[peace*out]

To not get "off topic" in the other thread...

...Drugs can actually be very beneficial. Lemme know if you want to discuss it haha.

For starters: I know they can relive you from pain, but i'm not trying to talk about advil. I'm talking meth, crack, you - the stuff.

I have a friend who use to do drugs, and even he says not to.

hmmmmm...so anyways, here's a new topic that may be widely argued...

[peace*out]

Dude, are you kidding? The drinking age is INSANE. I was born in, and spent a great deal of my childhood, in Germany, so I sort of feel like I have a pretty good idea of what the deal with this is. In Germany, you can start legally drinking beer at 16, the harder liquor at 18. Here, 21 for all. In Germany, kids typically start sipping their parents' drinks around 12, and it's not uncommon for a 14 year old to be able to go out and order a beer. (My dad and I actually did a little experiment. It was New Years' eve two years ago, so I was hardly 14, and we were in a pub in the middle of nowhere (small, but beautiful village, where my great-grandma lives), and the waitress totally brought me one, without so much as an ask for my age. People there drink beer sort of like they drink coke (unless it's like Oktoberfest or something), maybe 1-2, no huge problem. By the time kids are 18-20, they're able to handle their alcohol, sort of like a 25 year old here. The partying phase isn't totally gone yet, but they're not getting smashed s**tless every weekend. Which is good, because at this point, they're either in university or have a job, where a bit of maturity and seriousness is required.

Compare that to Americans. I don't deny that kids start drinking around 16 anyway, but it's a great deal harder and more frustrating. By the time someone is 21, I sort of feel like they've been waiting so long to drink, they just get totally smashed (...or maybe MTV is exaggerating, I dunno ). My uncle was an American soldier and was stationed in (I think) the 90s. He keeps telling us how often he and his friends (he was there from 18-22) would get kicked out of pubs.

So yeah, meh. Just my two cents.

What I was thinking about was how UR (& u too? Idk) keep(s) saying how alcohol is worse than MJ, and shouldn't be as easy to get today while MJ isn't even completely legal. Then, you guys say to lower the drinking age...??? I understand that a lot of the reason that abuse happens is restriction, but if everything was free for everyone, it would be a lot harder than if everything was illegal.

[Izzy]

Sometimes "bad for you" doesn't correlate with "should be illegal". Like, McDonalds, pretty bad for you, not illegal/restricted. I think if the US is defining us as adults by age 18, they better give us the rights that come along with us. It's sort of insulting, to be considered "adult" but not capable of handling our booze. The point is, alcohol is just as bad for you when you're 18 as it is when you're 21, so making people hold out that long is pointless.

Alcohol is (still bad for you, but) okay when you're just having a drink (or 10..) out with friends. The sooner you can learn that lesson, the sooner you can grow up.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Izzy

[unreality]

What source is this?

the same one i linked to a couple pages, but in this case it's less of a factual source and more of an opinion. That being said it's a well shared and well documented opinion. The opinion part of it is that corporate america forced marijuana out of the picture because hemp products are so much better than theirs, however the fact is that of the history of the United States, the events surrounding the alcohol prohibition, the big pharmaceutical companies etc.

What I was thinking about was how UR (& u too? Idk) keep(s) saying how alcohol is worse than MJ, and shouldn't be as easy to get today while MJ isn't even completely legal. Then, you guys say to lower the drinking age...??? I understand that a lot of the reason that abuse happens is restriction, but if everything was free for everyone, it would be a lot harder than if everything was illegal.

I never said it shouldn't be as easy to get. I said I wanted to lower the drinking age, accompanied by a class and test. You don't let your kids drive without 'showing them the ropes' and making sure they can go out without killing anyone. It should be the same with alcohol. Right now we have the by-far worst documented system in the ENTIRE WORLD. No instruction other than maybe a half-hearted 6th grade Health class, and the j, high/ high school years to initiate and college too but even so, a lot of misconceptions and lack of knowledge & safety exists until one turns 21 at which point they go out and binge and many people die.

The fact of the matter is that making it legal to some but not to others makes it more appealing and more daring to drink younger and easier to get into trouble (legally or medically) because of it. As Izzy was saying, in Europe, it's the other way around. It's easier to get alcohol younger so kids are more used to it being part of life so they're not as likely to go out on deadly binges.

You confused my point: I was saying marijuana is safer than alcohol to emphasize the comparative (and not just relatively but objectively) safety of the plant; you mistook my point as if saying that alcohol was really dangerous and BOTH should be illegal. While alcohol is indeed dangerous and marijuana is not, my repeated opinion is that both should be legal to the extents that I've already said (age 18).

[peace*out]

the same one i linked to a couple pages, but in this case it's less of a factual source and more of an opinion. That being said it's a well shared and well documented opinion. The opinion part of it is that corporate america forced marijuana out of the picture because hemp products are so much better than theirs, however the fact is that of the history of the United States, the events surrounding the alcohol prohibition, the big pharmaceutical companies etc.

I never said it shouldn't be as easy to get. I said I wanted to lower the drinking age, accompanied by a class and test. You don't let your kids drive without 'showing them the ropes' and making sure they can go out without killing anyone. It should be the same with alcohol. Right now we have the by-far worst documented system in the ENTIRE WORLD. No instruction other than maybe a half-hearted 6th grade Health class, and the j, high/ high school years to initiate and college too but even so, a lot of misconceptions and lack of knowledge & safety exists until one turns 21 at which point they go out and binge and many people die.

The fact of the matter is that making it legal to some but not to others makes it more appealing and more daring to drink younger and easier to get into trouble (legally or medically) because of it. As Izzy was saying, in Europe, it's the other way around. It's easier to get alcohol younger so kids are more used to it being part of life so they're not as likely to go out on deadly binges.

You confused my point: I was saying marijuana is safer than alcohol to emphasize the comparative (and not just relatively but objectively) safety of the plant; you mistook my point as if saying that alcohol was really dangerous and BOTH should be illegal. While alcohol is indeed dangerous and marijuana is not, my repeated opinion is that both should be legal to the extents that I've already said (age 18).

sorry for the missunderstanding.

How many 14 year olds do you think get hooked on alcohol and drugs? Just wondering...

[Izzy]

How many 14 year olds do you think get hooked on alcohol and drugs? Just wondering...

Hmm.. Out of my 8th grade class (100 people), 10-12 did drugs, maybe 1/3 drank socially, and only one was hooked. He had problems beforehand though, and I think that contributed to his addiction. He's 15 now, and.. still pretty messed up. So.. not a lot, to answer your question.

[unreality]

my school is somewhat notorious for problems and recently a kid I knew died of a heroin overdose. This stuff (not just heroin, speaking in general) may be illegal but you cannot pretend like there aren't problems. That's why the government's strategy needs to change. We need to control less, not more

[peace*out]

Hmm.. Out of my 8th grade class (100 people), 10-12 did drugs, maybe 1/3 drank socially, and only one was hooked. He had problems beforehand though, and I think that contributed to his addiction. He's 15 now, and.. still pretty messed up. So.. not a lot, to answer your question.

aboout 1/6 of my grade does druggs, 2 are HOOKED...idk how many drink...

[peace*out]

my school is somewhat notorious for problems and recently a kid I knew died of a heroin overdose. This stuff (not just heroin, speaking in general) may be illegal but you cannot pretend like there aren't problems. That's why the government's strategy needs to change. We need to control less, not more

true...I think the reason why the govt. is doing the war on drugs is that poeple LIKE to be in control..or at least think it. But my point is that they kill...I do believe that making some legal would be good, accompanied by a test. But not all...at least in my opinion.

[Izzy]

I found this hilarious... Go here: http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/, click on reference, go to Drug War Cost Clock. I'm pretty sure this covers the amount we'd be paying to help people. Updated every second, $20,086,206,234 as of right now.

[Izzy]

I found this hilarious... Go here: http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/, click on reference, go to Drug War Cost Clock. I'm pretty sure this covers the amount we'd be paying to help people. Updated every second, $20,086,206,234 as of right now.

For some perspective, they've been $200 million since I posted this less than 24 hours ago.

Does this blow up the financial argument?

Drug rehab costs ~$7000 a month, according to various sources Google brought up. I have.. no idea how many people will need to go to rehab, but let's say maybe .5% of the population, at any given time? (I'm sure that's way over estimated, given that maybe 10% of teenagers do drugs, and almost none to go rehab.) So, .5% of 307,006,550 is 1,535,032. Now, most people pay for their own rehab, and we can assume there will requirements for financial aid. Maybe 500,000 will need to, and differing levels of covery. So, 500,000*7000 = 3,500,000,000. Now, if the government LEGALIZES drugs and TAXES them, this can be easily covered.

[unreality]

For some perspective, they've been $200 million since I posted this less than 24 hours ago.

Does this blow up the financial argument?

Drug rehab costs ~$7000 a month, according to various sources Google brought up. I have.. no idea how many people will need to go to rehab, but let's say maybe .5% of the population, at any given time? (I'm sure that's way over estimated, given that maybe 10% of teenagers do drugs, and almost none to go rehab.) So, .5% of 307,006,550 is 1,535,032. Now, most people pay for their own rehab, and we can assume there will requirements for financial aid. Maybe 500,000 will need to, and differing levels of covery. So, 500,000*7000 = 3,500,000,000. Now, if the government LEGALIZES drugs and TAXES them, this can be easily covered.

I'm curious though, do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?

[Izzy]

I'm curious though, do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?

Yes, without limitation. I know you disagree, but I just don't think the government has any right to tell us what we put into OUR bodies. Death is the most extreme negative side effect (well, that's subjective, but it's definitely one you can't recover from), and the government can't force us to live any more than they can make us conform to their stupid drug policies. If someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs, that's a different matter entirely, and s/he should be punished accordingly.

Certain "harder" drugs should be harder to get, but still legal or AT LEAST decriminalized.

[unreality]

yes I agree absolutely that all drugs should be decriminalized, that is, no criminal penalty if "caught" with them, no federal/state bans on having them (maybe a civil fine because cities can enact rules for anything include dog-walking ordinances lol).

However, outright LEGALIZED is a different matter entirely. That would mean you could walk in a store in the mall and buy a bag of H... I don't think we should open the commercial, corporate, corrupt floodgates on something already so dangerous and life-destroying.

I do agree that the government should not prevent us from altering our bodies and minds in ways we choose as far as it only affects us, and so all drugs should be decriminalized, but as far as legalizing them for the open market, I'm not so sure. This is an issue I've really waffled about, I'm still not adamant either way

[peace*out]

Yes, without limitation. I know you disagree, but I just don't think the government has any right to tell us what we put into OUR bodies. Death is the most extreme negative side effect (well, that's subjective, but it's definitely one you can't recover from), and the government can't force us to live any more than they can make us conform to their stupid drug policies. If someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs, that's a different matter entirely, and s/he should be punished accordingly.

Certain "harder" drugs should be harder to get, but still legal or AT LEAST decriminalized.

If person X wants to kill themselves, you're right - that's there problem. But when the USA find that they need to pay for hospital care, or X killed Y, that's a different matter entirely. That's endangering, or "using" another person to pay for themselves. Then there's what happens when they get hooked, and they have to steal, kill, or some other offence. Can you say rehab?

yes I agree absolutely that all drugs should be decriminalized, that is, no criminal penalty if "caught" with them, no federal/state bans on having them (maybe a civil fine because cities can enact rules for anything include dog-walking ordinances lol).

However, outright LEGALIZED is a different matter entirely. That would mean you could walk in a store in the mall and buy a bag of H... I don't think we should open the commercial, corporate, corrupt floodgates on something already so dangerous and life-destroying.

I do agree that the government should not prevent us from altering our bodies and minds in ways we choose as far as it only affects us, and so all drugs should be decriminalized, but as far as legalizing them for the open market, I'm not so sure. This is an issue I've really waffled about, I'm still not adamant either way

I now think that SOME drugs can be legalized (again - with a HARD test or something) but not all. Decriminalization would be good on some drugs, but on plants that make hard drugs, what about those?

[Izzy]

If person X wants to kill themselves, you're right - that's there problem. But when the USA find that they need to pay for hospital care, or X killed Y, that's a different matter entirely. That's endangering, or "using" another person to pay for themselves. Then there's what happens when they get hooked, and they have to steal, kill, or some other offence. Can you say rehab?

If drugs are legalized, no one will have to KILL for them anymore. Steal at most, but that probably won't be that easy. Do you see how legalization makes problems go away? If someone decides to go into a drug store with a gun, and it's all like "Gimme yo drugzz, foo'", he can have them, and the police will track him down in a matter of days, just like when people rob pharmacies/stores/whatevs. Also, I think if they're legal, addiction will go down. It will no longer be "Oh maaaan, I have to do <drug> whenever I can get it, because what if I can't get it anymore?!" Sort of like alcohol, you can just buy it whenever.

[Guest]

Yes, without limitation. I know you disagree, but I just don't think the government has any right to tell us what we put into OUR bodies. Death is the most extreme negative side effect (well, that's subjective, but it's definitely one you can't recover from), and the government can't force us to live any more than they can make us conform to their stupid drug policies. If someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs, that's a different matter entirely, and s/he should be punished accordingly.

If person X wants to kill themselves, you're right - that's there problem. But when the USA find that they need to pay for hospital care, or X killed Y, that's a different matter entirely. That's endangering, or "using" another person to pay for themselves. Then there's what happens when they get hooked, and they have to steal, kill, or some other offence. Can you say rehab?

Yes, I agree with what peace is saying here. I do agree with Izzy that in principle the government shouldn't be regulating what a person does in their own home, so long as they "aren't harming anyone else," but that's another part of the problem. I think it's difficult to figure out exactly how someone else's actions affect me.

Say you don't do drugs, or you do them moderately. Would you want to live in a neighborhood where every other house on the block is filled with a "family" of druggies, who neglect their property and just drift through life longing for their next fix? Is their societal negligence impacting your quality of life (QOL)? (I have to admit that it does remind me of Neighborhood Associations, which sometimes seem to make ridiculous and arbitrary rules for living requirements. I admit that I've never lived in such a neighbor and most are probably fine, but there are always some particularly crazy ones that wind up on the news from time-to-time.)

The situation reminds me of a game I played briefly a number of years ago called "Caesar III." You acted as a governor in Rome's glory days, building a city and paying dues to the capital as requested. The thing about the game was that you didn't build houses, you put a tile of land up for rent and people would come from "other cities" to populate your city. They started by living in hovels and you could increase their QOL by building utilities and markets near their homes. For instance, the villagers could upgrade their hovel to a shack if they had access to a public fountain (clean water). From there, as they got better access to amenities, the prosperity of the occupant would improve and they could upgrade to a small house and beyond.

However, the ability of the citizen's life to improve also depended on the QOL of their neighbors. If someone on the block lived too far from the fountain (and thus was still living in a hovel) an occupant living in a shack couldn't upgrade to a small house because the hovel down the street was holding the QOL down for everyone on the block, even if they otherwise should be able to do so. It is perhaps a bit of a simplified situation to real life, but it does show the interconnectedness of people living in the same community.

If you live in a society, you do have an obligation to that society to support it and act in the interest of the body politic (provided of course that the government is structured such that a body politic exists and can wield real power). Should the people who are too immature or too selfish to consider the needs of their families or neighbors be able to forgo their obligation to society? I know that "unkempt gardens" seems like a trivial reason over which to impose the rule of law, but there can be other, more serious consequences of pure legalization.

If the consequences of drug ODs and addiction weren't so high, this controversy should never have arisen. It's oftentimes far too easy for people to go over the limits without realizing it or without intending to do so. It seems reasonable to me that there should be some sort of safeguards in place. A regulated (rather than restricted) drug trade might be the answer, though I doubt that anything will be a silver bullet. In any case, I definitely don't think that full legalization will be the great solution that Izzy seems to think it is.

@Izzy: Regarding alcohol being readily available at the nearest party store: there are still alcoholics in America. Legalization may drive down addiction, but that's not guaranteed and we can't really say by how much if it does, since it's clear that there will still be addicted people even if you legalize it.

[Izzy]

^Dude, Home Owners' Association. Unless you live in one of these neighborhoods, keep your yard as you will, and your neighbors can stop selfishly expecting things of you.

[Izzy]

Here are some statistics I've found and compiled.

Each year about 443,600 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Secondhand smoke causes at least 35,000 deaths and as many as 62,000 deaths from heart disease.

I'm going to provide this link, but I now a lot of people don't click links (not necessarily you guys, just in general), so Ima copy and paste the table.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000

Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000

Alcohol 85,000

Microbial Agents 75,000

Toxic Agents 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,3471

Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000

Suicide 30,622

Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000

Homicide 20,308

Sexual Behaviors 20,000

All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600

Marijuana 0

That's illicit drug use, direct and INDIRECT. Second hand smoke kills more people a year than drugs kill people that aren't using them.

Now, according to the latest surveys, cited by the DEA themselves, there are about 12.7 million people who have used some illegal drug in the last month and perhaps 30 to 40 million who have used some illegal drug within the last year. Of the 12.7 million who used illegal drugs in the last month, about 10 million are presumed to be casual drug users, and about 2.7 million are addicts.

So, 307,006,550 live in the United States. That means 4% of people currently use drugs. In Amsterdam, pot is legal and only 4.1% people smoke. I think, right now, most of the people that want drugs, are doing them. However, even if there's a 1000% increase in drug use in the US (that's absurd, btw) if we make them legal, and now 40% of Americans are using drugs, it *might* account for 170,000 deaths a year, which is still less than half of those dying from lack of physical inactivity. Obese people also hold the world back, rely on government money, waste up our resources, etc. They also do it to themselves. So, unless you're going to make it a law that people need to get off of their a$$es, legalize drugs.

[peace*out]

If drugs are legalized, no one will have to KILL for them anymore. Steal at most, but that probably won't be that easy. Do you see how legalization makes problems go away? If someone decides to go into a drug store with a gun, and it's all like "Gimme yo drugzz, foo'", he can have them, and the police will track him down in a matter of days, just like when people rob pharmacies/stores/whatevs. Also, I think if they're legal, addiction will go down. It will no longer be "Oh maaaan, I have to do <drug> whenever I can get it, because what if I can't get it anymore?!" Sort of like alcohol, you can just buy it whenever.

3 words: UNDER THE INFLUENCE

I know you're saying that most people do it in their home. That *may* chance if people could do it, in say, the mall. Then driving home...

:-\

[peace*out]

Here are some statistics I've found and compiled.

Each year about 443,600 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Secondhand smoke causes at least 35,000 deaths and as many as 62,000 deaths from heart disease.

I'm going to provide this link, but I now a lot of people don't click links (not necessarily you guys, just in general), so Ima copy and paste the table.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000

Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000

Alcohol 85,000

Microbial Agents 75,000

Toxic Agents 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,3471

Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000

Suicide 30,622

Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000

Homicide 20,308

Sexual Behaviors 20,000

All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600

Marijuana 0

That's illicit drug use, direct and INDIRECT. Second hand smoke kills more people a year than drugs kill people that aren't using them.

Now, according to the latest surveys, cited by the DEA themselves, there are about 12.7 million people who have used some illegal drug in the last month and perhaps 30 to 40 million who have used some illegal drug within the last year. Of the 12.7 million who used illegal drugs in the last month, about 10 million are presumed to be casual drug users, and about 2.7 million are addicts.

So, 307,006,550 live in the United States. That means 4% of people currently use drugs. In Amsterdam, pot is legal and only 4.1% people smoke. I think, right now, most of the people that want drugs, are doing them. However, even if there's a 1000% increase in drug use in the US (that's absurd, btw) if we make them legal, and now 40% of Americans are using drugs, it *might* account for 170,000 deaths a year, which is still less than half of those dying from lack of physical inactivity. Obese people also hold the world back, rely on government money, waste up our resources, etc. They also do it to themselves. So, unless you're going to make it a law that people need to get off of their a$$es, legalize drugs.

shall we make a topic about smoking?

I also have a problem with smoking. Especially since I'm inhaling the second - hand smoke. but If Y kills more than X, does that make X better?

no.

I noticed your "MJ - 0" thing. But this is KNOWN, i'm guessing. Or that the # was so small, they rounded it down to zero.

and for the obecity - weren't YOU the one saying you can do whatever you want to your body? Someone who's overweight is less a danger to others than someone under the influence.

[Izzy]

3 words: UNDER THE INFLUENCE

I know you're saying that most people do it in their home. That *may* chance if people could do it, in say, the mall. Then driving home...

:-\

Hahah dude, when you're on drugs, you don't think about getting more drugs.

The same laws apply. Just like you can't be drunk in public (excluding bars, concert venues, etc.) or drive home drunk, doing it whilst high will ALSO be illegal. In fact, with quite a lot of drugs, your motor control is so impaired, you'd have a pretty rough time even standing up and finding a car. With amphetamines it's different, you're actually much more alert and can function a car better. Driving after smoking pot is dangerous and stupid. I'm sure it's contributing to the ZERO pot related deaths out there.

shall we make a topic about smoking?

I also have a problem with smoking. Especially since I'm inhaling the second - hand smoke. but If Y kills more than X, does that make X better?

no.

No topic necessary, let's just discuss it here.

Uh, yes. If guns kill more than trampolines, are guns worse? Yes. If methamphetamine has worse effects for you than amphetamine, does that make it worse? Again, YES. We typically judge how bad something is by the amount of negative effects it has on someone, death definitely part of this. Now, if trampolines kill 999,999 people a year, and guns kill 1,000,000, the difference is negligible. If they kill ZERO, and guns kill 443,600, guns are DEFINITELY worse.

I noticed your "MJ - 0" thing. But this is KNOWN, i'm guessing. Or that the # was so small, they rounded it down to zero.

and for the obecity - weren't YOU the one saying you can do whatever you want to your body? Someone who's overweight is less a danger to others than someone under the influence.

Or they wrote "zero" because they meant zero. Copied and pasted from the website:

"The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death? Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response."

Yep, by all means, go pig out. However, I can argue than an obese person is in fact more of a strain on society than a high person. They leave an enormous carbon footprint; they eat more so are responsible for more animal deaths; they make us burn more coal to create fuel so airplanes can support them; assuming they have kids, their bad habits will perpetuate into the next generation, they have a general lack of physical ability, which can cause deaths when put in certain situations; they have some of the worst overall health so will eat up medical supplies, hospital space, etc.; they need to use more water to clean themselves; their premature deaths put financial hardships onto their family; depression from low self-esteem and being bullied can lead to situations endangering other people, and so on..

That said, I don't actually care if you're fat. I just don't think it's fair to say druggies are worse for the entire when there's piles of literature to support the contrary.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Izzy

[unreality]

I noticed your "MJ - 0" thing. But this is KNOWN, i'm guessing. Or that the # was so small, they rounded it down to zero.

yes, Marijuana has caused zero deaths. If you read anything from any the sources I mentioned earlier (most of them impartial including Wikipedia) they will confirm this. Sure people have died while high, but usually because they were using something else too (often alcohol, the real killer) or were just stupid/dangerous to begin with. I don't know if you have ever consumed cannabis for recreational purposes or any purposes but if you have you know that the effect it has isn't really one that affects your judgment on whether it's safe to drive (and high drivers are often safer actually because they drive way slower lol. but I would not recommend driving under the influence of anything, except for maybe a mild stimulant for alertness like caffeine or a low dose of amphetamine)

A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette.

what a waste of weed! Haha. But in all seriousness, if you want to know why certain drugs became illegal in the first place, it's often because they are associated with minority groups (often Racial minorities).

For example, cocaine was made illegal because it was used primarily by blacks in the start of the 1900s. For example of the horror struck into the hearts of the Good White People of the North by the "crazed black cocaine killers", check out this New York times article from 1914:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E5D61F3BE633A2575BC0A9649C946596D6CF

I'm not saying I think cocaine should be legal... but you can't deny that the original reasons for its illegality were ridiculous and based on racism.

There are more examples of drugs being made illegal for the WRONG reasons. In 1875, San Francisco passed a law saying that opium can no longer be smoked in opium dens. The Chinese immigrants (who were looked down upon) were the main people using the opium dens, and other places around the country started passing similar laws... but they passed NO laws against laudanum, which is basically the same thing (opium+alcohol) - but laudanum was being used by upper-class whites. It stayed legal.

Marijuana was made illegal because of its association with racial minorities, mostly Mexican migrant workers and also blacks.

The man that campaigned for hemp to made illegal, Harry J Anslinger, said these quotes:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

There was also a push about "Marihuana madness" and "Reefer madness" There is a (now-hilarious) film sponsored by a church group, called (Reefer Madness: Tell Your Children), using religious influence to push for criminalization, on the claim that marijuana made mexicans into violent killing machines (when in reality marijuana usually has a calming effect).

As you can see, the history of drugs becoming illegal is not something that the nation is proud of, similar to the Japanese detention camps, et al. It's time we re-assess what our policies should truly be toward various substances rather than continuing the status quo set 100 years ago when the USA was a very different place

[peace*out]

Hahah dude, when you're on drugs, you don't think about getting more drugs.

The same laws apply. Just like you can't be drunk in public (excluding bars, concert venues, etc.) or drive home drunk, doing it whilst high will ALSO be illegal. In fact, with quite a lot of drugs, your motor control is so impaired, you'd have a pretty rough time even standing up and finding a car. With amphetamines it's different, you're actually much more alert and can function a car better. Driving after smoking pot is dangerous and stupid. I'm sure it's contributing to the ZERO pot related deaths out there.

I didn't know that...cause I'm not the one researching drugs 24/7

No topic necessary, let's just discuss it here.

Uh, yes. If guns kill more than trampolines, are guns worse? Yes. If methamphetamine has worse effects for you than amphetamine, does that make it worse? Again, YES. We typically judge how bad something is by the amount of negative effects it has on someone, death definitely part of this. Now, if trampolines kill 999,999 people a year, and guns kill 1,000,000, the difference is negligible. If they kill ZERO, and guns kill 443,600, guns are DEFINITELY worse.

I didn't ask whether it was WORSE, I asked if the other was BETTER. Lets just say (making things up) more people die in the army than drowning. Does that make drowning better? NO.

Or they wrote "zero" because they meant zero. Copied and pasted from the website:

"The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death? Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response."

Yep, by all means, go pig out. However, I can argue than an obese person is in fact more of a strain on society than a high person. They leave an enormous carbon footprint; they eat more so are responsible for more animal deaths; they make us burn more coal to create fuel so airplanes can support them; assuming they have kids, their bad habits will perpetuate into the next generation, they have a general lack of physical ability, which can cause deaths when put in certain situations; they have some of the worst overall health so will eat up medical supplies, hospital space, etc.; they need to use more water to clean themselves; their premature deaths put financial hardships onto their family; depression from low self-esteem and being bullied can lead to situations endangering other people, and so on..

That said, I don't actually care if you're fat. I just don't think it's fair to say druggies are worse for the entire when there's piles of literature to support the contrary.

:blink: :blink:

Good to know...we should open up a topic on Global Warming too!

Edited May 24, 2010 by peace*out

[Izzy]

I didn't ask whether it was WORSE, I asked if the other was BETTER. Lets just say (making things up) more people die in the army than drowning. Does that make drowning better? NO.

You're thinking about it in the wrong terms. The outcome of drowning and dying in the army are the same: death. They're essentially indistinguishable because you can't say that "death is worse than death". Now, if we're comparing how many people die as a result of drowning vs. in the army, yes, being in the army has a higher fatality rate, so drowning is "better".

[peace*out]

You're thinking about it in the wrong terms. The outcome of drowning and dying in the army are the same: death. They're essentially indistinguishable because you can't say that "death is worse than death". Now, if we're comparing how many people die as a result of drowning vs. in the army, yes, being in the army has a higher fatality rate, so drowning is "better".

yes, Im comparing #s. And I'm not saying is ___ better than ___. I'm saying that if drowning is bad, but something is worse, does drowning seem better because of that?