Should weed be legalized?

[Lestat]

Addicts can get treatment in this country. So the same approch is taken.

Yes they can, but will they seek treatment, if the simple act of seeking treatment might brand them as criminals, and that if they are unable to kick their habit become prime target for law enforcement agencies? That is what I meant by threshold, there is no margin for error.
And thus not the same approach is taken. People who seek help with getting rid of other harmful habits or tendencies do not have to live in fear of the law if they fail. They do not have to fear the law if they come out in the open about this habit and search for a solution.

It is only regulation now. It isn't unthinkable at all that increased restrictions will be placed on what can be placed in food much like is actually the case with a long line of substances. There are many substances producers would like to put into foodstuff, which are illegal. They aren't bad for others, only the people who eat the foods.

Aren't the the peoplle who unwittingly eat these products other than the producers?

That is punishable in Denmark.

Are you sure? I'm not talking about having sex with someone while you are infected with HIV, but about having sex with someone with HIV.

Yes for now. However, using smoking as a foundation for argumenting the legalization of marihuanna when smoking is becomming more and more restricted is still a bad argument in my view. Especially because we don't know where this restriction is going. Years ago - smoking was thought to be good for you, and now it is very restricted in the public realm. It is a very evident trend.

It is still not criminal. And it is only one example. The step from restriction to criminalisation of every aspect related to a substance (production, sale, use & possession) is a very large step.

Because they currently aren't illegal. Using the fact that people break the law, and we can't control it, as an argument that it should be legal doesn't work. It is all but impossible to control anybody breaking any law, that doens't mean we should live in a lawless society.
The fact that you don't get arrested with a bottle of beer, is infact because it isn't illegal to drink, or to posses sleeping pills or fatty foods. It is however illegal to posses marihunna (in many places), so you can get arrested/fined for doing so.

*sigh* Xandax, I know that arrestation is a consequence of it being illegal. I just want to put clearly in relief what it means that these products are illegal. It means that for the simple possession of them you can wind up in jail. Isn't that slightly overreacting to potential problems it might cause to your health? It is basically saying: you want to do harm to yourself, so we'll put you together with people who committed thefts, rapes & murders, you'll get a criminal record which will make it almost impossible for you to find a decent job afterwards and in some countries it means you lose your voting rights. This all in the name of protecting you from doing harm to your health. Don't you think that the harm the punishment is doing is far greater than the potential harm of drug use? Plus that it doesn't in fact help the person to get rid of the potential harm.

No - my argumentation comes down to that it shouldn't be legalized simply because people use the substance. Once again the breaking of (any) law doesn't mean the law should be changed. It can't be used as an argument for it should be changed.

I'm not saying that the law should be changed because it's being broken. I'm saying the law should be changed because the law is an aberration and inconsistent with what should be the principles of the legal system. (that it is a crime to do harm to others, and not to do harm to oneself).

Why it is illegal - I'll leave that to the policymakers for now, because I have no real opinion to or against for the legalization. Personally - I can see the legalization for medical use, but can't understand the usage for personal much as I don't understand why people smoke or anything like that (although fatty foods does taste better then lettuce )
However - an incredible vast number of substances are infact illegal to use because they are harmfull to you. This is very clear in the medical, cosmetic and food industries, where these substances once where used. Many additives are under investigation.
So no - it isn't only drugs which are illegal while "only" dangerous to yourself, it only appears that way because you focus on alcohol and tobacco.

I do not focus on alcohol and tobacco. I mentioned tranquilisers, sleeping pills, fatty food & suicide.
And all these substances you talk about: they are not illegal as such and it is not their consumption or possession which would be punished. It is adding them to products destined for the consumption of others which would be illegal & punishable, or at least very heavily regulated. Nobody will be punished for taking a potentially lethal pharmaceutical, eating poison or applying a cosmetic with a harmful substance.
So excuse me: yes, drugs are the only, potentially harmful products that are deemed inherently illegal and of which the consumption and possession is punished. You do not commit a crime when eating rat poison, sniffing washing powder or injecting battery acid (people will probably question your sanity, though). But you will get punished for eating space cake, sniffing cocaine or injecting heroin. Ain't that absurd?

Nobody has given me a good reason why the consumption and possession of a certain limited number of substances, whose abuse and sometimes use can be harmful, is a crime and can lead to people doing jail time and losing some of their rights as citizens, while you can go paragliding, go benji-jumping, smoke a pack of cigarettes at home, drink a bottle of whisky, swallow a box of sleeping pills, take tranquilisers, bang your head against the wall, have unprotected sex, eat 20 hamburgers a day, drink 10 litres of soft-drinks a day, chew cola nuts, use lead based products on your face or slit your wrists, all activities that are potentially as harmful or even more harmful than drug use, without falling foul of the law.

You are dismissive about the question why these substances are illegal. But it is the central question. Because if there is no rationale for them to be illegal, the case for their legalisation becomes obvious.

[Lasher]

[QUOTE=Aramant]I'm not a fan of hippies at all, nor of neo-hippies, and any attempt to justify the use of marijuana, or any illicit substance, just raises my ire. Illegal is illegal. Stop whining. Just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't mean you're right (cue tangentical mass political argument here).[/QUOTE]
???
There have been many instances in the past where laws have been changed, and often for the better. You can't just bend over and take whatever people in power want to thrust at you! This might seem like a wierd comparison, but, I mean, if people had stopped "whining" throughout history, most of the the worlds historical figures and monuments wouldn't be around.

If there is a reason other than "it's illegal" that you are agaist legalization, throw it out there... But don't rag on people for fighting for rights, man.

[Aramant]

[QUOTE=Lasher]If there is a reason other than "it's illegal" that you are agaist legalization, throw it out there... But don't rag on people for fighting for rights, man.[/QUOTE]

I'm against legalization simply because there's no good reason to legalize it, in my opinion. And the vast majority of people arguing for its legalization seem to be just the recreational users, so all of the medicinal benefits and such that they argue for are kind of undermined.

Fighting for rights? Are you saying people have a right to use marijuana? If so, I consider that ridiculous. And yeah, the breaking of certain laws has been beneficial. Martin Luther King Jr., for example. But the whole point behind civil disobedience is the disobedience of unjust laws. The illegality of marijuana is hardly unjust.

[Lasher]

Whats so "just" about it?

[Phreddie]

Whats so Just? maybe it doesnt hurt you, until you start needing a stronger high, so maybe you start to do cocaine, just a little, with your pot, then your jsut addicted, but its not enough,so you go stronger and stronger, till you OD on heroine and end up dead in the hospital all that you worked for in life gone, your life is gone. I know someone that happened to, not a pretty story.
Marijuana may not be horrilbe in and of itself, but the law is their to try and prevent you from becoming dependent ona stronger drug, kind of like how they try and stop STD's and teen pregnancy by abstinence, if you never do drugs, you have a much lower chance of becoming addicted to drugs.
Its sort of a sacrifice, a small infringment on you, to keep you and the rest of the country safer. Some freedoms must be given up to ensure that you stay free.

Please dont turn this into an arguement as to where should the stop the line on taking away freedoms, please start another thread, in which I will explain to you my views, or PM me.

[Athena]

NIDA Blocks Marijuana Vaporization Study Sponsored by California NORML, MAPS
Medical Marijuana Research Advocates Appeal for Redress at DEA Hearings
California NORML Press Release - August 25, 2005
After 18 months of regulatory delay, a laboratory study of marijuana vaporization sponsored by MAPS and California NORML has been blocked by the US Public Health Service/ National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). NIDA made it known that it was rejecting the laboratory's application to buy 10 grams of research marijuana just days before the opening of DEA hearings on an application by Prof. Lyle Craker of the University of Massachusetts to license an independent marijuana production facility for use in FDA-approved medical marijuana R&D sponsored by MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies).
Because NIDA controls the only legal supplies of marijuana in the U.S., its refusal effectively prevents the vaporizer study from proceeding. For purposes of comparison, the laboratory had also sought a DEA permit to import a few more grams of marijuana from a government-licensed manufacturer in the Netherlands, the only other legal foreign supplier available. The DEA has never approved importation of foreign medical marijuana. After 18 months of delay, the DEA has yet to make its decision known, but it is now expected to follow NIDA's lead and deny the import permit.
The vaporization study is aimed at developing a smokeless delivery system for medical marijuana patients. Previous studies have indicated that vaporization can deliver medically active cannabinoids while eliminating the toxic byproducts of smoke by heating marijuana to a temperature just short of combustion. Because of concern over the dangers of smoked medicine, the development of vaporization is viewed as an essential step to obtaining FDA approval of marijuana as medicine. In its 1999 report, "Marijuana and Medicine," the Institute of Medicine concluded that there was little future in smoked marijuana and so recommended that research be conducted into "developing rapid-onset, reliable, and safe delivery systems."
"Once again, the government has displayed its bad faith by creating a Catch-22 for medical marijuana," commented California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer, one of the sponsors of the study. "First, it claimed that marijuana couldn't be used as a medicine because there weren't sufficient FDA studies of safety and efficacy. Then it refused to provide marijuana to conduct the studies. Then it contended that marijuana was inappropriate for FDA approval in the first place due to the dangers of smoking. Now it is blocking the very studies called for by the IOM to develop non-smoked alternatives to smoking."
In its rejection letter, NIDA indicated that the proposed vaporization study lacked scientific merit. Researchers reply that NIDA's reasons are bogus and display a basic misunderstanding of the study. "NIDA could have easily cleared up any questions they had with a simple phone call, rather than sitting on the application a year and a half and issuing a politically motivated rejection letter," says Gieringer.
At the DEA hearings, a former Office of National Drug Control Policy deputy, Dr. Barbara Roberts, testified that NIDA had been under orders from the drug czar's office not to allow approval of smoked marijuana. Roberts said she originally proposed the IOM study as a way of giving then-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey "a way out" of the increasingly heated public controversy over medical marijuana. She said the IOM's conclusions were not what the agency had expected, and so nothing was done to follow up and implement them.

Hearings at DEA Headquarters

The hearings were held Aug. 22 ? 26 at the DEA's headquarters in Pentagon City, Virginia, before administrative law judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Bittner is the successor and former protÈgÈe of the late Francis Young, who presided over the marijuana rescheduling hearings in 1988. Young ruled that marijuana clearly had "accepted medical use" and should accordingly be reclassified as a Schedule II prescription drug. DEA Administrator Jack Lawn subsequently overruled Young's decision by issuing new regulations redefining "accepted medical use" to require prior FDA approval. Bittner's task is to decide whether granting Prof. Craker's application for a DEA license to manufacture marijuana would be in the public interest as specified in 21 USC 823(a). It remains to be seen whether DEA can concoct a way to redefine public interest in the event Judge Bittner rules against it.
Prof. Craker, a professor of Plant and Soil Sciences at U Mass Amherst, is an expert on the cultivation of medicinal plants. Prof. Craker testified that he had no prior experience with marijuana, but had been contacted by Rick Doblin to apply for a DEA license to manufacture it legally for use in approved FDA research sponsored by MAPS. MAPS has obtained an FDA orphan drug designation to develop marijuana as a prescription drug for AIDS wasting syndrome. However, NIDA has repeatedly refused to allow its marijuana to be used by MAPS and other researchers, effectively blocking medical marijuana research For this reason, advocates contend that an independent, non-NIDA source of supply is needed to break the government stranglehold on research.
At the hearings, advocates countered the government's claim that it has already made adequate provision for medical marijuana research by allowing marijuana to be provided to a series of studies at the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. Speaking as a member of the CMCR's advisory council, Dale Gieringer testified that the CMCR's studies were neither designed nor intended to advance FDA approval of marijuana, but simply to answer basic questions about safety and efficacy outlined in its implementing legislation. He explained that it would be necessary for the state to establish its own source of marijuana independent of NIDA in order to pursue new drug approval, and that there were no plans or resources to do so. The CMCR has some 15 clinical studies currently in progress, two of which are finally nearing publication. However, even if all were complete, they would not constitute the kind of evidence necessary to win FDA approval.

Former state Sen. John Vasconcellos, the author of the legislation establishing CMCR, noted that $9 million had been appropriated to the CMCR's research budget, and that money had already been fully committed to ongoing studies. He opined that further appropriations were highly unlikely in light of the state's massive $40 billion budget deficit. DEA attorney Imelda Paredes tried to smear Vaconcellos with an ad hominem attack. She noted that he is listed in a recent (right-wing) best seller, "One Hundred People Who Are Screwing Up America," and ridiculed his famous California panel for self-esteem, which she claimed had been scientifically discredited. Vasconcellos forcefully repelled the attack, saying he was proud to be listed in the book along with President Jimmy Carter, and berating Paredes' evident ignorance of the scientific literature on self-esteem.
Petitioners presented evidence that NIDA's marijuana was of inferior quality for medical purposes. They cited reports that NIDA's pot was contaminated by stems and seeds, harsh to smoke, and of much lower potency than the medical sinsemilla commonly sold at cannabis clubs, so that subjects had to inhale more smoke to obtain the same effective dose. Doblin cited the experience of an AIDS patient, Philip Alden, who had enlisted in a CMCR study using NIDA pot after several years' experience smoking marijuana from California's cannabis clubs. Alden found that smoking NIDA's pot caused him to develop bronchitis for the first time in his life. The bronchitis disappeared after he dropped out of the study and returned to smoking the clubs' marijuana.
Alden was one of several witnesses who had originally been scheduled to testify but withdrew out of fear of possible legal repercussions. Another medical marijuana patient, Irvin Rosenfeld, also dropped out on advice of his attorney. Patients were apparently concerned about being forced to testify about use of non-NIDA medical marijuana, which, though legal in many states, remains illegal under federal law. Numerous other, scientific witnesses declined to testify publicly out of concern that their research activities might be imperiled by DEA or NIDA.
Their fears were highlighted by a nasty turn in the DEA's tactics during the third day of the hearings, which had hitherto been marked by a degree of relaxed cordiality under the good-humored guidance of Judge Bittner. DEA attorneys bore down on Doblin in the cross-examination, trying unsuccessfully to get him to disclose the names of patients who had been involved in research projects that had skirted DEA regulatory restrictions. Finally, DEA attorney Brian Bayly zeroed in on Doblin himself, asking whether he had ever smoked marijuana for recreational use. Over the strenuous objection of Doblin's attorney, Judge Bittner ruled that she would admit the question and decide later whether it was relevant. Doblin answered with a forthright "Yes." Bayly bore down further, asking Doblin to tell when, how often, and how recently he had smoked marijuana. He replied that he used it weekly. The judge finally halted the inquisition when Bayly asked Doblin to tell the source of his marijuana. Doblin says he is glad to have answered honestly and hopes that it will not prejudice the judge's decision.
Doblin was ably represented by attorney Julie Carpenter of Jenner and Block with assistance by Allen Hopper of the ACLU. A second round of hearings is scheduled the week of Sept. 26th.
Full transcript of the DEA hearings may be found at: http://www.maps.org/mmj/legal/craker-de ... t0824.html

Report by Dale Gieringer, California NORML 8/25/05

[Magrus]

I can deal with the information based on negative effects of smoking marijuana on the health side. To hear someone babble about marijuana causing addiction of hard drugs irritates me however. If marijuana was not here, and all the other illegal drugs were still here, people would still do those drugs. It is ridiculously biased use of statistics to keep people away from using marijuana. Thats all.

I know and have met and have heard of tons of people who drink and do not smoke marijuana who do coke, or crack, or heroin, or meth, or speed, or whatever else you want to throw out. Is alcohol illegal? No. Does it also have statistical relevance to those with addiction problems and people abusing other chemical substances? Yes.

Chemical abuse is chemical abuse. It is not chemical use. Confusing the two is ignorance. So, if you are going to go touting human rights and noble causes, please, don't toss an ignorant argument at an issue from your high horse. It makes you look ridiculous.

Psst, Athena, your inbox is full.

[Xandax]

Yes they can, but will they seek treatment, if the simple act of seeking treatment might brand them as criminals, and that if they are unable to kick their habit become prime target for law enforcement agencies? That is what I meant by threshold, there is no margin for error.
And thus not the same approach is taken. People who seek help with getting rid of other harmful habits or tendencies do not have to live in fear of the law
if they fail. They do not have to fear the law if they come out in the open about this habit and search for a solution.
<snip>

In this country, It isn't illegal to be addicted, it is illegal to posses marihuanna. A subtle perhaps, but nevertheless important difference. So people wanting to be treated aren't criminals (at that moment), because they are addicted to the substance.
At least in Denmark.

Aren't the the peoplle who unwittingly eat these products other than the producers?

Ahh, but just as there are producers of food stuffs wanting to use harmfull additives, there will have to be producers of marihuanna which also (likely) posses harmfull properties. Marihuanna doesn't suddenly pop up in the users hands without any producers.
So what would be the difference?
If legalization of marihuanna usage happens, I'd bet pretty big money that it doesn't mean it is automatically legal to produce it yourself.

Are you sure? I'm not talking about having sex with someone while you are infected with HIV, but about having sex with someone with HIV.

Ahh - I misread.
I'm not sure in that case, but I do think the HIV infected person is still held accountable for the actions. I'm not sure what - if anything - would happen to the other part.

<snip>
*sigh* Xandax, I know that arrestation is a consequence of it being illegal. I just want to put clearly in relief what it means that these products are illegal. It means that for the simple possession of them you can wind up in jail. Isn't that slightly overreacting to potential problems it might cause to your health? It is basically saying: you want to do harm to yourself, so we'll put you together with people who committed thefts, rapes & murders, you'll get a criminal record which will make it almost impossible for you to find a decent job afterwards and in some countries it means you lose your voting rights. This all in the name of protecting you from doing harm to your health. Don't you think that the harm the punishment is doing is far greater than the potential harm of drug use? Plus that it doesn't in fact help the person to get rid of the potential harm.

Again - I can speak for this country where such minor acts of behaviour doesn't land prison sentences unless the intent was to sell (significant amounts). Fines etc would be issued a number of times. Afterthat there are differnet degrees of prisons so somebody using illegal substances are very unlikely to be placed in the same prison/holding area as "hard criminals".
Also again - in this country a criminal record has a statitory(sp?) age. 5 years for the private industry and 10 years for the state/city official buisnesses. Only a few areas are allowed to use further then 10 years back.

I'm not saying that the law should be changed because it's being broken. I'm saying the law should be changed because the law is an aberration and inconsistent with what should be the principles of the legal system. (that it is a crime to do harm to others, and not to do harm to oneself).

Well - in this thread the argument has been used - that it should be legal, because "people" break it, which sparked this counter that it is a terrible argument, from my point of view, because it shows unseriousness to the issue and thus will ensure that no serious debate can spark.

<snip>
You are dismissive about the question why these substances are illegal. But it is the central question. Because if there is no rationale for them to be illegal, the case for their legalisation becomes obvious.

You are clearly not reading what I'm saying. I'm not dismissing the question as to why they are illegal, for the simple reason I'm not interested in and debating these arguments.
What I am - and as I've written a number of times - am interested in, is that the arguments used are sound and factual. And there using finger pointing to alcohol and tobacco or that people break the law arguments used, which I find to be marginal usefull at best, because they don't address the actual issue but try to create some sort of smokescreen.
I have no problem with people wishing maruhanna legal - I do however have a problem with people using such arguments.

[Athena]

Okay then...

[Phreddie]

Assuming you were speaking to me:
I was merely presenting a (semingly) popular argument, one that, if it held water, would be pretty damning to the case for legalization.
Also, alcohol does lead to higher forms of addiction, but marijuana can make the transition easier.
Finally, because it is a popular argument, and one that make sense when viewed away from all other facts, it is something that will holdwater in a public forum unless confronted by loads of opposing statistics, was merely putting another objective out there, you have to convince the masses of anti marijuana people out there that if taken the way it is in Athena's article, it will be beneficial to society.
Another thing is, the only people that I know who support legalisation, support it for recreational use, of course most of them are teenagers who use it recreationaly so...



It may just be my young mind, but I feel a wave of reform coming on, something that will make society more liberal, more free so to speak, but its not coming for another forty years or so, because I have a feeling society will become more and more restricted until the people finally stand up and put a stop to it. I only hope they stand up before all freedoms are esacrificed in the name of freedom and security, I do not want rebellion, in any country, not yet, not if its unnecesary. Too all of you who want legalisation, wait, a critical moment is aproaching, when society will turn one way or the other, but your way will come, this century.
Note: I do not base the above on fact, just a feeling, something I feel when watcing the news, looking at the surounding circumstances instead of just the causal relations presented. Any way, just be patient, it will be legal in time, it will be a national vote, then left up to state legislatures.


Thats my two cents... if you can understand the ramble.

[Athena]

[QUOTE=Phreddie]
1)Also, alcohol does lead to higher forms of addiction, but marijuana can make the transition easier.
2) Another thing is, the only people that I know who support legalisation, support it for recreational use, of course most of them are teenagers who use it recreationaly so...
It may just be my young mind,
3)but I feel a wave of reform coming on,[/QUOTE]
1)actually, marij can be used to cure hangovers, migranes, and help detox from hard drugs.
2)maybe it is just your young mind. Aren't we all kids at heart?
3)this is the modern day prohibition.

[Magrus]

It wasn't directed precisely at you Phreddie, just at those who use the argument, which happens to include you. It's circumstancial, flimsy evidence. It's like saying black people are gun happy murderers, simply because there happen to be more black people in one city than any other race, and there are more black murderers with guns than any other race in said city. It may be true, but it's just how things happened to work out. If it had been a mostly white, or latino, or asian population, people would be able to substitute that other race in there. You see how that might offend some people? X group has things in common with X category, so X must be bad?

If you pulled marijuana off the planet, people would still want to get high, there would still be addicts, and still be addiction related crimes like robbery. Claiming that marijuana is the first step towards addiction, robbery and murder is ludicrous. Humanity is a species that has such problems within it. Taking out thing does not take those flaws out of it. Hence, you cannot blame such flaws on one thing.

Not to mention the fact that if you take a count of those who only use marijuana, and nothing else, you might be shocked to see how they act. Granted, they may not be the smartest or quickest people. Yet, I don't know many potheads who go rob liqour stores and stab people to get a bag. I happen to know a large amount of the population around me uses marijuana, from the ages of 13 to 60. I know grandparents who use it, they go to work everyday, love their children and grandchildren. They bake cookies and give them to their neighbors, pay their rent on time, do good work, and are generally "good people". According to the government however, they are criminals. These people don't lie, don't steal, don't harm others, and go out of their way to help other people, yet, they are still considered to be breaking the law.

I have never been big on doing research from books to do my arguments. I don't trust other sources, as I didn't get the information for myself from the start. However, I do have my own, personal, life experiences which I prefer to use instead. I know people that sell, and use marijuana, and other drugs. I know people that are straight edge, and I know people that drink. In every group, you have people that do bad things. In every group you have lazy people who refuse to do what they need to in order to survive. In every group of people you have violent people, ignorant people, mean people, corrupt people, liars, thieves, etc.

I truly don't see such things applying to people using marijuana. Generally, if someone uses marijuana, they tend to want food, music, and something simple to do in a nearby area. If you go by statistics, that's what you'll find. I mean, there is the "stoner" stereotype, isn't there? The lazy guy who grubs face on chips and does nothing but watch tv and play video games? Right? Most of my friends fall into this stereotype. They get up for work in the morning, come home, and just hang out. They don't go destroying property, robbing other people or harming other people. They don't force it on other people because hey, they have to buy what they use, and if less people want in on it, they get more. Yet, they are some of the most generous people I've known. A late 40's "stoner" helped me move my furniture. Another one helped decorate my old appartment and clean it with me.


These are not deviant behavior patterns. Treating people as deviant and criminal people when they aren't leads to anger, resentment and a future backlash when backed into a wall about it. As you said Phreddie, there will come a time when the people of this generation are old enough to be in powerful positions of government. I'm not sure if many people realize it or not, but there is already talk of a revolution in this country regarding personal freedoms. Frankly, those against the use of marijuana are outnumbered in many areas of the country, and there isn't much the government will be able to do about it for much longer. Trying to stomp that out will be just another reason for more people to hate the government on top of all of the other junk involved with things.

Meh, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I don't much care either way, things will change eventually. I'm just tired of people using arguments that don't hold water if looked at objectively and in an unbiased manner to get something done. I'm tired of people agreeing because someone else tells them too as well. If you don't know of something first hand, who are you to judge it?

[Maharlika]

[QUOTE=Fenix]>snip< I can't stand smokers blowing their crap in my face in public, and I would go nuts if it was weed (it smells like **** anyway).

Also, for *many* people, weed is a stepping stone onto incredibly addictive drugs. Although weed can become addictive to a few people after heavy usage, it is generally non-addictive which is good, but then idiots go on and think that they'll be fine for other drugs, and since weed enhances the effects of other drugs, there'll be a crap load more people taking smack and crack and other ****.
>snip<[/QUOTE]
@Fenix: I'm quoting this since the post where it came from is already at least 3 pages back.

Please read the forum rules. It seems that you have used profane words that were caught by the language filter.

Thanks.

- Maharlika -

[qwertitus]

If you legalize all drugs to an extent then there would be a great decrease in crime. I'm not saying crime as in possetion or possetion with intent to sell; I'm talking about murder, robbery, assault. These much more hanus crimes are often results of drug related activity.

I don't think however that somehow allowing drugs to be legalized will make drugs somehow less "cool" and diminish the number of drug users. If an addict wants to cocaine he still will after cocaine is legal. Perhaps though more people would become casual users. Instead of the high school dropout or the homeless man smoking weed it would be the business man and the CEO.

Actually this would help out some countries economically. There is a very large community of drug users in the world. Although it sounds wrong this could actually help many people. New jobs in the drug world; real jobs not undercover jobs. Jobs that require income taxes. It would help the people and the state.

But as we all truly know this will probably never happen in mass. Except the Netherlands I can't think of another country that has legalized drugs. In the past, at least in America, there have only been drug restrictions (i.e. Prohibition). Even now there is amazing pressure on the tobacco companies. It is much more likely that cigarettes/cigars are made illegal than marijuana is made legal.

[Lestat]

In this country, It isn't illegal to be addicted, it is illegal to posses marihuanna. A subtle perhaps, but nevertheless important difference. So people wanting to be treated aren't criminals (at that moment), because they are addicted to the substance.
At least in Denmark.

It's had to be addicted without possessing the stuff, so it I'd say it's a sophistic difference , and it still doesn't take away the legal risk for those can't kick the habit.

Again - I can speak for this country where such minor acts of behaviour doesn't land prison sentences unless the intent was to sell (significant amounts). Fines etc would be issued a number of times. Afterthat there are differnet degrees of prisons so somebody using illegal substances are very unlikely to be placed in the same prison/holding area as "hard criminals".
Also again - in this country a criminal record has a statitory(sp?) age. 5 years for the private industry and 10 years for the state/city official buisnesses. Only a few areas are allowed to use further then 10 years back.

Still fairly major consequences don't you think? Compared to taking an overdose of sleeping pills, which is far more harmful than smoking a spliff.

Well - in this thread the argument has been used - that it should be legal, because "people" break it, which sparked this counter that it is a terrible argument, from my point of view, because it shows unseriousness to the issue and thus will ensure that no serious debate can spark.

You are clearly not reading what I'm saying. I'm not dismissing the question as to why they are illegal, for the simple reason I'm not interested in and debating these arguments.
What I am - and as I've written a number of times - am interested in, is that the arguments used are sound and factual. And there using finger pointing to alcohol and tobacco or that people break the law arguments used, which I find to be marginal usefull at best, because they don't address the actual issue but try to create some sort of smokescreen.
I have no problem with people wishing maruhanna legal - I do however have a problem with people using such arguments.

Yes but I'm not using those arguments (or not exclusively) - so it is a bit confusing if you discussing this in answer to my posts.

But for the moment I retire from the discussion, until someone can post a good rationale for marijuana to be illegal. It hasn't happened yet. That we one should argue for marijuana to legalised is absurd. The question is "Why should it be illegal in the first place?" It is not those that want something to be allowed and let people have a freedom of decision that should justify themselves, but those that argue for forbidding things.

[Athena]

[QUOTE=qwertitus]It is much more likely that cigarettes/cigars are made illegal than marijuana is made legal.[/QUOTE]

You obviously didn't read any of the posts I made in here. There is medical marijuana in 13 states. (I posted that on page 2) It's only a matter of time...
a matter of time...and it is modern day prohibition. (I posted that on page 7) Better yet, try going back to read from post one. Remember to read carefully in my longer posts. There is a lot of information there.

[QUOTE=Lestat]for the moment I retire from the discussion, until someone can post a good rationale for marijuana to be illegal. It hasn't happened yet. That we one should argue for marijuana to legalised is absurd. The question is
"Why should it be illegal in the first place?" It is not those that want something to be allowed and let people have a freedom of decision that should justify themselves, but those that argue for forbidding things.[/QUOTE]

and I second that

[qwertitus]

[QUOTE=Athena]You obviously didn't read any of the posts I made in here. There is medical marijuana in 13 states. (I posted that on page 2) It's only a matter of time...
a matter of time...and it is modern day prohibition. (I posted that on page 7) Better yet, try going back to read from post one. Remember to read carefully in my longer posts. There is a lot of information there.



and I second that[/QUOTE]
Let me clarify my statement. I am fully aware of the legality of medical marijuana in America and I did read your post. What I meant by my statement was that marijuana not being legalized in a more large scale fashion. While there is medical marijuana it isn't easily accesable. I talked about the benifits of legalized marijuana on America's struggling ecomomy which obviously won't benifit from medical marijuana. That was the point I wanted to make. I never talked about the medical benifits of it.

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=Athena]1)actually, marij can be used to cure hangovers, migranes, and help detox from hard drugs.
2)maybe it is just your young mind. Aren't we all kids at heart?
3)this is the modern day prohibition.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, a friend of mine swears by #1, and I believe #3 with all my heart.

And yeah, if we can drink beer, we should legalize marijuana. Hell, almost all those drugs should be legalized. Then they can use the funds for other things, like our awful public schools, and at least the stuff will be pure instead of messed up like it sometimes is. And then at least you don't have bad people peddling it and funneling money into more bad things. Plus, I'd love to be able to grab it legally rather than do shiesty, alleyway deals to get it.

And I'm kinda looking back at some posts on this last page, and I was under the impression that, while marijuana was legal for medicinal uses, I thought there was only a limited number of people in the U.S. who were getting it legally, and no one else was allowed to anymore.

P.S. I haven't read any of the previous posts, because a.) I'm too lazy, b.) I'm on dial-up, and c.) cuz I don't feel like it (don't misconstrue this with a.), because they're two different things... no, really, they are... no, seriously).