Legalise marijuana

[Gorgon]

It may be a gateway drug for some, but I would suggest that those are people with a genetically high likelihood of winding up in some kind of drug abuse situation regardless. It depends I suppose on what kinds of circles you move in while smoking cannabis. In my experience there was no overlap but rather a well defined hash culture which effectively resisted heavier drugs.

 

It's my feeling that the gateway thing is most likely bull****. I certainly can't think of any real life examples. The depression side effect is true, I know several people who had to stop as a result, and even one who couldn't and took anti depressants while he was still smoking. Kind of defeated the purpose.

 

The thing to remember here is that it is probably one of the easiest drugs out there to kick and that if you experience adverse effects it's eminently likely that you will.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Oh, I already take the issue quite seriously. I am very against marijuana use, as I said, my sister went through hell and back and marijuana was clearly the gateway to that. I already have an uphill fight here, society is already sending the message that marijuana isn't a big deal. I teach 7th graders, so I'm right there on the cusp with these students as they prepare to make stupid decisions as teenagers. What I am saying is very few of them are concerned with the legality of the issue. If they choose not to do pot, it is going to be because they are making a smart decision about their health and future. It is illegal for them to drink and smoke as well as teenagers, and yet plenty of them will do those things.

 

What I'm really saying is it's already a big problem, so stop wasting resources criminalizing it, and start educating people on it. Also, it won't hurt to clean out the bloated prison system a bit in California.

There are some kids who tend to get into trouble, and some that don't. I'm concerned that even that those who don't will see this as a green light. It's just like if you make shoplifting legal, it's harder to convince a kid shoplifting is wrong. As far as clearing out prisons, I think possession is already a misdemeanor in most states, and it's already de facto legal in California, all you need is a note from a doctor that you have trouble sleeping or something. And it's not like all those drug dealers are suddenly going to turn into fine, upstanding citizens. They'll just find another illegal activity to engage in.

[Walsingham]

Gorgon, I did apologise. I don't see any reason to knock my experience of people who toke.

 

On topic, need I point out that sex is known to be involved in all sorts of trouble. But we don't try to ban that.

[Wrath of Dagon]

For the same reason we don't ban cars even though they are resposible for more deaths than anything except natural causes. It's a question of costs vs benefits.

[Hurlshort]

My personal experience with it being a gateway is the necessity of a dealer. Since you can't get pot at a store, if you are just looking for a small amount for a weekend, you will need to make contact with a drug dealer. From that point, it is a much easier jump to try other stuff like exctasy or cocaine. I'm sure it isn't a gigantic number that make that jump, but I saw a few friends go that way.

 

My sister ended up dating the dealer, and that did not end well. He ended up in prison (not for long enough in my book) and she did a few stints in rehab.

[heathen]

For the same reason we don't ban cars even though they are resposible for more deaths than anything except natural causes. It's a question of costs vs benefits.

 

And in this case legalization would reduce the costs and give benefits.

[Wrath of Dagon]

My personal experience with it being a gateway is the necessity of a dealer. Since you can't get pot at a store, if you are just looking for a small amount for a weekend, you will need to make contact with a drug dealer. From that point, it is a much easier jump to try other stuff like exctasy or cocaine. I'm sure it isn't a gigantic number that make that jump, but I saw a few friends go that way.

 

My sister ended up dating the dealer, and that did not end well. He ended up in prison (not for long enough in my book) and she did a few stints in rehab.

If you think the dealers are bad, wait till big corporations jump into this. "Joe the Pot Smoking Camel"

[Enoch]

I have no great expertise, but I suspect that the 'gateway drug' effect is real, but that it would decrease greatly were the drug legalized.

 

A teenager starting with weed is an often exercise in boundary testing. It's relatively widely used and relatively widely available, but it is still illegal and the people supplying it are criminals. If the testing of that particular boundary turns out to be a pleasant experience (i.e., the high is pleasurable, nobody gets caught, it helps bring the individual into a desirable social circle, etc.), that psychological reward probably makes the user more likely to push out and test other boundaries. And, perhaps more importantly, if the individual continues to pursue use of The Pot, it often brings the new user into contact with people who can offer availability of psychotropics, amphetamines, prescription painkillers, or other harder stuff. Curiousities that would otherwise be ignored can be indulged, sometimes social pressures can be brought to bear by friends whom a non-pot-user simply wouldn't have, and sometimes flat-out salesmanship by dealers can provide the next step of the 'gateway.'

 

If weed's availability were more akin to alcohol's (i.e., anyone with a fake ID and the ability to grow a convincing moustache-- or, alternately, a "cool older brother"-- can buy it in a store), the "boundary testing" gateway mechanism would probably still be valid. (I don't think anybody is arguing that pot should be available for legal sale to minors.) But the "social contacts with access to harder drugs" factor would be largely absent.

 

 

Edit: Or, what Hurl said. I probably should have refreshed the thread before posting.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Enoch

[LadyCrimson]

you can get buzzed on weed without getting stoned

Uh...well, I suppose this would depend on your definition of buzzed vs. stoned. And your personal biological chemistry.

But I don't know anyone in the circles I was in who would have agreed with that one bit. Especially as (street) weed became stronger and stronger. It's not like having the ability to drink only 1 beer, which vast majority wouldn't find to make them even tipsy.

 

It may be a gateway drug for some, but I would suggest that those are people with a genetically high likelihood of winding up in some kind of drug abuse situation regardless.

Hubby I used to discuss this possibility at lot, Gorgon. That there's an "addictive" genes or whatever other genetic aspects make one more prone to being addicted to something, at least once exposed to it. And obviously, if you're hanging around someone who has influence over you, who's pushing you to do other stuff, that's never helpful.

 

But I wouldn't call weed a gateway drug in general. I haven't seen/heard anything to indicate that. (edit: but then, my actual experience may be influenced by things like area & financial & drug ability of the area).

Edited July 9, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Gorgon]

Gorgon, I did apologise. I don't see any reason to knock my experience of people who toke.

 

On topic, need I point out that sex is known to be involved in all sorts of trouble. But we don't try to ban that.

There you go again stealing my thunder by being all reasonable.

[Gromnir]

I have no great expertise, but I suspect that the 'gateway drug' effect is real, but that it would decrease greatly were the drug legalized.

 

A teenager starting with weed is an often exercise in boundary testing. It's relatively widely used and relatively widely available, but it is still illegal and the people supplying it are criminals. If the testing of that particular boundary turns out to be a pleasant experience (i.e., the high is pleasurable, nobody gets caught, it helps bring the individual into a desirable social circle, etc.), that psychological reward probably makes the user more likely to push out and test other boundaries. And, perhaps more importantly, if the individual continues to pursue use of The Pot, it often brings the new user into contact with people who can offer availability of psychotropics, amphetamines, prescription painkillers, or other harder stuff. Curiousities that would otherwise be ignored can be indulged, sometimes social pressures can be brought to bear by friends whom a non-pot-user simply wouldn't have, and sometimes flat-out salesmanship by dealers can provide the next step of the 'gateway.'

 

If weed's availability were more akin to alcohol's (i.e., anyone with a fake ID and the ability to grow a convincing moustache-- or, alternately, a "cool older brother"-- can buy it in a store), the "boundary testing" gateway mechanism would probably still be valid. (I don't think anybody is arguing that pot should be available for legal sale to minors.) But the "social contacts with access to harder drugs" factor would be largely absent.

 

 

Edit: Or, what Hurl said. I probably should have refreshed the thread before posting.

 

am gonna disagree with the "curiosities" being equivalent to the gateway impetus... and also with hurlshots observations 'bout the social acceptance o' weed. as for gateway, weed IS having a low physical addiction rate, but it also is less effective in producing a high as dosages and frequency of use is increased. nimh (national institute of mental health... the guys from the rat books) has actually done some very interesting studies on mj... worth reading. so, what do you think happens to the typical stoner as he smokes more and more pot and it becomes less and less efficacious? as weed is not particularly addictive, it is easy for the user to trade-up, no? what makes weed such a gateway candidate is its rather peculiar coupling o' low addiction with decreasing efficacy. if you wanna keep getting high, you gotta either use ridiculous amounts, or... the "or" is why weed is so often labeled as gateway.

 

as for social acceptance... how on earth hurl equates cheech & chong movies with acceptance is beyond our ken. movies and television does not makes weed use seem particularly glamorous. weed use and weed users is, understandably, the but o' jokes in media. see a $800 an hour attorney with a glass o' single malt scotch in his hand is shocking? hell no. legal or not, picture the same attorney with weed. even so, we thinks that legalizing would go a long way towards making weed acceptable as more than punchline fodder. enough hollywood types and athletes use pot regular enough even now, but using openly would helps make it kewl for the same generation that likes twilight films and speed-texting. regardless, the notion that weed is currently having a level o' social acceptance beyond berkeley or heyward is perhaps myopic. hurl is in the bay area, so am thinking he might have a slight odd pov regarding the acceptance aspect.

 

the biggest problem for the weed crowd is the folks advocating. most o' us who graduated university can recall being accosted at least a few times by some clown with a flier advocating the legalization o' pot. ever seen the folks who speak on behalf o' weed legalization on college campuses? is kinda like the folks who claims to have seen ufos and bigfoot... a more sorry and pathetic collection o' human detritus is difficult to imagine. if the most vocal proponents o' weed legalization were not hippie-wannabees with questionable hygiene and damaged reasoning skills, the Movement woulda' made considerably more progress over the past few decades.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 9, 2010 by Gromnir

[Shryke]

i've smoked weed before

 

for quite a few years i was almost always around people that were smoking, but i never touched the stuff. not through any aversion to it - simply because i didn't feel like it

first time i tried it, i quite liked it. but it didn't exactly make me go out and start smoking all the time

it wasn't until a few years later that i started smoking casually with friends. we'd usually just sit around drawing or painting with some music playing in the background

at one point i was smoking quite a bit almost every day after work, but it never interfered with my life in any way. i still went to work on time, paid my bills, etc etc

then one day i just stopped, and haven't had any craving whatsoever to start up again

i think i've had one smoke in maybe the past 4 months

 

it was fun and i enjoyed it. but i never depended on it

but then i could say the same for tobacco

i used to smoke pretty regularly, but then one day i finished a pack and decided i wouldn't buy more

 

other people's experiences may differ, but that's how things went for me

take it how you will

*shrug*

[Humodour]

My personal experience with it being a gateway is the necessity of a dealer. Since you can't get pot at a store, if you are just looking for a small amount for a weekend, you will need to make contact with a drug dealer. From that point, it is a much easier jump to try other stuff like exctasy or cocaine. I'm sure it isn't a gigantic number that make that jump, but I saw a few friends go that way.

 

My sister ended up dating the dealer, and that did not end well. He ended up in prison (not for long enough in my book) and she did a few stints in rehab.

 

I dated a heroin addict earlier this year. It did not go well. I can understand your feelings with respect to dealers. I hate dealers with a passion (except those who deal purely in weed - but many try to push **** like cocaine and heroin because it makes more profit).

 

And this is one more reason I support legalisation.

[Walsingham]

Changing tack, slightly I think that what we are seeing here is a problem tryhing to be too tactical. The real issue is a flawed notion that simply prohibiting something with law makes it go away. We see it with drugs, we see it with street violence, we see it with prostitution.

 

In each case we are talking about normal urges for human, being expressed in unhealthy ways. I include violence every deliberately because violence is normal, but it is something forumites are less likely to enjoy than drugs.

 

I put it to the board that healthy societies allow for these activities and others, while at the same time tackling their manifestations through societal pressure rather than a man in a blue suit thumping people.

[Pope]

Hey Cali, while you're at it, legalise shrooms too.

 

 

Seriously, anyone who manages to actually abuse mushrooms will manage to abuse just about anything.

[Gromnir]

Changing tack, slightly I think that what we are seeing here is a problem tryhing to be too tactical. The real issue is a flawed notion that simply prohibiting something with law makes it go away. We see it with drugs, we see it with street violence, we see it with prostitution.

 

In each case we are talking about normal urges for human, being expressed in unhealthy ways. I include violence every deliberately because violence is normal, but it is something forumites are less likely to enjoy than drugs.

 

I put it to the board that healthy societies allow for these activities and others, while at the same time tackling their manifestations through societal pressure rather than a man in a blue suit thumping people.

 

am gonna call strawman. am not sure the naivete you envision is quite so pervasive as you suggest. how many folks genuine believe that criminalizing an activity will makes it disappear?

 

*shrug*

 

deterrence is a goal of many legally mandated punishments, but is rare the totality for the reasoning behind such criminalizations.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 10, 2010 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

I don't think its an overblown presumption at all. "There should be a law against it"

 

On reflection it does occur to me that sometimes laws are necessary to deal with extreme cases. Viz excessive noise at night. most people don't do it very often, but the law is neded to deal with persistent extreme cases.

[Humodour]

[Gromnir]

I don't think its an overblown presumption at all. "There should be a law against it"

 

observing that "that there should be a law against it" does not necessitate a belief that the law will effectively cure a social ill.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

Alternatively, we could go Chinese and execute dealers. Personally, a sliding scale depending on the narcotic works for me. A kilo of Coke - firing squad. A 1/4 kilo of Crack. Ditto. Anything more than five kilos of puff. Hang 'em.

 

Then you legalize personal use, y'know, a plant or two on the balcony of your apartment. Anything else = death.

 

Sorry to be all wishy-washy about it but you must admit it's a point of view.

[Gromnir]

there is considerable debate 'bout the long-term effects o' pot use. the only consensus we has seen regarding long-term dangers is related to early-teen users. if there is long-term physical harm from pot use for adults, it doesn't have much scientific support in spite of considerable testing. that being said, the short-term deleterious effects o' weed use is not in question. pot use does make the user... dumber... considerable impact on short-term memory and other cognitive functions. 'course, "short-term" is an inexact measure. as with so many chemicals and poisons, the impact on individuals varies greatly. short-term for bucket-head may be a few hours... or a few days.

 

...

 

so why should Gromnir be bothered if people willingly wants to make themselves dumb? am all in favor o' such stuff. score a point for social darwinism, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

I think the legalisation of marijuana is a plot by snack food companies.

[Gromnir]

I think the legalisation of marijuana is a plot by snack food companies.

 

*chuckle*

 

don't forget the baked goods folks. sudden increase in brownie mix sales following legalization?

 

'course, if general foods or kraft were heading the fight to legalize, we suspect they woulda' had more success. the reality o' the situation is that the persons advocating legalization is probable the primary reason we has seen virtual 0 progress since the 70's. with woody harrelson and krez-clones as examples o' your poster boys, you gots a serious image problem to overcome.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 10, 2010 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

there is considerable debate 'bout the long-term effects o' pot use. the only consensus we has seen regarding long-term dangers is related to early-teen users. if there is long-term physical harm from pot use for adults, it doesn't have much scientific support in spite of considerable testing.

Yet cigarettes were in circulation before anyone knew the long term effects, which IMO are being exaggerated.

that being said, the short-term deleterious effects o' weed use is not in question. pot use does make the user... dumber... considerable impact on short-term memory and other cognitive functions. 'course, "short-term" is an inexact measure. as with so many chemicals and poisons, the impact on individuals varies greatly. short-term for bucket-head may be a few hours... or a few days.

Alcohol abuse also makes people dumber, both kill neurons. I really need to see numbers to believe that weed effect on the brain is as great as they say, plus Americans can't get any dumber otherwise their brain cavity might implode.

[Gromnir]

there is considerable debate 'bout the long-term effects o' pot use. the only consensus we has seen regarding long-term dangers is related to early-teen users. if there is long-term physical harm from pot use for adults, it doesn't have much scientific support in spite of considerable testing.

Yet cigarettes were in circulation before anyone knew the long term effects, which IMO are being exaggerated.

that being said, the short-term deleterious effects o' weed use is not in question. pot use does make the user... dumber... considerable impact on short-term memory and other cognitive functions. 'course, "short-term" is an inexact measure. as with so many chemicals and poisons, the impact on individuals varies greatly. short-term for bucket-head may be a few hours... or a few days.

Alcohol abuse also makes people dumber, both kill neurons. I really need to see numbers to believe that weed effect on the brain is as great as they say, plus Americans can't get any dumber otherwise their brain cavity might implode.

 

 

what is with you people? the dangers o' tobacco and alcohol has 0 moral or legal relevance when considering the implications o' legalized mj. is your argument honestly that it isn't fair that pot smokers should be denied the same opportunities to legally endanger themselves? your observations is only persuasive in explaining why tobacco and alcohol should not be legal.

 

"Well, Billy's mom lets him stay out past 6:00 PM."

 

parents everywhere is unmoved by the traditional argument concocted by foolish kids. is less funny when adults try the same shtick.

 

HA! Good Fun!