Legalize Pot

[metadigital]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not true.

 

Morphine is regularly given to hospital patients, usually only except where they specify they don't want it (it causes a lot of people to become very nauseous).

 

Pethadeine (an opiate) is regarded as the drug responsible for the largest adictive community (mainly doctors, as it happens). The largest legal farm in in Tasmania, where 70% of the world's supply is produced.

[metadigital]

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}>

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet.

[Gabrielle]

Morphine is regularly given to hospital patients, usually only except where they specify they don't want it (it causes a lot of people to become very nauseous).

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An aquired taste I would guess, or an immunity to it after taking it awhile.

[metadigital]

Nope, just a hard drug.

[Guest Fishboot]

I'm in the legalize camp.

 

It's possible to turn the "gateway drug" charge on its ear. For the sake of this argument, I'll posit that marijuana is a mild, low-addiction high with minor long term effects. If that's the case than the reason marijuana functions as a gateway drug is that it's mild yet illegal, and therefore chasing this mild high ends up introducing you into the black market, and the gateway effect is simply that you end up developing ciminal connections that can provide serious drugs as well as marijuana. So someone only slightly experimental will develop the same access to the panopoly of drugs simply because they wanted some harmless pot.

 

The opposite argument is that marijuana somehow conditions you to try harder mind-altering substances, and in that case is a true slippery slope drug.

[Commissar]

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}>

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to government. Plenty of people have to pay for plenty of stupid stuff they'd prefer not to. Plenty of people spill their brains on the pavement by not wearing their seat belt or a helmet despite the laws.

 

If you want to argue that people ought to have to pay for their choices, fine, I'm all for that. Don't give medical treatment to the guy with the spilled brains if he doesn't have insurance. But can we please, please, please, as a global society, agree that it's a bad idea for the government to regulate personal choices/morality/et al?

 

And I say this with Bush getting to appoint not one, but two Supreme Court justices.

[Child of Flame]

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}>

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Why? If he's being stupid with no health insurance, scrape his guts off the pavement and throw him in a waste bin.

[Laozi]

The opposite argument is that marijuana somehow conditions you to try harder mind-altering substances, and in that case is a true slippery slope drug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats probaly true, but only because we are told that "drugs" across the board, will kill us. When someone gets ahold of pot for the first time and the worse thing that happens is a bad case of the munchies, and uncontrollable giggling, a reasonable person might ask, "What else were they wrong about?"

[Cantousent]

Once upon a time I was given a choice between going to alcohol rehab or facing a court-martial. I chose rehab, at the tax-payers' expense, and thus stayed in the service and out of prison.

 

When folks talk about the dangers of Marijuana, I get a laugh out of it. From what I've seen, marijuana is no more dangerous than booze. Considerably less so, in fact.

[Guest Fishboot]

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This assumes that caring for a high-risk individual is more expensive than a longer-lived low risk individual. Is it more expensive to pay for the medical costs of a 50-year life that ends in lung cancer or a 90-year life that ends in Alzheimers? An open question.

[Commissar]

The opposite argument is that marijuana somehow conditions you to try harder mind-altering substances, and in that case is a true slippery slope drug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats probaly true, but only because we are told that "drugs" across the board, will kill us. When someone gets ahold of pot for the first time and the worse thing that happens is a bad case of the munchies, and uncontrollable giggling, a reasonable person might ask, "What else were they wrong about?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, and I'd suggest that we do better - or maybe I should say more realistic - drug education across the board.

 

On the other hand, a smart person's going to be able to tell the difference between pot and something that's actually capable of killing you. Comparing heroin deaths to marijuana deaths is one of those things that makes you wonder why everyone's so up in arms about weed.

[Laozi]

Ya, but with drugs, and really everything, its hard to overcome a youth's immortality complex

[Darth Barth]

I don't think pot should be legalized. Now decriminalization on the other hand... that is a different story.

[Commissar]

Well, this is kind of ironic.

 

I was out for my morning run and managed to cough up something that looks suspiciously like a piece of one of my lungs. I believe I'll be laying off the cigarettes until I can figure out if I'm dying or not.

[alanschu]

Useless knowledge: which substance is one of the easiest to become addicted to, gives one of the most difficult addictions to break free from and is still legal?

 

I would have voted caffiene personally.

 

 

As for marijuana, I wonder if, as someone else mentioned, it's a gateway drug simply because it's illegal. I doubt if it was legal that it would have as much of an impact on trying other drugs. If it does, then I'd say that nicotine and alcohol are much bigger gateway drugs then. Don't know too many people that have tried marijuana that haven't either drank or smoked a cigarette.

 

 

As for that study Ender, I would like a link (or at least a reference). Should be a good read.

[Lucius]

Never tried it, I've seen enough screwed up potheads to make not smoking it into a principle.

[Walsingham]

- I believe it is a 'gateway' partly because it brings people [edit: as pointed out by Shryke, below] into contact with the underground, and partly because it is a lighter drug. People tend to drink before taking heroin. Doesn't mean there's a direct connection.

 

- I don't believe marijuana causes mental ill-health in less than unreasonable quantities. Mentally ill people may take it more than others, but this is typical medical research causation/correlation debate.

 

- The British Medical Journal (very staid mainstream medical journal) assessed the health issues of marijuana around 2000. Their conclusion was that there was no medical reason why marijuana should be illegal, especially when compared with alcohol and cigarettes. I concur.

 

- I believe especially that given our capacity to prescribe medical use of opium and cocaine that legalising marijuana is only logical.

 

- The proliferation of addictive substances over the last hundred years has not lead toi a concomitant rise in addicts. I therefore suggest that it is bogus to claim legalisation of marijuana would somehow add to the toll of addicts. This is ignoring the fact that marijuana is so easy to acquire it is almost legal anyway.

 

- Prohibition of marijuana strains law-enforcement resources and drains money into the black economy.remove illegal trade in marijuana and you cut out a drug which is easy to make steady profits on, and easy for youngsters to learn the ropes of dealing on.

 

~

 

Ultimately I believe legalisation of marijuana is only logical given certain assumptions.

 

- Human beings enjoy and seek out mind-altering experiences. Church, mountain climbing, laudanum, LSD, dave's Insanity Hot Sauce you name it.

- We allow drugs like acohol and nicotine to be used for recreational purposes despite the health and society damage they incur.

- We allow drugs like the opiates to be used for medical purposes despite the health and society damage they incur.

- The trade in marijuana is strong despite prohibition efforts, and further prohibiton distracts from efforts to stop far worse drugs.

[Shryke]

i'm kind of on the fence with this issue, though i do lean toward decriminalisation rather than straight out legalisation.

 

in my opinion, marijuana is a "gateway" drug purely because of the contacts people come into contact with when using marijuana.

lately here in NZ, more people have been using methamphetamine (or P as it's called here). every single person i have met that does P (and i have met a LOT), has been introduced to it by their marijuana dealer.

in EVERY case, they got given a free sample of this "amazing new" stuff that the dealer had just gotten, with the pure intention of getting them addicted, and sadly enough, it worked.

i have these people waste away because of their addiction, and a few of them are now dead.

 

marijuana on the other hand, is relatively non toxic when compared to other drugs, and there have never been any deaths due to overdose because of marijuana.

 

compared to such things as cigarettes and alcohol, it seems kind of idiotic for them to be legal, whereas marijuana, which is much less of a danger, is still illegal

[Petay]

I'm not entirely sure whether im on the side of legalise here, but maybe more leaning towards decriminalisation, or possibly the same kind of laws as Amsterdam, where it is served in some cafes, and you are only allowed to do it in these cafes or in privacy, not on the streets IIRC. IMO this wouldnt really do much harm to anyone apart from the person smoking it, because they are smoking it. This kind of brings me to my next point:

 

Sure, smoking it is dangerous to your health, since no smoke is good for you, or at least non-harmful, but there are actually some surprisingly good alternatives to smoking it, the best being either baking it, or using a vaporizer, which cuts the smoke out totally, so you are just getting the cannabinoids(sp?) or THC (not sure which) from the marijuana and not all the tar and crap as well. Therefore i think it should really be individual choice if the marijuana is smoked or whatever if it ever was decriminalised, just the same as it is with cigarettes.

 

As for addiction, i used to smoke it quite heavily i admit, I have stopped now and i can honestly say that i never felt any withdrawal symptoms from it, never felt like i actually need it at any point, and as has been found somehow through research, it is only a psychological addiction, which would probably be hard to quit for people with a slight or mental problems anyway.

 

/rant over now, i just thought i would let you know my point of view on the subject and how i feel.

Edited September 5, 2005 by petay12

[Cantousent]

booze is legal because it's virtually impossible to enforce making it illegal. The last time the government tried making alcohol illegal, it was pretty bad. I think the problems enforcing prohibiting alcohol would dwarf the problems we have with enforcing other drug laws, even meth.

[Guest Fishboot]

booze is legal because it's virtually impossible to enforce making it illegal.  The last time the government tried making alcohol illegal, it was pretty bad.  I think the problems enforcing prohibiting alcohol would dwarf the problems we have with enforcing other drug laws, even meth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One could argue that marijuana is the same.

[metadigital]

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}>

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to government. Plenty of people have to pay for plenty of stupid stuff they'd prefer not to. Plenty of people spill their brains on the pavement by not wearing their seat belt or a helmet despite the laws.

 

If you want to argue that people ought to have to pay for their choices, fine, I'm all for that. Don't give medical treatment to the guy with the spilled brains if he doesn't have insurance. But can we please, please, please, as a global society, agree that it's a bad idea for the government to regulate personal choices/morality/et al?

 

And I say this with Bush getting to appoint not one, but two Supreme Court justices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why?  If he's being stupid with no health insurance, scrape his guts off the pavement and throw him in a waste bin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, I don't mind that alternative. Problem is then you have to determine the helath insurance status of the patient at the time of the accident, which is not the best time to do it.

 

I am all for leaving them to fertilise the median strip. We need to update the Info Tech available to hospital staff; perhaps an id chip with the person's Social Security number for an index? "

[metadigital]

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This assumes that caring for a high-risk individual is more expensive than a longer-lived low risk individual. Is it more expensive to pay for the medical costs of a 50-year life that ends in lung cancer or a 90-year life that ends in Alzheimers? An open question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that lung cancer brought on by smoking is a preventable disease. Alzheimers is not.

 

I don't think it is wise or necessary to create an arbitrary cost-of-care ceiling. If a person is ill, I don't think the cost of the treatment should even enter the decision making process (of course, it does: but it shouldn't).

 

The best method I can see at the moment for managing healthcare long-term is to make accurate assessments of people's lifestyles now, and adjust their cover and premiums appropriately.

 

Of course this then opens the can of worms about the poor little imbeciles that reach old age and are insufficiently covered after their high-risk early lifestyle, and what to do with them ...

1. let them pay their own way, with subsequent generations picking up any excess,
   
2. let them die even if they are able to be saved
   
3. treat them anyway, which necessarily penalises those who have paid their correct dues and / or lived a low-risk life. This might be an acceptable cost if it is decided that:
   1. 
      
   2. not everyone will live a high-risk lifestyle, if given the option, and
      
   3. there is some benefit to society in encouraging those who would take risks to take them.
      

Nice to sit on a forum and debate, but these ethical dilemmas tend to be warped out of all reasonable debate when discussing the immediate fate of sick and elderly.

[Walsingham]

Meta has a point. reminds me of a story I heard on the campaign trail earlier this year where a farmer took a shotgun into a hospital and told a consultant to just go out and shoot his wife. this is essentially what a cut-off would mean. On the other hand there are already some treatments the NHS will not fund. Typically these are those that have a slim hope of success (clinically speaking) and cost a lot of money.

 

I like your point about actually encouraging risk-takers. This is very true. It is a sad symptom of the emasculation of our society that we regard anyone who makes a noise or gets worked up about stuff as dangerous.

[alanschu]

Maybe it's just me and my "socialist" Canadian ways, but I think when we start determining who does and does not live based on their health insurance is pretty weak.