# Should America legalize marijuana?



## Dusty201087 (Mar 30, 2009)

Poll up.

Coming from a non-smoker, non-drinker, probably a non-pot smoker even if it was legal, I honestly won't care. I think if anything it would benefit America right now. If the gov grew it and taxed it, they'd make a shit load! And we are spending all this cash putting "drug offenders" through the judicial system and have to let real criminals out of jail just to make room for these dealers because it's their "third strike". To me, it just doesn't seem like it'd be too terrible. I'd rather have MJ legal and cigs illegal - at least when pot burns it smells good 

Sorry if this is just re-hashing old stuff, I'd just like to see everyone's opinion here whether it be for/against/etc.


----------



## Brendan G (Mar 30, 2009)

I say yes (Also coming from a non-drinker and smoker of all kinds) it is putting people in jail that really don't need to be there and the effects aren't that bad so I've heard, I was told that it doesn't affect you as much as alcohol. I don't feel very strongly about the issue though.


----------



## JakeRI (Mar 30, 2009)

yes. I have never smoked a day in my life, but that doesnt mean its right to take away. They knew for the prohibition of alcohol they needed to amend the constitution. since when does the federal government have the right to determine what americans do, considering marijuana doesnt hurt ANYONE. it should be illegal to drive high, but that is understandable. its stupid, how far we are from our founding fathers.


----------



## telecaster90 (Mar 30, 2009)

Well, let me be the first smoker in this thread to say yes


----------



## TimothyLeary (Mar 30, 2009)

_Yes, I support full legalization of the drug._

Doesn't make sense when alcohol is legal.


----------



## ShadyDavey (Mar 30, 2009)

If the government could control it and therefore tax it, they'll legalise it. If they can't, they won't - same as for anywhere else 

_Should_ they legalise it irrespective of the above cynicism? I've never really seen the point in criminalising a product thats also used as for medicinal purposes but as an ex-smoker there may be some residual bias.


----------



## Thin_Ice_77 (Mar 30, 2009)

It's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, so why the hell not.


----------



## PlagueX1 (Mar 30, 2009)

Short answer: Yes, full legalization.


----------



## auxioluck (Mar 30, 2009)

As a part-time smoker, I say yes. 

I say legalize it and tax it to help stimulate the economy. ....I have no clue if it would actually work, but I can dream.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 30, 2009)

No-brainer for me. It should be decriminalized, at the very least. If a cop finds it on somebody and takes issue with it then fine, confiscate it and be done with it. Why prosecute/incarcerate people for it?

Not to mention -- the dangerous related problems IE trafficking, murder, etc, only exist because it's illegal.

ALSO not to mention the hypocrisy of it all -- alcohol is fine, cigarettes are fine, all these drugs we're shoving down your kids throats for suffering from JUST BEING KIDS (aka "add" or "adhd" which I firmly believe to be a bull shit diagnosis fabricated by pharmecutical companies..) are all fine, but marijuana is BAD? Give me a fucking break. 

*edit* Plus, I really don't want to feel like I'm breaking the law several times a day when I'm paying my taxes and going to work full time like a good little (pot smoking) citizen.


----------



## amadeus (Mar 30, 2009)

By legalizing MJ it would help out the Economy quite abit, think about it.

1. growing jobs/selling mj jobs/Packaging and distribution Jobs (its not 20&#37; of the world smokes this stuff)

2. increased consumtion of nurishment (the chip and cookie companies would love this)

and 3

aside from the economy it would help alot in reducing stress levels in average people and other good stuff

Not the best agument but im not going completly in depth here

but will the government legalize it, probably not the government doesnt like being wrong in these types of aguments


----------



## nordhauser06 (Mar 30, 2009)

I'll start by saying I am a casual smoker. Although the legalization would stimulate the economy, it wouldn't help out as much as one would think. Not to mention, once it's legal, big businesses will take over the industry. One would assume that weed would become less potent and more spread out to maximize profit for a company. 

In California, we have wellness clinics that sell all sorts of weed and edibles already as long as one has a "medical ID." As soon as the legalization passes, big business will eventually take over closing these places down. I mean, this is America after all. 

Then again, ya never know. I'm for it, but obviously with much speculation.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 30, 2009)

There's a study floating around somewhere that showed that people in amsterdam smoke less weed than in countries where it's illegal.


----------



## Mattayus (Mar 30, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> There's a study floating around somewhere that showed that people in amsterdam smoke less weed than in countries where it's illegal.



Makes sense really. They also have one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe (maybe the World, not sure), despite the fact that they have no "age of consent" laws.

Kinda proves the simple psychology of the general public: They'll want it more if you tell them they can't have it.

I get extremely wound up when I see terribly misinformed propaganda, calling weed a "gateway drug" etc. 

If, on the off-chance, someone DOES end up on harder drugs, it's because they've been exposed to that seedy underworld, because that's how they get their weed. 

Legalise it, and they'll never have to rub shoulders with the crack heads and junkies.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm with the "it's less bad than alcohol and nicotine, therefore it should be legal" crowd. Never tried the stuff myself but it just seems retarded for using/having it to be a crime.


----------



## PlagueX1 (Mar 30, 2009)

Mattayus said:


> Makes sense really. They also have one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe (maybe the World, not sure), despite the fact that they have no "age of consent" laws.
> 
> Kinda proves the simple psychology of the general public: They'll want it more if you tell them they can't have it.
> 
> ...



Very true. I can't see how this is illegal yet the medication they hand out like candy is highly addictive, I know.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2009)

Thin_Ice_77 said:


> It's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, so why the hell not.





it's actually more harmful than cigarettes and it produces paranoia and mild brain damage with long term use. trust me, my ex smoked every day for 7 years and she's pretty fucking paranoid!



nordhauser06 said:


> Not to mention, once it's legal, big businesses will take over the industry. One would assume that weed would become less potent and more spread out to maximize profit for a company.



.....that already happens dude, drug dealers aren't as stupid as you think they are.


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 30, 2009)

synrgy said:


> It should be decriminalized, at the very least.
> 
> Not to mention -- the dangerous related problems IE trafficking, murder, etc, only exist because it's illegal.



Well said. And very well put. Nothing but the ABSOLUTE truth right here.


The government needs to quit thinking like a bunch of ignorant fucks, get their shit together and realize that there are far more dangerous drugs out there that are perfectly legal.

One thing that simply CANNOT be argued is the dangers of Marijuana compared to prescription drugs and alcohol. Go smoke as much Marijuana as you can get your hands on, whats gonna happen? Not much. Munchies, drowsiness, euphoria, laziness, and at the VERY worst some mild to severe paranoia if your an unexperienced user. There is no such thing as an overdose on Marijuana, its been proven time and time again. Now, go take as many prescription drugs as you can, whats gonna happen? At the very least sickness, vomiting, overdose, and possible death, all depending on how much you consumed. Now, go consume as much alcohol as you can. Whats gonna happen? At the very least vomiting, and at the very worst alcohol poisoning, which is only seperated by a fine line between it and death. Then theres all the other dangers of alcohol, DUI related deaths, domestic violence, long term health risks, etc, etc.


I think if the Government would actually use their brains, and commercially grow Marijuana, tax it just as much as tobacco, they'd 1) be greatly helping the American economy and 2) reduce the crime rates that are related to Marijuana trafficking, gun violence related to Marijuana, and many other positive things.

I also think its pathetic that the original reason that Marijuana was initially made illegal way back when, was a general ignorance to the plant as well as extreme racism. It had nothing to do with the actual dangers of Marijuana. Dont know what i'm talking about? Go research it.

Its clear that the only reason Tobacco and Alcohol is legal is because the government can tax the fuck out of it and help the economy as well as government funds. So if Marijuana isnt nearly as dangerous as Alcohol or Presscription drugs, and they are both taxed and legalized, why the fuck cant Marijuana be taxed the fuck out of and legalized?


All this is just a dream though, i doubt it will ever be legalized in our lifetime, if ever. Theres just too many close-minded ignorant fucks controlling what gets legalized and what doesnt.

One thing i think will happen is, the decriminalization of Marijuana. California and some other states have already done it (pending its not above a certain amount), meaning you just get the equivalent of parking ticket/moving violation. You just pay the small fine, and your done. It really outrages me that in some states people are doing jail time for possesion of small amounts like 8ths, quarters, and half ounces that are strictly for personal use.

I say legalize it totally. If thats totally out of the question. I dont think we as Americans should accept or put up with anything less than the Decriminalization of it. We must do that at least.


----------



## Flax6177 (Mar 30, 2009)

synrgy said:


> No-brainer for me. It should be decriminalized, at the very least. If a cop finds it on somebody and takes issue with it then fine, confiscate it and be done with it. Why prosecute/incarcerate people for it?
> 
> Not to mention -- the dangerous related problems IE trafficking, murder, etc, only exist because it's illegal.
> 
> ...



+1 
I agree mostly but on top of that if it was legalized it would be taxed and prices on it would go sky high..I say keep it illegal but severely reduce the penalty..another reason the USA (california being one such example) wastes so much money is because we are prosecuting victimless crimes! One thing i dont agree with is that crime and murder dont go away from something simply because it is made legal. indian reservation casinos in california have a terrible crime record becuase of things associated with gambling like loan sharking, prositiution ect..and i think the same would hold true for marijuana.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Mar 30, 2009)

WhiteShadow said:


> One thing i think will happen is, the decriminalization of Marijuana. California and some other states have already done it (pending its not above a certain amount), meaning you just get the equivalent of parking ticket/moving violation. You just pay the small fine, and your done. It really outrages me that in some states people are doing jail time for possesion of small amounts like 8ths, quarters, and half ounces that are strictly for personal use.



Wow, Cali actually did that? I think that's at least a fair compromise. I actually really agree here. I still think it should be totally legal, but eh, like I said it's a fair compromise, and sometimes that's the best you can hope for. Hell, a small fine is better than going to jail for life because you're on your third strike.


----------



## Thin_Ice_77 (Mar 30, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> it's actually more harmful than cigarettes and it produces paranoia and mild brain damage with long term use. trust me, my ex smoked every day for 7 years and she's pretty fucking paranoid!


I'd say that lung or throat cancer is worse than paranoia personally, and this is coming from someone who smokes both daily. Brain damage, I don't know about. I read an article that smoking cannabis actually helps to slow the progression of Alzheimers (sp?), so I don't know whether or not that's true. I won't deny it though.

Plus if it was legalised, hemp is super-useful. Hemp clothes are far more durable than ones made out of cotton and hemp paper is cheaper and more resilient than paper than comes from trees. There's are loads of other uses for it as well.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 30, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> it's actually more harmful than cigarettes and it produces paranoia and mild brain damage with long term use. trust me, my ex smoked every day for 7 years and she's pretty fucking paranoid!



I know lots of smart people that smoke weed regularly, but i also know lots of not so bright people. 



Mattayus said:


> Makes sense really. They also have one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe (maybe the World, not sure), despite the fact that they have no "age of consent" laws.
> 
> Kinda proves the simple psychology of the general public: They'll want it more if you tell them they can't have it.
> 
> ...



This!

Weed itself isn't too bad for you, its the people you smoke it with who are the problem. Its like hanging out with smart kids; your grades with probably go up if you hang out near them in class cause you'll copy them in tests and stuff. But hanging out with stupid kids has the opposite effect.


----------



## PlagueX1 (Mar 30, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> it's actually more harmful than cigarettes and it produces paranoia and mild brain damage with long term use. trust me, my ex smoked every day for 7 years and she's pretty fucking paranoid!
> 
> 
> 
> .....that already happens dude, drug dealers aren't as stupid as you think they are.



I believe it's wrong to automatically assume that it causes brain damage. There is no true evidence that it causes "damage". It all comes down to the person and how susceptible they are to the various effects of marijuana. Some people get super paranoid under the influence, while some don't.


----------



## Carrion (Mar 30, 2009)

Legalize all drugs.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Mar 30, 2009)

One argument I completely disagree with is the "medical" aspect. It's complete BS, because there's no such thing as medical marijuana. When has anyone ever been prescribed tobacco or alcohol by a doctor? It's the same thing.

There are COMPOUNDS in marijuana (and alcohol, and possibly tobacco) that have beneficial properties. The problem is that the MAJORITY of these things are bad for you. So they make synthetic compounds that mimic the "good" parts of these drugs to get the help without the harm.

And they've successfully synthesized most of the "good" parts of marijuana. So there's no MEDICAL reason to use pot when the synthetics are available with less danger.


----------



## PlagueX1 (Mar 30, 2009)

HammerAndSickle said:


> One argument I completely disagree with is the "medical" aspect. It's complete BS, because there's no such thing as medical marijuana. When has anyone ever been prescribed tobacco or alcohol by a doctor? It's the same thing.
> 
> There are COMPOUNDS in marijuana (and alcohol, and possibly tobacco) that have beneficial properties. The problem is that the MAJORITY of these things are bad for you. So they make synthetic compounds that mimic the "good" parts of these drugs to get the help without the harm.
> 
> And they've successfully synthesized most of the "good" parts of marijuana. So there's no MEDICAL reason to use pot when the synthetics are available with less danger.



What do you define "good" parts. I disagree with you.


----------



## MFB (Mar 31, 2009)

I wish I still had the marijuana legalization paper I did last semester, I got a 90 on it and debunked all the bullshit surrounding marijuana. Gateway drug? Bullshit, shut the fuck up; marijuana doesn't lead people to say "wow, now let me go try these other drugs that I _can potentially die on!_ Heroine, cocaine, speed, ecstasy, all can kill you on the first hit - marijuana is impossible to die from. Marijuana also contains a 1/10th the amount of a cigarette. If you don't understand that lemme put it to you this way :

You would have to smoke 10 joints a day to equal the amount of tar in _1 cigarette!_

Marijuana also opens up your lungs and allows for better breathing versus cigarettes which constricts them. Nor does marijuana kill "vast amounts of brain cells over time". Doug Benson smoked (still does maybe?) for years and he took the SAT's both high and clean, and he did better while high; you can see it in his movie he made about it called "Super High Me."

The most amazing fact in the world today : more people are serving longer sentences for possession of marijuana and intent to distribution than rapists and serial killers.

PS : My parents also found my pipe two days ago and made me smash it in my backyard  $30 gone


----------



## damigu (Mar 31, 2009)

i say "no" because cartoon network's adult swim used to have good and really funny stuff before it began putting on shows that only cater to people who are high.

i could care less about any other aspect. i just want adult swim shows that actually make sense to people who aren't stoned!


----------



## ugmung (Mar 31, 2009)

i agree with the legalization.

who gives a fuck if it's good or bad for you. what about alcohol and tobacco? that'll fuck you up, and in the end, MJ can fuck you up too. but what does it matter, my point is, there are things legal that are way more harmful than MJ. i have friends who have full on conversations with their parents baked out of their minds and they have no idea, and i've driven with people stoned out of their ass' and i swear i'm more scared when my sister drives anywhere sober. 

the effects when high on MJ aren't nearly as dangerous than on alcohol or any other drug. 

and they have those extracter thingy's and god knows what else to help filter out the tar and all the bad stuff in pot.

and when to make it illegal is when you're in a non smoking zone, or driving or operating machinery, whatever the same shit they have for drinking would work i guess. 

and for all you MJ smokers (i'm not included) you would get weed for alot less money, like, alot. when they start producing it in bulk, the price will drop drastically. and so will the prices of bowls, bongs, and everything else.

although i disagree on the arguement that it isn't a gateway drug. although the people you hang out with has a major influence in what you branch out on, i would assume that you become curious to everything else out there that can get you high. but the availibility also has a role on that. i know people who take and overdose on over the counter drugs because it's easier to get, and all that. 

but i am against legalizing all drugs.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Mar 31, 2009)

Legalize it and TAX the crap out of it


----------



## MFB (Mar 31, 2009)

AK DRAGON said:


> Legalize it and TAX a minor portion of it



Why tax the crap out of it when you don't have to?


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Mar 31, 2009)

Legalize it.


----------



## poopyalligator (Mar 31, 2009)

call me crazy, but i would prefer if they did not legalize it. It is not so much that i am against it (even though i have never smoked before). It is mostly because of the fact that if it does become legal it then becomes more obtainable to really young kids. Think about how many young kids smoke today and then imagine all of those kids smoking marijuana. In younger kids it does some pretty nasty things to their ability to learn, and it causes massive brain damage to them also. When you get older it isnt so much of a big deal because your brain has pretty much fullly developed. Honestly I dont think i would want to be in a room with a bunch of people who are stoned all of the time. Sure there are people who would use it responsibly, but for every 10 people that do, there will be 10 people who wont. Also for the most part, if you do want to do it I am sure you already know of a source to get it from, and if somebody wants to I am sure they wont have a problem finding it. Sure taxing would help a little bit, but it surely wont solve any of the economic problems we are having today. The only thing that will solve it is people spending money so that people actually have jobs to make the products we used to enjoy on an everyday basis until the media scared people out of spending their money.


----------



## ugmung (Mar 31, 2009)

poopyalligator said:


> call me crazy, but i would prefer if they did not legalize it. It is not so much that i am against it (even though i have never smoked before). It is mostly because of the fact that if it does become legal it then becomes more obtainable to really young kids. Think about how many young kids smoke today and then imagine all of those kids smoking marijuana. In younger kids it does some pretty nasty things to their ability to learn, and it causes massive brain damage to them also. When you get older it isnt so much of a big deal because your brain has pretty much fullly developed. Honestly I dont think i would want to be in a room with a bunch of people who are stoned all of the time. Sure there are people who would use it responsibly, but for every 10 people that do, there will be 10 people who wont. Also for the most part, if you do want to do it I am sure you already know of a source to get it from, and if somebody wants to I am sure they wont have a problem finding it. Sure taxing would help a little bit, but it surely wont solve any of the economic problems we are having today. The only thing that will solve it is people spending money so that people actually have jobs to make the products we used to enjoy on an everyday basis until the media scared people out of spending their money.



but tobacco and alcohol isn't as easily attainable? i walk 20 feet from where my dad puts his ciggerettes to where he puts all of his liqour, and it's been like that for a really long time. now it's only good judgement and, for me, discipline, that kept me from using any of it, which is why my dad is comfortable with leaving it out in the open where anyone can access it.

it would be like if your dad sat you down where you were little and laid out a pack of ciggerettes, a bottle of Jack and a joint, and said "if you touch any of these, i'll beat your ass" your instinct would tell you to stay away from said items. and if you were a spoiled little brat that never got hit, then it might be a different story that i'm unaware of, which in reality is 99&#37; of today's youth population.


----------



## jaredowty (Mar 31, 2009)

poopyalligator said:


> It is mostly because of the fact that if it does become legal it then becomes more obtainable to really young kids. Think about how many young kids smoke today and then imagine all of those kids smoking marijuana. In younger kids it does some pretty nasty things to their ability to learn, and it causes massive brain damage to them also. When you get older it isnt so much of a big deal because your brain has pretty much fullly developed.



There would obviously be an age limit attached to legalization. And if kids can already easily access other more dangerous legal items like tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs, then why not marijuana? Marijuana should be given at least equal treatment to the aforementioned drugs, if not more. Also there's no research supporting your claim on kids becoming brain damaged from marijuana, or people from any age group for any matter.




> Honestly I dont think i would want to be in a room with a bunch of people who are stoned all of the time.



What about people who are drunk, or the people that constantly need to go outside for a cigarette? Different people react to weed in different ways. I know some people who are dumber versions of themselves while high, others who are more intellectual, and some who really aren't changed at all in their basic behavior. It varies.



> Sure there are people who would use it responsibly, but for every 10 people that do, there will be 10 people who wont.



Kinda like how it is already, right? 

There's a lot of good points in this thread - I'm pretty sure I posted a thread here a few months ago about the new research of THC cutting lung cancer/tumor growth, too.


----------



## MFB (Mar 31, 2009)

OK so as I said a few posts back I wrote a paper for my English Comp I class about marijuana and blah blah blah, and after looking for it due to one member wanting to read it (I know I know, such a good citizen ) I remembered where my old English notebook was and found it amidst the other zillions of papers in there. Minor thoughts were added during the translation from paper to interweb but you'll be able to spot them. So without any further introduction I give you: "From Pot to Prison"



Five point nine million.

That's the current number of people serving jail time for possession, use, and distribution of marijuana. That's larger than the population of Delaware, Washington D.C., Montana, North & South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. The average arrest rate for marijuana is one person every forty-five seconds. In the year 2000, the amount of people serving jail time for marijuana was high than those who were serving for counts of murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. I for one, find this to be a slightly ridiculous notion and am in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

So why are so many people serving in jail for the possession or use of a tiny little plant? Let's take a step back and look at the "harmful" effects of marijuana on the human body.


Laziness
Slowed reaction speed
However, current _legal_ depressants such as alcohol and cigarettes cause :


Lung cancer
F.A.S (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome)
Brain damage
Violent behavior
Liver problems
Addiction
Compared to one another, it seems like marijuana is far safer to use than alcohol or tobacco. Then why are these legal and not marijuana. Each year 5.4 million people die from tobacco and over 25,000 people die from drunk driving alone. The amount of people who have died from smoking marijuana: 0.

It's been shown in numerous studies that it is currently impossible to die from the use of marijuana. The same applies to the use of marijuana through smoking versus other means like ingestion. Addiction is slightly possible, however, it is very unlikely. The same studies proving overdose of marijuana also went on to show that the _only_ long term effects of smoking marijuana were minor learning problems and mild psychological impairment.
The main fear of a legalized marijuana falls under whats known as the "Gateway Theory" in that, smoking marijuana will lead to harder drugs such as LSD, PCP, Heroine, Cocaine, and so on. However, there are several flaws in the theory.

The first being that the only reason kids try marijuana as their first drug is due to the accessibility. After doing some research, it seems find information on the legalization of the drug is as easy as if one was to buy it on the street. Quite simply; it is _the most accessible drug_. Yet for being the most accessible - it's also the safest. As states before there's no chance of death upon first (or any) use, unlike heroine or cocaine; and it also can't lead to things such as liver, brain, or severe lung damage.
"Who cares if it's accessible? That doesn't mean that my kid still won't want to try harder drugs," To be honest; yes, you're right. I don't know your child and they may in fact wish to try harder drugs down the line. However, that's where the theory's next flaw comes into play.

The middle man. The only exposure that kids could get to other drugs would be from the already known dealer who's selling the marijuana. If Big Brother were to be distributing the marijuana however, the middle man aka "dealer", gets cut out and there's no more outside peer pressure from the same dealer saying; "If you ever want anything harder, come find me," and thus sparking the youth's interest. Instead, the actual acquisition of marijuana would be a cut and dry version of "I wish to buy some marijuana," and be done with it.

Following the same train of thought with using Big Brother as the distributor, there are actually two positives. The first being the regulation of the chemicals going into the substance; and the second being an increase in tax revenue. 

In 2003, marijuana that had shipped up from Mexico had been contaminated with a chemical known as paraquat, which to humans, is poisonous if inhaled and to anyone who knows _anything _about marijuana knows the most common way of use is by smoking, with the second most common being by ingestion in food such as brownies, cookies, or cakes.

How could this have been avoided? Well, the first thought that comes to anyone's mind would be : don't use marijuana. But let's avoid the obvious. The next logical thought would be the overseeing of the production in places such as factories while its being processed and made; and in warehouses during shipping where it's exposed to different atmospheres and environments. 

Now for the second part being an increase in tax revenue. In June of 2005, Dr. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economics professor, and a whopping _five hundred and thirty _other colleagues agreed that it would be more economically viable to legalize marijuana and regulate it via tax like alcohol and tobacco. Dr. Miron's paper "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition" (catchy isn't it?) stated that in total the government would save a $7.7 _BILLION_ dollars by stopping the "war on drugs". Broken down into simpler terms, the government spends :


$5,300,000,000 - State/Local enforcement
$2,400,000,000 - Federal enforcement
That's $7.7 _BILLION_ dollars spent enforcing people from using a _PLANT_. Dr. Miron went on to say in his paper that, "Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year, if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods, to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco," A $6.2 billion increase in tax revenue! That's nearly the entire cost of fighting the current war.

The same results were found by a study done by Frasier Institute professor Stephen T. Easton; however, his study was done using the Canadian government versus the American. Easton's study showed that .5 grams sold for $8.60 on the market, while it's production was only $1.70 - a profit margin of $6.90 dollars.

"If we substitute a tax on marijuana cigarettes equal to the difference between local production and the street price people currently pay that is, transfer the revenue from the current producers and marketers to the government, leaving all other marketing and transportation issues aside we would have a revenue of say $7. If you could collect on every cigarette and ignore the transportation, marketing, and advertising costs, this comes to over $2 billion on Canadian sales and substatially more from an export tax, and you forego the costs of enforcement and deploy your policing assets elsewhere."

It's astounding the amount of money the government is willing to spend in order to keep the drug illegal versus legalizing the drug with a tax and collecting nearly the same amount they use to fight it.

This next part may sound skeptical, and no one can be blamed for having their own thoughts (except maybe Glenn Beck, Van Hatcher, etc ) but what if someone were to tell you that even some _religious groups used marijuana?_ In 1991, one of the first cases of Rastafarians using marijuana in their religion was brought before a federal court. Benny Guerrero has been coming back from a trip to Hawaii, when officials noticed a book about marijuana and Rastafarianism in his hand. 

Upon inspection of Guerrero's bag, officials turned up five ounces of marijuana and cannabis seeds; however, when brought before a judge after being arrest on counts of imprting illegal substances, Benny argued for his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; which blocks the government from interfering with a persons' religion, such as Benny's. In 2002, after the case had sat for more than 10 years, the courts ruled that while the practice of using marijuana was covered under the RFRA - the importing of the substance was not.

Why exactly do Rastafarians use marijuana in their religion though? The best way to put it would be that it brings them a deeper sense of meditiation and allows for closer contact between their spirit and God. Not only is it used for that purpose, but it is also offered up as a holy sacrament much like that of the wine in Catholicism; as it is mentioned in several different psalms of their Bible including Genesis 1:11-12 which says, "Eat every herb of the land" which marijuana would fall under.

Rastafarians were not the first to use marijuana as a religious means though. Early Pagans used Cannabis as it was associated with the god of love, Freya (Go Pagans! ) Hindus used Cannabis as early as 1500 B.C., and even in the sacred Hebrew text, cannabis is mentioned being used in 'holy annoiting oil'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a cliched ending which I don't feel like typing after doing all that so I'm not gonna but you can guess how it goes.

Hope you enjoyed that little read


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 31, 2009)

thanks for the bullshit neg rep jared, douche


----------



## MFB (Mar 31, 2009)

> When they scanned the lungs for evidence of emphysema they found that only 1&#37; of the cannabis only users had emphysema, as did 19% of the cigarette smokers, 16% of those using both cigarettes and cannabis and 0% of the never smokers. This appears to show that although cannabis smoking worsens lung function, structural damage is common only with cigarette smoking



Ahem...what? 1% of the marijuana users had emphysema compared to the 19% of cigarette and you're gonna says cannabis worsens function? 



> Dependence (and an associated withdrawal syndrome)



Yeah, if you're fucking weak-minded. The first time I smoked was in March of 08, the next time was until August of 08. Now, clearly after the first time I smoked, which was pretty heft amount I should've been wanting more. Yet I was able to stay clean for 5 months between?


----------



## nordhauser06 (Mar 31, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> .....that already happens dude, drug dealers aren't as stupid as you think they are.



They aren't. You're right. And I never said anything to that nature. My point is that big business is far worse than your average dealer. To reiterate what I already stated, strains of marijuana will just get worse and watered down as corporate America takes over the industry to turn a profit.

Everyone is capable of getting their weed when they need it as is so I don't see a purpose in legalizing it. 

I smoke on a regular basis. After much contemplation, I'm going to have to say "no" to the legalization; the cons outweigh the pros.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 31, 2009)

nordhauser06 said:


> They aren't. You're right. And I never said anything to that nature. My point is that big business is far worse than your average dealer. To reiterate what I already stated, strains of marijuana will just get worse and watered down as corporate America takes over the industry to turn a profit.
> 
> Everyone is capable of getting their weed when they need it as is so I don't see a purpose in legalizing it.
> 
> I smoke on a regular basis. After much contemplation, I'm going to have to say "no" to the legalization; the cons outweigh the pros.



strains of marijuana would get worse yes, I thought you were unaware of this already happening though.


----------



## jaredowty (Mar 31, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> thanks for the bullshit neg rep jared, douche



I'd say cancer is a much bigger risk factor than any negative effect pot has to offer, and a lot of people would agree with me - hence the negative rep. 

Weed contains more carcinogens than tobacco, and can put up to five times more tar in your lungs when compared to similar tobacco consumption - these are really the only factual attributes of marijuana that make it seem worse than tobacco. But I'd say the risk of lung, throat, or mouth cancer scares me a lot more than some slight brain damage (which still hasn't been proven mind you) or paranoia (which of course differs from person to person, I know veteran smokers who are calm and anything but paranoid). Weed is far from harmless, but it isn't known for killing millions of people like tobacco is. Not to mention the incredible amount of medical advantages of bud (I've heard doctors refer to it as one of the most versatile drugs in the world).

I never see why people get so bent out of shape over "e-rep", anyway.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 31, 2009)

ok so maybe I was misinformed, but that's not enough reason to neg rep someone, I'd call that bullshit neg rep and a lot of people would agree with me.

personally I get bent out of shape coz I like having a nice long line of pretty green squares 

but seriously though, rep = reputation, and everyone likes having a good reputation and not a bad one, even you, no?


----------



## jaredowty (Mar 31, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ok so maybe I was misinformed, but that's not enough reason to neg rep someone, I'd call that bullshit neg rep and a lot of people would agree with me.



Well, you neg repped me back so I guess that makes us even.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 31, 2009)

yeah of course I did! 

whatever I'm over it now anyways.


----------



## nordhauser06 (Mar 31, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> strains of marijuana would get worse yes, I thought you were unaware of this already happening though.



Haha well of course it's already happened -- on a much, much smaller scale. Just imagine the shit we would be smoking if corporate America or even the government got involved. Emphasize _shit_.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 31, 2009)

I guess I'm going by UK standards, over here it's already weak as fuck, and if it got legalised... it would basically do nothing if you smoked it


----------



## jaredowty (Mar 31, 2009)

nordhauser06 said:


> Just imagine the shit we would be smoking if corporate America or even the government got involved. Emphasize _shit_.



Oh god, I don't want to imagine. This makes me wonder, if weed is legalized, will it also be legal to grow it? Probably not, but people could still get away with it considering how easy it is to do. I think that's another reason why our government is reluctant to legalize it: we'll just grow some chronic shit on our own and ditch the heavily taxed, schwagy government brands. It's all about money.


----------



## poopyalligator (Mar 31, 2009)

ugmung said:


> but tobacco and alcohol isn't as easily attainable? i walk 20 feet from where my dad puts his ciggerettes to where he puts all of his liqour, and it's been like that for a really long time. now it's only good judgement and, for me, discipline, that kept me from using any of it, which is why my dad is comfortable with leaving it out in the open where anyone can access it.
> 
> it would be like if your dad sat you down where you were little and laid out a pack of ciggerettes, a bottle of Jack and a joint, and said "if you touch any of these, i'll beat your ass" your instinct would tell you to stay away from said items. and if you were a spoiled little brat that never got hit, then it might be a different story that i'm unaware of, which in reality is 99% of today's youth population.



Like i said, some people like yourself have trained yourself not to take your dads cigarettes and alcohol. There are lots of kids who dont train themselves like you do, and therefore do them. If they are illegal and most people wont have them laying around their house the kids wont do them, because they arent there. Pretty simple concept really. Of course they could have the opportunity of getting it from somewhere else, but for the most part I dont think there are too many 10-13 year olds trying to score some weed. So therefore it kind of takes that option away from them.



jaredowty said:


> There would obviously be an age limit attached to legalization. And if kids can already easily access other more dangerous legal items like tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs, then why not marijuana? Marijuana should be given at least equal treatment to the aforementioned drugs, if not more. Also there's no research supporting your claim on kids becoming brain damaged from marijuana, or people from any age group for any matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First of all, your negative rep was uncalled for. Second of all there have been many studies that have PROVEN that marijuana does in fact cause slight brain damage in adults and heavier brain damage in kids. Whoever gave you that information that no studies have been proven is completely asinine and flat out wrong. THC prohibits the vital steady flow of certain neurotransmitters in your brain, resulting in not getting enough to your brain to perform at its peak condition, In younger adults that is when the chemicals move around more so you can learn more and develop more. If you use marijuana for a sustained period of time, and therefore you wont be able to learn as greatly as one who doesent abuse the drug. At a certain time your brain ultimately does not try as hard as it did in your pre pubescent years and you will never have that peak of learning again. So it does in fact have a negative effect on your brain. That is scientifically proven. As far as lots of people acting differently when they are on whatever they are using, that is true, although anybody who is not using and is aware of their surroundings knows people act differently when on such things, and generally people dont act themselves when doing things of that sort. So I like some people would rather be around people acting themselves, and not are not influenced by other things.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Mar 31, 2009)

Well usiong any drug for an extended period of time and/or in large ammounts is gonna do bad stuff to you. But that's a given with anything, really.


----------



## leonardo7 (Mar 31, 2009)

Well I live in Northern California north of San Francisco and while there are people who deserve to be locked up, Fuck each and every lobbyist, politician, police officer and judge who are responsible for anyone being in jail or even for having to deal with any legal matter for simple first time non violent possession. Fuck them all in the ass with a neverending cock. They my friends, deserve to rot on death row for life without the possibility of parole. I dont give a shit if its their job or if its the law, fuck them all for being a part of it if they are that is. It became illegal through corrupted lobbyists and politicians to begin with and the police and judges are the ones executing it. It was never meant to be illegal and this is why I say fuck them all forever. I know very successful lawyers, doctors and architects who burn and wouldnt have it any other way and I also know very unsuccessful people who dont burn. An idiot is going to be an idiot if they smoke it or not and an intelligent person will still be the same whether they burn or not. There is nothing wrong with it and it isnt bad at all. Its actually a good thing but should be left to the individual to decide what works for them. Education and moderation are important to at least understand.


----------



## lefty robb (Mar 31, 2009)

ShadyDavey said:


> If the government could control it and therefore tax it, they'll legalize it. If they can't, they won't - same as for anywhere else
> 
> _Should_ they legalize it irrespective of the above cynicism? I've never really seen the point in criminalizing a product that's also used as for medicinal purposes but as an ex-smoker there may be some residual bias.



Except its just as easy to make alcohol as it would be to grow weed. People will but it in a store with a tax no matter if they can just grow it and not pay a tax on it because, just like alcohol, people don't want to wait.

Once it becomes legal it will be come extremely cheap, even the really, really good stuff.


----------



## Wi77iam (Mar 31, 2009)

... the WORLD should legalize marijuana.


----------



## Harry (Mar 31, 2009)

Full legalization IMO.
For someone like me who only uses it several times a year, it's hardly going to do any real harm.
It's just like cigarettes or alcohol, you take it in moderation, you'll be fine in most cases. Take too much, you'll cause real, serious harm.
Smoke 100 joints a day, you'll fuck yourself up.
Smoke 100 cigarettes a day you're setting yourself up for emphysema.
Drink 16 normal strength beers a day and you're liver will be fucked eventually.
I use all 3 (I used to be addicted to nicotine but kicked the habit earlier this year and only smoke it at parties), and I have to say, the one that had the worst affects on me was alcohol by a country mile.


----------



## Mattayus (Mar 31, 2009)

On the subject of comparing it to tobacco/alcohol, there's just no question, and I fail to see why people can't grasp it.

Put quite simply, weed = Fucking great stuff. Prolonged and *ABUSIVE* use *can* lead to psychological damage, but you literally have to smoke it day in, day out. That's abuse, and any substance can reach damaging levels when abused. It's meant to be used, just like alcohol and tobacco, leisurely.

Now, let's look at booze: Prolonged and abusive use? = Death. This isn't something that needs study, and this isn't something that is just my personal conjecture. Therefore, there is a legal substance on shelves the world over that is a KNOWN killer, yet people would still prefer to argue that weed MIGHT give you psychological damage after many years of prolonged, heavy use.

Excuse the pun, but it's a no brainer. There is no argument. It's erroneous to even make an argument out of it. It's nonsense. etc etc.



Scar Symmetry said:


> I guess I'm going by UK standards, over here it's already weak as fuck, and if it got legalised... it would basically do nothing if you smoked it



 Don't you listen to F.R.A.N.K? 

Seriously though, there is some truth in those bullshit tv ads... The strains are getting stronger.

The weed we have now isn't the same as the skunk that was around in the 70's/80's/90's. It's incredibly strong, even if it does get "watered down" by dealers.

The active ingredient is still way more abundant than it ever was. I personally don't like getting weed that fucks you up straight away. I like a long, slow, drawn out and prolonged smoking session. You can't really do that when it's laced with all sorts of crap that makes you see into the future within 5 minutes


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 31, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> strains of marijuana would get worse yes, I thought you were unaware of this already happening though.



First off, i dont fully agree with the first comment. If Marijuana gets legalized it will end up being very similar to guitar manufacters, and even car manufacturers, both big corporations and the small time builders. There will be extreme competition between companies just like guitar companies and car manufacturers.

Of course theres gonna be some companies that just wanna mass produce bud, strictly concentrating on quantity rather than THC levels. But just like ANY other market out there, theres gonna be alot of companies that concentrate on making a quality product (in this case, bud with a very high THC content, upwards of 20&#37.

But to be honest, if anything, legalizing Marijuana will help make Marijuana as a whole ALOT more potent. Think about it, your gonna have tons and tons more people being allowed to legally grow it. So theres gonna be all these people learning what works and what doesnt, and that equals more and more potent bud. Not to mention all these growers up in the "Emerald Triangle" of Northern California will finally be able to take these amazing techniques they've learned over the years, and their incredibly potent bud and be able to legally make and sell it.

If you ask me, large corporations wouldnt stand a chance, regarding quality and potency of the Marijuana, compared to all these small op growers that are literally everywhere across the USA. These guys have been doing this for decades, and know EXACTLY how to make in the 15% - 20%+ THC content levels in their plants, which is about as high a percentage as your gonna get. These big corporations trying to cash in would be left in the dust until they, only after some trial and error and a few years, learned all the tricks, tips, and techniques of how to grow the most potent bud.

So, the big corporation guys might make mass amounts of bud that the small op growers could never afford to keep up with, but i know i'd rather be buying my shit for $50 an 1/8th from the 68 year old guy down the street thats been doing it since the 60's and has the stuff that'll make me stare at the fridge for hours , NOT the big corporation where i can get an ounce of dirt bud for $10 and feel absolutely nothing.

Secondly, about the second comment...are you insinuating that strains of Marijuana are getting worse? Cause if thats what you meant, you couldnt be ANY farther from the truth. Marijuana is getting more potent by the year. Back in the 60's and 70's, there was NO SUCH THING as Marijuana with a THC content of 15%-20%. This high a level of THC only came after years and years of trial and error, cross straining/breeding, and just better techniques overall. Of course i'm talking about quality bud here, not mexican/columbian mass produced trash. Your grandparents and parents weed isnt ANYTHING like the bud nowadays. If thats NOT what you meant by that comment, then forgive me and please disregard my previous babble.

I've attended two Cannabis Cups in my day, and thats literally where the best growers in the world come to earn bragging rights and show off their growing skills. Some of the stuff i smoked there was in the 20%-25% THC content. When you get that high in THC content, the actual high is nothing like normal bud by a longshot. And this is where total legalization kinda scares me. Because the average joe thats never smoked before, smoking some of that stuff, would hit him like a brick....a 400 pound brick. This is especially scary when your talking about young ignorant teens that cant realize all they need to do is relax and realize that its just the bud talking and it'll pass soon. I can see alot of very bad things happening to unexperienced young people that are under the influence of extremely potent Marijuana.


----------



## TimothyLeary (Mar 31, 2009)

WhiteShadow said:


> And this is where total legalization kinda scares me. Because the average joe thats never smoked before, smoking some of that stuff, would hit him like a brick....a 400 pound brick. This is especially scary when your talking about young ignorant teens that cant realize all they need to do is relax and realize that its just the bud talking and it'll pass soon. I can see alot of very bad things happening to unexperienced young people that are under the influence of extremely potent Marijuana.



Well, there's that problem with alcohol too. If a guy never drink and then he drink his first beer, well he might get a little dizzy, maybe a little disconfort. If he drinks absinth or whisky, well, it's like punch him on the face. 

So I think the sellers have to be responsible for what they sell. They have to be able to only sell stuff with a certain level of THC. It must be controlled to avoid some kind of shit drug dealers sell in this days.

And only "registered" people can sell, they need a licence to sell, if a simple smoker plant in home, and sell in the street, he should be punished.

It's the way I see it.


----------



## WhiteShadow (Mar 31, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I guess I'm going by UK standards, over here it's already weak as fuck



Thats whats called an ignorant blanket statement. You really meant to say, the stuff YOU get is weak as fuck. I've been to London once about 3 years ago. I smoked some stuff that was just as potent as some of the stuff i smoked at the Cannabis Cups. Its clear you need to find better connections.



TimothyLeary said:


> Well, there's that problem with alcohol too. If a guy never drink and then he drink his first beer, well he might get a little dizzy, maybe a little disconfort. If he drinks absinth or whisky, well, it's like punch him on the face.
> 
> So I think the sellers have to be responsible for what they sell. They have to be able to only sell stuff with a certain level of THC. It must be controlled to avoid some kind of shit drug dealers sell in this days.
> 
> ...



Well said. I totally agree with everything you just said.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 31, 2009)

i am an everyday pot smoker. i say legalize it but it will never happen. would you really buy pot from the government and pay taxes when you can grow it yourself for free? also if it was legal the government wouldnt make as much money. put it like this. government sells you a 7 gram bag (a quarter ounce). normal street price is about 50.00, say they tax it up to 70.00. they made 70 bucks since it is all profit (if government grown and sold). now say you get busted with a 7 gram bag. you loose your license off the bat. there is re-instatement fees of atleast 150.00,fines of atleast 200.00, court costs of around 100.00. dont forget the grants and funding for drug task forces to fight the "drug".probation and probation costs, blah,blah, blah. it just is not cost effective to legalize it.


----------



## TimothyLeary (Mar 31, 2009)

jymellis said:


> i am an everyday pot smoker. i say legalize it but it will never happen. would you really buy pot from the government and pay taxes when you can grow it yourself for free? also if it was legal the government wouldnt make as much money. put it like this. government sells you a 7 gram bag (a quarter ounce). normal street price is about 50.00, say they tax it up to 70.00. they made 70 bucks since it is all profit (if government grown and sold). now say you get busted with a 7 gram bag. you loose your license off the bat. there is re-instatement fees of atleast 150.00,fines of atleast 200.00, court costs of around 100.00. dont forget the grants and funding for drug task forces to fight the "drug".probation and probation costs, blah,blah, blah. it just is not cost effective to legalize it.



Again, using the alcohol example. You buy wine from a friend who has his own farm and his wine. How much the government gain? It is legal? yes, it is. But to make things controlled, let say that your friend can't sell 'juana until he has a decent shop with decent conditions. He own a farm where he planted the pot, there is no government yet. But when he want to sell then the government apply a tax(like cigarets), so the seller has profit because it's his product, the government has profit from the tax. 

Well, you maybe right, it maybe not is cost effective, but it's important for democracy and civil rights. Why should an adult be called "drug addicted" if he only smoke a joint a day and he's not a "alcohol addicted" if he drinks 2 beers a day. 

People have created a "hype" around marijuana, and that makes worse than the drug itself.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 31, 2009)

actually in my drug and alcohol treatment program for a d.u.i. i got a few years ago they told me this. have you drank alcohol more than 1 time? i said yes. they said , then you are an alcoholic because 1 was not enough


----------



## TimothyLeary (Mar 31, 2009)

lol.. and maybe you are sex addicted too.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 31, 2009)

damigu said:


> i say "no" because cartoon network's adult swim used to have good and really funny stuff before it began putting on shows that only cater to people who are high.
> 
> i could care less about any other aspect. i just want adult swim shows that actually make sense to people who aren't stoned!


 
Dude, Metalocalypse is the greatest show to ever grace television. Bad call.

*goes back to reading the rest of the thread*



Scar Symmetry said:


> I guess I'm going by UK standards, over here it's already weak as fuck, and if it got legalised... it would basically do nothing if you smoked it


 
Tommy Chong talks about how today's weed puts the weed he and Cheech used to smoke back in the day to absolute SHAME. He said it's not even close, like comparing apples and oranges. Today's stuff (if you're getting the good shit) is 10-15 times as potent as what people used to smoke a generation ago..


----------



## damigu (Mar 31, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Dude, Metalocalypse is the greatest show to ever grace television. Bad call.



metalocalypse isn't a stoner show. you don't have to be wasted to enjoy it.

i was talking about shit like "tim and eric awesome show great job" and "superjail" and that new "mighty boosh" and some other stuff. those shows weren't made to be watched sober. if you're sober, they're actually fairly annoying to watch.

~~~~~

i also have to point out a logical fallacy that many of you are engaging in: "weed is less damaging than alcohol or tobacco" is *NOT* a positive point! you're admitting that it is still damaging!

alcohol and tobacco are legal because of western society's historical and cultural precedents with the substances. the tradition of both is enough to generally overlook the negative consequences of both. it would cause chaos to outright ban either due to their social significance (18th amendment, anyone? lots of negative consequences from that).

weed was never accepted by western society on the scale that alcohol and tobacco have been for centuries, so there is no desire on the part of society to overlook its negative effects for the sake of legalization.

when you say "marijuana is not as bad as alcohol or tobacco," you obviously don't realize that you're just saying "MJ is bad" in a euphemistic way.

let me put it another way that makes your logical error more apparent: getting stabbed in the foot isn't as bad as getting stabbed in the neck or heart. but it's still bad.


----------



## ibznorange (Mar 31, 2009)

damigu said:


> metalocalypse isn't a stoner show. you don't have to be wasted to enjoy it.
> 
> i was talking about shit like "tim and eric awesome show great job" and "superjail" and that new "mighty boosh" and some other stuff. those shows weren't made to be watched sober. if you're sober, they're actually fairly annoying to watch.
> 
> ...



and, to some extent, it IS still damaging 

im a supporter of legalization, and a once in a blue moon user of many things, but i admit it has its faults. i just think that those faults are IMO not as big as the benefits, and also that the government has no role making that decision for you


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 31, 2009)

i dont think it should have ever been outlawed...



lefty robb said:


> Except its just as easy to make alcohol as it would be to grow weed. People will but it in a store with a tax no matter if they can just grow it and not pay a tax on it because, just like alcohol, people don't want to wait.
> 
> Once it becomes legal it will be come extremely cheap, even the really, really good stuff.



immediate gratification... 

lower prices...

sounds good to me


----------



## Justin Bailey (Mar 31, 2009)

damigu said:


> metalocalypse isn't a stoner show. you don't have to be wasted to enjoy it.
> 
> i was talking about shit like "tim and eric awesome show great job" and "superjail" and that new "mighty boosh" and some other stuff. those shows weren't made to be watched sober. if you're sober, they're actually fairly annoying to watch.
> 
> ...



tim and eric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metalocalypse


Full decriminalization. I'm not a smoker btw.


----------



## damigu (Mar 31, 2009)

there's one other point that came to mind while i was at work today:

i gather that a some of the people saying "legalize it" aren't even old enough to partake in it if it WERE legalized, so it would STILL be illegal for you to obtain/use it!
(because you know legalization would have a "must be 18" or "must be 21" stipulation associated with it)

i find that kind of funny, actually. 


personally, i don't honestly care one way or the other if it is legalized as it doesn't legitimately affect me or anything i do. i tried the stuff (along with other things) years ago in high school and decided that i prefer to not take things that turn me dumb, nor do i hang out with anyone who thinks getting dumb is fun. so it has no role in my life.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 6, 2009)

damigu said:


> there's one other point that came to mind while i was at work today:
> 
> i gather that a some of the people saying "legalize it" aren't even old enough to partake in it if it WERE legalized, so it would STILL be illegal for you to obtain/use it!
> (because you know legalization would have a "must be 18" or "must be 21" stipulation associated with it)
> ...



I see your point, but I know at least when I was thinking about it (I obviously can't attest for everyone else) I was pretty damn sure if it was legal right no I couldn't buy it, but even if you fall under the age limit (probably 18-21 like cigs-alcohol, which I think is a good thing) you're still allowed to have an opinion on the subject, right?


----------



## HamBungler (Apr 7, 2009)

damigu said:


> there's one other point that came to mind while i was at work today:
> 
> i gather that a some of the people saying "legalize it" aren't even old enough to partake in it if it WERE legalized, so it would STILL be illegal for you to obtain/use it!
> (because you know legalization would have a "must be 18" or "must be 21" stipulation associated with it)
> ...



I'll ask you this, have you done any research at all on your own with sources like Erowid or studies NORML have collected? There's plenty of stuff out there citing the good stuff (and the minimal bad, of course) on ganj and you'd probably be surprised. Really, the main problems are 1. Lung damage (which can be easily reduced/eliminated altogether) and 2. supposed Psychological problems, which I've only heard stories of, never witnessed it myself and even then this is a very small percentage, which you would encounter with anything from alcohol and nicotine to even OTC drugs in some people for any number of causes. Take that into account and there's little reason to say much against it. Its like saying food will make you fat no matter what, when its eating irresponsibly that causes obesity.


----------



## damigu (Apr 7, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> I'll ask you this, have you done any research at all on your own with sources like Erowid or studies NORML have collected? There's plenty of stuff out there citing the good stuff (and the minimal bad, of course) on ganj and you'd probably be surprised. Really, the main problems are 1. Lung damage (which can be easily reduced/eliminated altogether) and 2. supposed Psychological problems, which I've only heard stories of, never witnessed it myself and even then this is a very small percentage, which you would encounter with anything from alcohol and nicotine to even OTC drugs in some people for any number of causes. Take that into account and there's little reason to say much against it. Its like saying food will make you fat no matter what, when its eating irresponsibly that causes obesity.



again, your arguments are rife with logic problems:
1/ i would hardly compare MJ to OTC medicines, since they aren't used remotely for similar purposes. and don't give me the "it can be used to alleviate pain" and "it helps glaucoma" argument--you really expect me to swallow that the majority of users are using it as a substitute or aspirin or eye drops? we both know those points only represent an *extreme* minority of users.
2/ there's a big difference between food and MJ. namely that you can't live without food. so that analogy just doesn't stand.


and yes, i have done a lot of research on the topic and tried to look at it objectively.
you seem to be making some kind of assumption about my views--you must have missed where i said: "personally, i don't honestly care one way or the other."


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 7, 2009)

Completely legal, it should be left to the discretion of the individual and take all the money from the "war on drugs" and spend a fraction of it on treatment for those who have problems with it rather than trying to enforce arbitrarily strict laws for a substance that is possibly less dangerous than alcohol (when was the last time someone died from "pot poisoning"). Let alone the tax revenue the sale of it could generate. Space in jail for small time users/pot pushers being freed would open up (which is less tax payer dollars spent on this BS "war on drugs"). So for me, it's a personal freedom and frugality thing. It's cheaper to make it legal and treat it than it is to fight it.



Justin Bailey said:


> tim and eric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metalocalypse
> 
> 
> Full decriminalization. I'm not a smoker btw.



Tim and Eric is a miserable show, so is Tom Goes to the Mayor. 

Metalocalypse > anything those two nerds made. 

And yes, full decriminalization.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 7, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> Metalocalypse > All other televised programming


 
fixed.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 7, 2009)

Speak of the devil. This issue address in the Guardian today. 

Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study | Society | The Guardian

"Legalisation [sic] is the least bad solution"


----------



## HamBungler (Apr 7, 2009)

damigu said:


> again, your arguments are rife with logic problems:
> 1/ i would hardly compare MJ to OTC medicines, since they aren't used remotely for similar purposes. and don't give me the "it can be used to alleviate pain" and "it helps glaucoma" argument--you really expect me to swallow that the majority of users are using it as a substitute or aspirin or eye drops? we both know those points only represent an *extreme* minority of users.
> 2/ there's a big difference between food and MJ. namely that you can't live without food. so that analogy just doesn't stand.
> 
> ...



1.Its good to compare them, as OTC drugs have all sorts of chemicals in them and most of all can kill you in high doses where MJ has hardly any, and if you either a.vaporize it or b.ingest it, you bypass most/all of the bad parts of using it. Even when I smoke it (which is what I do most of the time) I don't end up feeling like my throat is clogged up with all this tar like when I smoked cigarettes (which was on only a few occasions). Oh, and guess what, it CAN relieve pain and help with symptoms, and it does it damn well. In fact, I'd rather smoke MJ than take something like Oxycotin/Oxycodone (used both MJ and Oxycodone when I got my wisdom teeth removed, MJ worked longer and alleviated the pain better), as they are highly addictive opiates, while if you smoke marijuana lightly for a little while you don't suffer that sort of addiction potential. Replacing harmful painkillers with MJ would be awesome in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the majority uses it for that reason or not, its still used that way and helps people in the least harmful way possible.

2.Okay, then we could say its basically like saying anyone who drinks alcohol will be a raging alcoholic or if you smoke one cigarette you're automatically an addict, saying if you smoke marijuana you WILL have psychological problems is kind of stupid. It happens for a very small portion of users, yes, and usually with heavy use in combination with latent psychological problems, which would have occurred at one point or another anyway. So basically, if you want to bypass that, don't smoke if you know your family has a history of psychological problems, unless you're ready to take responsibility for it. 

And I know you said that you don't care either way, whatever, good for you. Still, you made it apparent that you had something to prove by questioning why a good portion of us were supporting it, which is unnecessary if you want to stay neutral in this whole thing. If that's the case, just don't post saying that we don't know what we're talking about or that our arguments don't make sense, its certainly not contributing to either side of it.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 7, 2009)

> Taxing drugs would also provide big revenue gains, says the survey. An Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimate, quoted in the report, suggests up to £1.3bn could be generated by a £1 per gram tax on cannabis resin and £2 per gram on skunk.


 Jesus... That's a lot of money.


----------



## Zepp88 (Apr 7, 2009)

I"m for full legalization, of marijuana and all drugs.The war on drugs is very costly to this country both with the money it takes to fuel it and the crime problems it creates (I.E. gangs being funded by the illegal drug trade).

I also don't believe in controlling people, especially when it comes to their own bodies.


----------



## damigu (Apr 7, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> 1.Its good to compare them, as OTC drugs have all sorts of chemicals in them and most of all can kill you in high doses where MJ has hardly any, and if you either a.vaporize it or b.ingest it, you bypass most/all of the bad parts of using it. Even when I smoke it (which is what I do most of the time) I don't end up feeling like my throat is clogged up with all this tar like when I smoked cigarettes (which was on only a few occasions). Oh, and guess what, it CAN relieve pain and help with symptoms, and it does it damn well. In fact, I'd rather smoke MJ than take something like Oxycotin/Oxycodone (used both MJ and Oxycodone when I got my wisdom teeth removed, MJ worked longer and alleviated the pain better), as they are highly addictive opiates, while if you smoke marijuana lightly for a little while you don't suffer that sort of addiction potential. Replacing harmful painkillers with MJ would be awesome in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the majority uses it for that reason or not, its still used that way and helps people in the least harmful way possible.



OK, let me make my point more obvious to you then:

the point of marijuana in western society is for use in pleasure. *NOT* for use in medicine. while it does have medicinal qualities, it is exploited for those qualities only a minority of the time.
the point of OTC medicine are *NOT* for pleasure. while a few people do pervert their use to that end (like crystal meth, for example), the vast majority of OTC users buy/use for medicinal purposes only.
that is why the OTC/MJ comparison doesn't stand as an argument.

when you say "legalize marijuana" you shouldn't be arguing its for the things only a minority of people would benefit from (*EVERYONE* sees through those arguments), but should actually be addressing issues related to its social use.



HamBungler said:


> 2.Okay, then we could say its basically like saying anyone who drinks alcohol will be a raging alcoholic or if you smoke one cigarette you're automatically an addict, saying if you smoke marijuana you WILL have psychological problems is kind of stupid. It happens for a very small portion of users, yes, and usually with heavy use in combination with latent psychological problems, which would have occurred at one point or another anyway. So basically, if you want to bypass that, don't smoke if you know your family has a history of psychological problems, unless you're ready to take responsibility for it.



as i said before, comparing it to alcohol is a negative point, not a positive one.
everyone knows that alcohol is bad in anything but the most moderate quantities. the only reason it is legal is because there is a historical precedent of *LARGE SCALE* cultural use dating back as far as history records.
there is no such precedent for marijuana. that is why most of society is unwilling to overlook its negative points for its positive points. that is why there was no decade long uproar and defiance that stemmed from it becoming illegal, like there was with alcohol and the 18th amendment.



HamBungler said:


> And I know you said that you don't care either way, whatever, good for you. Still, you made it apparent that you had something to prove by questioning why a good portion of us were supporting it, which is unnecessary if you want to stay neutral in this whole thing. If that's the case, just don't post saying that we don't know what we're talking about or that our arguments don't make sense, its certainly not contributing to either side of it.



i made no such thing apparent. you made an assumption about my statements, became defensive, and are now continuing to operate on those assumption despite my attempt at correcting it.

i didn't merely post "you don't know what you're talking about" or "your arguments don't make sense."
i gave VERY specific examples of what is wrong with the logic of them and why/how they can be easily defeated.

you, however, got defensive and missed my point entirely. when someone elucidates exactly what it wrong with an argument, instead of digging in, what you SHOULD do is use your critical thinking and come up with better arguments. "alcohol and cigarettes are worse" is an impotent argument. not only is it a weak argument, but it's a ridiculously overused one that shows lack of original thought on the part of the people repeating it over and over like some mystical mantra that will get their drug legalized.



HamBungler said:


> questioning why a good portion of us were supporting it, which is unnecessary if you want to stay neutral in this whole thing. If that's the case, just don't post



your point is taken. since you obviously don't care about why no one outside of the weed world takes those tired and overused arguments seriously, and you are clearly uninterested in anyone inciting deeper thought on your part in the matter to come up with more and better points to defend your stance, i won't bother in the future.

to that end: have fun trying to legalize with arguments that only pot smokers take seriously at this point.


FYI: there is something called the socratic method, and a similar thing called playing devil's advocate, whose sole purpose is to stir deeper thought regardless of a person's stance (whether it be pro, con, or neutral). just keep that in mind the next time someone poses a question/comment, instead of getting immediately defensive and digging in.


----------



## HamBungler (Apr 7, 2009)

damigu said:


> Stuff



What you fail to realize is that a lot of the points you try to make are based on assumptions. Marijuana has been used just as long, if not longer than, alcohol and tobacco in countries like Mexico and South America, thousands of years at that. The main reason MJ was made illegal was not because it was harmful, it was because of racism (southern police knew of its use with black and mexican immigrant workers and was used to help ease the load of hard work, therefore they made sure it was banned to make sure that they suffered). Also saying that using Marijuana for medical uses "is a bad argument because its only a minority" is also highly illogical, as you want to emphasize good points. This isn't the only good point, its just the most accepted. There is also the cut of a small portion of cancerous cells in the body that THC attaches to and carries with it when leaving the body. Also, the potential stress relief benefits are there.

And you've made and reiterated the point on comparisons to alcohol and the like countless times and they serve no bounds either. Again, MJ HAS been around just as long, just not as much in westernized society. Had it not been hindered by Police in the 1920s, it probably would have gained a large, positive following as there are little bad points (which I have outlined in previous posts) to even argue when given hard evidence which has been collected by groups such as NORML. You also seemed to miss my point with the OTC argument, as I wasn't trying to say what each is/should be used for, but the use of marijuana to replace potentially dangerous OTC/Perscription drugs because it is less harmful to the body.

You're right though, I did miss your point, as I can't really seem to find it. All I see is you saying that my argument is not good based on assumptions you or others who have done little proper research without giving proper statistics as to why you have come to this conclusion, and that we can't use certain arguments as they only pertain to a minority, a minority that could potentially expand once said substances are legalized and can be used much more widely for uses other than the supposed majority. Being part of this "majority", I know I don't use it for just pleasure. I use it for stress relief after working all week, and to get better rest at night, as most of the people I have smoked with have as well. Not only that, but the hemp plant in general is an awesome source for exportable goods. Hemp seeds could be potentially used as a better soybean replacement, and hemp fiber and paper are easy and cheap to produce. 

Like I said before, if you're trying to help us "stimulate argument" (if that's truly your goal, I can't be too certain)then at least bring up arguments that contribute to either or both sides of the spectrum. All you're doing is denying our arguments without even showing your ability to bring anything to the table. I'd like to see you at least try to show something, if anything as you seem to think you know what you're doing, and if that's true then you'd have something positive to contribute.


----------



## damigu (Apr 7, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> What you fail to realize is that a lot of the points you try to make are based on assumptions. Marijuana has been used just as long, if not longer than, alcohol and tobacco in countries like Mexico and South America, thousands of years at that.



pre-columbian central and south american cultures aren't part of western civilization. their traditions don't matter to american law, nor the laws of european countries.
(for that matter, their traditions barely even matter to central and south american countries)

i'm familiar with everything else you stated. i know at least as much as you do on the matter.
but you're obviously not open to it, so i'm done with you on this subject.

again, i wish you good luck in trying to convincing anyone with your tired arguments that haven't been taken seriously for decades.

good day, sir.


----------



## HamBungler (Apr 8, 2009)

damigu said:


> again, i wish you good luck in trying to convincing anyone with your tired arguments that haven't been taken seriously for decades.



Point taken, yet I feel its subjective, as YOU feel they haven't been taken seriously, and that is in fact due to loads of baseless propaganda over the years. 

As stated, there's plenty of hard evidence out there showing the massive amounts of benefits, plus positive legislation is taking effect in a lot of states already so there's no point in saying its not being taken seriously when it apparently is now 

I rest my case, I suppose.


----------



## damigu (Apr 9, 2009)

i got neg repped because someone disagrees with me. 
that's lame. you neg rep when someone is being an asshole, not for this.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

do you have big pics of that rg? can i see?


----------



## damigu (Apr 9, 2009)

possumkiller said:


> do you have big pics of that rg? can i see?



i just posted a couple pics in this thread:
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/pi...al-tech/82324-pics-of-q-tuners-installed.html


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Apr 9, 2009)

With it being legalized, there will be laws established like no smoking and driving. In fact I heard that law was established on a radio show. If you smoking in a car with a child you can be charged for such a hazardous act on a little one. With great power comes great resposibility!Haha


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 9, 2009)

yeah i think it should be legal but regulated like anything else.


----------



## HamBungler (Apr 9, 2009)

damigu said:


> i got neg repped because someone disagrees with me.
> that's lame. you neg rep when someone is being an asshole, not for this.



Yeah, that was a bad move on whoever decided to do that. Part of disagreeing with someone is learning to accept the disagreement, not throwing neg rep for someone with a different opinion


----------



## poopyalligator (Apr 10, 2009)

wow somebody neg repped me again. What a d bag


----------



## wannabguitarist (Apr 11, 2009)

*I have not read the whole thread yet*

Has anyone thought about the repercussions of drug testing _after_ Marijuana is legalized? Sure it's legal now but would an employer still be allowed to not hired you just because you smoke weed? Wouldn't that fall under discrimination just like not hiring people because they smoke cigarettes? Say the government calls that discrimination, couldn't the potential employer hide it by drug testing their potential employees and not picking the ones that test positive for weed even though they were looking for illegal drugs?


----------



## damigu (Apr 12, 2009)

you raise a good point, but i think it would fall under provisions more like alcohol, since MJ can significantly impair reaction time and judgment.

if someone shows up drunk to work, it isn't discrimination to fire them.
so if a person were to show up high to work (even if it were legal to do the stuff), i don't think it would be considered discrimination at all to fire them or take other disciplinary action.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 12, 2009)

damigu said:


> you raise a good point, but i think it would fall under provisions more like alcohol, since MJ can significantly impair reaction time and judgment.
> 
> if someone shows up drunk to work, it isn't discrimination to fire them.
> so if a person were to show up high to work (even if it were legal to do the stuff), i don't think it would be considered discrimination at all to fire them or take other disciplinary action.



But at the same time pot can stay in your system for a pretty long time compared to alcohol, so what if someone toked up and a week later went in for an interview and their drug test came up positive? You're not "high" but your drug test is basically saying other wise. So could the employer still discriminate?

I don't know, I don't really like the idea of mandatory drug tests at work. If you show up and you're obviously on something then yeah, piss in a cup, go home, start looking for a new job when you sober up, but if you're on drugs and reacting fine to everything then what's the real big issue? I'm not encouraging getting high at work though, don't get me wrong


----------



## S-O (Apr 12, 2009)

I don't smoke, drink, do any drugs, blah blah blah (call me straight edge and I will get mldy miffed, but do nothing about it), I have sex and that is about all I do from the cliche highschool trends.

I support the lagalization of it fully, for many reasons. I don't see how I can, or any government, decide what you put into your body. If you get high, no problem. If you get high, then go get into a wreck or fuck up otherwise, we have a problem. You broke the law, and are under the influence, so just like a drunk driver gets a DUI and will be fucked with a gavel later in the court room, the person stoned all the way to neptune on white widow, and commits a crime, he too shall be metaphoricaly fucked with a gavel.

I don't smoke, drink, blah blah blah, becuase I don't like to poison my body. I can't stand energy drinks, I rarely drink anything with caffeine, but who the fuck am I to say everyone must not drink such things. I'd kick my own ass if I ever did.

Edit: I have also pondered and maybe considered getting into the drage selling buisness. Non taxable and here is my oh so bullet proof lol plan.

Build up credit, get about $3-4k saved up, just incase. Then get multiple credit cards with atleast $500 limits, go cash advance these cards, treck my way to cali with some friends (the farther east, the cheaper the weed, IRC) pick up a couple pounds of reg or higher, treck back, freaking out at all state borders but keeping cool on the outside , then come home, then sell me some weed, maybe even cut it with something just for giggles, like peppermint or menthol, and make some kick ass profit, then hope I have done this quick enough that the loan sharks are not on my ass, pay back the cash advance places, and come out ahead by atleast a &#37;150 profit, probably more in the 200's.

Know if this shit was taxed, just in my state alone, we would have so much more $ to invest in education and perhaps save the economy! Weed is the answer to our problem here in america!

Now I just have to make sure I don't get killed, if I were to ever do this plan. Which I will never. Maybe. I hope.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

As a regular smoker, I said yes...for many reasons. As for the argument that the gov. could make a lot of money from it...I dunno. I think that they are making plenty of money with it illegal. I was caught smokin a joint before one of my shows and it ended up costing me over $1500...For less than a gram!!! of dirt weed! And as every other thing that exist in our world, weed effects (affects?) everyone differently. It causes some paranoia and panic attacks, it causes some to just pass out and go to sleep, and it causes some to open up to new ideas that would probably not be presented without it, as well as infinite other effects. It isnt less harmful than ciggarettes, so ive heard, since (in joint form) it is unfiltered and in its long journey from plant to your grinder it passes through countless hands, and who knows how its handled. Now, if it were to be legalized and controlled, I think that the sanitary issues would be about abolished. But i dont think that it will happen, since the FEDs raid the liscensed medical marijuana facilities regularly, Federal law>state law, and there is more money to be made pickin on the stoner who messes up and lets the bacon smell the ganje. But a friend of mine has 4 DUI's in less than 6 months and he still has a liscense...


----------



## wannabguitarist (Apr 12, 2009)

damigu said:


> you raise a good point, but i think it would fall under provisions more like alcohol, since MJ can significantly impair reaction time and judgment.
> 
> if someone shows up drunk to work, it isn't discrimination to fire them.
> so if a person were to show up high to work (even if it were legal to do the stuff), i don't think it would be considered discrimination at all to fire them or take other disciplinary action.



I agree with you there, the point I was trying to bring up was what would happen during mandatory drug test? Weed will still show up even if the employer is looking for other drugs


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Drug tests are selective, and so are the people employing the drug tests. My dad paves roads and his former company actually didnt test for thc. Either that or they just over looked it. They were looking for more pressing issues like meth or crack/coke, since that profession attracts some unsavouries (prisoners, ex-cons, etc)


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Drug tests are selective, and so are the people employing the drug tests. My dad paves roads and his former company actually didnt test for thc. Either that or they just over looked it. They were looking for more pressing issues like meth or crack/coke, since that profession attracts some unsavouries (prisoners, ex-cons, etc)



Ah, shit. I forgot drug tests are like that. Then if it's legal we could just not have the option open to testing THC in order to stop discrimination maybe? Idk, just throwing ideas around.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

Since were on the topic of if and why...Does anyone have any bad experiences with marijuana? just curious, since drunks have shitty things happen all the time (car crashes, fighting, falling down, sickness, alchohol poisoning, liver problems, etc) i was just wondering if anyone knew of any negative stoner experiences. Not like "Ileft my pizza in the oven too long" but you get the idea...


----------



## PlagueX1 (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Since were on the topic of if and why...Does anyone have any bad experiences with marijuana? just curious, since drunks have shitty things happen all the time (car crashes, fighting, falling down, sickness, alchohol poisoning, liver problems, etc) i was just wondering if anyone knew of any negative stoner experiences. Not like "Ileft my pizza in the oven too long" but you get the idea...



Besides slight anxiety and people acting like idiots when I was around them, no.


----------



## Holy Katana (Apr 12, 2009)

nordhauser06 said:


> They aren't. You're right. And I never said anything to that nature. My point is that big business is far worse than your average dealer. To reiterate what I already stated, strains of marijuana will just get worse and watered down as corporate America takes over the industry to turn a profit.
> 
> Everyone is capable of getting their weed when they need it as is so I don't see a purpose in legalizing it.
> 
> I smoke on a regular basis. After much contemplation, I'm going to have to say "no" to the legalization; the cons outweigh the pros.



If they legalized it, sure, there would be big businesses making the strains weaker, but there could also be some smaller companies growing their own strains in much smaller amounts, and with much more care and attention. Artisan pot, if you will.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 12, 2009)

*Just finished actually reading all posts*

Common sense tells me that weed has been used far longer than alcohol because its natural, so who knows how long its been around. At least longer than weve had the knowledge/technology to produce alcohol. And as for the comparison to alcohol and cigarettes being a bad idea, i think its the perfect idea, since those two things are legal and, when vaporized or ingested, weed is FAR less harmful/addictive. Addiction can happen with anything. Watch a movie called "What the #[email protected]&? Down the rabbit hole" Its about science and religion and basically every aspect of life and how they fit together. There is a lady on there and she is an addiction specialist. She explains it as there are a set number of types of receptors in your brain. Each type has a certain type of chemical that it can react with (think of it as the square, round, and star shaped "hole and peg" game for small children). Certain things produce different "shaped pegs" and make those receptors fire. These things can range from substances that you ingest, whether it be THC, sugar, caffeine, nicotene, a certain food) to things like emotions, to certain smells and so on. She went on to say that if you know someone thats in a certain mood (angry, happy, withdrawn) there is a chance that their brain is actually addicted to the chemicals that mood produces. Once your brain figures out what keeps those receptors firing, it will direct you with cravings and impulsive behavior and whatnot. Very interesting movie. that is just a 15 minute part of a like 4 hour movie. stuff from physics to religion to time travel to things like could an organism as we know it actually survive in 2 dimensions...great stoner movie, or just for people into science.


----------



## Vairocarnal (Apr 12, 2009)

damigu said:


> i say "no" because cartoon network's adult swim used to have good and really funny stuff before it began putting on shows that only cater to people who are high.
> 
> i could care less about any other aspect. i just want adult swim shows that actually make sense to people who aren't stoned!



These shows you speak of don't make sense to me either way and they SUCK!!!They desperately NEED to ditch the short bus shows...if they do I'll get a digital converter box so I can actually watch it again...after I put a picture of the family jewels in front of the hidden camera lense


----------



## MFB (Apr 12, 2009)

PlagueX1 said:


> Besides slight anxiety and people acting like idiots when I was around them, no.



Man, my friends like to fuck with me when I'm high. They would scare me from different angles and for about 5 minutes I would sit there going "Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god"


----------



## damigu (Apr 12, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> Since were on the topic of if and why...Does anyone have any bad experiences with marijuana? just curious, since drunks have shitty things happen all the time (car crashes, fighting, falling down, sickness, alchohol poisoning, liver problems, etc) i was just wondering if anyone knew of any negative stoner experiences. Not like "Ileft my pizza in the oven too long" but you get the idea...



back in high school, i was in 2 very close calls regarding car accidents when i stupidly got into cars where people were hotboxing.

Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash

some people will dismiss this as "oh, it's only 2.5% of fatal accidents while 30% are caused by drinking" but that is due only to the fact that a lot more people drink than smoke (specifically because smoking is illegal).
legalize smoking, and the car accident fatality rate due to smoking MJ with increase significantly.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 13, 2009)

damigu said:


> back in high school, i was in 2 very close calls regarding car accidents when i stupidly got into cars where people were hotboxing.
> 
> Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash
> 
> ...



Okay, so using that same logic, we should make alcohol illegal and because its illegal there are going to be less alcohol related crashes.


----------



## MFB (Apr 13, 2009)

There's always going to be crashes influenced by drugs/alcohol, and we should also make : smoking, iPods, cell phones, and a million other things illegal to do while you drive because they can take your focus off the road. Fuck, I'm a first hand case since I rear-ended someone (minor) a week ago when I _glanced_ down at the directions in my passenger sear

Car crashes happen _no matter what_


----------



## damigu (Apr 13, 2009)

we did try making alcohol illegal. the end result was over a decade of protesting, and the italian mafia got a significantly stronger foothold in america.

read my previous post on the other page. making alcohol illegal isn't valid due to western society's history with it.
western society doesn't have much significant history with weed, so there's no willingness to overlook its negative aspects for its positive.



MFB said:


> Car crashes happen _no matter what_



true, but impairing your judgment and reaction time makes them that much more likely. that's why 30&#37; of fatal crashes are alcohol related.


----------



## MFB (Apr 13, 2009)

damigu said:


> true, but impairing your judgment and reaction time makes them that much more likely. that's why 30% of fatal crashes are alcohol related.



no doubt, I was just kind of putting that out there that even if you don't drink and drive you can still get in an accident, so obviously with something in your system that isn't supposed to be there (alcohol is technically a poison) then its gonna up those chances


----------



## Variant (Apr 14, 2009)

1. I didn't read a word of discussion on this thread.

2. I don't smoke pot, and I basically can't stand the rank smell of the shit.

3. It should be legalized.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 14, 2009)

I find it interesting that a lot of non smokers have said it should be legalized or at least decriminalized.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 14, 2009)

Variant said:


> 1. I didn't read a word of discussion on this thread.
> 
> 2. I don't smoke pot, and I basically can't stand the rank smell of the shit.
> 
> 3. It should be legalized.





after your first 2 points i definitely did NOT expect that conclusion.

but on a more serious note... not everyone who smokes pot is a moron. some people who own guns choose to shoot people for no reason. we still have those. you can't hold everyone responsible for what a couple dumbasses do.


----------



## 74n4LL0 (Apr 17, 2009)

Even if I don't use it I'm for full legalization of the drug for a couple of reasons:
1 - no mafia would gain money from it
2 - taxes payed on top of drugs

People who uses drug will use it independently from the fact that drugs can be bought legally or not. Consumer will also be aware of the quality of the drugs they use.


----------



## mnemonic (Apr 17, 2009)

i'm not sure if its been said yet (i only read to page 4 because i have to get to class soon) but i think the government should focus less on whether or not its bad for people, and focus more on EDUCATION. teach people the risks at an early age, and let them make their own decision about whether or not its worth it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 17, 2009)

marijuana is good for pain, cramping, and nausea. it's been known to slow the growth of at least 4 types of cancer. it has been used to treat such ailments as multiple sclerosis, post traumatic stress, cerebral paulsy (sp?), arthritis, depression, etc. furthermore, it's no more risky than smoking a cigarette (which we know for a fact kills tons of people every year). 

this next part i'm not sure how valid it is so take it with a grain of salt but, to my understanding, many of the potential cancer causing agents in marijuana are actually water soluble. thus, by smoking through a water pipe of some sort (bong, bubbler, what-have-you) you may actually be reducing your risk of lung cancer as well. 

it's not bad unless you allow your smoking to get in the way of what's important in your life. and it's got obvious medical benefits.


----------



## damigu (Apr 17, 2009)

i think this poll actually shows something significant:

only 7 people voted for legalizing only for medicinal purposes so far.
compared with 98 who want full legalization.
which carries the implication that most of the people touting its medicine purposes as a reason for legalization aren't actually looking to use it for medicinal purposes--just using that aspect to further their agenda for personal use.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 17, 2009)

well... isn't that part of politics? 

to be honest... if legalized i'm damn sure going to use it for my own personal reasons. but i actually have found that when i have an upset stomach i can blaze up and feel better within less than a minute. that's pretty damn cool to me. and you know there's absolutely no way we could ever get it legalized just with the argument "well cigarettes and alcohol are bad and those are legal!!!" that kind of thing never works. there has to be some sort of benefit for those who don't want to use it for recreational purposes to actually get anything done. and to be honest, i don't think it should have ever been outlawed in the first place.

the first law this country had regarding marijuana was that all farmers must grow it. it was used for rope, clothing and even as currency in the jamestown settlement. you mean to tell me there weren't some people smoking it? in fact, i read somewhere that farmers were put in jail around that time if they were caught NOT growing it (that may or may not be true).

it didn't become a problem until mexicans began bringing it up from mexico and the blacks were using it in the jazz clubs. at the time of its prohibition both groups were pretty much unwanted here and i wouldn't be surprised if the fact that they were the primary consumers of the product didn't have something to do with its prohibition. now it's just illegal because that's the way it's been for so long. 

change is good


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 17, 2009)

damigu said:


> i think this poll actually shows something significant:
> 
> only 7 people voted for legalizing only for medicinal purposes so far.
> compared with 98 who want full legalization.
> which carries the implication that most of the people touting its medicine purposes as a reason for legalization aren't actually looking to use it for medicinal purposes--just using that aspect to further their agenda for personal use.



A lot of the people voting for it (medicinal or otherwise) aren't even smokers. And I also find many uses for it other than just to get stoned. Upset stomach, headache, general aches and pains, or in situations where I'm about to just completely fly off the hinges and just lose it, it does help to relax (I know that there are countless other ways to relax, but this one is a sure fire way each and every time.) It also helps to open up creative doors that would stay closed otherwise. Im not saying you have to be a stoner to be creative, as there have been times that smoking has slammed the creative door in my face. But a lot of times it takes the "limit" off of my writing. I venture into styles and ideas that i wouldnt normally. And its been said a few times in this thread, but I know people that are smarter, dumber, quiter, louder, more/less out going, etc etc when smoking. I think that a lot of the "studies" showing that weed is a horrible substance are just the gov.'s way of not admitting that there is no reason for the (il)legality of it. But I believe a lot of unorthodox things about the information that is accessible to the public.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 18, 2009)

^ thank you


----------



## Covenant (Apr 18, 2009)

yes it should 
it won't because america can't make a profit from it really(rastafarians) 
but yes it should


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 18, 2009)

Covenant said:


> it won't because america can't make a profit from it really(rastafarians)



... I fail to see how Rastafarians really comes into how America will make a profit off of selling weed . I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you explain please?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

^ this.

Plus... you jackass... not all rastas smoke. Marijuana, aka ganja, is considered a sacrament much like wine to the catholics. Rastas accept it as the "tree of life" described in the book of revelations. But... not all of them choose to smoke it for various reasons.


----------



## MFB (Apr 19, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Plus... you jackass... not all rastas smoke. Marijuana, aka ganja, is considered a sacrament much like wine to the catholics. Rastas accept it as the "tree of life" described in the book of revelations. But... not all of them choose to smoke it for various reasons.



I think he may have meant well by trying to say religious groups will use it but it came out wrong

not to mention, is there even a Rasta movement in the US? I have a feeling anyone claiming it is just using it for the BS use of marijuana without seeming like a frequent user


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 19, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Plus... you jackass... not all rastas smoke. Marijuana, aka ganja, is considered a sacrament much like wine to the catholics. Rastas accept it as the "tree of life" described in the book of revelations. But... not all of them choose to smoke it for various reasons.



Please please please no name calling, k? I think it just came out wrong, let him explain. I don't want this topic closed, I think it's a good discussion.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

agreed... didn't mean for it to come out like that. i just get really irritated with all the generalizations.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 19, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> agreed... didn't mean for it to come out like that. i just get really irritated with all the generalizations.



I do as well, hopefully his post just came out a bit wrong and he'll clear it up when he posts again.


----------



## metalmonster (Apr 19, 2009)

i don't know for USA ... but , in france , we need marijuana to be legalized ! 

alcohol is a far more harmful drug and it ain't helping my creative potential this much


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 19, 2009)

Did anybody see the results of what happen when Portugul legalized all drugs? Including heroin and cocaine? The results really speak for themselves.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Did anybody see the results of what happen when Portugul legalized all drugs? Including heroin and cocaine? The results really speak for themselves.



mind giving us a brief synopsis of those results? not like i'm gonna stop just because it's illegal but it'd be nice to not have to hide like some kind of freak. i don't think it's that big a deal.


----------



## damigu (Apr 19, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Did anybody see the results of what happen when Portugul legalized all drugs? Including heroin and cocaine? The results really speak for themselves.



they haven't legalized the drugs. they just decriminalized them.

the difference being that users aren't sent to jail and there is no criminal record kept regarding their use.
but depending on their level of use (from recreational to full on "can't live without it" addict), they still may have to pay fines, perform community service, or go to mandatory detox programs.

the sale/distribution of those drugs (except by licensed medical people using it in medicinal practice) in portugal remains illegal.

basically, portugal decided that users are victims that need help and that they will put most of their money into fighting against the creation/trafficking of the drugs instead of fighting against use/possession.


the results seem to be that drug use has dropped in portugal.

it's not clear whether those results are applicable to the US since drugs have a direct route to us via the mexican/US border whereas portugal is more like canada (anything going to canada has to either come direct via ocean or else make it through US customs first--anything going to portugal has to come direct via ocean or else get through spain's customs first). that simple fact makes it easier to more effectively counteract trafficking (for both canada and portugal).


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

decriminalization sounds just as shitty for the user then. fuck that noise.


----------



## Covenant (Apr 19, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> ... I fail to see how Rastafarians really comes into how America will make a profit off of selling weed . I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you explain please?


 

Well, you see i meant that most of the maijuana comes from south america.
When i said rastafarians i basically ment that they think of it as a religious thing and if we're selling basically the fruit of someones religion it can get weird, but i was really tired and didn't really think like typing it out.
I surely won't make that mistake again.



Konfyouzd said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Plus... you jackass... not all rastas smoke. Marijuana, aka ganja, is considered a sacrament much like wine to the catholics. Rastas accept it as the "tree of life" described in the book of revelations. But... not all of them choose to smoke it for various reasons.


 
Basically what i said above and looking back I am fully aware of how stupid that sounded now.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

wine is the "blood of christ"... grocery stores sell this...


----------



## Covenant (Apr 19, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> wine is the "blood of christ"... grocery stores sell this...


 
Well like i said i wasn't thinking straight, if i would've thought of it a bit more i'm sure it wouldn't have come out quite so dumb...hopefully


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

no worries. this is a discussion forum. we're here to discuss things. 
i didn't mean to come across so harsh either. so i believe i owe you an apology as well, sir. 

my bad.


----------



## Covenant (Apr 19, 2009)

don't worry its fine


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 19, 2009)

Okay, I totally get where you're coming from now dude  

See this little skiff and how it settled just like that? That's what the SS.org was like  glad to see people being cool again


----------



## Covenant (Apr 19, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> Okay, I totally get where you're coming from now dude
> 
> See this little skiff and how it settled just like that? That's what the SS.org was like  glad to see people being cool again


 

Woo Hoo
It could be the lack of internet tough guys though


----------



## guitarplayerone (Apr 19, 2009)

lol @ 108 votes for legalization. seems that almost as many people who like 'djent' also live 'herb'. coincidence? I think not


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 19, 2009)

^ interesting assessment... 

whoever the crybaby is that decided to neg rep me for my posts in here and tell me to "get a sense of humor", first of all should sign it like a man. second, i never saw a joke. third, i don't support unfounded generalizations. when i see them i respond accordingly. if you've got something to say to me be a man and say it.

EDIT: sorry for another e-rep rant. it's not the rep points or the colorful little boxes that bothers me. it's the lame ass comments people decide to make when they do it and the fact that they feel the need to say it anonymously as if there isn't already a certain degree of anonymity on an online discussion forum.


----------



## Covenant (Apr 20, 2009)

^^^
Someone got me too, but i'm colorblind so the jokes on them.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

really now? interesting... 

that actually is funny. red/green colorblind? so you can't see the red hairs in bud? that makes me sad 

EDIT: they actually did change my avatar! i thought i got ignored!!!!


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 20, 2009)

Well, if its the red hairs that are unseen, then id opt for some white rhino...heh


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

^ 

yea i guess that works too. you can still see purple, right? i've never met a purple strain i didn't like.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 20, 2009)

As much as I hate weed and totally believe it's a gateway drug, I think it could not hurt to legalize it. Just for the sake of decriminalizing people who smoke it. And for the sake of reducing the demand for weed trafficking (and all the violence that derives from it). I believe a great percentage of people who claim weed slows down cancer, cures headaches, relieves stomach aches, ect. are really more concerned about using it for recreational purposes. These are just other facts they found about weed once they started smoking it for recreation (most pot smoker I know did not start using it because it will slow down cancer). Much like alcohol and cigarettes, these people like it and would smoke it even if it caused them headaches and diarrhea.

I'm just sharing my thoughts on the subject. I do not mean to judge people either, I have and have had many friends and family who smoked pot and did drugs. It's just sad to see what happened to these nice people.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

renzoip said:


> As much as I hate weed and totally believe it's a gateway drug, I think it could not hurt to legalize it. Just for the sake of decriminalizing people who smoke it. I believe a great percentage of people who claim weed slows down cancer, cures headaches, relieves stomach aches, ect. are really more concerned about using it for recreational purposes. These are just other facts they found about weed once they started smoking it for recreation (most pot smoker I know did not start using it because it will slow down cancer). Much like alcohol and cigarettes, these people will smoke it even if it cause them hearaches and diharrea.
> 
> I'm just sharing my thoughts on the subject. I do not mean to judge people either, I have and have had many friends and family who smoked pot and did drugs. It's just sad to see what happened to these nice people.



why do you believe it's a gateway drug? i actually have a theory on this gateway drug foolishness as well, but i'm gonna leave that one alone. i'd just like to know why you think so.


----------



## BadOmen (Apr 20, 2009)

Here in Holland it's legal to smoke marijuana and we actually have a smaller percentage of people smoking weed that you guys have in the US

Clear to me that you should legalise marijunana


----------



## renzoip (Apr 20, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> why do you believe it's a gateway drug? i actually have a theory on this gateway drug foolishness as well, but i'm gonna leave that one alone. i'd just like to know why you think so.



To be honest, only circumstantial evidence, that's all. All the people who I knew before they started doing hard drugs started with weed. It usually one of those situations when they developed a strong interest in weed so they started hanging out with other people who shared their interest (among with an interest for harder drugs). So they are offered harder drugs and they take give them a chance. If they liked them, then they start using them regularly.

Again, these is what I gathered from talking to an specific group of people. They told me that basically, if they would not have started with weed they would not even have develop an interest in hanging out with the people who offered harder drugs to them in the first place. They also said since they liked the way the high they got from weed so much, they were tempted to try something that was given to them as "something that will give them a better high" in that particular situation. 

PS: I'm not trying to victimize these people, I know it's their fault for taking the drugs.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

it was outlawed for ridiculous reasons in the first place.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 20, 2009)

BadOmen said:


> Here in Holland it's legal to smoke marijuana and we actually have a smaller percentage of people smoking weed that you guys have in the US
> 
> Clear to me that you should legalise marijunana



Exactly, that pretty much why I support it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

weed is certainly a gateway drug. there are of course circumstances where people skip out weed and go straight to hard drugs, but that's a rare occurance.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

what exactly do you mean by "gateway drug"? i've tried drugs other than weed but i'm not so sure the fact that i had smoked weed prior to that had anything to do with it. 

plus i think the fact that so much of the anti-weed propoganda makes it seem like the worst thing in the world is a bad thing too. when a kid finally tries it and realizes it's nowhere near as bad as they say maybe they wonder "what else have i been lied to about?"

it just sparks more curiosity. in that sense, i could see it being a gateway drug. but that's not the plant's fault, is it?

i also think some people start smoking just because they think it's cool to break the rules and/or brag about how much weed they smoke like the rappers do. others simply do it because they enjoy it and can do it responsibly. don't hold all of us accountable for the dumbasses out there. please.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 20, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> what exactly do you mean by "gateway drug"? i've tried drugs other than weed but i'm not so sure the fact that i had smoked weed prior to that had anything to do with it.
> 
> plus i think the fact that so much of the anti-weed propoganda makes it seem like the worst thing in the world is a bad thing too. when a kid finally tries it and realizes it's nowhere near as bad as they say maybe they wonder "what else have i been lied to about?"
> 
> ...




As far as the gateway, again, lots of people start with weed and since weed it's not too bad and they feel like they have been lied too, then they are stupid to think that what else have they been lied to about? Since some hard drugs do not have many hard immediate effects, they start fooling themselves into thinking that it's fine and safe to do them and also fun.

Again, I would not want to hold a smart responsible person accountable for the stupidity of others. That's my reasoning behind legalization. I love my friends and family even if they do drugs. I don't think they are criminals.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

^ that makes sense 

i actually have seen some friends jump from drug to drug looking for whatever high they seem to be after. but i still don't see that as the fault of the plant, ya know? it just grows. it never "tells" someone to go on to harder drugs. that's a decision they make for themselves because they haven't found what they're looking for in weed. fine by me. more for me.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

yeah but people do weed, then realise they don't find it to be an intense enough hit and do stuff like ecstacy and coke, and some people it goes further than that. all illegal drugs are a waste of money IMO, but I'm sure there are people who really enjoy it so that's good for them. then again the legal ones are legal for a reason and vice versa.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

i suppose so. if weed weren't illegal i could grow it and save myself a lot of money though. after all... it's just a plant. and i think its grouping with such drugs as heroine, extacy, cocaine and the like is part of why it can--in some cases--lead to them. can you dig it?


----------



## Adamh1331 (Apr 20, 2009)

People that think weed is a gateway drug just hasnt smoked some dankkkk bud and what kills me the most is when people compare weed to meth,coke,heroin,and whatever else look at what all that shit causes..how many people do you know that their lives or family has been destroyed due to weed?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

^ 

some people only know what they hear. and that's good enough for some.


----------



## MFB (Apr 20, 2009)

To those worried about the "Gateway theory" see this (aka something I posted when the thread was 4x smaller)



> The main fear of a legalized marijuana falls under whats known as the "Gateway Theory" in that, smoking marijuana will lead to harder drugs such as LSD, PCP, Heroine, Cocaine, and so on. However, there are several flaws in the theory.
> 
> The first being that the only reason kids try marijuana as their first drug is due to the accessibility. After doing some research, it seems find information on the legalization of the drug is as easy as if one was to buy it on the street. Quite simply; it is _the most accessible drug_. Yet for being the most accessible - it's also the safest. As states before there's no chance of death upon first (or any) use, unlike heroine or cocaine; and it also can't lead to things such as liver, brain, or severe lung damage.
> "Who cares if it's accessible? That doesn't mean that my kid still won't want to try harder drugs," To be honest; yes, you're right. I don't know your child and they may in fact wish to try harder drugs down the line. However, that's where the theory's next flaw comes into play.
> ...


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 20, 2009)

For the gateway thing, I think its obvious that its up to the user in the end. Weed, to me, is its own kind of high. If you group each drug by the high it creates, the high from weed is more than satisfying to me. Ive tried other drugs as well, but it was only due to my own curiosity. Not to get a bigger and better high. Curiosity killed the cat. It is part of the human condition to be curious. Of course weed can open up the possibility of acquiring these harder drugs, but unless someone ties you down and shoots you up or stuffs coke in your nose or what have you, its that individuals fault, no exceptions. IMO.<<<<<--------Disclaimer. hahaha.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

^ exactly

quick question: has anyone who believes the gateway theory actually tried it?


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 20, 2009)

Yes. And it was a gateway drug for me. 

Typically, marijuana is your first experience with illicit substances and it dispels much of the taboo behind recreational chemicals. Once that seal is popped you're more open minded to trying harder substances. It's not going to make you go out and buy harder drugs because of something in it's chemical make up, but the fact remains, if you use drugs (weed) it's very likely you end up hanging out with people who do other drugs. They offer it to you then it's more difficult to say "no" because you've already developed a certain comfort level with pot. 

I don't smoke pot anymore (or anything else besides glorious alcohol, haven't for years), but it should be legal. I've known lots of guys who use it daily who are quite literally husks of their former selves. It's essentially killed lots of friendships, not solely because they do it, it's just that the user ends up being a lot less interesting and entertaining than they were before they decided to use it on the regular. I recognize that's a person by person basis.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

glad to see you at least made an educated decision which i fully support.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

Adamh1331 said:


> People that think weed is a gateway drug just hasnt smoked some dankkkk bud and what kills me the most is when people compare weed to meth,coke,heroin,and whatever else look at what all that shit causes..how many people do you know that their lives or family has been destroyed due to weed?





Konfyouzd said:


> ^
> 
> some people only know what they hear. and that's good enough for some.



I've smoked weed more times than I've gone to sleep, and that's no exaggeration. I'm not saying all people who smoke bud go on to do harder drugs, but those who do harder drugs started off smoking bud.

it was a gateway drug for me, and it was a gateway drug for my generation of stoners, everyone I know who started doing bud has gone on to harder things once they were comfortable. 

basically, I'd never knock it without trying it, that's plain fucking dumb. I used to smoke bud every day and it fucked with my head and with my wallet which is why I don't do it anymore 



RenegadeDave said:


> I've known lots of guys who use it daily who are quite literally husks of their former selves. It's essentially killed lots of friendships, not solely because they do it, it's just that the user ends up being a lot less interesting and entertaining than they were before they decided to use it on the regular. I recognize that's a person by person basis.



^ and this.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

^ well i'd assumed you'd tried it scar symmetry. i don't generally expect mindless douchebaggery from you.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> i expect mindless douchebaggery from you.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

i'm confused... ?

i meant that to just throw something out there with no experience would be mindless douchebaggery and that's not the kind of thing i've come to expect from you.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> i'm confused... ?



no, you're Konfyouzd!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

haha... it wouldn't have worked if i had said it


----------



## damigu (Apr 20, 2009)

there's two reasons why MJ works as a gateway drug:

1/ some people eventually want to get higher or to stay high longer. not everyone does, but many do. modern media giving people a thrill seeking mentality certainly doesn't help matters.

2/ most users become part of a drug culture/network with friends who also smoke who have friends who also smoke, some of which do harder drugs. through a combination of increased accessibility, [sometimes] peer pressure, and normalization through exposure (normalization is when something is seen/experienced enough that the person experiencing begins to think of it as a normal part of life), the consistent exposure to harder drugs makes it that much easier to eventually try them.

to be honest, i think #2--the social aspect--has a lot more to do with it being a gateway drug than the actual high it gives.
and i don't think legalizing would change the social aspect too much. if you hang out with people who like to get high, some of them will also [or only] be into harder stuff.


----------



## Chal (Apr 20, 2009)

Shouldn't alchohol and nicotine be seen as the true gateway drugs? After all, that's what we all start with. And if weed was legal, you wouldn't have to go to some shady guy who also carries other stuff with him that he wants you to try, that should really rule the "gateway drug" thing out.

_if you hang out with people who like to get high, some of them will also [or only] be into harder stuff._

Can only speak for myself, but my experience says that isnt really always the case. And anyway, couldnt you say the same thing about hanging out with people who drink sometimes? As in if you hang out with people who get drunk, some of those people might be into harder drugs.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

Chal said:


> Shouldn't alchohol and nicotine be seen as the true gateway drugs? After all, that's what we all start with. And if weed was legal, you wouldn't have to go to some shady guy who also carries other stuff with him that he wants you to try, that should really rule the "gateway drug" thing out.
> 
> _if you hang out with people who like to get high, some of them will also [or only] be into harder stuff._
> 
> Can only speak for myself, but my experience says that isnt really always the case. And anyway, couldnt you say the same thing about hanging out with people who drink sometimes? As in if you hang out with people who get drunk, some of those people might be into harder drugs.



no. 

there are some people who smoke and drink and never once think about taking drugs, and the people that I know that like getting drunk hate drugs, they don't need them because they have alcohol. that's what the majority of the population is like which is why bud is still illegal.


----------



## MFB (Apr 20, 2009)

damigu said:


> there's two reasons why MJ works as a gateway drug:
> 
> 1/ some people eventually want to get higher or to stay high longer. not everyone does, but many do. modern media giving people a thrill seeking mentality certainly doesn't help matters.
> 
> ...



For answer #2, see how about 10-15 posts back I quoted a paper I wrote about the entire drug culture and see how this can be avoided


----------



## damigu (Apr 20, 2009)

alcohol is its own harder drug. think about it: your first alcoholic drink was probably a beer at a party, at 6&#37;--you're limited both by the low alcohol content and the huge volume you have to drink to get it into your system.
but if you want to get drunk faster, you can slam shots of something that's 40% alcohol instead.
or if you just want to get drunker, you simply drink more (smoking more bud or doing more cocaine, however, won't get you any higher).
and you can keep taking alcohol to maintain the buzz/drunkenness for as long as you please--you can stay buzzed/drunk 24x7 if you please.
so there is never a need/desire to try something that's harder and lasts longer, since it can be as hard and long lasting as you want it to be.

as for nicotine, the high you get from a cigarette is weaker than a cup of coffee. so, no, i don't think cigarettes promote a desire in anyone for something stronger.



Chal said:


> Can only speak for myself, but my experience says that isnt really always the case.



i qualified my statements with words like many/most. obviously it doesn't apply to all. but it does apply to more than not. i've seen it a lot more times than not.



MFB said:


> For answer #2, see how about 10-15 posts back I quoted a paper I wrote about the entire drug culture and see how this can be avoided



i read your post and i addressed it where i said "i don't think legalizing would make much difference."

yes, you'd go to 7-11 instead of a dealer for your MJ and 7-11 won't have the harder stuff.
but you'd still be hanging out with people who like getting high, and some of them want a higher or longer high. and they'll find access to that stuff (trust me, if the drug mafias can't make a profit from MJ anymore, they'll ramp up production and marketing of something else). and you'll still have increased access and exposure to harder stuff through them.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

there are points during inebriation in which the cerebral cortex may be completely submerged in alcohol... that doesn't sound good to me... 

oh... and smoking more does get you more stoned up to a point. and you can maintain a buzz all day long if you like with pot as well. i do it often.


----------



## damigu (Apr 20, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> oh... and smoking more does get you more stoned up to a point. and you can maintain a buzz all day long if you like with pot as well. i do it often.



well, yea, but what i was saying is that there's an ultimate limit to how high you can get with pot. even if you take the most potent of the modern stuff.
same is true with most drugs. they get you to a X height maximum. to go further, you have to take some other drug.

not true with alcohol. to get drunker, just have another drink. the only "limit" is that if you keep drinking to get drunker, eventually you'll pass out and/or die.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

... until you puke. we all love that. then you can smoke some herb for your upset stomach. 

actually that's not true at all. smoking once you get to that point only sends you into the spins.

once i reach said "limit" i'm usually ok with it because it lasts for an hour or 2 at which point i have the option of lighting up another one and maintaining it. or i can just keep smoking the whole time and keep it going that way. OR i can go to sleep or... "pass out". which, when drinking, is your body's defense mechanism against you killing yourself (which still may happen depending on how much you ingest before you fall asleep).


----------



## telecaster90 (Apr 20, 2009)

Happy 420 everyone


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

wish i could smoke...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

^


----------



## Dusty201087 (Apr 20, 2009)

Okay, I'm sorry, but half of the "gateway drug" argument just doesn't seem to be very well thought out here. Look at the Netherlands v the US. 

Pot is legal in the Netherlands, and stores can sell it legally (to a certain age group). If the store is caught selling harder drugs, the store is shut down. So the stores stop at selling pot. People buy pot, and don't have to rub shoulders with the people who're pushing harder drugs on their buyers, which means less people doing harder drugs (and that's actually a fact). 'Cause come on, you think your dealer cares if you go from pot to coke? Hell no, (s)he WANTS you to, because that means more cash in their pocket.

In America, you have to stop by your dealers place, get some pot, and then have the dealer try to push you into harder drugs. Bottom line it's your decision, but still, taking out that middle man will do wonders.

It's just like if you had to go to a dealer to buy alcohol. You'd start out with some Bud Light, then your dealer would gradually push you into the stuff that could be used as rocket fuel. Why? Because it's a business.

Bottom line is it's not the drugs fault that the users are moving towards harder substances, its the users. (S)he should be responsible enough to say no, but peer pressure plays a part in this. It's not as if you smoke pot and a chemical fires off in your head that just screams "GAHH I WANT CRACK NOA!!!" 

Also, isn't there a statistic that shows that in Amsterdam less people than in the US smoke or do harder drugs? Why? Because it's not taboo! You don't get that same "I'm breaking the rules" feeling you do when you smoke pot/snort coke/whatever the fuck else you do in Amsterdam. 

I'm not pushing for legalization of all drugs by any means, but there at least needs to be more education on drugs. When I was in Health, one day was basically a sheriff coming in and saying "Pot = bad bad bad, don't do it or you'll get aids, get pregnant, and die within a matter of seconds, but not in that order." There was no, "Okay, this is what pot is/does, this is how addictive it is, this is what could happen if you do it, etc etc". If anything (even when I was pretty anti-drug) I just hated the guy because he was giving us totally biased information. I wouldn't know anything about pot if I hadn't done my own research, and that's what school's for, right? To prepare you to make choices in life?



Konfyouzd said:


> wish i could smoke...



I probably could, seeing as I know people who're going to light up today, but I'm giving blood tomorrow AND I'm pretty sure random drug tests are coming up, so I'm pretty sure my "first time" with weed will have to wait until a little thing called college


----------



## Covenant (Apr 20, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> really now? interesting...
> 
> that actually is funny. red/green colorblind? so you can't see the red hairs in bud? that makes me sad
> 
> EDIT: they actually did change my avatar! i thought i got ignored!!!!


 
No, i can't 
But i don't smoke so i'm fine....for now


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> I probably could, seeing as I know people who're going to light up today, but I'm giving blood tomorrow AND I'm pretty sure random drug tests are coming up, so I'm pretty sure my "first time" with weed will have to wait until a little thing called college



can't blaze... i have weekly drug tests starting next week.

and excellent summary btw.


----------



## damigu (Apr 20, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> Okay, I'm sorry, but half of the "gateway drug" argument just doesn't seem to be very well thought out here. Look at the Netherlands v the US.



you're making too many assumptions.

if *all* you look at is NL vs US, then there seems to be a correlation between legalization and rates of drug use. but what if you look at other countries, too? greece, finland, and sweden haven't legalized any drugs and they have significantly lower drug use rates than the NL does. in fact, those 3 countries have the strictest drug laws and enforcement in all of europe. so a person could also say that legalizing/decriminalizing obviously doesn't decrease rates and only stricter enforcement does (but that statement would be just as assumptive/erroneous).

the issue of drug rate use and legalization is not as clear cut as "look at portugal and the NL who have legalized or decriminalized and have lower rates." there are a lot of other issues involved, and it changes from nation to nation.

not the least of which is geography. as i pointed out earlier, america has a *direct land route* for some of the most popular drugs (like weed). and there are areas of the US/mexican border where the federal government doesn't even have authority. a few indian reservations actually are partly in mexico and partly in the US, and the fed's treaties with the indian nations is such that the tribal police have jurisdiction and the fed doesn't. and the tribal police only cares to a limited extend about drug trafficking because it is the white man's problem.
by contrast, in order to get hard drugs to get into the NL it has to go through the customs of many different countries (or else arrive direct by boat or plane, but NL isn't exactly a quick and easy boat/plane trip from any drug producing countries the way that the US is).


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 21, 2009)

damigu said:


> they haven't legalized the drugs. they just decriminalized them.
> 
> the difference being that users aren't sent to jail and there is no criminal record kept regarding their use.
> but depending on their level of use (from recreational to full on "can't live without it" addict), they still may have to pay fines, perform community service, or go to mandatory detox programs.
> ...



Thanks for that, i just glimpsed a headline and thought, damn good for them


----------



## WillingWell (Apr 21, 2009)

damigu said:


> you're making too many assumptions.
> 
> if *all* you look at is NL vs US, then there seems to be a correlation between legalization and rates of drug use. but what if you look at other countries, too? greece, finland, and sweden haven't legalized any drugs and they have significantly lower drug use rates than the NL does. in fact, those 3 countries have the strictest drug laws and enforcement in all of europe. so a person could also say that legalizing/decriminalizing obviously doesn't decrease rates and only stricter enforcement does (but that statement would be just as assumptive/erroneous).
> 
> ...




I thought you said you were done talking like 20 pages back. 


I fully support legalizing marijuana and putting it under the same regulations as other recreational substances. Maybe even guns. I'm not sure people with psych problems smoking MJ is the best bet. 

As far as long term use, save the anecdotes. There is no true long term evidence about marijuana.

I'll probably butcher this, but I recall a quote from George Washington that said something along the lines of "Take hemp and grow it across the land" and one from Abraham Lincoln that said (again paraphrased) "I love tokin that shit and playin my fuckin Hohner harmonica on my porch all day long ......" The whole pot taboo came about in the 20s and still exists today thanks to flawed and outright untruthful campaigns such as D.A.R.E.

As far as the gateway thing, same principle as guns and anything else. It's not the item, it's the user.


----------



## damigu (Apr 21, 2009)

WillingWell said:


> I thought you said you were done talking like 20 pages back.



i never said i was done talking in general, just done getting heated about the same 1 issue with that 1 other poster. i didn't want it to degrade into arguing, so having said my piece, i bowed out from further conversation on that matter.



WillingWell said:


> As far as the gateway thing, same principle as guns and anything else. It's not the item, it's the user.



that's what i said. i'm not sure how some of you seem to be getting something else out of what i said regarding the gateway issue?



i said it before and i'll say it again: i'm actually fairly neutral on this issue. if i come across against weed, it's because the overwhelming majority here are clearly pro-weed and i seem to be one of very few people who are offering genuine reasoning against legalizing it at this point.
i'm aware of why it was made illegal to begin with, but that has nothing to do with legalizing it now. that's like trying to say "but he was driving faster than i was!" to a cop after he pulled you over. you've already beel pulled over, it's too late to use that excuse. the law is there and saying "it's there for the wrong reasons" doesn't actually help further the cause of legalization.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 21, 2009)

My dealers have never tried to push anything on me, in fact ive never had a dealer that even sold anything other than weed. The few times that I've tried anything else, I've had to actively seek it out.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 21, 2009)

chaosxcomplex said:


> My dealers have never tried to push anything on me, in fact ive never had a dealer that even sold anything other than weed. The few times that I've tried anything else, I've had to actively seek it out.



damn right. the dealers that sell other things generally have shitty pot. why? cuz they probably make much more money off the other shit. all the dealers i've had w/ good weed have sold weed exclusively. MAYBE some psychedelics. but then again... i like those too


----------



## WillingWell (Apr 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> i never said i was done talking in general, just done getting heated about the same 1 issue with that 1 other poster. i didn't want it to degrade into arguing, so having said my piece, i bowed out from further conversation on that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





No, it comes across that you're against it because you're acting like no one else has valid points but you.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 22, 2009)

The answer according to Common Sense?

Duh. Yes.


/thread.


----------



## damigu (Apr 22, 2009)

WillingWell said:


> No, it comes across that you're against it because you're acting like no one else has valid points but you.



because, unfortunately, most of this thread are the same arguments that were already tired back when i first heard them over 15 years ago in high school. the only people who took those points seriously back then were the pot smokers--and those are the only people taking them seriously now.

bringing up portugal and the netherlands were actually good points, but those points they really need to be fleshed out in order to show how they might be applicable to the US.
merely saying "portugal's drug use decreased after decriminalization" neglects the fact that their government put more money into fighting against trafficking and treating users.
saying "NL's drug use must be lower because it is legal" ignores the fact that other countries, with particularly strict laws/enforcement, have way lower usage rates still.

what i've done is point out weaknesses in many of these statements/arguments. the same weaknesses that you need to overcome if you genuinely expect to legalize (or even just decriminalize).


since you insist on questioning my contribution to this thread, i pose this to you: taking presidential quotes out of context is certainly fun and funny, but doesn't drive your point home to the opposition. back in george washington's day, hemp used to be a major cash crop due to its use for rope making, not for smoking. it was a time before artificial fibers and hemp is a very strong natural fiber.
he (and other 18th and 19th century leaders) likely used it medicinally in tinctures, but it is highly unlikely that the founding fathers toked up or made magic brownies. they also used urine as a teeth whitener back then (along with plenty of other snake oils and "medicines" that we know today to cause more damage than help), so claiming that they had some secret knowledge about cannabis that we no longer practice isn't correct.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> because, unfortunately, most of this thread are the same arguments that were already tired back when i first heard them over 15 years ago in high school. the only people who took those points seriously back then were the pot smokers--*and those are the only people taking them seriously now.*



Hardly. CNN had a poll a few weeks back asking if MJ should be legalized. The results? Something like +/- 75% thought it should be.

I don't smoke, have no desire to smoke, and know plenty of people just like me, who think it should be legalized. 

Your argument is faulty.


----------



## damigu (Apr 22, 2009)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Hardly. CNN had a poll a few weeks back asking if MJ should be legalized. The results? Something like +/- 75&#37; thought it should be.
> 
> I don't smoke, have no desire to smoke, and know plenty of people just like me, who think it should be legalized.
> 
> Your argument is faulty.



you do realize that call-in and internet polls are not even remotely randomized or properly sampled and can't be used to extrapolate general public opinion in any way, right?

a proper survey only tells the questioner what the topic is *AFTER* the person agrees to take a survey. otherwise it greatly skews the results because many people would decline to take the survey simply based on the topic.

TV surveys are nothing more than gimmicks to help the networks determine ratings/viewership based on response. they could care less about disseminating accurate information or reflecting opinion. they just want to know how many people are watching, and perhaps increase viewership through such interactivity.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> you do realize that call-in and internet polls are not even remotely randomized or properly sampled and can't be used to extrapolate general public opinion in any way, right?



It was an internet survey.

And way to dodge the consensus.  "Oh, wait! I don't like their methods!" Yes, it's not a statistical regression conducted under rigorous peer review.

But that's the point. It's a simple point-and-click poll, featured on arguably the largest news website, guaranteed to generate a large pool of data from a pretty average cross section of America. There's no getting around that.

Your argument that _only_ dope smokers support legalizing marijuana is specious, and that's being kind. You want rigorous statistical analysis of polling data? Check this, chief. 

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Americans Growing Kinder to Bud

The results? Around 40&#37; support legalization. That might not be a majority, and it might not be near the results of CNN's informal poll, but it's far, far more than your silly assumption would allow for. Last I checked, 40% of 300 million is 120 million people.

All pot heads!  You have no leg to stand on.


----------



## Pauly (Apr 22, 2009)

Yes. Also if they started adopting the Portuguese stance on drug use/rehabilitation for addiction that'd be nice too.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 22, 2009)

Not to mention I doubt that 75&#37; of CNN's watchers are stoners, so it should go to show it's not just pot heads voting yes to legalize 

"duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, let's get baked and watch the news!"


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 22, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Not to mention I doubt that 75% of CNN's watchers are stoners, so it should go to show it's not just pot heads voting yes to legalize
> 
> "duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, let's get baked and watch the news!"



my dad smokes and watches the news. sometimes i join him. 

but i don't think we're "stoners" in the sense that most people would mean it. we just enjoy the relaxing effects of cannabis.


----------



## damigu (Apr 22, 2009)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Your argument that _only_ dope smokers support legalizing marijuana is specious, and that's being kind. You want rigorous statistical analysis of polling data? Check this, chief.
> 
> FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Americans Growing Kinder to Bud



thank you for the link to more legitimate surveys. (seriously)

as for my "argument that _only_ dope smokers support legalizing," can you please quote where i said that?
because i'm pretty sure i never said anything of the sort, nor do i believe anything of the sort.
what i DID say, however, was that it's only users who put stock into a good 3/4 of the supportive arguments in this thread because those arguments are old and overused by now and very few anti-weed people are convinced by them. if they can't convince the opposition, or even just crack the door slightly open for the opposition, then they are useless for your purposes. but, i guess some people just like preaching to the choir.

(on a side note, your math is a bit lacking. to apply the 40% to the whole population like you did implies that all children have an opinion [or even a voice that anyone would listen to] in the matter. the 2000 census [and projected similarly for the 2010 census] says there are ~60 million people in the US who are 14 and under).



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Not to mention I doubt that 75% of CNN's watchers are stoners, so it should go to show it's not just pot heads voting yes to legalize



i hate to break it to you, but not *all* of CNN's viewers voted, as you just implied.
as i hinted at before: many people likely didn't bother to voting simply because the content of the survey wasn't interesting enough to them to bother. i know wouldn't have bothered participating if i saw it. i suspect most non-smokers would probably also ignore such a poll except for those with particularly strong feelings and those who just like taking surveys.
*but* i'm pretty sure that most smokers *WOULD* participate and vote for legalization if they saw such a poll--they might even call their friends or put links on their blogs and say "hey, vote for legalization on this CNN poll!" (which then totally invalidates the results).


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 22, 2009)

^ a lot of the medical reasons we've posted are true, though. and how the hell else is it going to be legalized without such reasons? saying things like "it's no worse than alcohol" is just stupid finger pointing. that DEFINITELY doesn't work. a lot of politicians already have their minds made up on how they feel about marijuana and know absolutely nothing about it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> i hate to break it to you, but not *all* of CNN's viewers voted, as you just implied.
> as i hinted at before: many people likely didn't bother to voting simply because the content of the survey wasn't interesting enough to them to bother. i know wouldn't have bothered participating if i saw it. i suspect most non-smokers would probably also ignore such a poll except for those with particularly strong feelings and those who just like taking surveys.
> *but* i'm pretty sure that most smokers *WOULD* participate and vote for legalization if they saw such a poll--they might even call their friends or put links on their blogs and say "hey, vote for legalization on this CNN poll!" (which then totally invalidates the results).



It would be the same if people were voting on a bill to legalize marijuana though (I'm assuming, not sure how shit gets passed down there). Not everyone is going to go out and vote  It still says something though, if the results had been 5&#37; instead of 75% it would send another message IMO. It still means that out of the people who voted, a shit ton of them believe it should be legalized.


----------



## WillingWell (Apr 23, 2009)

Thank God damigu is a master debater and has true insight on the core issues of this topic. I think we should have him spearhead the political action on this topic.


----------



## damigu (Apr 23, 2009)

WillingWell said:


> Thank God damigu is a master debater and has true insight on the core issues of this topic. I think we should have him spearhead the political action on this topic.



instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and sarcasm, why don't you try contributing something intelligent to the conversation?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 23, 2009)

damigu said:


> instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and sarcasm, why don't you try contributing something intelligent to the conversation?



i've noticed that's the kind of thing you might come to expect quite often from that character. he completely misses the point of a lot of posts... he's actually done it recently in one of my threads. "a wise man told me don't argue with fools. people from a distance don't know who's who"

while you have been playing devil's advocate quite well and frustratingly so, i might add, you have been making valid points.


----------



## lefty robb (Apr 23, 2009)

whoops double post


----------



## lefty robb (Apr 23, 2009)

[myspacevid]56111365[/myspacevid]


----------



## DDDorian (Apr 23, 2009)

WillingWell said:


> Thank God damigu is a master debater and has true insight on the core issues of this topic. I think we should have him spearhead the political action on this topic.



Time to do some spearheading of my own: any more useless attitude and you'll be taking a nap


----------

