View Full Version : Legal Weed In The USA?
Strike For The South
12-02-2005, 03:19
Should we take a page outta Canadas book and legalize pot? Im not entirely sure howI feel about this but as of now Im leaning towards yes becuase Im not sure if it would make that much of a diffrence. Im sort of talking about smaller amounts
Adrian II
12-02-2005, 03:26
Should we take a page outta Canadas book and legalize pot? Im not entirely sure how I feel about this but as of now Im leaning towards yes becuase Im not sure if it would make that much of a diffrence. Im sort of talking about smaller amounts.Strike, are you running a temperature? Do you hear voices? Have you eaten anything new or funny with your squirrels today? Are you sure you wanne be a liberal?
I mean, legalizing pot is far out where y'all live, right?... ~:eek:
Kaiser of Arabia
12-02-2005, 03:28
Uh...
HOW BOUT NO?
Tachikaze
12-02-2005, 03:28
I've never touched the stuff, but I wholeheartedly support legalizing it here. If alcohol is legal, than marijuana should be as well.
Alexanderofmacedon
12-02-2005, 03:39
For one thing, it is legal...with a prescription...
I think it would kind of encourage that kind of thing, but it might save some lives. Nowadays pot is turning into a war, and legalizing it would change that. I'm not saying I'm for it or against it...I don't smoke so I really don't care too much...
I've never touched the stuff, but I wholeheartedly support legalizing it here. If alcohol is legal, than marijuana should be as well.
There are some important distinctions between the two. Believe it or not, people can and do (myself included) drink without getting drunk- yes many abuse alchohol, but it's intended purpose is not to get trashed and throw up on yourself. With pot, the whole point is to get high/inebriated.
Second, you can sit in a room full of people and have a drink without making everyone else drunk. It's alot tougher to sit in a room full of people and toke up without giving them a buzz as well. Im not certain an outright ban is appropriate, but until someone comes up with a feasible idea, that's still where I stand.
I've never touched the stuff, but I wholeheartedly support legalizing it here. If alcohol is legal, than marijuana should be as well.
Ditto.
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 04:02
There are some important distinctions between the two. Believe it or not, people can and do (myself included) drink without getting drunk- yes many abuse alchohol, but it's intended purpose is not to get trashed and throw up on yourself. With pot, the whole point is to get high/inebriated.
Second, you can sit in a room full of people and have a drink without making everyone else drunk. It's alot tougher to sit in a room full of people and toke up without giving them a buzz as well. Im not certain an outright ban is appropriate, but until someone comes up with a feasible idea, that's still where I stand.
Clearly you have never had grass. All you have to do is crack a window and the other people will not get a buzz (unless they want to.) And I know people drink without getting piss drunk- the majority of the time I drink, I do not get full-on drunk.
And I do not understand your first argument... what is the purpose of drinking alcohol, if not to experience the effects of the alcohol itself? That is like saying that the primary reason for smoking pot is for the taste. The taste is definitely a good reason to smoke it, but the primary reason it getting high- and speaking of getting high, it is possible to smoke pot without getting blitzed and eating a whole subway sandwich. When consumed in small amounts, it is quite a different experience, and is mainly just relaxing.
Just to add to all of this- one of the stronger reasons for legalisation is the Prohibition effect. What I mean by this is that, because grass is illegal, it has the same effects as Prohibition did on alcohol. It inflates the price severely, but more importantly, it is totally unregulated. Purchasing grass these days is much like purchasing alcohol was in the 20's- every time you buy some, it is like a game of Russian Roulette, because you do not know what might be in it. One of the people I hang around with was actually slipped a joint with opium in it- it was very fortunate for him that he already consumed the stuff upon occasion, because he might have had some serious complication from this, and at the very least he would have freaked out. If pot was legal, this problem would be easily avoided.
Uh...
HOW BOUT NO?
********************************************************
From Kaiser in the Frontroom Food Thread: Baked Ziti in a good Siclian meat sauce, with large meatballs (made of Veal, Beef, Pork, and liberal amounts of Garlic) and Hot Italian Sausage (with some Mild and Sweet mixed in, of course). Garlic knots/garlic bread with mozzerella, and then you put a generous amount of Parmesan and oregano over everything.
God help you if you ever get into the whacky-tabaky Kaiser, you'll be loading all of that onto a bowl of Rocky Road, garnishing it with BBQ Ruffles, and melding into a marathon session of Three's Company. We'll lose you to the Dark Side for sure.
Kanamori
12-02-2005, 04:22
Second, you can sit in a room full of people and have a drink without making everyone else drunk. It's alot tougher to sit in a room full of people and toke up without giving them a buzz as well. Im not certain an outright ban is appropriate, but until someone comes up with a feasible idea, that's still where I stand.
I've never seen second-hand pot smoke get any person high, my friends cat once but that's it.
And Zorba's right, smoking up isn't about getting blazed and falling over high. Smoking a bowl is just relaxing. Honestly, there are no harms of pot, if you use a bubbler, the smoke is far better for you than cigarette smoke too, and unlike cigarettes or alcohol, it's not addictive.
Alexanderofmacedon
12-02-2005, 04:28
When you say "not addictive" I don't think you know some of my friends! Yeah, I would have to disagree...It's pretty addictive to my friends...
Kanamori
12-02-2005, 04:29
It is not physically addictive. It can be mentally addictive, just like anything else in the world, but it is not a physical addiction like alcohol and cigarettes.
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 04:35
Zorba, I find the "legalize to regulate" argument you put forth rediculous.
People choose to break the law and it's the government's fault they get more than they bargained for from the local dealer?
Sheesh.
Strike For The South
12-02-2005, 04:35
Strike, are you running a temperature? Do you hear voices? Have you eaten anything new or funny with your squirrels today? Are you sure you wanne be a liberal?
I mean, legalizing pot is far out where y'all live, right?... ~:eek:
It would be just like it is now except legal. and like Zorba said regulated
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 04:43
Zorba, I find the "legalize to regulate" argument you put forth rediculous.
People choose to break the law and it's the government's fault they get more than they bargained for from the local dealer?
Sheesh.
Nooooooo... but it would help. I mean, do you want to be drinking bathtub Gin and illegaly imported liquor, liquor that is probably cut half-and-half with wood alcohol?
It is not the government's fault, but it is helpful to the people at large.
Kanamori
12-02-2005, 04:47
I'm just wondering, what is the argument for banning it?
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 04:48
I just don't agree with what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that if enough people break a law, the government should change the law to help out those breaking the law. In general that isn't very wise, though I think in cases of alcohol and marijuana, it isn't so awful...
Personally, I don't see the appeal of alcohol nor weed.
:hide:
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 04:59
Personally, I don't see the appeal of alcohol nor weed.
Well, see, that's your problem with what I was saying... but do you think that there is a real reason why grass should be illegal?
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 05:03
Meh.
I guess I don't care too much either way. Arguing for the sake of arguing, you know.
Aside: I read somewhere that Prohibition, while being generally castigated, reduced drinking (or some drinking-related statistic) by 30 to 50% (or something like that). I'll have to see if I can find it...
yesdachi
12-02-2005, 05:05
I've never seen second-hand pot smoke get any person high, my friends cat once but that's it.
Have you been to an indoor Black Sabbath concert and tried to not get high? ~;)
As to the topic, I swear we have covered this a few times before but… oh well.
Legalizing it has merit but in general I thinks drugs are bad, especially perception altering ones. I say let America vote on it, democracy rules. :bow:
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 05:06
Even better, let the states decide (via democracry).
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 05:07
Meh.
I guess I don't care too much either way. Arguing for the sake of arguing, you know.
Aside: I read somewhere that Prohibition, while being generally castigated, reduced drinking (or some drinking-related statistic) by 30 to 50% (or something like that). I'll have to see if I can find it...
...And it provided a massive feeding ground for crime, organised and otherwise, and allowed people to sell huge quantities of lethal alcohol. That was my point.
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 05:09
Have you been to an indoor Black Sabbath concert and tried to not get high? ~;)
As to the topic, I swear we have covered this a few times before but? oh well.
Legalizing it has merit but in general I thinks drugs are bad, especially perception altering ones.
Man, grass is is the diet coke of drugs. We have legal drugs that are a lot more dangerous than grass- mainly, alcohol. Going overboard with alcohol is a hell of a lot worse than going overboard with pot.
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 05:10
Curiousity: what's the number of (I guess estimated) users of marijuana versus users of alcohol (users being regular but not excessive or something like that).
And what was the number before Prohibition for alcohol users?
Crazed Rabbit
12-02-2005, 05:11
I'm personally not sure on this one. In theory, I support banning it, but the great excesses of the drug war-siezing property, diverted resources, etc., etc. make me feel that the incroachments on our rights are not worth it for stopping pot smoking. Plus the fact that our ability to enforce it is a joke.
On general libertarian principals, since it doesn't really harm anybody else when its smoked, I wouldn't mind it in theory. In practice, it seems that some are driven to criminality to support their drug addiction. So while it doesn't seem greatly harmful in small amounts, it does seem to drive people (not all, but people who abuse it) into 'anti-social behavior'.
Crazed Rabbit
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 05:14
Curiousity: what's the number of (I guess estimated) users of marijuana versus users of alcohol (users being regular but not excessive or something like that).
And what was the number before Prohibition for alcohol users?
No idea. I do know, from significant study of Prohibition, that there is really no way of knowing how much effect prohibition had on numbers. There are statistics that say they went down, and others taht say that the numbers were flat, or even went up.
But honestly, would you rather have more people drinking/smoking, or have more crime? By crime, I am not referring to the users, but rather to the organised criminals that make a hefty profit off of illicit substances.
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 05:16
I guess drinking over the mafia.
"It's just business."
yesdachi
12-02-2005, 05:22
It sounds like you're saying that if enough people break a law, the government should change the law to help out those breaking the law. In general that isn't very wise, though I think in cases of alcohol and marijuana, it isn't so awful...
Observing that a law is being broken by more and more is an excellent opportunity to review if the law is just. Doesn’t mean it should be legalized it might mean that the ones breaking the law should be pursued with more aggressiveness. Drug usage is a good example but so is speeding, should we raise the limit in areas that more and more people speed in? Or go after the speeders? How about illegal immigration, lots of people do that, should it be legalized? Or should we go after the ones breaking that law?~:)
Devastatin Dave
12-02-2005, 05:23
I support legalizing it because it gets rid of competition in the job market and keeps me employed. Toke away you freakin stoners!!!
solypsist
12-02-2005, 05:24
no.
Soulforged
12-02-2005, 05:39
Saying legalize it or not is futile. "Pot" and any other thing wich concerns the individual private life is protected by the constitution. Under-laws such as the one that forbids "pot" or any other drugs should be declared unconstitutional to face the reality of the institutions that the nations looked for in it's liberals foundings expressed in the constitutions. We're living today in most countries in a "faceless" unconstitutional state of things, that has to change sooner or later.
Byzantine Prince
12-02-2005, 05:41
I would legalize it just for the taxes. So what if a lot of people get dumb(otherwise known as 'high'), with the money we can find a cure for AIDS, or help out children's hospitals.
yesdachi
12-02-2005, 05:46
Man, grass is is the diet coke of drugs. We have legal drugs that are a lot more dangerous than grass- mainly, alcohol. Going overboard with alcohol is a hell of a lot worse than going overboard with pot.
I completely agree.:bow: And like any “drug” if used responsibly there is little issue. You never see on the news the guy that had a few drinks and drove carefully home and had a great dinner with his wife and kids, it’s always the one who killed an orphan or whatever. Some people just can’t act responsibly and because grass is illegal now I think users are more careful about when and where they use it but if it were legal there would be more people using it who would not be as responsible as the users now. :2cents:
I’m not ignorant to its effects, I have, in my youth, enjoyed it and would encourage others to try it before judging but I would also encourage people to talk to “Jo” the 55 year old minimum wage earning, restaurant line cook who has been smoking his whole life and it never hurt him.~:rolleyes: I believe it does have some “makes ya stupid over time” side effects. One reason I no longer partake.
Let the democracy vote. Either way I’m ok with it, let freedom reign! ~:)
Crazed Rabbit
12-02-2005, 05:48
no.
*squints*
*rubs eyes*
*squints again*
Am I reading this right? Are you against legalizing pot, Soly? Does this mean I'm actually more liberal than you on an issue?
Why are you against it?
Crazed Rabbit
i think they should tax it, and regulate it the same way they do cigarettes and alchohol, its a new revenue source for the gov to waste, and it will cut down on the idiots up here who grow fields of the stuff out in the swamps, there getting more and more brazen in the run ins with the law up here.
the state used to allow a certain amount in possesion and a couple of plants for personal use, if you had more you were considered a dealer and they threw the book at you, but most of the people who really wanted it, grew their own on the property, and we never had stories in the news of record marajana busts, and gun battles with the cops, that are appearing on the news more regularly.
simple fact is the drug, does no more harm physicaly or to society than tabacco or alchohol, but yet these are legal..makes absolutely no sense to me...
Gawain of Orkeny
12-02-2005, 06:25
I just don't agree with what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that if enough people break a law, the government should change the law to help out those breaking the law
If its a stupid law I say its your duty to break it. Like segregation laws.
Aside: I read somewhere that Prohibition, while being generally castigated, reduced drinking (or some drinking-related statistic) by 30 to 50% (or something like that). I'll have to see if I can find it...
I dont think so.
Although the consumption of alcohol fell immediately after the beginning of prohibition, there was a subsequent increase after less than a year (see appendix i). After the start of prohibition, because manufacturing and importing alcohol were illegal, people needed to find ways to avoid being caught. Because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. Another downfall of prohibition was that the illegally made products had no standards. Deaths from poisoned liquor rose from 1,064 in 1920 to 4,154 in 1925.
And does this sound familiar if you compare today with the 50s
As a result of the lack of enforcement of the Prohibition Act and the creation of an illegal industry an increase in crime transpired. The Prohibitionists hoped that the Volstead Act would decrease drunkenness in America and thereby decrease the crime rate, especially in large cities. Although towards the beginning of Prohibition this purpose seemed to be fulfilled, the crime rate soon skyrocketed to nearly twice that of the pre-prohibition period. In large cities the homicide went from 5.6 (per 100,000 population) in the pre-prohibition period, to nearly 10 (per 100,000 population) during prohibition, nearly a 78 percent increase. Serious crimes, such as homicides, assault, and battery, increased nearly 13 percent, while other crimes involving victims increased 9 percent. Many supporters of prohibition argued that the crime rate decreased. This is true if one is examining only minor crimes, such as swearing, mischief, and vagrancy, which did in fact decrease due to prohibition. The major crimes, however, such as homicides, and burglaries, increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. In addition, the number of federal convicts over the course of the prohibition period increased 561 percent. The crime rate increased because “prohibition destroyed legal jobs, created black-market violence, diverted resources from enforcement of other laws, and increased prices people had to pay for prohibited goods” (Thorton, 10).
The contributing factor to the sudden increase of felonies was the organization of crime, especially in large cities. Because liquor was no longer legally available, the public turned to gangsters who readily took on the bootlegging industry and supplied them with liquor. On account of the industry being so profitable, more gangsters became involved in the money-making business. Crime became so organized because “criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol” (Thorton, 13). As a result of the money involved in the bootlegging industry, there was much rival between gangs. The profit motive caused over four hundred gang related murders a year in Chicago alone (Bowen, 175).
Incidentally, large cities were the main location for organized gangs. Although there were over a half dozen powerful gangs in New York, Chicago was the capital of racketeers, including Johnny Torrio, “Bugs Moran”, the Gennas, and the O’Banions (Behr, 192). The most powerful and infamous bootlegger however, was Al Capone, operating out of Chicago. One of the most gruesome and remembered gangster shoot-outs of all time occurred on Valentine’s Day, 1929. Because of business differences, Capone had his henchman, “Machine Gun” Jack McGurn plot the murder of the O’Banions, led by Bugs Moran. McGurn staged a delivery of alcohol to Moran at a warehouse and had his gang members impersonate police officers and pretend to raid the transaction. With a sweep of machine gun fire, McGurn killed all that were inside. Capone had a solid alibi, being in Miami at the time, and no convictions were ever made. This event is an example of how prohibition fueled gang warfare and increased the crime rate in America (Bowen, 175).
Now its the crips and the bloods. This is why we have such a high violent crime rate . History repeats itself. But the government and the crooks are getting rich and were losing our freedoms. But at least no ones doing bad drugs ............GAH.
LINK (http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4399/)
solypsist
12-02-2005, 06:33
i'm against legalizing anything else* that impairs judgement and clouds the mind.
*alcohol is legal
*squints*
*rubs eyes*
*squints again*
Am I reading this right? Are you against legalizing pot, Soly? Does this mean I'm actually more liberal than you on an issue?
Why are you against it?
Crazed Rabbit
Legalize it, so long as you don't go out driving while badly blazed I could care less. And you don't run around sticking lit joints in my mouth.
yesdachi
12-02-2005, 06:55
Legalize it, so long as you don't go out driving while badly blazed I could care less. And you don't run around sticking lit joints in my mouth.
Hey JimBob, is your Chi Town location a reference to Rifts?~:)
Legalize it, so long as you don't go out driving while badly blazed I could care less. And you don't run around sticking lit joints in my mouth.Ideally, I'd say let em do whatever the hell they want. But unfortunately, we, the public, are forced to pay for other people's mistakes. Until that's addressed, I'm reluctant to support legalization. And beyond that, as I've said, I don't want to be forced to breath that crap in when I'm out and about.
And I do not understand your first argument... what is the purpose of drinking alcohol, if not to experience the effects of the alcohol itself? That is like saying that the primary reason for smoking pot is for the taste. The taste is definitely a good reason to smoke it, but the primary reason it getting high- and speaking of getting high, it is possible to smoke pot without getting blitzed and eating a whole subway sandwich. When consumed in small amounts, it is quite a different experience, and is mainly just relaxing.People can and certainly do drink beers and especially wines primarily for their taste. Clearly that alcohol is there and is a factor- but again its not the primary reason for it.
For pot, the main reason is its effects- if it tastes good, so much the better, but it's not why people smoke it.
Should we take a page outta Canadas book and legalize pot? Im not entirely sure howI feel about this but as of now Im leaning towards yes becuase Im not sure if it would make that much of a diffrence. Im sort of talking about smaller amounts No. Absolutely not. Addiction starts in small amounts Strike. If you wish not to be addicted, get off of it now.
Geoffrey S
12-02-2005, 09:29
Legalising things takes half the fun away. No.
legalize, so we dont have to have this discussion again, ever... ever....ever ~D
... personally all I need to get high is good weather, a cold beer and a nice looking woman in me knee. ~;)
Legalise it, tax it. Let the police go after dangerous people, and put the drug dealers out of business. Or make them all move into oil or something. They'd fit in well.
I believe research showed Cannabis smoking causes schizophrenia, and will addict you and cause plenty of problems in later life. It is also a "gateway drug" in that after experiencing Cannabis, you'll want to take "worse" (for lack of a better word) drugs, which would get you put in prison. If Cannabis was legalised in Britain, the government would have to tax its buyers to death to pay for the health costs. I oppose the legalization of cannabis, it ruins lives. I don't think anyone can come up with a real reason to legalize cannabis, as "alcohol is legal, therefore Cannabis should be too" is a completely unfounded comparison, which does not make sense when you think about it.
Reverend Joe
12-02-2005, 17:06
I believe research showed Cannabis smoking causes schizophrenia, and will addict you and cause plenty of problems in later life. It is also a "gateway drug" in that after experiencing Cannabis, you'll want to take "worse" (for lack of a better word) drugs, which would get you put in prison. If Cannabis was legalised in Britain, the government would have to tax its buyers to death to pay for the health costs. I oppose the legalization of cannabis, it ruins lives. I don't think anyone can come up with a real reason to legalize cannabis, as "alcohol is legal, therefore Cannabis should be too" is a completely unfounded comparison, which does not make sense when you think about it.
:stunned: Holy hell... I never thought I would run into someone who believes all that crap...
Okay:
Extensive, unbiased research has shown:
-Grass does not cause schizophrenia or any other mental illness.
-It is not a gateway drug; if you want to go onto harder things, you are going to, whether you use grass or not. Not everybody who rides the Turkish Gravy Train started out on grass.
-There is no way in hell that Cannabis ruins lives, unless you smoke massive quantities- and even then, its effects are not as severe as alcohol. (And THAT is the foundation of the pot-alcohol argument.)
Prodigal
12-02-2005, 17:20
Legal Weed In The USA? I can only wonder, does it matter? No, because in the UK you can have a 4oz for personal use AND YOU WON'T GET NICKED!
HUZZZAAHHHH!
gahh 200 posts, guess I better bugger off for a year or so, I'm way over quota
doc_bean
12-02-2005, 18:34
:stunned: Holy hell... I never thought I would run into someone who believes all that crap...
Okay:
Extensive, unbiased research has shown:
-Grass does not cause schizophrenia or any other mental illness.
-It is not a gateway drug; if you want to go onto harder things, you are going to, whether you use grass or not. Not everybody who rides the Turkish Gravy Train started out on grass.
-There is no way in hell that Cannabis ruins lives, unless you smoke massive quantities- and even then, its effects are not as severe as alcohol. (And THAT is the foundation of the pot-alcohol argument.)
I knew 2 people, one through the internet and one in real life, whose lives would have been very different if it wasn't for pot.
The internet friend had stated pretty early with pot, and showed typical slacker signs, he was extremely intelligent but his grades (uni) were rather poor. So far, not too much to be concerned about, however, at a certain point he became paranoid, a while later he started seeing things and a while later we lost contact. I don't know what happened to him, or if it really was the pot (he at least thought it had something to do with it) or if he ever got back around, but he certainly seemed like a lost cause last time I saw him.
The real life friend, was very ambitious, also pretty smart, and had finsihed about a year and half of uni (all good grades) before he took up smoking pot heavily (he might have tried it a few times before). Last time I saw him he was going to get permission to try his second year for the third time (the one he had half-completed), I don't think he got the permission. We had a bit of a (verbal) fight back then...
I know several people who had to repeat grades because their stoner habits interferred with their studies (which really weren't that hard). The sad thing is that these were almost always *smart* kids, the type who could get good grades with the least bit of effort.
I smoked pot for a little while (about half a year, not often or much) and I needed surgery near the end of that period because a certain, tought stable, condition suddenly got a lot worse. I'm pretty sure the pot had something to do with it.
Don't believe the hype, pot isn't as innocent as some people would like you to believe. :bow:
:focus: Let democracy decide, it's no worse than alochol.
Geoffrey S
12-02-2005, 19:02
I knew 2 people, one through the internet and one in real life, whose lives would have been very different if it wasn't for pot.
The internet friend had stated pretty early with pot, and showed typical slacker signs, he was extremely intelligent but his grades (uni) were rather poor. So far, not too much to be concerned about, however, at a certain point he became paranoid, a while later he started seeing things and a while later we lost contact. I don't know what happened to him, or if it really was the pot (he at least thought it had something to do with it) or if he ever got back around, but he certainly seemed like a lost cause last time I saw him.
The real life friend, was very ambitious, also pretty smart, and had finsihed about a year and half of uni (all good grades) before he took up smoking pot heavily (he might have tried it a few times before). Last time I saw him he was going to get permission to try his second year for the third time (the one he had half-completed), I don't think he got the permission. We had a bit of a (verbal) fight back then...
Aren't these both cases of smoking excessive amounts? Most people wouldn't go that far, certainly not those I know. Personally I'm not certain what's cause and effect; does smoking pot get one into the stoner group of people, or does getting involved with the stoner group cause one to smoke excessive amounts of pot?
I'm not going to argue that it's harmless; it isn't, much like (the cliche comparison) alcohol isn't. But adults are old enough to decide for themselves and should be treated as such. It's my own responsibility that if I decide to try it I keep myself in hand, and taking that responsibility is my right.
Addiction starts in small amounts.
Exactly. Everyone taking narcotic drugs started out with "innocent" drugs like this, and a hell lot of those who tests out "innocent" drugs end up narcotic wrecks.
A dissaippointing amount of ignorance in this thread.
Kekvit Irae
12-02-2005, 19:44
I dont see why people make a big stink over cannibis. There are plenty of other grasses that are legal to smoke that get you high (read: lettace opium buds from Hawaii), but nobody ever talks about those.
As for me, I rather not deal with, much less smell, anyone smoking pot. My answer is no, do not legalise it. I have enough problems with tobacco users as it is.
If you want the best legal high you can get without smoking anything... good alcohol and good sex. No more will be said about this from me. http://graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/smiles/icon_ninja.gif
Prodigal
12-02-2005, 20:01
I dont see why people make a big stink over cannibis.
4 Oz
Edit: Sorry but I'm with Bill Hicks on this WHOLE topic.
Oh & the argument to convince me I'm wrong is..Wellllll you-know; its-like the worlds 12k sumthin' yrs ol' Yeah, sure, right.
scooter_the_shooter
12-02-2005, 23:16
Yes....I will NEVER touch the stuff because I find it sickening, But who am I to deny that to others?
Kaiser of Arabia
12-02-2005, 23:18
I guess drinking over the mafia.
Sure, we can have a drink...I mean...~:)
Kinda reliving my first days at the org again...~:cheers:
doc_bean
12-02-2005, 23:41
Aren't these both cases of smoking excessive amounts?
Probably, but everyone starts small. Thinking about it, I think i actually know more people that have had problems with weed than with alcohol. But once you quit weed you really quit, it's a lot harder with alochol I've heard.
Most people wouldn't go that far, certainly not those I know. Personally I'm not certain what's cause and effect; does smoking pot get one into the stoner group of people, or does getting involved with the stoner group cause one to smoke excessive amounts of pot?
Both were pretty much lone stoners actually. The social stoners that I know now don't have any problems, although that was different in high school.
I'm not going to argue that it's harmless; it isn't, much like (the cliche comparison) alcohol isn't. But adults are old enough to decide for themselves and should be treated as such. It's my own responsibility that if I decide to try it I keep myself in hand, and taking that responsibility is my right.
I do agree with that on principle. However, having spent too much time reading posts by Americans, I can't help but wonder how much weed is costing my society. All those years of school that need to be repeated (or simply are repeated if it's higher education) cost quite a bit of money. And there is the higher risk of cancer (for the non-bong users) which will probably cost our healthcare system a lot, especially since I also know quite a few people who picked up smoking as a side effect of using pot.
:focus: I didn't really explain my point in the last post. I'm either for the complete ban of cannabis and related products (except for medical use, or for things like clothes) or the complete acceptance of it. I think the current situation we have here, a 'tolerance' for drugs is pretty hypocritical, and more importantly, damaging since it's stay in the grey area allows for a lot of myth surrounding the use. If caanabis use were common in a society, that society would be able to cope with most of the related problems. e.g. parents would recognize when their kid was stoned and if it happens too often they could intervene in a non-hysterical way.
The question is, do we, as a society, want to take on all the associated problems so a few people can have their little pleasure ? That's why I say we should decide on this democraticly.
Kanamori
12-03-2005, 00:12
I support legalizing it because it gets rid of competition in the job market and keeps me employed. Toke away you freakin stoners!!!
Because I don't have straight A's and I'm totally unmotivated.~;)
And beyond that, as I've said, I don't want to be forced to breath that crap in when I'm out and about.
That is irrelevant to the question of legalizing. For it to be made legal does not require that you let everyone smoke it in public or use it while driving, which would be stupid.
Clearly that alcohol is there and is a factor- but again its not the primary reason for it.
That is neither recognized legally, nor socially.
No. Absolutely not. Addiction starts in small amounts Strike.
Weed is no more addictive than video games or reading a book. I do not wake up in the morning and feel like crap unless I use it.
Smoking up is an action which does not limit anyone elses freedom, unlike things such as murder or fixing stocks. Still, I have not seen any good arguments why everyone should lose their freedom.
Kaiser of Arabia
12-03-2005, 00:35
we *could* deport potheads to the Netherlands, they'd be happy.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 01:11
Explain this to me Kanamori, just to see if we agree, I think we do. Why is that so many people including judges and some (when well not) politicians think that the infra-law is above the supreme-law? That's a logical impossibility, however many people were and still are trying to deny that superiority and use authoritarian force to keep this despotic status quo. What I want to know if it's the same with your constitution, because it seems odd to me that exclusively for juridic causes drugs are still "illegal" up there.~:confused:
Kanamori
12-03-2005, 01:35
It is like that here:( They make exceptions to the Constitution on various grounds, such as finding a "compelling interest" which is nothing more than how a judge feels about something. The Due Process clause allows our liberty to be taken, and what "Due Process" means is not always agreed on. Central to our political theory is the assumption that things cannot be truely known.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 01:43
It is like that here:( They make exceptions to the Constitution on various grounds, such as finding a "compelling interest" which is nothing more than how a judge feels about something. The Due Process clause allows our liberty to be taken, and what "Due Process" means is not always agreed on. Central to our political theory is the assumption that things cannot be truely known.Thanks. I thought it was a phenomenum mostly present in the South, to be sincere with you my country is becoming a little facist to my tastes. :no:
Reverend Joe
12-03-2005, 04:52
we *could* deport potheads to the Netherlands, they'd be happy.
Yes, I would... just put me somewhere near the Belgian border so that I can get good beer too, and you'll never hear from my stinkin' pinko ass again. :jester:
Reverend Joe
12-03-2005, 04:54
Thanks. I thought it was a phenomenum mostly present in the South, to be sincere with you my country is becoming a little facist to my tastes. :no:
It's been goin' that way since the days of Richard Milhouse Nixon and his crook buddies Spiro Agnew and Henry Kissinger.
Zalmoxis
12-03-2005, 09:26
Pot should be legal but only for those who need it for medical reasons.
solypsist
12-03-2005, 18:56
for those who may be curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks
Edit: Sorry but I'm with Bill Hicks on this WHOLE topic.
Strike For The South
12-03-2005, 19:01
:bow: I love Bill Hicks
"Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) had the right idea, he was just an underachiever".
The man stood up agaisnt corperations and they even proved his point a couple of times good man and a Texan to boot
...pot's not legal in Canada. The process to decriminalise small amounts of it had been put on hold by bureacratic manoeuvres, and that was the last I heard of it.
I would say, though, that anyone against its decriminalisation has a bit of the ol' inferiority complex.
doc_bean
12-06-2005, 11:38
I would say, though, that anyone against its decriminalisation has a bit of the ol' inferiority complex.
~:confused:
Prodigal
12-06-2005, 15:06
Wikipedia just isn't enough...
"George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative ************* on that side."
"See I think drugs have done some good things for us. If you don't think drugs have done good things for us then do me a favor. Go home tonight and take all of your records,tapes and all your CD's and burn them. Because, you know all those musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal ******* high on drugs, man. "
And my favorite:
"No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.
-Bill Hicks, (RIP)
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 04:16
"No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.[/I]Well it wouldn't matter if he did, but nice quote and I think it's a... how do gringos call it...PWNED!!~:cheers:
Adrian II
12-07-2005, 04:27
Pot should be legal but only for those who need it for medical reasons.That category includes most of the world's governments, fundamentalist groups, corporate decision-makers, lawyers... &cetera... &cetera...
Kanamori
12-07-2005, 05:02
~:cheers:
Kaiser of Arabia
12-07-2005, 05:48
Yes, I would... just put me somewhere near the Belgian border so that I can get good beer too, and you'll never hear from my stinkin' pinko ass again. :jester:
See? Even the potheads are happy!
~:confused:
Oh, you know; 'they think or act differently from me and that's bad'.
doc_bean
12-08-2005, 12:13
Oh, you know; 'they think or act differently from me and that's bad'.
Wouldn't that be a superiority complex ?
Wouldn't that be a superiority complex ?
No. A man who thinks himself superior could care less what the inferiors are doing.
doc_bean
12-09-2005, 11:49
No. A man who thinks himself superior could care less what the inferiors are doing.
Nah, they think everybody should be like them, but they are all to stupid to realize it ~:)
Someone with an inferiority complex just wants to be like everyone else.
A superiority complex is an exaggerated feeling of being superior to others. It is a psychological defense mechanism in which feelings of superiority counter or conceal feelings of inferiority.
Therefore, is not a superiority complex of this kind a different form of inferiority complex?
doc_bean
12-10-2005, 00:55
Man, some people are just too messed up ~D
Therefore, is not a superiority complex of this kind a different form of inferiority complex?
It's not a problem with logic, but rather with words. We call someone "egotistical" when they have so little ego that they have to constantly pump themselves up. And often when people say that someone has a "superiority complex" they mean the same thing.
Truly secure people don't need to do a lot of chest-thumping and neck-sack puffage. If you've ever known someone who's really centered and secure, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's the little dogs who need to yip constantly, not the big dogs.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.