Legalise marijuana

[Humodour]

Call to arms all you Californians! Vote yes on Proposition 19!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr...ition_19_(2010)

 

56% of Californians support it. November 2 will be an interesting time. Come on guys, be an example for the rest of the world and let's get rid of this bull**** prohibition of a drug less harmful than alcohol once and for all.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Krezack

[Fallen Ghost]

Marijuana is hard to detect by the police when they pull you over. There is no effective means of testing you for it on the spot. If this gets legalized the amount of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers is going to go through the roof and the police won't be able to do a thing to prevent it.

[Humodour]

Marijuana is hard to detect by the police when they pull you over. There is no effective means of testing you for it on the spot. If this gets legalized the amount of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers is going to go through the roof and the police won't be able to do a thing to prevent it.

 

 

[Gorgon]

It's a no brainer really.

[Meshugger]

It's a no brainer really.

[Moose]

I don't think it's a question of it being dangerous, all drugs are dangerous when misused.

[Walsingham]

This is a redundant question. The question isn't 'Should we ban drugs?' the real question is 'Can we ban drugs'?

 

Banning drugs, as in effectively banning their use, is inarguably a difficult thing. We spend vast sums of money and blood attempting to ban them, with the consequence that they are perfectly freely available.

 

If we intend to succeed we can either intensify the effort (which seems implausible), or we can focus the effort. Intensifying the effort must mean cutting efforts on some substances. It seems logical that the ones we cut should be the ones with the smallest impact, and with the most reversible effect on the user.

 

All this flimflam about marijuana being bad for you is irrelevant. The only question is whether its effects are reversible - and they largely are - and how they rank compared to heroin and the stimulants (coke/crack/meth).

[Gorgon]

In my experience the main downside with hash is when people who are too young smoke too much of it. The physiology of the brain is still changing, the formation of personality is taking place, and so on. these things can be adversely affected as with a number of other drugs.

 

Other than that responsible use is largely no problem at all for most people.

[Humodour]

Legalisation tends to mean:

 

- Lots more more money for the government through taxation (which can be spent on drug awareness and education if desired)

- Lower incidences of the drug's use as demonstrated by multiple states where it has been legalised or decriminalised

- Far lower law enforcement costs, as victimless crimes such as smoking a joint no longer use up law enforcement resources such as court time, officer time, or gaol space

- The elimination of the black market, and hence stricter quality control and monitoring of the drug

- And last but not least, no longer treating ordinary citizens like criminals

 

In my experience the main downside with hash is when people who are too young smoke too much of it. The physiology of the brain is still changing, the formation of personality is taking place, and so on. these things can be adversely affected as with a number of other drugs.

 

Other than that responsible use is largely no problem at all for most people.

 

This is true for alcohol as well, don't forget. Even at the age of 16, it (alcohol) does pretty potent (and not desirable) changes to gene regulation in the brain (on the same order as marijuana).

 

Neither alcohol nor marijuana should rightly be consumed by somebody whose brain is still developing (it stops at what, age 20)?

 

This marijauna bill sets a consumption age of 21, which makes sense.

[Humodour]

Two different graphs of data on drug harm levels:

 

 

Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/a...604644/abstract

 

 

Using what they called a "harm matrix", the independent experts came up with an evidence-based classification system. The committee considered physical harm, psychological and physical dependence and the wider social harms associated with a drug.

 

Legal drugs including alcohol and tobacco were ranked alongside illegal substances so the public could understand how risks compared.

 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ma...e_point_of.html

[heathen]

Cannabis, while not completely harmless, is most certainly the best suited for moderate and frequent consuption of all the drugs I've tried, not counting small amounts of alcohol like a beer or two a day. I've used it for more than a decade, starting from when I was 13 and am a relatively succesful person with meaningful relationships and a good career. I'm pretty much the proof that you can be a daily smoker of weed and live a completely "normal" life (altho my life isn't that normal, but that's a lifestyle choice). I'm all for cannabis legalization, if only that kids as young as I was started later and with purer, better weed than what we had to smoke back then.

Edited July 7, 2010 by heathen

[Humodour]

I'd rather toke than drink any day, that's for sure. Alcohol has a dark side to it, both that night and the next day.

 

I'd like to see a stoned person start a fight or get a hangover.

[Guest The Architect]

Sounds like you believe a victory in California for the legalisation of marijuana could very well see a follow up of a completely (or near enough) national legalisation of marijuana in Australia - unless you plan on moving to California Mr. Douglas Quaid. Would love to see it happen personally. I remember easily winning a debate last year on whether illicit drugs should be legalised or not - I'm not sure whether that was because we just made a better argument or that I am awesomely charismatic like Krezack's mum is in bed, but if I remember correctly, I think it's just because the benefits outweigh the risks, but let's not turn this into a debate on that, so just forget I said anything and look at Larissa Riquelme:

 

[Humodour]

maaaaaaaan... add Dagga and Lotus to your weed (legal, cheap). it's as potent as marijuana, but it's only 1/3 marijuana! yay price savings.

 

ps: HOTTT!!

Edited July 7, 2010 by Krezack

[Syraxis]

 

Oh wait this was about weed legalization? Yeah, alright cool, go for it.

 

Awww man, she looks delicious.....

Edited July 7, 2010 by Syraxis

[Humodour]

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor, he was questioned on drug use and his own documented marijuana use, he replied: "marijuana is not a drug, it's a leaf".

[Gfted1]

Legalisation tends to mean:

 

- Lots more more money for the government through taxation (which can be spent on drug awareness and education if desired)

- Lower incidences of the drug's use as demonstrated by multiple states where it has been legalised or decriminalised

- Far lower law enforcement costs, as victimless crimes such as smoking a joint no longer use up law enforcement resources such as court time, officer time, or gaol space

- The elimination of the black market, and hence stricter quality control and monitoring of the drug

- And last but not least, no longer treating ordinary citizens like criminals

 

 

Legalization = production? Of course not.

 

Legalization simply means its not illegal, it doesnt mean the state becomes the producer and supplier. So nobody is filling the state coffers to overflowing with tax money nor controlling the "black market" or quality. The rest I agree with.

[Humodour]

Legalisation tends to mean:

 

- Lots more more money for the government through taxation (which can be spent on drug awareness and education if desired)

- Lower incidences of the drug's use as demonstrated by multiple states where it has been legalised or decriminalised

- Far lower law enforcement costs, as victimless crimes such as smoking a joint no longer use up law enforcement resources such as court time, officer time, or gaol space

- The elimination of the black market, and hence stricter quality control and monitoring of the drug

- And last but not least, no longer treating ordinary citizens like criminals

 

 

Legalization = production? Of course not.

 

Legalization simply means its not illegal, it doesnt mean the state becomes the producer and supplier. So nobody is filling the state coffers to overflowing with tax money nor controlling the "black market" or quality. The rest I agree with.

 

I don't follow your logic.

 

Legalisation = allowing people to grow and sell it. Allowing people to grow and sell it allows the government to tax it. Allowing the government to tax it means a completely a new revenue stream.

 

And certainly for Proposition 19, the government plans to licence, regulate, and tax it.

[Guest The Architect]

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor, he was questioned on drug use and his own documented marijuana use, he replied: "marijuana is not a drug, it's a leaf".

 

Indeed.

 

 

He used to smoke weed in his bodybuilding days, which would've helped his appetite.

[Gfted1]

I don't follow your logic.

 

Legalisation = allowing people to grow and sell it. Allowing people to grow and sell it allows the government to tax it. Allowing the government to tax it means a completely a new revenue stream.

 

And certainly for Proposition 19, the government plans to licence, regulate, and tax it.

 

That particular proposition may do that but thats just for the commercial stores that will spring up, just like they do for the existing medical marijuana stores. The vast majority will be private sellers/dealers and there would be no way to tax them nor control the quality.

[Humodour]

I don't follow your logic.

 

Legalisation = allowing people to grow and sell it. Allowing people to grow and sell it allows the government to tax it. Allowing the government to tax it means a completely a new revenue stream.

 

And certainly for Proposition 19, the government plans to licence, regulate, and tax it.

 

That particular proposition may do that but thats just for the commercial stores that will spring up, just like they do for the existing medical marijuana stores. The vast majority will be private sellers/dealers and there would be no way to tax them nor control the quality.

 

That argument is also true for alcohol and tomato. The same reasons it is irrelevant for them, it is irrelevant for weed.

[Walsingham]

Can I just applaud the decision to show us a gorgeous smiling woman. I was feeling good already. Now I feel almost beatific.

 

I don't agree that legalisation means more tax. It means SOME tax from the legal sources, but it would be naive to suggest everyone's going to go commercial. What it does mean is that unless org. crime lowers its prices to the level of legal dope then people will just buy legal. This means lower profits for the ****ers who are systematically subverting our societies.

 

~~

 

But again, this is a nonsense debate. Marijuana is illegal, but it isn't remotely prohibited in any meaningful sense. To continue insisting on diverting resources from policing physical violence, fraud, sex crimes etc etc is beyond belief.

 

In fact I'd go further and suggest that the entire effort to prohibit dope has done tremendous damage to the credibility of proper anti-drug information ops. People get told dope is terrible, then they try it and it isn't. So they inevitably doubt the sincerity of anti-coke and anti-heroin info ops.

 

~

 

Thinking about it this whole thing makes me furious. The blood and treasure spent on this is far from insignificant. That blood and treasure could do so much good if applied elsewhere.

[Humodour]

Agreed Wals, and the point of this proposition is to end the decades of lies, bull****, and wasted government resources.

[Walsingham]

I should add that I've spoken to more cops and customs guys than I can remember over the years and this always comes up and they always feel legalisation is the only sensible move. Some don't like it, but they all recognise it's a waste of resources.

[Nepenthe]

I'd rather toke than drink any day, that's for sure. Alcohol has a dark side to it, both that night and the next day.

 

I'd like to see a stoned person start a fight or get a hangover.

 

I have a REALLY hard time swallowing any comparison that claims amphetamines are "less harmful" than alcohol (amphetamines being the drug-of-choice to the local losers and having witnessed a bad trip or few coupled with a few takedowns that involved a lot more OC than you'd think anything short of a rabid bear would need). I'm assuming this is strictly based on some kind of long-term effect on user calculation?

 

(not really to your quote, but the data you posted above).