Legalize Pot

[Cantousent]

Marijuana of course, should be legalized. Everyperson on the planet has every right to do what they will to themselves.

 

One of the main reasons that I would beleive that marijuana isn't legalized is that people don't treat it like cigarettes. If marijuana was legal tomorrow, people wouldn't go in droves to buy packs of marijuana cigarettes, they'd grow there own. This would seriously limit how much money the government could make off it in "taxes". Really hemp is the "cash crop" that would really aid american manufacturing, I've never really understood why hemp isn't legal to grow within the U.S., something about making regulation too tuff, but anyone who's seen a pot plant and a hemp plant could easily distinguish the two.

 

I really don't believe though that marijuana will ever be legal in the U.S., which is a same, because not only should it be legal, it should be mandatory

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mandatory?

[EnderAndrew]

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Laozi]

Mandatory? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ya, anytime someone was just taking trivial things in life too seriously they'd have to hit a bong or something.

[Cantousent]

nuts

[Laozi]

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

"Nothing human is alien to me." - Oscar Wilde

[EnderAndrew]

I think very few things in this life should be mandatory.

 

I like freedom, thank you very much.

[metadigital]

I recall reading an article claiming that Canada had extracted the chemical that is used to justify the medicinal aspects of marijuana and planned on distrubuting it. It also said the US government was interested. I can't seem to find anything at the moment though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can get medicinal concentrates of Tetrahydrocannabinol (C21H30O2, or THC).

 

It can be effective for treatment of glaucoma, which is not exactly a pandemic.

Because marijuana contains irritants and carcinogens, it can promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increased the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck. The more marijuana that was smoked, the greater the increase in likelihood. Marijuana also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts some hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form. These levels may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Additionally, marijuana users typically inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers, increasing the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke.

 

Users who smoke marijuana regularly may experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, including daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and frequent chest colds. Continued marijuana use can result in abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.

 

Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the user's heart begins to beat more rapidly and may increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, or even double. Results of a study released in 2001 indicate that a person's risk of heart attack within the first hour of smoking marijuana is four times the usual risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't have to smoke it. It can come in baking products or even introvenously, if you are keen enough.

[WITHTEETH]

I remember smoking some in highschool. I could sense myself getting dumb the more i smoked wacky tabacky. I'm not for anything that kills braincells. Then again i dont want to limit personal freedom. The US goverement wastes huges sums of money on the war on drugs (Gotta love the name WAR on drugs ).

I say let it be. Let people do what they want, we let religion happen, we let drinking, and high fructose corn syrup happen, Aspertame. If people want to do it, so be it, there should be huge labels on it (like ciggerettes) telling what it can damage.

[metadigital]

Mandatory? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, anytime someone was just taking trivial things in life too seriously they'd have to hit a bong or something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While most people have no adverse reaction to it, some people have very bad reactions to it. It could conceivably cause a major psychosis.

 

Considering how poorly societies are managing mental illness (careless in the community, anyone?) I think this is too cavalier an attitude.

[EnderAndrew]

I remember smoking some in highschool. I could sense myself getting dumb the more i smoked wacky tabacky. I'm not for anything that kills braincells. Then again i dont want to limit personal freedom. The US goverement wastes huges sums of money on the war on drugs (Gotta love the name WAR on drugs  ).

I say let it be. Let people do what they want, we let religion happen, we let drinking, and high fructose corn syrup happen, Aspertame. If people want to do it, so be it, there should be huge labels on it (like ciggerettes) telling what it can damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait until you see people's lives destroyed first hand from addiction.

 

It seems like most people try pot once if not twice. So many of us trivilize the effect it can have on others, thinking that if it didn't screw me up, it can't be that bad.

[Laozi]

Well, I'm not to serious about that.

 

Very rarely have I observed anyone reacting dangerously to marijuana, it has happen on a couple of occasions, but nothing too serious. I won't believe that it is anymore serious then drinking, or taking most prescription drugs.

[WITHTEETH]

I remember smoking some in highschool. I could sense myself getting dumb the more i smoked wacky tabacky. I'm not for anything that kills braincells. Then again i dont want to limit personal freedom. The US goverement wastes huges sums of money on the war on drugs (Gotta love the name WAR on drugs  ).

I say let it be. Let people do what they want, we let religion happen, we let drinking, and high fructose corn syrup happen, Aspertame. If people want to do it, so be it, there should be huge labels on it (like ciggerettes) telling what it can damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait until you see people's lives destroyed first hand from addiction.

 

It seems like most people try pot once if not twice. So many of us trivilize the effect it can have on others, thinking that if it didn't screw me up, it can't be that bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, i should have thought of that expspecially becuase of my biological father is proof of what can happen when you smoke pot your whole life. He now thinks that he gave intelligence to the US Gov about where Bin Laden was hiding. He still thinks hes going to get his money. He is so paranoid of the outside world that he thinks his house, car, and life is being monitored by the goverement. That al queda is searching for him, paranoia, and halucinations.

[Cantousent]

Keep checking up above to make sure you don't miss Laozi's posts, fellows.

 

In answer to his last post, as a matter of fact, I'd like to point out that I never thought he was too terribly serious about any post. hahaha :D

[metadigital]

Well, I'm not to serious about that.

 

Very rarely have I observed anyone reacting dangerously to marijuana, it has happen on a couple of occasions, but nothing too serious. I won't believe that it  is anymore serious then drinking, or taking most prescription drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the results of THC are a lot more subtle. For a start, it is not known why people have a reaction to it. Sure, the biological process is understood: there are THC receptors in the brain, and this is the mechanism that promulgates the high.

 

But not every creature has them, for example, mice don't (IIRC).

 

Considering there is a pandemic of depression across the world (I think it's 1/6 people suffer from depression at some point in their life), adding more uncertainty into th mix is a little ill-advised.

 

I agree that it is better controlled if legalised, though; after all, you can't regulate an illegal product on the black market. Tax it, too.

 

I would put an age limit of 25, though, considering the research findings about mental impacts. (Or whatever the scientists decide is the safest minimum age for it.)

 

Also there should be a maximum dose, too, and like radiation it would vary over the "exposure" time.

 

Certainly de-criminalising drug addicts, and treating them with legal drug prescriptions paid for by the society is a contraversial policy, too. But if you calculate the crime committed by drug-addicted heroine users, removing them from the crime statistics (giving them free heroine would mean they didn't have to steal their neighbours' video cameras to buy it), then it is justified on those merits, alone! Take into account the victims of crime and the criminalising of a significant percentile of society, and you have a compelling argument.

[EnderAndrew]

I often wonder about the pandemic of depression and I don't think is new, but rather a new recognition or definition of the human experience.

 

We have more drug companies and drug lobbyists than ever before. We treat everything with drugs. We take drugs for things we don't have, but might have.

 

We give drugs for diseases we can't prove exist (like ADD).

 

Citing depression seems to be yet another way to pass the buck. I don't doubt there is honest-to-goodness clinical depression, and the brain chemical balances can be a factor.

 

However, I think that sometimes it is just a matter of living life, be it good or bad.

[metadigital]

I don't doubt that the depression pandemic is being unnecessarily expanded with artificial and erroneous diagnoses (especially distressing is the penchant of doctors to diagnose and treat children with drugs, which has only become public knowledge since seroxat started making some children suicidal where they had never been so before).

 

Having witnessed clinical depression first hand, I know that it definitely exists, and is treatable in about 60-70% of cases with drugs (it can help if treated in combination with cognitive behaviour therapy).

 

Try and tell Spike Milligan that he should just "pull his socks up" and live life. (A little difficult bacause he's now six feet under a stone that says "I told you I was ill".) In fact, most comedians have some sort of depression.

 

Which brings in an anciliary point. Maybe "illness" is a relative term. IIRC Mozart suffered from an anxiety illness, and his music was his own way to reverse the effects. In our metaphorical time machine, do we cure Mozart of his anxiety illness?

[EnderAndrew]

When I was 15 I had a buddy online on a local BBS. He told us he was depressed, and then he put a bullet through his head. I was trying to "talk him down" when he killed himself.

 

"To know me is to love me; to love me is to know me."

 

It largely shaped many of my interactions with people. I really try to get to know people and see them for who they are. I try to empathize with what they feel, and what they are going through.

 

I like to cut to the chase with people, but that also has led to a big dislike for BS.

 

I always wonder if we had taken the time to really get to know Fred if he wouldn't have killed himself. Then again, maybe his problems ran deeper than that. I guess we'll never know.

[metadigital]

That is sad. All too common, too. The largest cause of death of teenage males in Australia is suicide (not including car accidents).

 

I think your attitude to honesty is not uncommon. Certainly I have always valued truth over all else. As I get older I find I just can't be bothered with crap; someone who lies to me once doesn't usually get the chance to again.

[Commissar]

yeah, amazing how we will hand out drugs because they will help men keep it up, but yet we won't hand out stuff for cancer which can be very painful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We had tons and tons of painkilling drugs. THC isn't much of a painkiller, but pot does have thousands of carcigens.

 

It doesn't make sense to smoke pot, and get lung cancer while trying to treat the "pain" caused by your existing cancer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless you're a terminal case.

[EnderAndrew]

Then why use pot when there are much better pain killers on the market?

[Commissar]

Cigarette maker, Liggett Group Inc., admitted that they lied to Congress about intentionally marketing to children and their knowledge about the addictive nature of tobacco.

 

Understand that if pot were legalized, it would fall in the hands of an industry where you can lie to Congress, get away with it, and continue business as normal.

 

You can market to kids.

 

You can lie about the side-effects of your product.

 

You can tell people your product isn't addictive, stand behind it and lie through your teeth.

 

And at the end of the day, Congress will happily accept their tax dollars and move on.

 

Given that both alcohol and tobacco are legal, and given the abundance of drug company lobbyists, I imagine there will be a day (perhaps soon) where pot is legalized.

 

Pot's uses for medicinal purposes are weak, but who cares?  Drug companies are in the business of making money.

 

The major arguement against the legalization of pot stems from the addictive qualities of pot.  But what legal precedent are we talking about?

 

Addictive substances are governed by the FDA, but in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not given the FDA proper authority to regulate tobacco.  That war is still really being fought today with victories and losses on both sides.

 

I've seen lives destroyed first hand by addictions, all started via pot, yet tons of people swear up and down that it isn't a gateway drug.  Every single person I know that has had addictions to harder drugs have told me firsthand pot was their gateway.

 

Should I believe users who defend pot, and who may be victims of addiction currently and thusly incapable of logic and objectivity on the subject, or those who have overcome their addictions and look back in hindsight?

 

Addiction is a mental condition that we don't fully understand, but what we do know if it is scary.  Somewhere addiction has to enter the arguement.

 

Again, that brings us back to other addictive substances.  Do two wrongs make a right?  Tobacco is the leading killer in this country that can be prevented, but most smokers will tell you that it will "kill you when you're 70 so who cares"?

 

We are a society where millions believe smoking isn't that bad for you, despite the smoker's cough or various health problems that arise in a few short years of smoking.

 

And now people want to legalize pot, ingesting smoke for medicinal purposes.  I was under the impression that doctors said inhaling smoke was never healthy on any level.

 

What is the real agenda and what is the real issue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the real agenda? The real issue? People like getting high. They don't like getting tossed in jail for it. I'd say that's the real issue and the real agenda.

 

Health problems, etc. etc. etc. Have you ever known anyone that lived until they were a hundred and five? Let me tell you something, they're not particularly lucky. It might strike you as some kind of victory to live to be a gibbering idiot in a nursing home somewhere, and I have little doubt that a healthy diet of tofu and prayer and clean living will get you there. That's not the path that everyone wants.

 

As far as the addictive qualities of marijuana go? It's nowhere near as addictive as nicotin. It's simply not. I would argue that it's not even addictive except with certain people, but what the hey. And as far as it being a gateway to other addictions...could be. I know plenty of potsmokers who have yet to start ramming horse. But even if it is, c'est la vie. I've never been a fan of having the government save people from themselves. You say you're all for freedom, but you want to regulate self-control? Trust me on this, there is nothing that happens while firing up a blunt that forces you to go out looking for coke.

[Commissar]

Then why use pot when there are much better pain killers on the market?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a subjective call. I'd take weed over vicodin any day of the week.

[Gabrielle]

Then why use pot when there are much better pain killers on the market?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The better ones are not on the market. No Valium, Opium or Morphine.

[EnderAndrew]

What's the real agenda?  The real issue?  People like getting high.  They don't like getting tossed in jail for it.  I'd say that's the real issue and the real agenda.

 

Health problems, etc. etc. etc.  Have you ever known anyone that lived until they were a hundred and five?  Let me tell you something, they're not particularly lucky.  It might strike you as some kind of victory to live to be a gibbering idiot in a nursing home somewhere, and I have little doubt that a healthy diet of tofu and prayer and clean living will get you there.  That's not the path that everyone wants.

 

As far as the addictive qualities of marijuana go?  It's nowhere near as addictive as nicotin.  It's simply not.  I would argue that it's not even addictive except with certain people, but what the hey.  And as far as it being a gateway to other addictions...could be.  I know plenty of potsmokers who have yet to start ramming horse.  But even if it is, c'est la vie.  I've never been a fan of having the government save people from themselves.  You say you're all for freedom, but you want to regulate self-control?  Trust me on this, there is nothing that happens while firing up a blunt that forces you to go out looking for coke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the funny thing.

 

I can't buy medicinial marijuana because I think it is a BS platform.

 

But your arguement is honest and I can accept it much easier. If we're free to smoke cigarettes, and we want to get high, then why not?

 

I think the burden is on the government to prove there is a victim. Then again, I think the government should repeal mandatory seat-belt laws in the same breath. If I'm not victimizing anyone by not wearing a seat-belt, then there is no crime.

[Laozi]

Here is the funny thing.

 

I can't buy medicinial marijuana because I think it is a BS platform.

 

But your arguement is honest and I can accept it much easier.  If we're free to smoke cigarettes, and we want to get high, then why not?

 

I think the burden is on the government to prove there is a victim.  Then again, I think the government should repeal mandatory seat-belt laws in the same breath.  If I'm not victimizing anyone by not wearing a seat-belt, then there is no crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd be for that, as long as children still had to wear their seatbelts.

 

As for medical marijuana, when my friend's grandmother developed breast cancer, we'd go regularly to the hospital in Houston for her treatment. Their I met many middle age and elderly people who where undergoing treatment, and only becasue of it started smoking marijuana. One thing is many cancer treatments diminish the patients appetite to next to nothing. Others told me about how other "painkillers" really messed them up more then simply smoking marijuana. The truth though, is with these people, I wouldn't feel right denying them anything they said worked for them.