it in the budget.


sure its morally acceptable to me personally. if someone decides to do it, its their own perogative. i used to smoke weed too, so this is the angle im coming from. but when i think of my kids, i dont think its right for them. im a cool dad, so hopefully when that time comes, im not going to stop them, and hopefully i have equipped them with the right decision making skills not to go any further than that. im not going to be the parent who smokes around my children to show them that it is acceptable.

Wow. I didn't expect anyone to actually take Kirjava's trolling seriously. Pretty pathetic lol.

well, i did take it seriously. people think amsterdam is all roses because of their drug numbers and crime numbers. they also have a rising demand for drug addiction rehab support (government funded), and rising amounts of police investigation for hard and soft drugs. how much is going unenforced? and who pays for enforcement? taxpayers. and not to mention again, the welfare. i wonder why? because they have a bunch of disabled people? haha yeah right.

It is for this reason why I won't even bother tearing apart everything you posted. If you don't care to look at evidence provided by people who spend an extremely large amount of their time trying to find answers, then why should I even bother.

I will, however, say a bit about this:



Haha wait what? Alright first of all, being forced upon to be abstinent by either society or religion or parents or whatever is not good. At all. This merely forces those who wish to partake in such activities to do so in secrecy. Secrecy often means those partaking could have a lack of knowledge and resources to have safe sex. Now abstinence is the "gateway drug" to unsafe sex. With proper knowledge and resources, safe sex is not even close to being a "gateway" to unsafe sex. Why a 16 year old has to explain this to someone who has kids is beyond me, but it is done.

where did i say that we should force abstinence? i feel it is important for kids to refrain from sex, but making the decision on their own. i would never force my child into secrecy for anything. also, the reason why i dont CARE to look at studies is because you're opinions have summed them up for me to an exaggerated extent. just because weed might be ok with medical studies, social studies, it doesnt really face the reality of what it actually is. i hardly see how it would benefit society, other than giving more time for government officials to attack REAL issues, having less people in prison (although decriminalization could help it), and money from taxes (although all that will probably be spent on enforcement, welfare, and government assisted rehab)

 

[qqwref]

you have the mentality of a child.

Let's see if we can do this without insulting each other, mm? And it's certainly reasonable to ignore the rest of a post when you think that reading any further would only be a waste of time.

when i think of my kids, i dont think its right for them. im a cool dad, so hopefully when that time comes, im not going to stop them, and hopefully i have equipped them with the right decision making skills not to go any further than that. im not going to be the parent who smokes around my children to show them that it is acceptable.

Nobody is suggesting young children should be doing pot, so I'm not sure why you posted this. I think most people see there being an age limit, like there is with smoking and drinking.

i feel it is important for kids to refrain from sex

(assuming you mean "kids" as "between puberty and 18 or so" here) Why? It's well known that many problems are caused by lack of understanding of sex (and to really understand the issues some part of sex education needs to be, ahem, hands-on). Like almost anything else, sex can be done responsibly and safely; I don't see the point of asking people to forego even that, especially when beginning to be interested in that sort of thing is a natural and well nigh universal part of human development.

i hardly see how it would benefit society, other than giving more time for government officials to attack REAL issues, having less people in prison (although decriminalization could help it), and money from taxes (although all that will probably be spent on enforcement, welfare, and government assisted rehab)

Those are all worthwhile causes - certainly more benefits than you get out of a typical piece of big-impact legislation. PS: we already spend a ton of money on pot enforcement, and as far as I know there is no need for a marijuana rehab program, since it's not physically addictive.

 

[caseyd]

so many people say its not addictive, and it should be legalized, but cigarrettes are legal and VERY addictive, so why are they allowed anyway?

 

[Rpotts]

because people like them and buy them and pay 2$ tax on them per pack.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

I'd rather be exposed to marijuana smoke than tobacco smoke. I think if tobacco products are legal, then marijuana should be. It seems to me like tobacco is more dangerous than marijuana. Even if marijuana isn't legal, people won't follow the rules anyway. Just for example, there are signs all over the city here saying that there's no smoking within 9 meters (Yes, they are city bylaws). People smoke directly in front of those signs, and I have to walk right through the smoke to get inside. My mom does too, and she's quite allergic to tobacco smoke.

 

[crashdummy001]

If someone overuses marijuana or other drugs and needs immediate medical care, but they have no money (spent it on the drugs), should they eat into taxpayers' tax money to get medical treatment? This is not a victimless crime!

 

[Rpotts]

in america you don't get free healthcare. You get a bill and debt.

 

[maggot]

Let's see if we can do this without insulting each other, mm? And it's certainly reasonable to ignore the rest of a post when you think that reading any further would only be a waste of time.


Nobody is suggesting young children should be doing pot, so I'm not sure why you posted this. I think most people see there being an age limit, like there is with smoking and drinking.


(assuming you mean "kids" as "between puberty and 18 or so" here) Why? It's well known that many problems are caused by lack of understanding of sex (and to really understand the issues some part of sex education needs to be, ahem, hands-on). Like almost anything else, sex can be done responsibly and safely; I don't see the point of asking people to forego even that, especially when beginning to be interested in that sort of thing is a natural and well nigh universal part of human development.


Those are all worthwhile causes - certainly more benefits than you get out of a typical piece of big-impact legislation. PS: we already spend a ton of money on pot enforcement, and as far as I know there is no need for a marijuana rehab program, since it's not physically addictive.

ok, to rpotts i apologize. but only because i'd screw a dog and hes LOL.

i didnt suggest you think my kids should or shouldnt smoke pot. im saying, as a parent, i dont want my kids to smoke pot, hopefully. but even with the age limit on cigarettes and liquor, we still have plenty of drinking and smoking kids. and they typically go to these before weed, only because they are so available.

if they're going to have sex, yeah hopefully they are educated.. but that doesnt mean that we dont make poor decisions without fully understanding the consequences. . so, presume my daughter is educated about sex, but maybe at the time the guy doesnt like the condom mid dance and she gets knocked up. well, they dont fully understand what the responsibility means. . and i think they should refrain until they can handle that responsibility to the fullest.

marijuana rehab program: no such thing. but for some reason amsterdam is having ever increasing demands for rehab programs, their enforcement is spending ever increasing time investigating drug cases (hard and soft), and for some reason they dish out more welfare (more disabled people in need? i wonder. .) and dont ask me to show reference. just look it up. for enforcement, yes, the percentage is higher because of lower other crime, but they still spend heavy $$$ on regulation.

edit: in america, in the near future, if you are jobless, you will still have medical coverage.

 

[Kian]

in america you don't get free healthcare. You get a bill and debt.

explain to me how taxing you and borrowing more money to fund socialized medicine is different from that.

 

[PatrickJameson]

where did i say that we should force abstinence? i feel it is important for kids to refrain from sex, but making the decision on their own. i would never force my child into secrecy for anything.

Meh, I feel the feeling that teens should refrain from having sex is cause for many to do stuff in secrecy. I say sex it up, but know what you're doing. People should openly provide knowledge and resources without society saying you shouldn't.

also, the reason why i dont CARE to look at studies is because you're opinions have summed them up for me to an exaggerated extent. just because weed might be ok with medical studies, social studies, it doesnt really face the reality of what it actually is. i hardly see how it would benefit society, other than giving more time for government officials to attack REAL issues, having less people in prison (although decriminalization could help it), and money from taxes (although all that will probably be spent on enforcement, welfare, and government assisted rehab)

To continue what qq said in response to this: I hardly see how hard covers on books benefit society. Let's make it illegal.

 

[Rpotts]

ok, to rpotts i apologize. but only because i'd screw a dog and hes LOL.

lol i don't deserve an apology, you have your opinion and i don't think you were rude. thanks anyway

i didnt suggest you think my kids should or shouldnt smoke pot. im saying, as a parent, i dont want my kids to smoke pot, hopefully. but even with the age limit on cigarettes and liquor, we still have plenty of drinking and smoking kids. and they typically go to these before weed, only because they are so available.

i started smoking weed 5 years before i drank (other than sips at dinner) and 7 years before i started smoking cigarettes. Weed is far more readily available to youth because you can go to a dealer and get illegal drugs regardless of your age or mental state. I couldn't get cigarettes or liquor on my own, but i could get weed and mushrooms and other drugs because they are illegal.

edit: in america, in the near future, if you are jobless, you will still have medical coverage.

only because you will be forced to buy medical coverage whether you want it or can afford it.

explain to me how taxing you and borrowing more money to fund socialized medicine is different from that.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. Taxing and borrowing money to fund social healthcare is different than getting a bill from a private hospital. You have a choice on where to get medical care, you don't have a choice about getting taxed.

 

[maggot]

the first thing i did was smoke a cigarette. because my friends mom smoked and he took cigarettes from her. then i drank. because my parents had sake and beer in the fridge. i think these methods are even easier than getting weed from a dealer, especially at a young age. also, there was always the older cousin/brother/friend to buy cigarettes/liquor for me. its easy to be a teen and parents are having a party or whatever and you can have beer, or maybe you take a 'soda' from the 'adult cooler' on 'accident'. its easy to do things in secrecy, but for me, just behind my parents back was fine enough.

 

[Dene]

Lol people arguing over what I said.

That's the most ****ed up view I've ever heard! I smoke weed pretty often, should I be vaporized, just pushed off the face of the Earth? Weed isn't NEARLY as bad as you make it out to be! Many people are lazy and drag on society, but if they smoke weed they should be "officially outcasted." And have fun trying to enforce that, too! I'm only 15 and I could get weed at the snap of my fingers, so obviously the law doesn't work at preventing use.

This is what Dene said and meant: people that are bumming off should be officially outcasted from society. The connection to the topic of marijuana is obviously that people who are smoking weed tend to contribute more to the population of those that are bumming off.

And you miss the point I am trying to make when you mention that you can get weed easily. Anyone can, and why not? It's just a plant. But please take it elsewhere. I think the Netherlands is a good example of this, assuming my impression of the country is accurate. It appears to me that most of the druggies etc. are in Amsterdam. At least, this is what is conveyed in the popular media. Regardless of the accuracy of this, it would still be a good example of what I would like to see. Basically, people that want to be involved in drugs/alcohol etc. and just lazy people in general (non-contributors) can go and live in a place set aside by the owner of the land (the government, basically) where they can do whatever they want. If they choose to live there then they do not get the privileges provided by living in that country etc. Then we'll see how well they flourish.

Now obviously this would not stop people from sneaking alcohol or drugs or whatever into their own homes, but at least this would be hidden from the rest of us that don't want to be involved. As long as one is contributing positively I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home. But as soon as a druggy starts becoming a lazy bum or an alcoholic starts beating their family, they have to go.

Fair enough?

 

[StachuK1992]

Save money on drug enforcement, cut down on gang activity, increase safety (drug is more regulated -> less likely to have dangerous additives), keep millions of nonviolent "criminals" out of prison, get extra money from taxes, etc. And all that for the price of... oh wait, no, pot *doesn't* cause lots of extra deaths from car accidents and overdoses. Looking at it logically I really don't see a lot of downsides to legalization.

These are essentially my thoughts.
"Yes."

 

[blade740]

Ah, is it that time of year again?

I voted yes. Cannabis has been proven to be safer than other legal drugs, like tobacco and alcohol. It's also a hell of a lot safer than the vast majority of pharmaceuticals, both prescription and over-the-counter. Even Aspirin kills thousands each year, while there hasn't been a single death attributed to cannabis overdose. As a matter of fact, it's basically impossible to overdose on cannabis, as you'd have to smoke a ridiculous amount in a short period of time (the numbers change every time I hear it, but let's just say it's measured in pounds/minutes).

The "gateway effect" is speculation at best. Cannabis is one of the "softest" illegal drugs, and so it makes sense that anyone who does harder drugs started there. Prohibition means that most cannabis users know an illegal drug dealer, so other drugs are much more available than if cannabis were to be legalized. Plus, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those drug users tried alcohol first, but nobody's calling that a "gateway drug".

Recent scientific studies have shown that those who smoke cannabis but NOT tobacco actually have LOWER rates of lung cancer than those who smoke neither! In fact, there have even been studies where cannabinoids significantly shrunk tumors and extended the lifespan of mice. This page lists several scientific studies, if you don't believe me.

@Chris:
Your story is very interesting to me. I've never heard of this effect, although it sounds like you've been fairly scientific with your analysis. I agree that children should not be exposed to secondhand smoke, as with tobacco.

At the end of the day, the prohibition of cannabis causes MUCH more harm than good. With nonviolent, victimless offenders being imprisoned by the thousands, and deadly drug wars in many Latin American countries, I see no valid reason to continue. Cannabis is less harmful than thousands of legal substances, and helps millions throughout the world, both medically and recreationally.

 

[PatrickJameson]

you don't have a choice about getting taxed.

Um, America was founded on the idea that you should have a say in how you get taxed.