[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...

[unreality]

for some reason, i picture you saying this with a smirk...

but if you think about it, this makes it all the more accesible to people who wouldn't normally get it or even try it. probably less expensive to grow, since all you get is a small civil fine on the level of a parking ticket. Illegally, while it's more "exciting" to grab some crack or whatever, it's also less accessible because there's more to lose.

Am i missing something?

are you saying that pot being more accessible than crack is a bad thing? Cocaine is addictive with all kinds of negative effects on the body whereas I would go so far as to say marijuana is harmless in most situations. I don't see anything "exciting" about "grabbing some crack". There's not just more to lose, there's everything to lose.

Yeah, but if I were the sort of person who sleeps in class, I could have slept through driver's ed and still passed the test. The class/test is a joke (which makes it even scarier to me that some people can't pass it the first time ). The hands-on driving is useful, but I get the feeling that giving teenagers hand's-on experience with drugs would be frowned upon...

yeah I wouldnt advocate the hands on use haha, at least not at first. But I think most people could get behind an idea like this:

when you're 17 or 18, take a class on alcohol use, abuse, effects, driving laws, etc, etc, etc, with an actual HARD test that ensures that the material is known. Then it's legal for purchase at age 19 or so.

Working for there similar tests could be constructed

What further complicates the situation is how you define "hurting others." If a person becomes a total addict and loses all his money and assets trying to satisfy his craving, when (if at all) does the government get to step in? He needs rehabilitation to become a producing member of society again, but he has no money, so who will pay for that rehab? If the government has to step in to help him through some program like Medicaid, then you and I, as taxpayers (once you get to the age where you have an income) are going to be picking up his tab somewhere down the line. If we know that there are going to be people like this, it seems reasonable to me that the government should be able to step in somewhere before that complete self-destruction to try to put that pin back in the before it explodes.

So in short you're saying addictive substances should be illegal to make taxpayers spend less. Makes sense, but then why isnt alcohol illegal and marijuana legal? There's a lot of social/political/religious elements feeding it too, it's just not purely economical. But if we're regarding just the economics, the money the government would make off of taxes on such substances would fund the rehab programs 10x over and then the taxpayers would have to pay for NONE of it I'm sure it's more complicated than that but you get the idea; legalizing itself (or even partial legalization) adds a huge new source of income for the government.

And if we're talking about less harmful, non addicting, "safer" "softer" drugs (marijuana, hallucinogens, ecstasy, what have you) the income is there without as much as the expense

Note, I said "right now." They've already legalized marijuana in California, but Senator Barbara Boxer won't go on the record in support of legalization on a Federal level because she knows that her political opponents will hammer her for it. For whatever reason, the "values" voters are completely opposed to shifting their stance on drugs even an inch, even as the rest of the country inches around them. And most of the "values" voters get their marching orders from their religious leaders, most of whom insist that drugs are temptations from the Devil (at least that's my best guess as to why they oppose such things).

yeah I was going to bring this up at some point, religion definitely plays a role... which is ironic because the cannabis plant is actually well promoted by the Bible and other major religions (not just Rastafarianism ), and I read somewhere that it's likely that Moses' diet included a lot of shrooms

Yes, but don't let DPS at the University catch Some Other Guy with any. The University of Michigan still has a strict zero-tolerance policy.

yeah, the U of M property is officially owned by the US government

[peace*out]

are you saying that pot being more accessible than crack is a bad thing? Cocaine is addictive with all kinds of negative effects on the body whereas I would go so far as to say marijuana is harmless in most situations. I don't see anything "exciting" about "grabbing some crack". There's not just more to lose, there's everything to lose.

no. i'm not saying that anything being more accessable is better.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

Short-Term Effects

The short-term effects of marijuana include:

* Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)

* Problems with memory and learning

* Loss of coordination

* Trouble with thinking and problem-solving

* Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure

Sometimes marijuana use can also produce anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.

Effects on the Brain

The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.

When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:

* Hallucinations

* Delusions

* Impaired memory

* Disorientation

There's more, especially about more on the heart, lungs, and other heath problems. if you want to read more, go to the website.

and you may not, but the thrill of it does make it more...fun...for some people. not nessecarily you. I'm talking about in general, not specifically you.

yeah I wouldnt advocate the hands on use haha, at least not at first. But I think most people could get behind an idea like this:

when you're 17 or 18, take a class on alcohol use, abuse, effects, driving laws, etc, etc, etc, with an actual HARD test that ensures that the material is known. Then it's legal for purchase at age 19 or so.

Working for there similar tests could be constructed

That's a good idea, but i say it would then be legal at 20. And there would have to be something on the drivers licence, cause if you fail...and then there would be fake licences made more than today...

So in short you're saying addictive substances should be illegal to make taxpayers spend less. Makes sense, but then why isnt alcohol illegal and marijuana legal? There's a lot of social/political/religious elements feeding it too, it's just not purely economical. But if we're regarding just the economics, the money the government would make off of taxes on such substances would fund the rehab programs 10x over and then the taxpayers would have to pay for NONE of it I'm sure it's more complicated than that but you get the idea; legalizing itself (or even partial legalization) adds a huge new source of income for the government.

And if we're talking about less harmful, non addicting, "safer" "softer" drugs (marijuana, hallucinogens, ecstasy, what have you) the income is there without as much as the expense

Reasons why alcohol's legal: (and something else):

ALCOHOL:

1. to many people already addicted to it (AAA)

2. it's easier to arrest someone for growing the opium poppy than rotted grapes and barley

3. WAY to much trouble for our govt...besides, I'm sure Obama and other leaders like a drink now and then...

4. When would it go into effect? some people have 50 year old wine, or have paid 4k for some wine out there, and they get it taken away? how much longer would they have to drink a gazillion gallons of wine

5. America likes the tax revenue they're getting for it...more for it, right?

6. You would also have to illegalize grapes and barley (see #2)

Just saying (about MJ):

1. I don't know about about other states (maybe you could help), but Maine just legalized MJ for medical uses. Other states have it too. This, you would have to ask your state. It's because the general public (I assume) didn't think like you do.

yeah I was going to bring this up at some point, religion definitely plays a role... which is ironic because the cannabis plant is actually well promoted by the Bible and other major religions (not just Rastafarianism ), and I read somewhere that it's likely that Moses' diet included a lot of shrooms

Moses doesn't live in the 21st century...

[unreality]

Short-Term Effects

The short-term effects of marijuana include:

* Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)

* Problems with memory and learning

* Loss of coordination

* Trouble with thinking and problem-solving

* Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure

Sometimes marijuana use can also produce anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.

Effects on the Brain

The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.

When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:

* Hallucinations

* Delusions

* Impaired memory

* Disorientation

There's more, especially about more on the heart, lungs, and other heath problems. if you want to read more, go to the website.

I don't know how I can make you understand this but alcohol is sooooo much worse than marijuana. As far as "distorted perception", "memory impairment" , "loss of coordination", et al go (disregarding that those are often DESIRED effects lol), Alcohol takes the cake. Not only that but Alcohol can actually kill you, very easily. And make you pass out and throw up and give you liver disease and a lot of other short term and long term problems.

And yes it's true that cannabis becomes more hallucinogenic/psychedelic when eaten or smoked in high doses, that too is desired if done. Sometimes if someone "smokes too much" then they know it and back down.

Increased heart rate is the only negative effect out of that entire list, so if you have a heart condition I would do more research before trying it (or anything else for that matter), but even the amount of caffeine in a few bottles of coca cola is worse as far as the heart goes (and definitely the amount in a Monster).

Cannabinoids actually have anti-cancer properties, though in general smoking Anything isn't a grand idea, that can counteract the negative effect on the lungs (though getting something like a Vaporizor or a well designed water pipe can also do that). Some more positive benefits (I didn't write the following myself but I can verify any of it if you want)

-It alleiviates your circulatory system by inducing hypotension, aka lowering blood pressure. This is very healthy, and has the practical uses for any disorder which causes high blood pressure, and for glaucoma, which is a disorder of hypertension (high blood pressure (notice hypo vs. hyper if you didnt catch that) in the retina which is the leading cause of blindness world wide.

If that didn't make sense to you- summary: it expands your blood vessels, which is very beneficial to health

-It reliefs pain and nausea. This is very good for any kind of patient of surgery or chemotherapy. Especially in cancer and AIDS patients who get treatments, this is the most effective medication as is it the best drug for nausea relief and alleiviates the obvious pain of cancer and surgical recovery.

-It relieves muscle spasms. This is especially helpful to patients of Multiple Sclerosis to contol muscles.

-It actually does not cause cancer, in fact, it helps cure it. There are drugs in marijuana that help kill cancerous cells in the lungs.

-It helps insomniac victims. Take a couple hits before bed and lights out. One of the more obvious negatives of marijuana as a recreational drug is drowziness. Any person who suffers from a disorder or pain that prevents them from sleeping, marijuana will be a very good, but partially habit forming (not addiction forming, habit) sleep aid.

-Marijuana is one of the few if not only substance to be known to promote neurogenesis. This means that yes, marijuana does not kill brain cells, it aids in the growth of new ones. The misconception comes from the fact that smoking ANYTHING, as in burning any plant materials or substances and inhaling them kills brain cells and damages the lungs. But there are alternatives to smoking it. You could just as easily vaporize it with a pricey, but very effective, efficient, and in my opinion, invaluable Vaporizer machine or bake it into foods. Any food containing lipids such as butter (perfect for baked goods), milk, fats, oils will absorb the THC very effectively. Just be sure to heat it to 360 degrees F to boil the THC.

Summary: Smoking kills brain cells, Marijuana grows new ones. So find an alternative to smoking and you're golden.

-Munchies, munchies, munchies! Marijuana stimulates the appetite. This is a wonderful application for many sick people. Every year, hundreds of cancer victims die not of the disease, but of starvation. They have no appetite. But marijuana gives you the munchies. This is a great application for cancer and AIDS patients who have no appetite.

-Marijuana makes you happy! IT is more effective than any uppers or antidepressants. This is even a great application for victims of terrible or fatal diseases. Most chemotherapy medications for AIDS and cancer have very depressing tolls on the patients, and the situation of mortality sure isn't helping. So Marijuana is so effective for cancer and AIDS patients, making them happy, hungry, helping them sleep, and reducing pain and nausea.

.

Now that we know just how helpful and healthy marijuana is, lets look at other drugs and their legal status. Question: How many people die each year from alcohol poisoning and related incidents such as homicide, crashes, accidents? Over 100,000 people in the US. How many from a drug we look at as harmless, such as aspirin? 500 each year. Hmm... How many from Marijuana? Oh, wait, there arent any. 0. ZERO DEATHS. In the history of mankind, never has there been a substantiated report of cannibis poisoning (Keywork: substantiated. There was a reported case in England a few years ago, but that was never substantiated and it happened to come at a very convienent time for political opposition of the change of Marijuana's legal status in UK. Just because the guy was high when he died does not mean marijuana caused the death).

Reasons why alcohol's legal: (and something else):

ALCOHOL:

1. to many people already addicted to it (AAA)

2. it's easier to arrest someone for growing the opium poppy than rotted grapes and barley

3. WAY to much trouble for our govt...besides, I'm sure Obama and other leaders like a drink now and then...

4. When would it go into effect? some people have 50 year old wine, or have paid 4k for some wine out there, and they get it taken away? how much longer would they have to drink a gazillion gallons of wine

5. America likes the tax revenue they're getting for it...more for it, right?

6. You would also have to illegalize grapes and barley (see #2)

I don't actually think alcohol should be illegal lol... but I think you are simply trying to justify the status quo here. There is no doubt that alcohol is much more dangerous for you and your friends & family than cannabis

[Izzy]

If most drugs were legal, then most people would probably use them responsibly, but there is a significant portion of the population who would abuse them, no matter how hard you try to "educate" them about proper use.

Then I don't sympathize for them. There comes a point in a person's life where you come to terms with your intelligence, limitations (physical, mental, whatevs), and level of responsibility. If you know you're scoring pretty low in these categories, and you try/habitually use drugs anyway, sorry, but you're an idiot. I mean, I know there's a small margin of error, where you don't know your family abuse history or if you're likely to get addicted, freak accidents, that sort of thing, but that counts for so little of drug-related accidents if you take into account the people that actually know what they're getting into. Also, it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, it's their job to protect other people from us (well.. ideally. We have the Baker Act here, which is bull, but meh). I'll use the car-driving example again. Legally, we're allowed to get totally smashed. We're allowed to drink until we puke. The SECOND we start endangering someone else's life with our shenanigans, like having a baby around or getting behind the driver's seat of a car, it becomes illegal, because it can be statistically shown that other people tend to get injured at the intoxicated person's expense. I can't think of any other drugs (aside from maybe PCP. Stay away from that sh*t, kids!) that will make a person go totally crazy and seek out the endangerment of other people. 99.6% of the time, high people keep to themselves, typically in a dark room, with pretty lights and music haha. Drugs, for the most part, don't endanger other people, they endanger the user. If the government CHOOSES to help out an addict by making loans, providing money for rehab, etc. then that's their choice, and I'm sure some private charities advocate it, but no one is asking the goverment/taxpayers to provide these services (I think that addressed one of your other points.)

I don't see how "safe use" is attainable. The people who are liable to get into trouble for drug abuse are the people who won't care to learn (or listen) to the messages of "Use, don't abuse." They won't want to go to that site you keep referencing to learn about the drug, they will just want to do it and get high. You know that there are people like that and I think that there are enough of them that legalizing would be a problem in that sense. Some people (for a completely unknown reason in my mind ) don't want to know about "How Things Work," they just want them to work, period. They don't think about the consequences of their actions five years down the road (or even five minutes later in some cases). How can we be assured of "Safe Use" when we know people who don't want to use them safely?

We can't be assured of "safe use" just as we can't be assured of safe driving, safe sex, or.. anything really. The great thing about the universe? Nothing happens perfectly! If we did, the gas molecules at the beginning of time wouldn't have dispersed with minor errors and we wouldn't be here. But, just because some people do abuse, doesn't mean we should let them ruin it for everything. Have people take a test that shows knowledge of a *specific* drug before they're allowed to buy it. I think with a few kinks, we can get this.. right.

Maybe you know someone now who does some drugs, who, though he's not addicted and he's smart enough not to get addicted, doesn't use drugs responsibly. Say we do leagalize most drugs. If he doesn't change his ways when he's 30 when he's got a 5 year old, how can we be sure that he's going to be taking care of that child responsibly? If he's still doing drugs, can we be sure that he'll be keeping them safely out of the kid's reach? Some drugs can cause complications for babies if the parents are doing them when the baby is born (alcohol too, I know). Do we mandate that people having a baby can't do drugs until the baby is no longer relying on the mother for sustenance? If the parents want to go on a trip, is it reasonable to assume that they'll be doing it in a place where the kid couldn't get it while they were zoned out?

I know "Well, there are a lot of people out there that neglect/abuse their children!!!" isn't really a good argument and it doesn't throw out how drugs can cause a problem with this, but... crap-parenting is sort of irrelevant, just because drugs don't necessarily need to be involved. If parents can't responsibly deal with their children, then do the same thing they do now: Take the kids away from parents that can't handle drugs responsibly. Tbh, I don't think legalization of drugs will increase usage too much, at least not immediately (too many negative connotations would still be associated with them), so child neglect rates would be roughly the same.

Regarding plants, I think anything that could endanger the existence of the human species as a whole (including weapons FFS), should be illegal.

Plus, it's political suicide to suggest such a thing in most parts of most states in the US right now. It's not even safe to suggest that you might want to legalize marijuana. So any thoughts of legalization are nothing more than thinking of a fantasy utopia, no place in reality.

..Saying you wanted to outlaw slavery a few decades ago was politcal suicide, but sometimes, 'ya just gotta do what's right.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Izzy

[peace*out]

I don't know how I can make you understand this but alcohol is sooooo much worse than marijuana. As far as "distorted perception", "memory impairment" , "loss of coordination", et al go (disregarding that those are often DESIRED effects lol), Alcohol takes the cake. Not only that but Alcohol can actually kill you, very easily. And make you pass out and throw up and give you liver disease and a lot of other short term and long term problems.

And yes it's true that cannabis becomes more hallucinogenic/psychedelic when eaten or smoked in high doses, that too is desired if done. Sometimes if someone "smokes too much" then they know it and back down.

Increased heart rate is the only negative effect out of that entire list, so if you have a heart condition I would do more research before trying it (or anything else for that matter), but even the amount of caffeine in a few bottles of coca cola is worse as far as the heart goes (and definitely the amount in a Monster).

Cannabinoids actually have anti-cancer properties, though in general smoking Anything isn't a grand idea, that can counteract the negative effect on the lungs (though getting something like a Vaporizor or a well designed water pipe can also do that). Some more positive benefits (I didn't write the following myself but I can verify any of it if you want)

-It alleiviates your circulatory system by inducing hypotension, aka lowering blood pressure. This is very healthy, and has the practical uses for any disorder which causes high blood pressure, and for glaucoma, which is a disorder of hypertension (high blood pressure (notice hypo vs. hyper if you didnt catch that) in the retina which is the leading cause of blindness world wide.

If that didn't make sense to you- summary: it expands your blood vessels, which is very beneficial to health

-It reliefs pain and nausea. This is very good for any kind of patient of surgery or chemotherapy. Especially in cancer and AIDS patients who get treatments, this is the most effective medication as is it the best drug for nausea relief and alleiviates the obvious pain of cancer and surgical recovery.

-It relieves muscle spasms. This is especially helpful to patients of Multiple Sclerosis to contol muscles.

-It actually does not cause cancer, in fact, it helps cure it. There are drugs in marijuana that help kill cancerous cells in the lungs.

-It helps insomniac victims. Take a couple hits before bed and lights out. One of the more obvious negatives of marijuana as a recreational drug is drowziness. Any person who suffers from a disorder or pain that prevents them from sleeping, marijuana will be a very good, but partially habit forming (not addiction forming, habit) sleep aid.

-Marijuana is one of the few if not only substance to be known to promote neurogenesis. This means that yes, marijuana does not kill brain cells, it aids in the growth of new ones. The misconception comes from the fact that smoking ANYTHING, as in burning any plant materials or substances and inhaling them kills brain cells and damages the lungs. But there are alternatives to smoking it. You could just as easily vaporize it with a pricey, but very effective, efficient, and in my opinion, invaluable Vaporizer machine or bake it into foods. Any food containing lipids such as butter (perfect for baked goods), milk, fats, oils will absorb the THC very effectively. Just be sure to heat it to 360 degrees F to boil the THC.

Summary: Smoking kills brain cells, Marijuana grows new ones. So find an alternative to smoking and you're golden.

-Munchies, munchies, munchies! Marijuana stimulates the appetite. This is a wonderful application for many sick people. Every year, hundreds of cancer victims die not of the disease, but of starvation. They have no appetite. But marijuana gives you the munchies. This is a great application for cancer and AIDS patients who have no appetite.

-Marijuana makes you happy! IT is more effective than any uppers or antidepressants. This is even a great application for victims of terrible or fatal diseases. Most chemotherapy medications for AIDS and cancer have very depressing tolls on the patients, and the situation of mortality sure isn't helping. So Marijuana is so effective for cancer and AIDS patients, making them happy, hungry, helping them sleep, and reducing pain and nausea.

.

Now that we know just how helpful and healthy marijuana is, lets look at other drugs and their legal status. Question: How many people die each year from alcohol poisoning and related incidents such as homicide, crashes, accidents? Over 100,000 people in the US. How many from a drug we look at as harmless, such as aspirin? 500 each year. Hmm... How many from Marijuana? Oh, wait, there arent any. 0. ZERO DEATHS. In the history of mankind, never has there been a substantiated report of cannibis poisoning (Keywork: substantiated. There was a reported case in England a few years ago, but that was never substantiated and it happened to come at a very convienent time for political opposition of the change of Marijuana's legal status in UK. Just because the guy was high when he died does not mean marijuana caused the death).

I don't actually think alcohol should be illegal lol... but I think you are simply trying to justify the status quo here. There is no doubt that alcohol is much more dangerous for you and your friends & family than cannabis

I'm not trying to say alcohol is good. I got to try a teaspoon bit of wine and...I don't like it...nicely put. I'm just trying to explain why it's legal. Marijuana may be less worse, but it's not used by everyone yet...and that's probably why it's not completely legal. It's harder to go back then to prevent something from going forward...

[Izzy]

no. i'm not saying that anything being more accessable is better.

History lesson time. It's been mentioned a few times, but how much do you know about the drug war? From Wikipedia, "The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid being undertaken by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, intended to both define and reduce the illegal drug trade.This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the United States that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs." This has led to drug schedules, where different drugs are rated on levels of illegality. Basically.. the drug war hasn't been effective AT ALL. In fact, it has lead to an enormous blackmarket of illegal substances, which is where a lot of your gangs come from. By nature, drugs don't make people violent. The desire for drugs, being dealt to you at inflated prices from unidentified sources make people violent. I can't remember where, and I'm sort of pulling statistics out of my a** (I swear this really happened), but in some South American country, they decided to call off the drug war. There was an insanely large drop in violence (like 70% or something), and living conditions et al. improved immensely. So, yeah, the more accessible things are, the more you can be assured of quality, and the less it will cost, meaning people won't have to resort to stealing/killing for it.

Unreality did an awesome job of covering the pros/cons of alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is a LOT worse.

3. WAY to much trouble for our govt...besides, I'm sure Obama and other leaders like a drink now and then...

..I'm sure Obama would enjoy a good toke now and again.

But no, if we're basing something off of what our leaders want, and not the nation as a whole/what parts of the nation can prove as justified, then f**k them.

[unreality]

I'm not trying to say alcohol is good. I got to try a teaspoon bit of wine and...I don't like it...nicely put. I'm just trying to explain why it's legal.

The reasons you gave are not why alcohol is legal. It's legal because it always has been, and marijuana would be the same way if not for the whole 'reefer madness' and whatnot a hundred years ago. It's certainly not illegal because it's dangerous, because (1) it's NOT, and (2) the government allows the sale of tobacco and rat poison and flamethrowers for chrissakes

Marijuana may be less worse, but it's not used by everyone yet...and that's probably why it's not completely legal. It's harder to go back then to prevent something from going forward...

It will never be used by everyone and shouldnt. I'm not saying I use it and i'm not saying anyone/everyone should use it. it's not for everyone. But neither is drinking. I do agree with your last sentence though; this status quo is what's holding that kind of legislature back

by the way this thing you listed as an effect:

* Trouble with thinking and problem-solving

Is wrong. Marijuana has a subtle effect on the brain that lets people think more "out of the box" so to speak, more abstractly and creatively. That's why it's been used by artists for centuries

[peace*out]

I'll use the car-driving example again. Legally, we're allowed to get totally smashed. We're allowed to drink until we puke. The SECOND we start endangering someone else's life with our shenanigans, like having a baby around or getting behind the driver's seat of a car, it becomes illegal, because it can be statistically shown that other people tend to get injured at the intoxicated person's expense. I can't think of any other drugs (aside from maybe PCP. Stay away from that sh*t, kids!) that will make a person go totally crazy and seek out the endangerment of other people. 99.6% of the time, high people keep to themselves, typically in a dark room, with pretty lights and music haha. Drugs, for the most part, don't endanger other people, they endanger the user. If the government CHOOSES to help out an addict by making loans, providing money for rehab, etc. then that's their choice, and I'm sure some private charities advocate it, but no one is asking the goverment/taxpayers to provide these services (I think that addressed one of your other points.)

I'm sure that many people keep to themselves when they get high. It's the ones that endanger other people. If there was a specific way to make sure everyone was safe when people that were high went in public, then i'm sure they would do that.

And the govt. shouldn't have to send everyone to rehab...though it does help the person. But as you said somewhere, most people know what they're doing, or the idiots don't believe what others are telling them.

Nothing happens perfectly!

But sure try...

But, just because some people do abuse, doesn't mean we should let them ruin it for everything. Have people take a test that shows knowledge of a *specific* drug before they're allowed to buy it. I think with a few kinks, we can get this.. right.

Same comment as i put under unreality's topic about this...

I know "Well, there are a lot of people out there that neglect/abuse their children!!!" isn't really a good argument and it doesn't throw out how drugs can cause a problem with this, but... crap-parenting is sort of irrelevant, just because drugs don't necessarily need to be involved. If parents can't responsibly deal with their children, then do the same thing they do now: Take the kids away from parents that can't handle drugs responsibly. Tbh, I don't think legalization of drugs will increase usage too much, at least not immediately (too many negative connotations would still be associated with them), so child neglect rates would be roughly the same.

Drugs don't make it better though. You're right, but many cases come from alcohol or drug abuse. Or from a bad childhood of the parents.

Tbh? was that supposed to be "then"? it could be many things... not that it matters...

and it may not be "Immediatly", but it would still go up overtime...and then you'd have the same problems if you wanted to make it illegal again that you have with alcohol. Cause some people might do this.

Regarding plants, I think anything that could endanger the existence of the human species as a whole (including weapons FFS), should be illegal.

I think that would be good too...but when you think about it, lakes, and almost everything would have to go (including BD, cause computers...could explode or something... )

..Saying you wanted to outlaw slavery a few decades ago was politcal suicide, but sometimes, 'ya just gotta do what's right.

the problem is that many people don't view this as "right"

[peace*out]

History lesson time. It's been mentioned a few times, but how much do you know about the drug war? From Wikipedia, "The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid being undertaken by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, intended to both define and reduce the illegal drug trade.This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the United States that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs." This has led to drug schedules, where different drugs are rated on levels of illegality. Basically.. the drug war hasn't been effective AT ALL. In fact, it has lead to an enormous blackmarket of illegal substances, which is where a lot of your gangs come from. By nature, drugs don't make people violent. The desire for drugs, being dealt to you at inflated prices from unidentified sources make people violent. I can't remember where, and I'm sort of pulling statistics out of my a** (I swear this really happened), but in some South American country, they decided to call off the drug war. There was an insanely large drop in violence (like 70% or something), and living conditions et al. improved immensely. So, yeah, the more accessible things are, the more you can be assured of quality, and the less it will cost, meaning people won't have to resort to stealing/killing for it.

:blink: Didn't know that...if that would happen in the US, I'd be all for it.

..I'm sure Obama would enjoy a good toke now and again.

But no, if we're basing something off of what our leaders want, and not the nation as a whole/what parts of the nation can prove as justified, then f**k them.

my point: if the leaders want it, then it will be extemely hard to abolish it.

[peace*out]

The reasons you gave are not why alcohol is legal. It's legal because it always has been, and marijuana would be the same way if not for the whole 'reefer madness' and what not a hundred years ago.

1. this is what i was trying to say, in less words.

2. ???

It's certainly not illegal because it's dangerous, because (1) it's NOT, and (2) the government allows the sale of tobacco and rat poison and flamethrowers for chrissakes

this made me laugh...you saying this. Just a random thought...

tobacco could be an interesting discussion...and not many people like rats...

It will never be used by everyone and shouldnt. I'm not saying I use it and i'm not saying anyone/everyone should use it. it's not for everyone. But neither is drinking. I do agree with your last sentence though; this status quo is what's holding that kind of legislature back

True. it's hard to go back...

YAY we finally agree on something here! :D ... just kidding...

by the way this thing you listed as an effect:

* Trouble with thinking and problem-solving

Is wrong. Marijuana has a subtle effect on the brain that lets people think more "out of the box" so to speak, more abstractly and creatively. That's why it's been used by artists for centuries

I didn't realize this. I got this off about.com (if you want to, see link), and I didn't realize that it was wrong. my apoligies.

And that proably explains the "abstract" phase...

[Izzy]

I'm sure that many people keep to themselves when they get high. It's the ones that endanger other people. If there was a specific way to make sure everyone was safe when people that were high went in public, then i'm sure they would do that.

I have to do a project, but if you want, go grab me some statistics. Have you ever wondered why drug related (like, high dude bashing someone's head in) never makes the news? It doesn't really happen. Drugs are so much more about self-discovery and just tripping balls (kinda making you immobile anyway, lmao) that people have no desire to go out.

Drugs don't make it better though. You're right, but many cases come from alcohol or drug abuse. Or from a bad childhood of the parents.

Tbh? was that supposed to be "then"? it could be many things... not that it matters...

So then prove, outside of your mind of hypothetical "what ifs", that it makes it worse.

Tbh = to be honest.

I think that would be good too...but when you think about it, lakes, and almost everything would have to go (including BD, cause computers...could explode or something... )

No, you wouldn't. Things like anthrax and atomic bombs could take us all out at ONCE. Lakes, computers, and high people only do so much damage.

:blink: Didn't know that...if that would happen in the US, I'd be all for it.

That would mean the legalization of drugs.

[peace*out]

I have to do a project, but if you want, go grab me some statistics. Have you ever wondered why drug related (like, high dude bashing someone's head in) never makes the news? It doesn't really happen. Drugs are so much more about self-discovery and just tripping balls (kinda making you immobile anyway, lmao) that people have no desire to go out.

I'll try...

So then prove, outside of your mind of hypothetical "what ifs", that it makes it worse.

Tbh = to be honest.

hmmm...bbs

thx!

No, you wouldn't. Things like anthrax and atomic bombs could take us all out at ONCE. Lakes, computers, and high people only do so much damage.

i didn't realize you meant ALL at ONCE.

That would mean the legalization of drugs.

The main thing i have against drugs is the violence or the "ruining of people's lives" that they are known for. I'm probably completely mistaken, but that's all i knew of prior to this discussion. That, and opium.

[Izzy]

The main thing i have against drugs is the violence or the "ruining of people's lives" that they are known for. I'm probably completely mistaken, but that's all i knew of prior to this discussion. That, and opium.

There has been little study done to show a correlation between drugs and violence. It's highly exaggerated, thanks to our DARE buddies. (I find it really ironic that I won a medal for best anti-drug essay in 5th grade, lmao.) The ruining people's lives.. can happen. I won't deny that it does, because I can think of a few people.. but.. it was their choice, and I don't think they regret drug use, they just regret letting it get out of hand. =/

[unreality]

The main thing i have against drugs is the violence or the "ruining of people's lives" that they are known for. I'm probably completely mistaken, but that's all i knew of prior to this discussion. That, and opium.

Nobody's saying that's not the case (well at least I'm not). The "hard", highly-abusable, addicting drugs (thinking of cocaine, meth, heroin) are well known for that. That's certainly not the only facet of their existence but enough to make them sufficiently dangerous to society and individuals. Enough that they should be at least restricted in some way, and you know me saying that means a lot. I disagree with Izzy when she says drugs dont cause violence (except for sometimes PCP and alcohol and probably some other ones).... they dont DIRECTLY cause violence, but they do indirectly.

They do indirectly in two ways:

(1) drug gangs - this is what Izzy was alluding to. This is caused by drugs being ILLEGAL, putting money in the hands of illegal violent street gangs and making the world a worse place

(2) addiction - this is what Izzy wasn't thinking about as much, but is just as important. The addiction itself wont directly cause violence but people often need to steal (either stealing money or directly stealing drugs) for their fix, which if you want to consider Theft violent, is violent, or can lead into further criminal activity, debt, violence,etc.

#1 can be avoided by legalization. #2 cannot, but it can be helped in other ways. Our current War on Drugs is NOT working, We need a new approach. That includes further legalization (or at the very least decriminilization) of marijuana & most hallucinogens, lowering age of drinking along with alcohol class/test and general tests... and a new set of restrictions on those "harder" drugs I mentioned in lieu of the older set of restrictions. Making them flat out illegal is not working, but nor do I think we should make them outright legal either. There are middle grounds though and I think that for people that WANT to quit, there are more and more methods devised each year on how to help them, funded plentily by taxes from legalization of softer drugs.

Amsterdam legalized marijuana to great criminal & financial success. Another country (maybe Portugal? or maybe not?) did an all-out legalization and the results were positive, maybe that's what izzy was thinking of.

Edited May 18, 2010 by unreality

[Guest]

Then I don't sympathize for them. There comes a point in a person's life where you come to terms with your intelligence, limitations (physical, mental, whatevs), and level of responsibility. If you know you're scoring pretty low in these categories, and you try/habitually use drugs anyway, sorry, but you're an idiot. I mean, I know there's a small margin of error, where you don't know your family abuse history or if you're likely to get addicted, freak accidents, that sort of thing, but that counts for so little of drug-related accidents if you take into account the people that actually know what they're getting into. Also, it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, it's their job to protect other people from us (well.. ideally. We have the Baker Act here, which is bull, but meh). I'll use the car-driving example again. Legally, we're allowed to get totally smashed. We're allowed to drink until we puke. The SECOND we start endangering someone else's life with our shenanigans, like having a baby around or getting behind the driver's seat of a car, it becomes illegal, because it can be statistically shown that other people tend to get injured at the intoxicated person's expense. I can't think of any other drugs (aside from maybe PCP. Stay away from that sh*t, kids!) that will make a person go totally crazy and seek out the endangerment of other people. 99.6% of the time, high people keep to themselves, typically in a dark room, with pretty lights and music haha. Drugs, for the most part, don't endanger other people, they endanger the user. If the government CHOOSES to help out an addict by making loans, providing money for rehab, etc. then that's their choice, and I'm sure some private charities advocate it, but no one is asking the goverment/taxpayers to provide these services (I think that addressed one of your other points.)

All I'm saying is that saying "illegal drugs fund organized crime and they do less harm than other substances, so they should be legalized" is simplifying the situation too much. There's a lot of nuance in most every situation and the problem in this country (at least) is that most people don't understand (or want to understand) subtlety. I think that both sides have an argument to make and the best course is somewhere in the middle. I agree that the mass hysteria about drugs is not helping the situation, but I don't see opening the floodgates (so to speak) to be a great solution either. The hidden costs of drug addiction are the same as the hidden costs of health insurance. John Q. Taxpayer would be up in arms over having the pay the "Open-Heart Surgery for Homeless People Tax," but doesn't give a hoot when their health insurer raises premiums to "overcome an adverse disassociated financial encumbrance."*

Often times, the taxpayers end up picking up the tab when someone destroys his/her life without ending said life. Having the government support rehabilitation directly means that John Q. Taxpayer doesn't have to expect as much overhead for profits and executive bonuses being taken out of his money that goes to support those who cannot support themselves. If chances are you're going to have to pay for someone else's missteps somewhere down the line, mightn't it be reasonable to be able to step in before they go completely off the deep end so as to reduce the overall cost? I admit, I'm hammering the financial angle, but I think it's an underutilized, but important, argument in many of these sorts of discussions. If you can't make a person see reason, maybe you can make him see his pocketbook.

A homeless man shows up at a hospital emergency room with chest pains. The tests show a clogged artery and the man collapses with cardiac arrest. They resuscitate and perform open-heart bypass surgery to fix the clogged artery. The homeless man has no money, so the hospital is forced to absorb the costs, meaning that they bill the insurance companies that do business with the hospital. The insurance companies absorb the cost by raising premiums to "overcome an adverse disassociated financial encumbrance."

We can't be assured of "safe use" just as we can't be assured of safe driving, safe sex, or.. anything really. The great thing about the universe? Nothing happens perfectly! If we did, the gas molecules at the beginning of time wouldn't have dispersed with minor errors and we wouldn't be here. But, just because some people do abuse, doesn't mean we should let them ruin it for everything. Have people take a test that shows knowledge of a *specific* drug before they're allowed to buy it. I think with a few kinks, we can get this.. right.

But, as you said, we can't get it perfect. In a perfect world, politicians would be able to discuss issues like illegal drugs in rational settings (like this one) without getting a knee-jerk reaction from significant portions of the public. But that doesn't happen in this world. You say the words "illegal drugs" together in a sentence and the politicians are going to find themselves struck by a sudden deafness because there are some people like izzy who are ardent supporters of mass legalization and there are others who will rabidly oppose anyone who so much as blinks at drug legalization. Some of the politicians may exist in the rabid camp themselves, and those that don't live in that camp don't want to alienate either side.

Yes, assuring "safe use" is an unrealistic goal, but with the way that people abuse alcohol, a perfectly legal substance in this country, there's certainly a connotation that similar bad things could result from drugs that are currently illegal. So nuance is thrown out the window and we're left with nothing getting done about it. I do think that people ought to take responsibility for their own actions and that the government can't be the one that is ensuring safety 24/7, everywhere, all the time, but at the same time, there are situations where people do things "who are only hurting themselves" while in actual fact others are being harmed indirectly (like my situation described above). Like unreality said, the line between rights and privileges is fuzzy, so it's a genuinely difficult question that no one wants to tackle since one side or the other is going to call foul once a decision has been made.

..Saying you wanted to outlaw slavery a few decades ago was politcal suicide, but sometimes, 'ya just gotta do what's right.

Maybe so, but I think that it's a harder case to make that people's fundamental rights are being trampled on in this case...

Izzy, you say there are no cases of drug-induced violence, but I am curious about stimulants like cocaine, and relatedly meth. It seems possible that like alcohol loosening inhibitions, people prone to violence might lose control on some of these substances if they wind up in some sort of conflict. I'm admittedly a bit ignorant of such facts, but some drugs are described as causing people to get "wired," which seems like they might lash out without realizing their damage potential. I think that unreality just addressed that point.

[peace*out]

I have to do a project, but if you want, go grab me some statistics. Have you ever wondered why drug related (like, high dude bashing someone's head in) never makes the news? It doesn't really happen. Drugs are so much more about self-discovery and just tripping balls (kinda making you immobile anyway, lmao) that people have no desire to go out.

Table 1. Percentage of past year illicit drug and alcohol users and nonusers reporting having been arrested and booked for breaking a law, 1997*

Illicit drug use in past year† Drunk 51 or more days in past year

Yes (4,147) No (20,358) Yes (1,023) No (23,482)

In past year arrested and booked for (unweighted N):

Larceny or theft 1.6% 0.1% 1.8% 0.2%

Burglary or breaking and entering

0.9 ‡ 1.2 0.1

Aggravated assault

0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1

Other assault 2.0 0.2 3.3 0.3

Motor vehicle theft

0.5 ‡ 0.7 ‡

Robbery 0.4 ‡ 0.8 ‡

Arson 0.2 ‡ 0.1 ‡

Driving under the influence

2.8 0.2 4.8 0.3

Drunkenness or liquor law violation

1.5 0.1 4.0 0.1

Possession or sale of drugs

2.8 ‡ 2.4 0.3

So then prove, outside of your mind of hypothetical "what ifs", that it makes it worse.

http://www.hopenetworks.org/addiction/Children%20of%20Addicts.htm

Children of addicted parents are the highest risk group of children to become drug abusers due to both genetic and family environment factors.

The influence of parental attitudes on a child's drug taking behaviors may be as important as actual drug abuse by the parents. An adolescent who perceives that a parent is permissive about the use of drugs is more likely to use drugs

Addicted parents often lack the ability to provide structure or discipline in family life, but simultaneously expect their children to be competent at a wide variety of tasks earlier than do non-substance-abusing parents.

A relationship between parental addiction and child abuse has been documented in a large proportion of child abuse and neglect cases.

Three of four (71.6%) child welfare professionals cite substance abuse as the top cause for the dramatic rise in child maltreatment since 1986.

In a sample of parents who significantly maltreat their children, cocaine exhibits a specific relationship to sexual maltreatment.

Children exposed prenatally to illicit drugs are 2 to 3 times more likely to be abused or neglected.

Children of drug addicted parents are at higher risk for placement outside the home.

In one study, 54% of adolescent runaways and homeless youth reported drug use in the home

Each year, approximately 1 1,900 infants are abandoned at birth or are kept at hospitals, 78% of whom are drug-exposed. The average daily cost for each of these babies is $460.18

Children of addicted parents exhibit symptoms of depression and anxiety more than do children from non-addicted families

Children of addicted parents are more likely to have anxiety disorders or to show anxiety symptoms.

Children of addicted parents are at high risk for elevated rates of psychiatric and psychosocial dysfunction.

That would mean the legalization of drugs.

EDIT: I'm starting to change my mind a bit back after reading the statistics...

[peace*out]

There has been little study done to show a correlation between drugs and violence. It's highly exaggerated, thanks to our DARE buddies. (I find it really ironic that I won a medal for best anti-drug essay in 5th grade, lmao.) The ruining people's lives.. can happen. I won't deny that it does, because I can think of a few people.. but.. it was their choice, and I don't think they regret drug use, they just regret letting it get out of hand. =/

Look at the statistics I found...it's in the post before this one...

But the "getting it out of hand" is what makes the different

[Guest]

The reasons you gave are not why alcohol is legal. It's legal because it always has been, and marijuana would be the same way if not for the whole 'reefer madness' and whatnot a hundred years ago. It's certainly not illegal because it's dangerous, because (1) it's NOT, and (2) the government allows the sale of tobacco and rat poison and flamethrowers for chrissakes

Yes, alcohol has been around for a very long time. The Ancient Greeks made wine and the Norse had their mead (fermented honey), so Western culture has always had their fermented drink. (Eastern culture probably has too, but I know a lot more about the West.) It's a cultural thing in some sense, but because it was so ubiquitous (along with tobacco), it allowed industries to build up around their manufacture and exchange. If marijuana had been a recreational thing all across Europe and the Middle East for a 1000 (or even 500 years), then there would probably be a Big Cannabis industry too and any thoughts of making it illegal would be laughed at now.

The human tolerance for alcohol has increased over the centuries since its discovery. Alcohol is a completely toxic substance to most organisms, but humans have developed a resistance to its effects (though it can still kill you in the long-run. This toxicity actually probably explains that ubiquity since you never hear of someone getting Typhoid from a contaminated barrel of beer. Which I think is the reason that it was often produced and drunk in the early days. It was a safe way to store water so that it didn't stagnate.

Of course, I suppose that an argument could be made that Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol could be fueling an anti-drug sentiment too, since they currently control the market on addictive substances and if an entity with the purchasing power of the United States suddenly stood up and said, "All these other formerly classified as illegal, addictive substances are now legal to produce and purchase," it might cut into the profits of cheap beer. (Alas, no more idiotic, obnoxious advertisements for "lite" beer. They would be missed. )

@ Izzy, Peace: Of course, related to what I said in an earlier post, each side will find their own statistics to make their argument. The quote "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, [Darn] Lies, and Statistics" comes to mind. Statistics can be drawn up on most any subject to show most any thing, so it's sometimes hard to decide which statistics should be trusted. I haven't really looked at the statistics being presented by either side at this point, so I can't really comment on their contents. I'll leave that to someone else.

They say that when they shot the movie "The African Queen," everyone on the set got dysentery except Humphrey Bogart and the director, John Houston, mainly because the two of them spent the whole period of their shoot in Africa dead drunk. So they didn't drink the water and they stayed "healthy" (though liver/lung disease is what eventually did Bogey in...

Killed by alcohol and cigarettes. ).

[unreality]

All I'm saying is that saying "illegal drugs fund organized crime and they do less harm than other substances, so they should be legalized" is simplifying the situation too much. There's a lot of nuance in most every situation and the problem in this country (at least) is that most people don't understand (or want to understand) subtlety. I think that both sides have an argument to make and the best course is somewhere in the middle. I agree that the mass hysteria about drugs is not helping the situation, but I don't see opening the floodgates (so to speak) to be a great solution either. The hidden costs of drug addiction are the same as the hidden costs of health insurance. John Q. Taxpayer would be up in arms over having the pay the "Open-Heart Surgery for Homeless People Tax," but doesn't give a hoot when their health insurer raises premiums to "overcome an adverse disassociated financial encumbrance."*

Often times, the taxpayers end up picking up the tab when someone destroys his/her life without ending said life. Having the government support rehabilitation directly means that John Q. Taxpayer doesn't have to expect as much overhead for profits and executive bonuses being taken out of his money that goes to support those who cannot support themselves. If chances are you're going to have to pay for someone else's missteps somewhere down the line, mightn't it be reasonable to be able to step in before they go completely off the deep end so as to reduce the overall cost? I admit, I'm hammering the financial angle, but I think it's an underutilized, but important, argument in many of these sorts of discussions. If you can't make a person see reason, maybe you can make him see his pocketbook.

see my post addressing the economics of drugs. I can only simplify what I understand, but in short there's a bunch of money in drugs. Even without outright legalization, the government can make inways into decriminilizations and restrictive legalizations and get a LOT of money, such that money won't have to be taken from taxpayers (maybe even the reverse, taxes could go down in certain areas)

But, as you said, we can't get it perfect. In a perfect world, politicians would be able to discuss issues like illegal drugs in rational settings (like this one) without getting a knee-jerk reaction from significant portions of the public. But that doesn't happen in this world. You say the words "illegal drugs" together in a sentence and the politicians are going to find themselves struck by a sudden deafness because there are some people like izzy who are ardent supporters of mass legalization and there are others who will rabidly oppose anyone who so much as blinks at drug legalization. Some of the politicians may exist in the rabid camp themselves, and those that don't live in that camp don't want to alienate either side.

I agree... we do a lot of pussyfooting around religion, drugs and sex

Yes, alcohol has been around for a very long time. The Ancient Greeks made wine and the Norse had their mead (fermented honey), so Western culture has always had their fermented drink. (Eastern culture probably has too, but I know a lot more about the West.) It's a cultural thing in some sense, but because it was so ubiquitous (along with tobacco), it allowed industries to build up around their manufacture and exchange. If marijuana had been a recreational thing all across Europe and the Middle East for a 1000 (or even 500 years), then there would probably be a Big Cannabis industry too and any thoughts of making it illegal would be laughed at now.

The human tolerance for alcohol has increased over the centuries since its discovery. Alcohol is a completely toxic substance to most organisms, but humans have developed a resistance to its effects (though it can still kill you in the long-run. This toxicity actually probably explains that ubiquity since you never hear of someone getting Typhoid from a contaminated barrel of beer. Which I think is the reason that it was often produced and drunk in the early days. It was a safe way to store water so that it didn't stagnate.

Of course, I suppose that an argument could be made that Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol could be fueling an anti-drug sentiment too, since they currently control the market on addictive substances and if an entity with the purchasing power of the United States suddenly stood up and said, "All these other formerly classified as illegal, addictive substances are now legal to produce and purchase," it might cut into the profits of cheap beer. (Alas, no more idiotic, obnoxious advertisements for "lite" beer. They would be missed. )

This is my point. Marijuana HAS been used extensively for at least 5000 years, almost as widely as alcohol (almost). From a source I used earlier (but independently verifiable) :

vvvvvvvv

Marijuana is the least harmless, healthiest, least dangereous drug available today. So why is it illegal? Did you ever think about why it is illegal to get stoned in the first place? Yeah, if you are against any intoxication, thats fine, more power to ya. But it isn't illegal to smoke cigarettes. It isn't illegal to get drunk. So why is government saying you can go out, get drunk, possibly get violent, possible get in an awful car accident, and kill someone or die of alcohol poisoning? Is it for the health aspects? No, we just saw how many benefits the plant can have. Plus, the government doesn't care about cigarettes, which are far worse for your health. So whats the issue here?

I'll explain why I think the government is in prohibition of weed. Marijuana is part of the Cannibis family, and it's cousin is Hemp. Hemp is an incredible plant. Plastic made form hemp fiber is just as effective as petroleum plastic, and biodegradable. Oil from hemp seeds is very clean burning and biodegrable. It would make a fantastically effective fuel source. Quality paints were made from hempseed oil for hundreds of years. Rope, canvas, clothing, and other textiles made from hemp fiber are very very strong, and would be far better products than most things on the market today, and far cheaper to produce. Frames made from hemp fiber are stronger than their equivalent in steel. Hemp paper is cheaper and cleaner to make requiring no chemicals, and it never yellows like tree pulp paper. In fact the first Model-T ford had a frame of hemp. Betty Ross's flag was made from hemp. The drafts of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper. For thousands of years, sailing rope and canvas was made from hemp. The first bibles were printed on hemp. In the colonies, hemp was almost the most common crop for farmers to grow. For severla years in Virginia, it was even illegal for farmers not to grow hemp! Hemp was the FIRST cash crop to exceed a billion dollars in annual business potential.Hemp is very easy to havest, has a much shorter propegation period of only 4 months (it take far less time to grow), and grows in almost any temperate climate, requiring only moderate water, and only adverage soil fertility. Hemp grows in months when trees grow in decades. Hemp grows where petroleum is mined. Hemp even oxidates and fertilizes the soil after it is harvested, leaving the soil very effective and fertile. Hemp could easily replace current paper products, rope, textile, clothing, plastic, some fuels, and even food and medicine. So why arent we using it? Because it has traces of THC? Good luck getting high from hemp. You would be smoking for hours straight. It is because corporations make more profit from their products that pollute the environment, are expensive and not as effective, and cost our economy more than is necessary. Early Corporate America conspired with congress to get hemp out of the picture and to do so, they attacked Marijuana and used that argument to ban the growth, sale and use of Canibbis products; aka, anything containing THC. Of course that argument made no sense since hemp has a negligable amount of THC, but in the early 1900's, citizens were very easy to lie to. The spread of information was easier to control because there was no internet and limited TV, and people didn't really have an alternative to believing what the government told them. The government spread propaganda with movies and yellow journalism, and the lies about Marijuana became very easy to believe. The propaganda film Reefer Madness was so rediculous it is now categorized as comedy. It told people that a young man, "under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax", and that "more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana!". Of course this is nonsense, but it was very easy for parents and naive people to believe. The film didn't end with 'The End', or 'Fin', but 'Tell Your Children'. This characterizes the effort of the government to spread lies about Marijuana, as it demonstrates how we not only got an entire generation to believe the Madness, but we bred generations to come to think the same way. It was brainwashing. Tell Your Children has been the attitude towards Marijauan since. We don't explain to our kids how Alcohol tears families apart and cause violence and drunk driving- our society encourages it. All because companies like Dupont, that made petroleum products that could not rival hemp products, wanted to turn a profit and maintain control of the industry for generations to come.

So what is the issue? A lot of people sadly still believe the Reefer Madness of the thirties, so support isn't as widespread for legalization as it should be. The government is unlikely to admit its mistake anytime soon, so good luck getting support from the inside. But, slowly, Marijuana is getting support on the state and local levels.

^^^^^

[Framm 18]

So why is government saying you can go out, get drunk, possibly get violent, possible get in an awful car accident, and kill someone or die of alcohol poisoning?

*cough*prohibition*cough*

Random fact that I find funny. Lynchburg, Tennessee (home of Jack Daniel's Whiskey) is in a "dry" county.

Now I will stay out of the way.

[peace*out]

Nobody's saying that's not the case (well at least I'm not). The "hard", highly-abusable, addicting drugs (thinking of cocaine, meth, heroin) are well known for that. That's certainly not the only facet of their existence but enough to make them sufficiently dangerous to society and individuals. Enough that they should be at least restricted in some way, and you know me saying that means a lot. I disagree with Izzy when she says drugs dont cause violence (except for sometimes PCP and alcohol and probably some other ones).... they dont DIRECTLY cause violence, but they do indirectly.

yeah...i don't mean DIRECTLY, but by - products of drug abuse are mainly negative. please tell me if that's wrong.

They do indirectly in two ways:

(1) drug gangs - this is what Izzy was alluding to. This is caused by drugs being ILLEGAL, putting money in the hands of illegal violent street gangs and making the world a worse place

(2) addiction - this is what Izzy wasn't thinking about as much, but is just as important. The addiction itself wont directly cause violence but people often need to steal (either stealing money or directly stealing drugs) for their fix, which if you want to consider Theft violent, is violent, or can lead into further criminal activity, debt, violence,etc.

#1 can be avoided by legalization. #2 cannot, but it can be helped in other ways. Our current War on Drugs is NOT working, We need a new approach. That includes further legalization (or at the very least decriminilization) of marijuana & most hallucinogens, lowering age of drinking along with alcohol class/test and general tests... and a new set of restrictions on those "harder" drugs I mentioned in lieu of the older set of restrictions. Making them flat out illegal is not working, but nor do I think we should make them outright legal either. There are middle grounds though and I think that for people that WANT to quit, there are more and more methods devised each year on how to help them, funded plentily by taxes from legalization of softer drugs.

I agree with you on most things...

1 & 2: agreed.

War on drugs: agreed.

lowering drinking age: disagreed - plus i though you wanted it illegal...

tests: agreed

"harder" drugs: agreed

Amsterdam legalized marijuana to great criminal & financial success. Another country (maybe Portugal? or maybe not?) did an all-out legalization and the results were positive, maybe that's what izzy was thinking of.

cool and cool. I don't believe it "all out", but what you suggested above with tests sounded good

[Guest]

lowering drinking age: disagreed - plus i though you wanted it illegal...

I think that most of the rest of the Western world thinks we're crazy. You can drive a car and die for this country before you can drink legally. In many parts of Europe, the drinking age is younger, while the driving age is higher. The drinking age is 19 in Canada. America in some ways seems to be the country of hysterics. If we weren't so restrictive on some of these drugs (and on the drinking age), then moderation would probably be easier to obtain.

As for cigarettes? I'm all for Prohibition for them. I don't know of any positive benefits to be derived from them. At least wine has some good properties (like resveratrol which can act as a counter-aging agent since it attacks pathogens). Of course, cigarettes wouldn't be so terrible (not at all good mind you in any case) if the tobacco companies hadn't realized that tar and other horrendous chemicals helped increase addiction and were a lot cheaper than producing the tobacco. People rolled and smoked their own tobacco for centuries before it was incorporated. I doubt that most smokers would enjoy such a cigarette (I imagine that they are significantly different from a manufactured cigarette), but it would be "healthier" than the horrible junk that's sold in gas stations and "convenience" stores.

[peace*out]

@ Izzy, Peace: Of course, related to what I said in an earlier post, each side will find their own statistics to make their argument. The quote "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, [Darn] Lies, and Statistics" comes to mind. Statistics can be drawn up on most any subject to show most any thing, so it's sometimes hard to decide which statistics should be trusted. I haven't really looked at the statistics being presented by either side at this point, so I can't really comment on their contents. I'll leave that to someone else.

I've included the sources. So far, they're websites, and there should be links with them, if you want to look.

[peace*out]

see my post addressing the economics of drugs. I can only simplify what I understand, but in short there's a bunch of money in drugs. Even without outright legalization, the government can make inways into decriminilizations and restrictive legalizations and get a LOT of money, such that money won't have to be taken from taxpayers (maybe even the reverse, taxes could go down in certain areas)

I agree... we do a lot of pussyfooting around religion, drugs and sex

This is my point. Marijuana HAS been used extensively for at least 5000 years, almost as widely as alcohol (almost). From a source I used earlier (but independently verifiable) :

vvvvvvvv

Marijuana is the least harmless, healthiest, least dangereous drug available today. So why is it illegal? Did you ever think about why it is illegal to get stoned in the first place? Yeah, if you are against any intoxication, thats fine, more power to ya. But it isn't illegal to smoke cigarettes. It isn't illegal to get drunk. So why is government saying you can go out, get drunk, possibly get violent, possible get in an awful car accident, and kill someone or die of alcohol poisoning? Is it for the health aspects? No, we just saw how many benefits the plant can have. Plus, the government doesn't care about cigarettes, which are far worse for your health. So whats the issue here?

I'll explain why I think the government is in prohibition of weed. Marijuana is part of the Cannibis family, and it's cousin is Hemp. Hemp is an incredible plant. Plastic made form hemp fiber is just as effective as petroleum plastic, and biodegradable. Oil from hemp seeds is very clean burning and biodegrable. It would make a fantastically effective fuel source. Quality paints were made from hempseed oil for hundreds of years. Rope, canvas, clothing, and other textiles made from hemp fiber are very very strong, and would be far better products than most things on the market today, and far cheaper to produce. Frames made from hemp fiber are stronger than their equivalent in steel. Hemp paper is cheaper and cleaner to make requiring no chemicals, and it never yellows like tree pulp paper. In fact the first Model-T ford had a frame of hemp. Betty Ross's flag was made from hemp. The drafts of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper. For thousands of years, sailing rope and canvas was made from hemp. The first bibles were printed on hemp. In the colonies, hemp was almost the most common crop for farmers to grow. For severla years in Virginia, it was even illegal for farmers not to grow hemp! Hemp was the FIRST cash crop to exceed a billion dollars in annual business potential.Hemp is very easy to havest, has a much shorter propegation period of only 4 months (it take far less time to grow), and grows in almost any temperate climate, requiring only moderate water, and only adverage soil fertility. Hemp grows in months when trees grow in decades. Hemp grows where petroleum is mined. Hemp even oxidates and fertilizes the soil after it is harvested, leaving the soil very effective and fertile. Hemp could easily replace current paper products, rope, textile, clothing, plastic, some fuels, and even food and medicine. So why arent we using it? Because it has traces of THC? Good luck getting high from hemp. You would be smoking for hours straight. It is because corporations make more profit from their products that pollute the environment, are expensive and not as effective, and cost our economy more than is necessary. Early Corporate America conspired with congress to get hemp out of the picture and to do so, they attacked Marijuana and used that argument to ban the growth, sale and use of Canibbis products; aka, anything containing THC. Of course that argument made no sense since hemp has a negligable amount of THC, but in the early 1900's, citizens were very easy to lie to. The spread of information was easier to control because there was no internet and limited TV, and people didn't really have an alternative to believing what the government told them. The government spread propaganda with movies and yellow journalism, and the lies about Marijuana became very easy to believe. The propaganda film Reefer Madness was so rediculous it is now categorized as comedy. It told people that a young man, "under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax", and that "more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana!". Of course this is nonsense, but it was very easy for parents and naive people to believe. The film didn't end with 'The End', or 'Fin', but 'Tell Your Children'. This characterizes the effort of the government to spread lies about Marijuana, as it demonstrates how we not only got an entire generation to believe the Madness, but we bred generations to come to think the same way. It was brainwashing. Tell Your Children has been the attitude towards Marijauan since. We don't explain to our kids how Alcohol tears families apart and cause violence and drunk driving- our society encourages it. All because companies like Dupont, that made petroleum products that could not rival hemp products, wanted to turn a profit and maintain control of the industry for generations to come.

So what is the issue? A lot of people sadly still believe the Reefer Madness of the thirties, so support isn't as widespread for legalization as it should be. The government is unlikely to admit its mistake anytime soon, so good luck getting support from the inside. But, slowly, Marijuana is getting support on the state and local levels.

^^^^^

What source is this?

[Izzy]

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.