View Full Version : Voters will Decide California Cannabis Legalization on 2010 Ballot
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California voter initiative that would legalize possession and sale of marijuana has qualified for the November ballot, state election officials said on Wednesday, in what supporters called a "watershed moment" for their cause.
Passage of the measure, by no means certain, would make California the first U.S. state to legalize marijuana. Backers believe the state could be at the vanguard of a national movement toward decriminalizing the drug.
"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which has spearheaded the ballot initiative.
"Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources and making criminals out of countless law-abiding citizens," he said.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said in a written statement that her office had certified the measure for the November 2 general election ballot after backers submitted the required number of signatures on petitions.
Bowen said that proponents, who needed 433,971 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, had submitted 694,248 that were verified through a random sampling.
POLLS SHOW MANY SUPPORT MEASURE
Legalizing marijuana appears to have broad support in the state, with some 56 percent of Californians surveyed in an April, 2009 Field Poll saying they favored making it legal for social use and taxing the sales proceeds.
In October, Gallup found 44 percent of Americans favored legalization.
Activists have suggested that taxing marijuana sales could help bail out the cash-strapped state, but plenty of Californians still oppose marijuana.
"With legalization of recreational marijuana use, impaired driving, fatalities, injuries and crashes will go up, and we don't want to see that," California Mothers Against Drunk Driving spokesman Silas Miers said.
The measure's qualification for the ballot was "the first step toward its defeat," said John Lovell, a lobbyist who represents a number of law enforcement groups.
Critics also say the social costs of a free-smoking state far outweigh the money it would bring in.
They say that the already enormous societal damage from alcohol and tobacco use would only increase if people were allowed to legally sell and smoke pot.
Under the initiative, simple possession of an ounce (28.5 grams) or less of marijuana, currently a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $100 fine, would be legal for anyone at least 21. It also would be lawful to grow limited amounts in one's own home for personal use.
While sales would not be legalized outright, cities and counties could pass laws permitting commercial distribution subject to local regulations and taxes. Retail sales would still be limited to an ounce for adults 21 and older.
The results of this should be real interesting. I'm wondering what the feds will do if this federal headache passes. With state authorities not enforcing cannabis laws, the feds will have to do this themselves. They don't have the time/money/resources for this, so I believe this will turn into gradual federal legalization as California won't be the only west coast state to attempt this.
PanzerJaeger
04-29-2010, 19:55
Good for California. I don't really support legalization but this is democracy in action.
I did find one paragraph slightly amusing in the article.
"Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources and making criminals out of countless law-abiding citizens," he said.
lol :nice:
Seamus Fermanagh
04-29-2010, 19:59
Should have been "otherwise" law abiding citizens. Most of us flout the traffic laws too, but it doesn't make our actions any less illegal because of their commonality.
KukriKhan
04-29-2010, 20:34
It's said that cannabis is the #2 industry in Cal, especially up north - number 1 apparently being silicon (computer stuff).
The Feds already mostly look the other way with the pot-clubs, as long as the owners pay the appropriate taxes.
ajaxfetish
04-29-2010, 20:52
Best of luck to them.
Ajax
Skullheadhq
04-29-2010, 21:59
Legalize or Decriminalise?
Legalize or Decriminalise?
Legalize
LittleGrizzly
04-29-2010, 23:04
May California pave the way for others to follow!
Hosakawa Tito
04-30-2010, 00:43
Not everyone (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14732629) is jumping for joy at the prospect of pot legalization.
Not everyone (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14732629) is jumping for joy at the prospect of pot legalization.
"They worry about the ripple effect the drop in marijuana prices could have on the county as a whole if legalization undermines the black market."
:laugh4: Poor blackmarket.
I read some article where someone was proposing that Humboldt County become pot's version of Napa Valley, a tourist attraction with official strains, "tastings", etc.
I wonder if this would include an amnesty for people currently serving time for marijuana possession.
This may be a generic observation, but prohibition didn't work with alcohol.
Strike For The South
05-02-2010, 01:13
This may be a generic observation, but prohibition didn't work with alcohol.
+1.
Hosakawa Tito
05-02-2010, 02:05
This may be a generic observation, but prohibition didn't work with alcohol.
Worked great for Al Capone.
...until he failed to pay his taxes. It's rather funny that such a man was arrested over tax evasion.
On topic, cannabis is a minimally harmful drug which is enjoyed by some, and even offers anxiety relief/other medical benefits to others. It's....not intelligent to keep it illegal, when it will NOT destroy the fabrics of society, and will reap massive tax revenue if legalized.
I have no problem with legalization... as long as I don't have to be breathing the stuff in everywhere. Maybe they could limit it to marijuana bars or something. :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
05-02-2010, 07:04
Guess who will be voting to approve this initiative? Me!
Banquo's Ghost
05-02-2010, 08:19
This is an opportune moment to remind everyone: +1 posts attract a +1 infraction point.
a completely inoffensive name
05-02-2010, 08:30
This is an opportune moment to remind everyone: +1 posts attract a +1 infraction point.
-1 Imo, most posts in the backroom dont contribute any more then a "+1" post. Why punish for simply being blunt/brief in your vapidness?
Taxes fund the government. Why not tax something people use so much of? Not to mention reaping the benefits of taxing it's production and enjoying all the jobs it will produce. Al Capone gave alot of his money to soup kitchens to feed the homeless during the depression as far as I know.
KukriKhan
05-02-2010, 18:03
I have no problem with legalization... as long as I don't have to be breathing the stuff in everywhere. Maybe they could limit it to marijuana bars or something. :shrug:
Isn't that close to what they do in the Netherlands? I've read that one can smoke a joint in a cafe there as long as it doesn't include any tobacco, which is illegal to smoke in a public enclosed space. Ha!
Part of me thinks that the government will change the results either way, so its not going to be legal. The United States just hates marijuana. I cant explain it, maybe someone can. But they do.
a completely inoffensive name
05-03-2010, 06:50
Part of me thinks that the government will change the results either way, so its not going to be legal. The United States just hates marijuana. I cant explain it, maybe someone can. But they do.
That's not true. Americans are more accepting of marijuana then ever before. If it passes the Fed gov will either back down or there will be a court battle which the state actually has a good shot at winning. I don't like that attitude of summing up what "america" feels to justify a stance or point.
Part of me thinks that the government will change the results either way, so its not going to be legal. The United States just hates marijuana. I cant explain it, maybe someone can. But they do.
In general the people don't, but the establishment does. :shrug:
If it passes, it will lead to some very interesting situations. The local and state police will give people a pass, as long as the quantity is limited. Will the Feds take up the slack on casual users, or will they just turn a blind eye as well?
I still find it mind-boggling that pot is a Schedule I drug, while coke and morphine are Sched II.
America is at the point now where the majority thinks it knows what's best for the minority. I don't like certain things because I've heard they are bad for you therefore you shouldn't do them either. Smoking, marijuana, fattning foods, etc. It also has the power in government to impose it's will on those who think differently. It seems some utopia is being formed where guilty pleasures that have been 'abused' for years will somehow make the county worse if they are continued to be used. Free thought, one these matters anyway, seems to be a lost artform.
If it passes, it will lead to some very interesting situations. The local and state police will give people a pass, as long as the quantity is limited. Will the Feds take up the slack on casual users, or will they just turn a blind eye as well?
I still find it mind-boggling that pot is a Schedule I drug, while coke and morphine are Sched II.
Remember, schedule 1 indicated NO MEDICAL BENEFIT. The document medical benefits of marijuana must just liberal hippy bs. That's why 15 states have passed laws making it legal for medical patients, and there has been tons of medical reserach done on the subject.
I can actually undestand morphine because it kills intense pain during death/severe injury/surgery, but I'm not really sure with coke.
The entire thing is so rediculous that these highly addictive substances would be ranked with marijuana which should be classified legal and less harmless than booze which this country doesn't have much of a problem with (although booze has a problem with this country)
It's not harmless, I would go as far as saying that cocaine is more harmless, trade is just more savage.
@Kukri it's much more loose, just not on a terras, parks and beaches np nobody minds.
I can actually undestand morphine because it kills intense pain during death/severe injury/surgery, but I'm not really sure with coke.
Cocaine can be used as a local anesthetic. She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie...
Pot should be at II or lower at the federal level, regardless of various state legalization attempts.
It's not harmless, I would go as far as saying that cocaine is more harmless, trade is just more savage.
Would you have any proof? That doesn't seem correct. From my experience and research, its basically harmless.
Cocaine can be used as a local anesthetic. She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie...
I guess that makes sense since I've well known rubbing it on your teeth makes your gums go numb.
Pot should be at II or lower at the federal level, regardless of various state legalization attempts.
No it shouldn't. It should be unscheduled like tobacco or alcohol. Scheduling makes it illegal to sale/consume without a prescription. If that wasn't the case, it should be Schedule V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_V_controlled_substances
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-04-2010, 01:39
It's not harmless, I would go as far as saying that cocaine is more harmless, trade is just more savage.
@Kukri it's much more loose, just not on a terras, parks and beaches np nobody minds.
Well, it depends on how you define "harm" Coke is less addictive and has no long-term emotional/mental affects, but it completely knackers your heart.
Hash is pretty dodgy all over though, plus I don't think Coke will give you cancer.
AlexanderSextus
05-04-2010, 17:45
Coke is less addictive
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You should be a comedian!
I've done cocaine. Have you? Cocaine is WAYYYYY more addictive than marijuana. It's just not physically addictive, but then again neither is marijuana.
Strike For The South
05-04-2010, 18:41
Well, it depends on how you define "harm" Coke is less addictive and has no long-term emotional/mental affects, but it completely knackers your heart.
Hash is pretty dodgy all over though, plus I don't think Coke will give you cancer.
lol wut?
That is a straight false hood
Well hopefully the voters pass the bill, it would start a push for federal legalization of it which I support fully for several reasons. It'd take money out of the pockets of Mexican drug runners, be a more controlled drug which would allow for more accurate studies and greater education of users. Most importantly it would reduce the high amount of people sent to prison for marijuana, I'd rather police resources be used against heavier drugs.
I was quite happy when a ballot issue in Hawaii two years ago made Marijuana the lowest level law enforcement priority in the county, has allowed the police to focus more on the ice problems on the island. Now if only the state government would stop wasting money on the ridiculous "Green Harvest" eradication program as well.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-04-2010, 20:35
-1 Imo, most posts in the backroom dont contribute any more then a "+1" post. Why punish for simply being blunt/brief in your vapidness?
So as to promote eloquent vapidness and thereby prepare our Backroomers for political careers should their current path in life need to change.
How noble of us on the moderating staff. <<pats self on back>>
Well, it depends on how you define "harm" Coke is less addictive and has no long-term emotional/mental affects, but it completely knackers your heart.
Hash is pretty dodgy all over though, plus I don't think Coke will give you cancer.
Eh? I don't think that is substantiated by anything at all but a faith in the recent tabloid 'Reefer Madness II' campaign in the UK.
While there are some small potential mental health implications with cannabis use for some people - it is far, far less dangerous than cocaine, which causes a much larger number of deaths and physical and mental health problems.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-04-2010, 23:45
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You should be a comedian!
I've done cocaine. Have you? Cocaine is WAYYYYY more addictive than marijuana. It's just not physically addictive, but then again neither is marijuana.
I'm talking relatively, such a metaphysical concept should be easy for you to grasp, or maybe not.
(Yes, that is a hash joke)
Still, never mind.
My observation is that both drugs destroy lives, but the Hash is more prevelant, and fewer people kick the habit.
Tellos Athenaios
05-05-2010, 00:47
The trouble with Hash is that the way it is consumed is typically through inhaling fumes. Those fumes are even worse than plain smoke, and not because of the additional kick you get: they contain more of the tar-like substances that link to lung cancer. That said, if you eat it (space cake) you cleanly avoid those.
For some people, though, Hash is definitely the worse choice based purely on the hallucination effects it causes, just like LSD; people at risk of psychoses would be well advised to stay clean.
gaelic cowboy
05-05-2010, 01:00
You can use vaporisers an avoid all that nasty tobacco
a completely inoffensive name
05-05-2010, 01:23
So as to promote eloquent vapidness and thereby prepare our Backroomers for political careers should their current path in life need to change.
How noble of us on the moderating staff. <<pats self on back>>
I guess I will thank you in my victory speech for my local US Congressman position in 10-15 years.
The trouble with Hash is that the way it is consumed is typically through inhaling fumes. Those fumes are even worse than plain smoke, and not because of the additional kick you get: they contain more of the tar-like substances that link to lung cancer. That said, if you eat it (space cake) you cleanly avoid those.
For some people, though, Hash is definitely the worse choice based purely on the hallucination effects it causes, just like LSD; people at risk of psychoses would be well advised to stay clean.
:laugh4:
The perpetuation of weed myths are hilarious.
The perpetuation of weed myths are hilarious.
Indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhcNegZgU
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You should be a comedian!
I've done cocaine. Have you? Cocaine is WAYYYYY more addictive than marijuana. It's just not physically addictive, but then again neither is marijuana.
Done and still do both and he is correct.
edit: the only myth about cannabis is that it's harmless, it is not it can destroy you.
edit: the only myth about cannabis is that it's harmless, it is not it can destroy you.
:laugh4:
Marijuana destroys lives....thats kind of funny actually.
Am I the only one that doesn't care if someone destroys their life when they use drugs? Its not my business, not my body, and generally doesnt effect me. If its someone I love and care about then ill try to talk to them but thats only if.
Phillipus is officially banned from this thread by calling cocaine more addictive then marijuana. I dont make the rules.
Marijuana destroys lives....thats kind of funny actually.
It's very funny.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-07-2010, 19:55
Marijuana destroys lives....thats kind of funny actually.
Am I the only one that doesn't care if someone destroys their life when they use drugs? Its not my business, not my body, and generally doesnt effect me. If its someone I love and care about then ill try to talk to them but thats only if.
Phillipus is officially banned from this thread by calling cocaine more addictive then marijuana. I dont make the rules.
Why is it funny?
Never known a stoner drop out a school, or just not bother to take exams. Hey, maybe we have bigger substance abuse problems here?
Marijuana destroys lives....thats kind of funny actually.
The only thing marijuana destroys is food supplies. :grin:
Never known a stoner drop out a school, or just not bother to take exams. Hey, maybe we have bigger substance abuse problems here?
If said stoner drops out of school it's not due to the weed. It's because they are lazy. I smoke weed and study and work and get on just fine. I'm not suddenly going to drop out of Uni and sleep all day. Plus, it's an effective pain-killer for my unaligned knees. :yes:
I will concede that among lazy people it has a tendency to allow them to be content with being bored. But, who's fault is that? Weed or the lazy person? I say the lazy person, because whether you realise it or not, accept it or not, a surprising amount of society smokes marijuana and they're all just fine.
Marijuana hampered my ambition, I smoked it until my junior year of college and still managed to graduate. It wasn't a hard habit to kick either, I started to exercise more actively and managed to kick the habit of several joints a day rather easily. It favorably embellished my type 'B' personality quite well too while I smoked it. Would smoke it on occasion today too if I had access. You just have to worry about drug tests when applying for jobs or the random ones while working.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-07-2010, 23:44
Why is it funny?
Never known a stoner drop out a school, or just not bother to take exams. Hey, maybe we have bigger substance abuse problems here?
But Philip, we are on a video game forum, and people mess up their lives playing video games 8 hours a day don't they?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-08-2010, 00:01
But Philip, we are on a video game forum, and people mess up their lives playing video games 8 hours a day don't they?
I wasn't aware video games contained THC.
Here's a thought. Most people who support legalising Hash are moderate to heavy uses, so they probably always have it in their system, if they smoke is daily. Ergo, they are in a permanantly altered state of mind.
a completely inoffensive name
05-08-2010, 00:55
I wasn't aware video games contained THC.
Here's a thought. Most people who support legalising Hash are moderate to heavy uses, so they probably always have it in their system, if they smoke is daily. Ergo, they are in a permanantly altered state of mind.
The Baby Boomers who tried pot in the 60s and 70s and support legalization are actually still smoking pot? I'm going to have to confront my parents about this. Can anyone give some tips on how to get them to admit it?
I wasn't aware video games contained THC.
Here's a thought. Most people who support legalising Hash are moderate to heavy uses, so they probably always have it in their system, if they smoke is daily. Ergo, they are in a permanantly altered state of mind.
Whether that is right or wrong, it doesn't justify criminalising people for choosing a take a drug, that is, on the whole, less harmful than other drugs that are not criminalised.
You can't legislate people's grotty habits away. What next? Criminalise jerking off in the bath? Having affairs? Watching hours and hours of daytime tv?
Centurion1
05-08-2010, 02:44
what age should it be legal for??????
i dont really support legalization but hypothetically if it passes what age could you smoke it? 18, 21? no age limit.
as well will you need a marijuana license to sell it? like an alcohol license.
all good questions.
:laugh4:
If you are prone to schizophrenia weed is bad, period.
LittleGrizzly
05-08-2010, 16:15
Never known a stoner drop out a school, or just not bother to take exams. Hey, maybe we have bigger substance abuse problems here?
I known stoners, gamers and people who enjoy walking drop out of school... I have known people who enjoy drinkng milk drop out of school...
We are already confronting the menace of marijuana but what about milk, computer games and walking... Think of the children!
Ill be honest I am slightly lying above... I didn't actually know any stoners who dropped out of school... (im sure there probably where though, they were just greatly outnumbered by alcohol drinkers, milk drinkers, gamers and those who enjoy walking)
AlexanderSextus
05-08-2010, 17:22
Most people who support legalising Hash are moderate to heavy uses, so they probably always have it in their system, if they smoke is daily. Ergo, they are in a permanantly altered state of mind.
I have heard a lot of bullcrap in my life, but I gotta say this one probably takes the cake. You are so anti cannabis it is crazy, and the RIDICULOUS part is you don't even know what you are talking about.
Tetrahydrocannabinol leaves the body after an hour or two, coinciding with the wearing off of the psychoactive effects. The only thing that is left over are residual metabolites which are entirely NON-PSYCHOACTIVE. These metabolites are what urine tests are designed to detect. It doesn't matter if you are smoking Hash that is 75% THC, several times a day. Eventually the THC WILL be expended from your system. "Permanently altered states of mind" DON'T EXIST.
Regardless there are long-term effects you can spot daily smokers from miles. You know I am with you when it comes to criminalising users, but usin it does have consequences, disastrous ones for some.
Skullheadhq
05-08-2010, 17:43
Regardless there are long-term effects you can spot daily smokers from miles. You know I am with you when it comes to criminalising users, but usin it does have consequences, disastrous ones for some.
You know that you won't die of weed, but of the smoke inhaling. It's just as dangerous as regular sigarettes, and yet they are available in your local supermarket.
I wasn't aware video games contained THC.
Here's a thought. Most people who support legalising Hash are moderate to heavy uses, so they probably always have it in their system, if they smoke is daily. Ergo, they are in a permanantly altered state of mind.
So, most people who are for abortion had an abortion?
Skullheadhq
05-08-2010, 17:46
Double post, my bad. Feel free to delete it.
ajaxfetish
05-08-2010, 18:03
Here's a thought. Most people who support legalising Hash are moderate to heavy uses, so they probably always have it in their system, if they smoke is daily. Ergo, they are in a permanantly altered state of mind.
I can't speak for everyone esle, obviously, but personally, I have never taken marijuana (or any other illegal drug), never smoked a cigarette or otherwise used tobacco, never drunk an alcoholic beverage, and for that matter never drunk coffee, either. I did have a glass or two of iced tea once, when it was offered to me and I didn't know what it was. I've used antibiotics on prescription, taken mild pain-killers, sudafed, etc. from time to time, and been under general anaesthesia once. I try to avoid medication as much as possible, but I'll use legal drugs when that seems the healthiest option.
I don't really like drugs of any kind. I abhor recreational drugs, particularly mind altering or addictive ones, and never plan to take any by choice.
That said, I am entirely in favor of decriminalizing, and probably even legalizing cannabis. From all the reliable information I've been given, it's less harmful both to the user and to society than tobacco, and far less harmful than alcohol. One the one hand it's hypocritical to ban cannabis while permitting these other drugs to be used legally. On the other hand, whether or not it's bad for people to be using recreational drugs, history in the 1930's and today shows that it's far worse to prohibit them.
Freedom of conscience and economic realism together demand that our wasteful, harmful, and pointless war on drugs come to an end. You don't have to do drugs to support decriminalization. You don't have to like drugs to support decriminalization. I, for one, without ever having taken marijuana, hope the voters of California will push the country one step forward toward ending this ridiculous farce.
Ajax
You know that you won't die of weed, but of the smoke inhaling. It's just as dangerous as regular sigarettes, and yet they are available in your local supermarket.
That's not the dangerous part, people who are prone to schizophrenia or depression are at serious risk. That is pretty much a given nowadays, ask anyone from the field.
ajaxfetish
05-08-2010, 18:06
That's not the dangerous part, people who are prone to schizophrenia or depression are at serious risk. That is pretty much a given nowadays, ask anyone from the field.
No problem. Just have the surgeon general require a warning be printed on every package sold in the country. Oh, wait, it's illegal so the only source is the black market, and the surgeon general has no power to regulate it. Bummer.
Ajax
That's not the dangerous part, people who are prone to schizophrenia or depression are at serious risk. That is pretty much a given nowadays, ask anyone from the field.
Yeah there are some risks with cannabis. But those risks don't really change much whether it be legal or illegal.
No problem. Just have the surgeon general require a warning be printed on every package sold in the country. Oh, wait, it's illegal so the only source is the black market, and the surgeon general has no power to regulate it. Bummer.
Ajax
Talking to the wrong person I am not arguing against you I am also for decriminaling it, I don't necesarily agree with the point I am defending, but there are good arguments for keeping everything the way it is, I do smoke it and having to walk 5 meter to buy it is convenient, but imho the risks are underestimated by some they think too lightly about it.
Yeah there are some risks with cannabis. But those risks don't really change much whether it be legal or illegal.
Yes so why change anything, it isn't as if a black market just vanishes, they can always do it cheaper.
what age should it be legal for??????
i dont really support legalization but hypothetically if it passes what age could you smoke it? 18, 21? no age limit.
as well will you need a marijuana license to sell it? like an alcohol license.
all good questions.
18, and alcohol should be lowered to that as well.
Yes so why change anything, it isn't as if a black market just vanishes, they can always do it cheaper.
Oh I don't know - small matter of not putting people in prison, not getting people sacked from their jobs. You know, little details like that.
Black market won't do it cheaper. Not much of a black market in cucumbers, coffee. chocolate is there?
Rhyfelwyr
05-08-2010, 20:13
IMO they should just legalise it. We live in relatively free countries.
OK they might be dangerous for people with certain conditions, but then for others the same is true for peanuts, sugar, or high altitudes.
Of course I am completely against taking recreational drugs, but I try to separate the moral from the legal issue.
Centurion1
05-09-2010, 01:22
Cannabis is more dangerous to society than are ciggarretes because for a short time you are mentally altered. Driving a car, high? just as dangerous as driving drunk. driving a car smoking a cigar. fine.
thats the argument for ciggarretes it harms yourself and i guess if you live with a constant smoker with no respect for you you can get secondhand smoke if you inhale their smoke 24/7
AlexanderSextus
05-09-2010, 04:48
Driving a car, high? just as dangerous as driving drunk.
FALSE. I don't recommend people drive under the influence of THC, but I can tell you from experience that alcohol is much worse, and that's legal.
AlexanderSextus
05-09-2010, 04:54
Regardless there are long-term effects you can spot daily smokers from miles. You know I am with you when it comes to criminalising users, but usin it does have consequences, disastrous ones for some.
Yeah, but thats only in cases of heavy chronic smoking, not the casual joint every couple days, in contrast one trip to the bar causes worse effects to the brain.
Cannabis is more dangerous to society than are ciggarretes because for a short time you are mentally altered. Driving a car, high? just as dangerous as driving drunk
In that case, alcohol should be banned.
Seriously though, if THC does make you a worse driver (Some stats would be nice on this, as I remember seeing somewhere that it doesn't) just make it an offence to drive under the influence of THC, rather than stopping people from taking it absolutely everywhere.
Yeah, but thats only in cases of heavy chronic smoking, not the casual joint every couple days, in contrast one trip to the bar causes worse effects to the brain.
Don't vapourisers prevent the inhalation of plant fibre, and hence the carcinogens?
Rhyfelwyr
05-09-2010, 13:07
In that case, alcohol should be banned.
I think this could work.
LittleGrizzly
05-09-2010, 17:22
Driving a car, high? just as dangerous as driving drunk.
Thats complete rubbish, being drunk doesn't just remove inhibitions and affect you mentally, it gives you slight double vision (something you don't get fom weed) the inhibitions it remove make speed some fun and less scary than it is when you aren't drunk, on the other hand being stoned you actually slow down slightly as being stoned does make you more cautious....
There is an argument that weed makes you a safer (safer not better) driver, whether its due to the person knowing thier stoned so being more careful or the affects of weed making them more careful im not sure but to say drink driving is as dangerous as stoned driving is far from the truth...
Driving a car, high? just as dangerous as driving drunk.
Thats complete rubbish, being drunk doesn't just remove inhibitions and affect you mentally, it gives you slight double vision (something you don't get fom weed) the inhibitions it remove make speed some fun and less scary than it is when you aren't drunk, on the other hand being stoned you actually slow down slightly as being stoned does make you more cautious....
There is an argument that weed makes you a safer (safer not better) driver, whether its due to the person knowing thier stoned so being more careful or the affects of weed making them more careful im not sure but to say drink driving is as dangerous as stoned driving is far from the truth...
Grizzly, we seem to be on par with most things here, but driving stoned is never a good idea under any circumstances. Your reaction time and motor skills are severely reduced. However, I would reluctantly pick someone stoned rather than drunk to drive a car.
Oh I don't know - small matter of not putting people in prison, not getting people sacked from their jobs. You know, little details like that.
Black market won't do it cheaper. Not much of a black market in cucumbers, coffee. chocolate is there?
I'm going to have to agree here. Prison time and layoffs are not pleasant.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2010, 17:47
Grizzly, we seem to be on par with most things here, but driving stoned is never a good idea under any circumstances. Your reaction time and motor skills are severely reduced. However, I would reluctantly pick someone stoned rather than drunk to drive a car.
I think it's more that you have trouble processing all the information you need to process. Lanes, cars, lights, pedestrians, where you're going.
LittleGrizzly
05-09-2010, 17:50
Don't get me wrong, re reading my post it almost looks like im claiming a stoned driver is better than one without any substances, im not claiming that, just mentioning that when my friends have drove stoned they usually drive a little bit slower (and seen as young men drive too fast the majority of the time thats generally a good thing)
A clear headed driver is obviously best that is without question, but comparing a drunk driver to a stoned one is crazy, one could only make such a statement if they hadn't experienced the effects of both drugs....
Centurion1
05-09-2010, 23:29
yeah ive seen drunk drivers drive slower because they dont want to get arrested. driving while blazing is bad. and people who drive stoned suck at driving. slower does not neccassarily equal slower, especially on freeways.
my friend just got home from a prom party stoned and crashed into his moms car. dont talk to me about not knowing drugs effects ive been to three parties in as many weekends, its my senior year of high school the only hard part is picking one.
yeah ive seen drunk drivers drive slower because they dont want to get arrested. driving while blazing is bad. and people who drive stoned suck at driving. slower does not neccassarily equal slower, especially on freeways.
my friend just got home from a prom party stoned and crashed into his moms car. dont talk to me about not knowing drugs effects ive been two three parties in as many weekends, its my senior year of high school the only hard part is picking one.
Your friend sounds like an idiot.
Centurion1
05-09-2010, 23:46
it was four in the morning mate, lol hes going to penn state. who else went to penn state that i know.........
a completely inoffensive name
05-10-2010, 01:35
The lesson here kids is: Smoke Weed Every Day.
Centurion1
05-10-2010, 02:50
LOL you talking bout. That video my friend says it sooooo perfectly
Centurion1
05-10-2010, 03:05
Sorry double
it was four in the morning mate, lol hes going to penn state. who else went to penn state that i know.........
Penn State has 40 thousand students, champ.
Centurion1
05-10-2010, 03:20
Calm down cowboy no need to get feisty....... school of engineering tho?
LittleGrizzly
05-10-2010, 06:33
yeah ive seen drunk drivers drive slower because they dont want to get arrested. driving while blazing is bad. and people who drive stoned suck at driving. slower does not neccassarily equal slower, especially on freeways.
Firstly I think slower does equal slower on a freeway as much as anywhere else ~;)
Doing anything illegal can as an off shoot cause you to follow other laws perfectly, this isn't what I was referring too as it would be the case with drunk or stoned driving. We may all have different personal experiences which is why I didn't bring up my friends who drive pretty well stoned but most of them wouldn't risk driving drunk. Instead I concentrated on the effects of the drugs, firstly alcohol causes blurred and doubled vision, weed does not do this. Secondly alcohol is famous for its inhibition lowering effects, weed has no such effect and if anything makes people more cautious. Im not sure if this is a seperate problem or is connected to the inhibitions but I think it is obvious to almost everyone that alcohol causes aggression in a lot of people and whilst some assertiveness rather than dithering is good for drivers the aggression caused by drink is obviously something you don't want behind the wheel, yet again weed causes no such aggression...
its my senior year of high school the only hard part is picking one.
If you have done both can you not tell the difference in both your personality and physical abilties is much more dangerous when your drinking ?
Obviously if you only ever done weed once or twice then you would have been completely smashed and cannot compare it to just having one or two drinks if your a regular drinker.
Obviously if you only ever done weed once or twice then you would have been completely smashed and cannot compare it to just having one or two drinks if your a regular drinker.
The first time is never great, most people don't feel much difference, unless they get really high, which is not advised. But yes, the second-fifth time is not a great comparison. Seriously though, don't mix drugs with driving, that's just irresponsible.
Tellos Athenaios
05-10-2010, 10:31
:laugh4:
The perpetuation of weed myths are hilarious.
Hmm, myth much? Let's Google that: "Hash psychose":
Hash-psychose genetisch verklaard
22 september 2006 - Cannabisgebruik verhoogt het risico op psychose op de lange termijn. Deze effecten zijn echter niet voor iedereen gelijk. Onderzoek aan de Universiteit Maastricht heeft nu aangetoond welk gen en specifiek welke variant hiervan, maakt dat mensen psychotisch worden na het roken van cannabis. De resultaten verklaren de individuele verschillen in reactie op cannabisgebruik in de algemene bevolking en tonen aan dat cannabis waarschijnlijk een causale rol speelt in het ontstaan van psychose.
Uit eerder onderzoek uitgevoerd door de UM is al gebleken dat cannabis psychose kan veroorzaken, en dat dit met name het geval is bij mensen met een familiaire kwetsbaarheid voor psychose. Welke specifieke genen hierin een rol spelen was vooralsnog onduidelijk. Onderzoekers uit Londen hebben recent gesuggereerd dat het zogenaamde COMT-gen een bepalende rol in deze genetische kwetsbaarheid voor psychose zou kunnen spelen.
Het COMT-gen speelt een belangrijke rol bij de afbraak van dopamine in de hersenen, en kent twee varianten, het Val-allel en het Met-allel. Mensen krijgen van iedere ouder één allel mee, zodat ze de combinaties (“genotypen”) Val/Val, Val/Met of Met/Met kunnen hebben. Om het COMT-gen in relatie tot cannabis en psychose te onderzoeken, hebben de onderzoekers uit Maastricht patiënten met schizofrenie en gezonde vrijwilligers cannabis laten roken en daarna de acute effecten op het geheugen en psychotische ervaringen onderzocht. Daarnaast werd DNA afgenomen en werd gekeken of variatie in het COMT- gen samenhing met de reactie op cannabis.
Het onderzoek toont aan dat mensen met het Val/Val-genotype van het COMT-gen (dat ongeveer een kwart van de bevolking draagt), een grote invloed heeft op hoe mensen op cannabis reageren. Mensen met het Val/Val-genotype vertonen significant meer geheugenstoornissen na cannabisblootstelling én vertonen vooral meer psychotische symptomen (hallucinaties en wanen) wanneer ze onder invloed van cannabis zijn. Dit geldt zowel voor mensen met schizofrenie als voor mensen die nog nooit psychotisch zijn geweest.
Just paste that in Google Translate or something but you'll probably be able to spot a few interesting keywords already. Then google some further: "Hash psychose COMT UM paper": yields an interesting link: the actual paper: http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/6/1111
Its conclusion reads:
Only a small proportion of those who use cannabis develop psychosis, but for these unfortunate individuals, cannabis appears to have a dramatically detrimental impact on their mental health. Genetic as well as environmental factors have been shown to underlie this differential sensitivity to cannabis and its active ingredient THC. In this interplay between genes and the environment, it is unlikely that mechanisms of rGE explain the cannabis-psychosis link. GEIs, however, are more likely to underlie the complex interactions between cannabis and psychosis, whereby multiple variations within multiple genes—rather than one single genetic polymorphism—may set an individual's vulnerability at birth to develop later psychosis. Several environmental factors during the course of development, such as cannabis use and stress, may then impact on these vulnerabilities and reinforce a shift forward on the psychosis continuum toward a lower threshold to experience psychotic symptoms and to ultimately develop clinical psychotic disorder. Intrinsic to the concept of a continuum is changeability of an individual's position on the psychosis continuum over time. In this frame, psychological and pharmacological treatment will limit further dysregulation and sensitization processes, whereas persistent cannabis use may continue to put an individual at risk of dysregulation of, eg, the dopamine system and subsequent chronic states of psychotic illness. Further experimental work on the biological mechanisms underlying these GEIs is therefore urgently needed to better understand the pathway by which THC may cause psychosis in the short and long term.
In a tiny minority of cases, it can have very detrimental effects. The best defence against this is education, and making sure young people can get access to help immediately without risking a criminal record/being asked to inform on friends/being kicked out of school.
Once again it's a tick for the legalisation column and a cross for prohibition.
There also needs to be better understanding of the difference between cannabis-related psychosis (very rare) and an unpleasant/negative effect of cannabis narcosis (acute anxiety/paranoia whilst high). The medical profession conflates the two.
In a tiny minority of cases, it can have very detrimental effects. The best defence against this is education, and making sure young people can get access to help immediately without risking a criminal record/being asked to inform on friends/being kicked out of school.
Once again it's a tick for the legalisation column and a cross for prohibition.
There is a third way, keeping the laws but just gradually starting to ignore them. Legalising it is just too complicated, what about supply, having to negotiate prices with druglords? You will have to.
Well fairly quickly these druglords will become legit buisness persons, some of them anyway. And there are already growers in the US and Canada that grow the medical stuff. If there was a legal way for these guy to operate and expand they would jump at it.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-10-2010, 17:06
What is psychosis anyway?
Centurion1
05-10-2010, 22:12
except lars they sell other drugs like crack and heroin.
And weapons, women, abduction, hitjobs, whatever makes cash. Where CA get their weed from war on drugs is really war, goverment has zip to say. Happy a nice talk.
There is a third way, keeping the laws but just gradually starting to ignore them. Legalising it is just too complicated, what about supply, having to negotiate prices with druglords? You will have to.
I'd be open to this. This is the offical policy of the Netherlands, correct? I know it isn't exactly legal.
I'd be open to this. This is the offical policy of the Netherlands, correct? I know it isn't exactly legal.
Indeed it's still illegal, but police turns a blind eye with personal use.
There is a third way, keeping the laws but just gradually starting to ignore them. Legalising it is just too complicated, what about supply, having to negotiate prices with druglords? You will have to.
I think this is the worst solution in many ways.
Drug lords? So are the heads of Distillers, SAB Miller, Phillip Morris, Douwe Egberts, etc druglords? How do we negotiate prices with these craven gangsters?
Just regulate and licence production, distribution and retail.
Just regulate and licence production, distribution and retail.
In addition, for all the worrying parents, it becomes harder for youngsters to get their hands on weed. A dealer doesn't care how old you are, he just wants his money. But, a licensed shop does care because if they get caught selling to minors the government can strip them of their license or worse. :yes:
I think this is the worst solution in many ways.
Drug lords? So are the heads of Distillers, SAB Miller, Phillip Morris, Douwe Egberts, etc druglords? How do we negotiate prices with these craven gangsters?
Just regulate and licence production, distribution and retail.
Could at least tell me why you think it's a bad idea. If the government wants to do all that the product will be more expensive, I think it's a bit silly to assume it will fix drug-related crime, unless you start outpricing them with government handouts for homegrown. But the black market will find it's balance in any setup anyway as they can ALWAYS do it cheaper. Not solving anything that way, best to treat the organised crime as a fact of life and stop bullying the users at the end of the line.
Cannabis expensive? :laugh4:
Give me an acre of land, and a couple of grand to spend on polytunnels, nutrients, etc. And I will be able to produce a ton of the stuff. It's not hard to grow, it's just hard to grow discreetly.
Once again - where is the black market in coffee and cucumbers?
Decriminalisation is the worst option because you maintain a black economy - with high prices, poor quality control, and criminal gangs who have to resort to violence to protect their markets.
I know it isn't very hard to grow. But it's even easier to intimidate farmers or even enslave them, different rules. Can't beat this, not with the tools at hand. Do you think they will just say adieu to their profits if they know which school Farmer Joe's kids attend.
Once again - where is the black market in coffee and cucumbers?
Was stupid to ban weed but can't just undo it
You have yet to give anything approaching a convincing argument as to why cannabis can't be regulated and grown like any other crop.
Easier to intimidate and enslave farmers? Dairy farmers? Carrot farmers?
You have yet to give anything approaching a convincing argument as to why cannabis can't be regulated and grown like any other crop.
I did, governments can't compete with organised crime.
It's not like dealers supply weed at the cheapest price possible out of the goodness of their hearts. Legalisation would render many criminal gangs uncompetitive.
I did, governments can't compete with organised crime.
Yeah the black market for coffee is thriving. Why go to the supermarket and pay ££££'s when I can go down that dark alley over there and pick up my badly ground, slightly stale, probably adulturated arabica from the strange looking man who hangs out there. A perfect example of the black market hammering the regulated market.
Likewise, I'd like a bottle of wine this evening. I'm not going to be ripped off in some crazy 'shop' or 'store'. I'm heading over to my cousin's house. He brews his own wine. It's a bit cloudy, and the taste is pretty poor... and let's not even talk about the hangover it gives you. But I'll be laughing my arse off at those suckers who have chosen to select wine from a licenced seller. They think that being able to choose a quality bottle will make up for the fact that they have to pay almost £5 for a bottle of wine only 7 times as good as the bottle my cousin brews and charges me £4 for. Is it any wonder that illegal alcohol sales in this country are... er.. um... er... largely nonexistant :laugh4:
It's not like dealers supply weed at the cheapest price possible out of the goodness of their hearts. Legalisation would render many criminal gangs uncompetitive.
Nope they will absolutely make it by any means necessary, what makes you think they won't, it's ruffling feathers for symbolic politics.
@Idaho, I have no argument against that, but I don't think it's a proper context
Nope they will absolutely make it by any means necessary, what makes you think they won't, it's ruffling feathers for symbolic politics.
@Idaho, I have no argument against that, but I don't think it's a proper context
You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is something intrinsic about cannabis that makes criminals want to sell it. There isn't. It's just an illegal commodity that offers a chance of medium to large tax free profits for anyone with the nerve, skill and muscle to sell it.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is something intrinsic about cannabis that makes criminals want to sell it. There isn't. It's just an illegal commodity that offers a chance of medium to large tax free profits for anyone with the nerve, skill and muscle to sell it.
All money is green, cause and effect, you are hurting their trade if you take it from them, they are competing with others, it has it's own logic. Really why such drastic measures? It is harmless enough as it is. Not defendable legally but screw that
ajaxfetish
05-11-2010, 17:20
All money is green, cause and effect, you are hurting their trade if you take it from them, they are competing with others, it has it's own logic. Really why such drastic measures? It is harmless enough as it is. Not defendable legally but screw that
And they're gonna have fun competing with others who can conveniently operate in the open, taking advantage of the nation's trade and retail infrastructure, guaranteeing consistent quality and convenient purchase, and who don't have the cops out hunting for them.
Ajax
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.