GameBanshee Forums

hemp users

I don't know if this is leagalized here but I want to discuss with hemp users about the legalization of mary juana over the world ok??????post here.............

Are you refering to Hemp, as in the incredably industiral material, or it's other 'medicinal' uses

iam refering to mary juana,canabis sativa

You may want to do a "search" before you start a thread like this. For instance, this thread had a specific focus on the marajuana issue, and there are others you can find that also examine drugs from a variety of legal and cultural perspectives.

I've edited your thread title, too. "Hemp users" doesn't say what your first post does. If you want to discuss the legalization of marajuana, attract members interested in that theme through your title.

Personally, I dont smoke the stuff myself, but I know plenty who do. I think the only reason it is illegal is that the govt. gets lots of money from drug bust. If it does become legal, the taxes on it will probably be outragious, just so the govt. can generate more money. I wouldnt really care if it was legalized because it wouldnt change anything for me.

I'd rather tobacco was illegal. Too bad its such big business.

Can't see why it should be legal. It is still is an euphoriant(sp?) substance, and just because some people belive it is less harmfull then alcohol or cigarets doesn't make it right or "good for you"

I acknowlegde that it can be used for medicinial purposes, but that is also as far as I can see it should be.

In my oppinion it is just a step away from harder drugs, and if one drug should be legalized, what is to stop the next one from becomming it also. The debate will just be moved one step futher?

Luckily - I've never had the urge (or given in to pressure) to try it, even though many around me have tried/been adicted.

Originally posted by Xandax
It is still is an euphoriant(sp?) substance, and just because some people belive it is less harmfull then alcohol or cigarets doesn't make it right or "good for you"

Those people are not correctly informed and obviously lack nowledge of short and long term pharmacodynamical effects of alcohol, tobacco and THC (THC is the psychoactive substance in cannabis).

In the thread Fable linked to, I am briefly going through effects of THC, but it should also be pointed out that alcohol, tobacco and cannabis are equal in negative health effects. So is overweight. One could argue that since alcohol, cigarettes and overeating is not illegal, cannabis shouldn't be illegal either - there is no rational reason to treat substances with equal harm effects differently.

Originally posted by C Elegans
One could argue that since alcohol, cigarettes and overeating is not illegal, cannabis shouldn't be illegal either - there is no rational reason to treat substances with equal harm effects differently.

Pretty much sums up my thinking.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Those people are not correctly informed and obviously lack nowledge of short and long term pharmacodynamical effects of alcohol, tobacco and THC (THC is the psychoactive substance in cannabis).

In the thread Fable linked to, I am briefly going through effects of THC, but it should also be pointed out that alcohol, tobacco and cannabis are equal in negative health effects. So is overweight. One could argue that since alcohol, cigarettes and overeating is not illegal, cannabis shouldn't be illegal either - there is no rational reason to treat substances with equal harm effects differently.

Well - considering the legislations that are being taken against tobaco, practically all over the western world, I'd say that the development is towards making that illegal - who knows, in a decade or two, maybe tobacco is illegal on a similar note as this drug.


Also - because they are all harmfull in some manner dosen't, in my oppinion, mean that they have to be treated equally, and I fail to see reasoning to make such a drug legal, simply because tobacco or alcohol is legal.

Reminds me of a tv show I saw ( I think it was Sliders) in which in order to order fast food you had to show proof that you were in good health and that your cardiologist said it was ok for you to eat it. I'm pretty sure it was because people were not allowed to endanger their health ( it might have been to prevent lawsuits but I don't think so).

I cant think of a reason to legalize it.
Canabis is just as addicting as smoking, only you wont smoke som much of it that you get addicted very quickly.

And when you legalize it (or just tolarate it as here in the Netherlands) you keep people away from hard(er) drugs.

Statistics show that in for example France youth (16-25) use the same amount of canabis as in the Netherlands, but the harddrug ussage in the Netherlands is much lower. Cause the same guy that sells you the canabis usually also sells the harder (and more addictive/damaging) stuff.

Here the switch to hardrugs is much larger.

For those who dont know, here in the Netherlands your "allowed" (they tolarate it) to smoke canabis in your own home, or in a special "coffeeshop". You cant carry more then 5gram on you. And you cant have more then 5plants.
(where coffeeshops get their canabis from is a big mistery )

It's rather an amusing fight, really. People are fighting to have Marijauna legalized, and yet, it's a lot harder to beccome high from smoking it these days, then it used to be. People want it to be legal, so they can get high with the false impression that it isn't as bad for your system (while, in small doses, it isn't as harmfully as nicotine).

The grass that is sold these days, is extremly poor quality, in that it takes far more to get a person high, and that is with the added chemicals included.

the way I see, the most that should be done in terms of Cannabis, Canada almost stuck with, was decrimalize it. Don't make legal, but at least make it's tolerated. Because, to be completly honest, I'd rather deal with a friend smoking pot, then a friend smoking cigarettes.

Originally posted by Aegis
Because, to be completly honest, I'd rather deal with a friend smoking pot, then a friend smoking cigarettes.

Tru, I myself hardly ever smoke it anymore, but some friends do. And i much rather see someone high then drunk for example.

Originally posted by Aegis
The grass that is sold these days, is extremly poor quality, in that it takes far more to get a person high, and that is with the added chemicals included.

Then your getting very poor quality, the grass you can ge there is 10times more stronger then the stuff my parants used to smoke (without added chemicals)

Originally posted by Stilgar
Then your getting very poor quality, the grass you can ge there is 10times more stronger then the stuff my parants used to smoke (without added chemicals)

It's funny you say that, because it was my parent who told me that And he used to get stuff handed to him by Keith Richards!

Originally posted by Xandax
Well - considering the legislations that are being taken against tobaco, practically all over the western world, I'd say that the development is towards making that illegal - who knows, in a decade or two, maybe tobacco is illegal on a similar note as this drug.

Also - because they are all harmfull in some manner dosen't, in my oppinion, mean that they have to be treated equally, and I fail to see reasoning to make such a drug legal, simply because tobacco or alcohol is legal.

My opinion is that equal harm should result in equal treatment of those drugs. With harm, I mean short-term effects as well as long-term effects, and I include somatic, psychylogical and social factors in the individual using the drug, as well as harm directed towards others (other individuals, society in general ie financial harm etc). Objectivly, alcohol, tobacco and cannabis are equal enough to be either illegal, or legal. Clearly other factors than health hazard facts has played a role in deciding the current juridical status of these drugs.

However, whether they should all be legal, or illegal, is IMO an issue that touches upon a broader question that these specific drugs - namely, the issue of the individuals right to make his/her own choices, versus the harm these choices have on this individual and his/her surrounding. It is not a question I can answer with ease. Total outlawing of substances that may cause harm to self and other, but don't do so in moderate doses, seems an unnecessary violation of integrety. On the other hand, total acceptance of substances that may inflict serious harm to self and others, seems like negative freedom that cause more destructive effects than constructive: what's the morality of a society that let people become slaves under a chemical addiction their genetic and biological makeup in combination with social factors, has made them vulnerably to in a manner they did not choose themselves? And when addicted, the condition costs society a lot of money as well?

Maybe "recreational entertainment drugs" should be prescription drugs as well? I have no simple solution.

Originally posted by Aegis
It's funny you say that, because it was my parent who told me that And he used to get stuff handed to him by Keith Richards!

LOL
Maybe Keith had some realy good stuff.
But here it's the beauty of a free-market. Cause it's semi-legal you have a bigger competetion between coffeeshops, and thus better quality.