A letter to my congressional representative on medical marijuana

Good Day Congressman,

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with awareness of constituent sentiment on the issue in respect to HR 5843, Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008.

For purposes of familiarization, I am a current state peace officer, employed as a Fire Fighter and regularly provide emergency medical services to the public. I am a former United States Marine Sergeant, a Veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom in Kabul, 2002. The bulk of my brief military career of seven years was in law enforcement, both as a Narcotics K9 Handler and an Investigator, with formal training through ***** County Sheriff and ***** County Sheriff. I hold a graduate degree in business administration through ****** University, **. I am not affiliated with any political special interest group, association, or organization.

Although national attention is directed to the healthcare debate, other issues related to the topic which define our culture and freedoms still demand the attention of our elected officials. I seek to make a brief argument on the subject of medical marijuana, intent only on providing you with insight into this voter’s perspective. I further support the sentiment expressed here with general concurrence from my peers, associates, and network of friends and family.

(1) SCHEDULE CLASSIFICATION: Classification of Marijuana as a Schedule I Controlled Substance is so ludicrous as to be insulting to the public’s intelligence. The moral argument against the medical use of marijuana is as antiquated as the prohibition of recreational personal alcohol use. Peer-reviewed research has shown cannabis to be medically beneficial in a number of ailments, which I need not delineate here. Public awareness of this is widespread, and I am confident that you are well informed on the matter.

(2) PUBLIC EDUCATION: Public education which seeks to demonize cannabis as a gateway drug can actually contribute to create its status as such. Users who imbibe in recreational marijuana may realize how relatively harmless the substance is in comparison against the government-produced education. This can lead individuals to doubt the credibility of the warnings against stronger and more dangerous drugs of all schedules. Public education is important, but fabricated demonization undermines the deterrence truly needed for more dangerous products such as methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine.

(3) COSTS/REVENUE: The costs of marijuana prohibition and prosecution are staggering, especially when compared against the potential revenue of a federally regulated and heavily-taxed industry.

(4) PROPOSAL: Support the reclassification of Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, while providing for the revision of public education distributed from the federal level.

(5) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: Models in other countries have shown that government-sponsored clinics which provide free access to narcotics and a safe place for use can significantly reduce drug-related crime both by reducing the need for addicts to acquire funding for their addiction and by reducing the power and influence of unlawful distributors and suppliers. Addiction is a public health issue and should be treated as such.

Thank you for your service to the people of the **** district and for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

*********, MBA


(** included to protect some measure of my meager privacy on the internet)

What's this:

Quote:

---

Schedule I to Schedule III

---

Please, could you explain me'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Good Day Congressman,

The bulk of my brief military career of seven years was in law enforcement, both as a Narcotics K9 Handler and an Investigator, with formal training through ***** County Sheriff and ***** County Sheriff. I hold a graduate degree in business administration through ****** University

---

You really shouldn't swear this much when adressing a congressman. :no:

You Yanks write really odd letters.

Were I to write to my MP I would begin:

Dear Sir/Dear Mr Cox MP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

GPublic awareness of this is widespread, and I am confident that you are well informed on the matter.

---

:inquisitive:
You're a lot more confidant than me.

Anyways, good for you.

CR

I'm curious - did you use e-mail or regular mail?

Well written overall. Probably get some points for saying you are a veteran. And they probably won't consider you a hopeless druggie for your mba. Oh and probably helps you used the scientific name, cannabis.

But i must ask are you arguing for legalization of pot or just increased medical use.

gl mate. We had this thing in the bay area where we sent bottles of water to congress trying to de criminalize cannabis. Didn't work though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

gl mate. We had this thing in the bay area where we sent bottles of water to congress trying to de criminalize cannabis. Didn't work though.

---

I... don't get it. :sweatdrop:

Anyway, well written letter. This won't change anything, but that's no reason not to try. :2thumbsup:

The ban on marijuana must be one of the western worlds most stupid ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You really shouldn't swear this much when adressing a congressman. :no:

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You really shouldn't swear this much when adressing a congressman. :no:

---

Wait till you see my letter to that guy:

Good Day, you ***** of a ***********,

For purposes of familiarization, what the **** has gone into you? After ******* up the ******* legislation on **** you have to be total ******* **** to *** with my right to smoke *******. I will ******* well smoke as I ******* please and no ****** is gonna **** his ****, you ***** **** of a ***************.

Put that in your ******** and **** it, you ***********

P.S. Fine letter, Div. Power to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You really shouldn't swear this much when adressing a congressman. :no:

---

I think that was a way to hide actual names.... he allready said...:yes:

Talk to Frank - TV Advert from the UK about Personal Use of Cannabis -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-_g5Cdc0BY

Considering many of our elected officials grew up in the hippie culture of the 60's & 70's you wouldn't think decriminalization of pot would be much of a stretch. Lord knows California could make billions in tax revenue. If big tobacco was smart they'd lobby to switch products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

The ban on marijuana must be one of the western worlds most stupid ideas.

---

Repleace must be with is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

I think that was a way to hide actual names.... he allready said...:yes:

---

Well placed humour my friend. Adrian's tongue was well placed in his cheek.

DA, I didn't realise you were a burnt out hippy? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Well placed humour my friend. Adrian's tongue was well placed in his cheek.

DA, I didn't realise you were a burnt out hippy? :laugh4:

---

Hey, don't say "burnt out" to a fireman. :laugh4:

In fact, I bet that right about now he'd much rather be reading our comments here than fighting the out-of-control brushfires North of us, as I assume he's doing right now.

DA I wrote a similar letter to my Congressman last year. Major props for being involved and trying to intent this ridiculous, money sucking drug war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Talk to Frank - TV Advert from the UK about Personal Use of Cannabis -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-_g5Cdc0BY

---

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

:thumbsdown:

A lot of those bad symptoms only come into play when:

A. You dont smoke a lot of weed and you're not really used to it,

B. You smoke weed somewhat regularly, and in a particular session you smoke more than you usually would, or you are smoking higher quality stuff then you are used to.

C. You have a pre-disposed hypersensitivity to Tetrahydrocannabinol, in which case you shouldn't really be smoking weed anyway.

This type of person is the one Jamaicans talk about when they say " 'E dont 'ave a 'ead fa ganja"


most of the time it's only Hungry Happy Sleepy, thats it!!!!!:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

:thumbsdown:

A lot of those bad symptoms only come into play when:

A. You dont smoke a lot of weed and you're not really used to it,

B. You smoke weed somewhat regularly, and in a particular session you smoke more than you usually would, or you are smoking higher quality stuff then you are used to.

C. You have a pre-disposed hypersensitivity to Tetrahydrocannabinol, in which case you shouldn't really be smoking weed anyway.

This type of person is the one Jamaicans talk about when they say " 'E dont 'ave a 'ead fa ganja"


most of the time it's only Hungry Happy Sleepy, thats it!!!!!:yes:

---

So they do come into play. Also, lets not forget the long term memory damage (seen that personally) and the psychotic breaks.

The truth is, the really shocking thing is that tobaco is still legal, not that cannabis isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So they do come into play. Also, lets not forget the long term memory damage (seen that personally) and the psychotic breaks.

The truth is, the really shocking thing is that tobaco is still legal, not that cannabis isn't.

---

Cannabis is not harmless, lets not forget that. It should still be Legal, however, and tobacco should NOT be made illegal.

Also, Long term Memory Damage? whoever you saw that had that, either was one of the "type C" people i just talked about, or they smoked A HELLLLL OF A LOT OF CANNABIS. More than a self proclaimed pothead such as myself would recommend anyone consume.

The psychosis is rare, as well. Once again some people are predisposed to it, and shouldn't be smoking it anyway. If it were legal to smoke pot then people would be able to be tested to see if they have this or not. I'm sure they can do this now, but given Cannabis's legal status at the moment i would think people are too afraid to admit they use it.

The point of my previous post is that those symptoms are not really commonplace, and that largely, marijuana is not a dangerous drug. It is vastly safer than Alcohol. It is even Safer than aspirin, and if you use a vaporizer then it is EVEN SAFER as there is no lung damage whatsoever.

For your consideration: In 1988 Administrative Law Judge for the DEA, Hon. Francis L. Young, stated that "Cannabis, in its natural form, is one of the SAFEST therapeutically active substances known to mankind" (emphasis mine)

he also said this:

"At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in onemarijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Cannabis is not harmless, lets not forget that. It should still be Legal, however, and tobacco should NOT be made illegal.

Also, Long term Memory Damage? whoever you saw that had that, either was one of the "type C" people i just talked about, or they smoked A HELLLLL OF A LOT OF CANNABIS. More than a self proclaimed pothead such as myself would recommend anyone consume.

The psychosis is rare, as well. Once again some people are predisposed to it, and shouldn't be smoking it anyway. If it were legal to smoke pot then people would be able to be tested to see if they have this or not. I'm sure they can do this now, but given Cannabis's legal status at the moment i would think people are too afraid to admit they use it.

The point of my previous post is that those symptoms are not really commonplace, and that largely, marijuana is not a dangerous drug. It is vastly safer than Alcohol. It is even Safer than aspirin, and if you use a vaporizer then it is EVEN SAFER as there is no lung damage whatsoever.

For your consideration: In 1988 Administrative Law Judge for the DEA, Hon. Francis L. Young, stated that "Cannabis, in its natural form, is one of the SAFEST therapeutically active substances known to mankind" (emphasis mine)

he also said this:

"At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in onemarijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response."

---

The psychois alone is reason enough to keep it illegal. What you call "Type C" people are far more common than you think. The fact is that Cannabis is not less dangerous than alchohol because it is extremely dangerous in small quantities. You have to drink a lot to suffer any real longterm damage, and the damage is progressive and predictable.

Pot, will screw you up really quick, just like E will kill you first time. Booze, you have to abuse yourself for a long time to really mess things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The psychois alone is reason enough to keep it illegal. What you call "Type C" people are far more common than you think. The fact is that Cannabis is not less dangerous than alchohol because it is extremely dangerous in small quantities. You have to drink a lot to suffer any real longterm damage, and the damage is progressive and predictable.

Pot, will screw you up really quick, just like E will kill you first time. Booze, you have to abuse yourself for a long time to really mess things up.

---

Sorry, i'm gonna have to post something a bit long, because i'm really :wall: right now. The things you are saying are IMHO a result of listening to mostly twisted and skewed stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Armentano, Senior policy director, NORML.

According to news from the Associated Press and others, investigators at London's Kings College reported that the administration of doses of synthetic THC temporarily interfered with activity in the inferior frontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with paranoia, while administration of the non-psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD) stimulated relaxation. The reports go on to suggest that chronic use of cannabis may precipitate various types of mental illness and cite a separate unpublished study indicating that cannabis use may exacerbate symptoms of schizophrenia.

Such clinical findings and suggestions are not new. Scientists have known for decades that THC is psychoactive and that peak blood levels of its primary active metabolite 11-OH-THC are occasionally associated with temporary feelings of dysphoria, paranoia, and even panic attacks. (These events, when documented, typically occur in cannabis naïve users.)

Conversely, scientists have also been long aware of CBD's anxiolytic and anti-psychotic effects. In fact, many experts speculate that it is the lack of CBD in Marinol (the synthetic THC oral prescription pill) that is responsible for the drug's enhanced psychoactivity. By contrast, CBD occurs naturally in whole-plant cannabis, and is believed to modify and/or diminish some of the psychoactivity associated with THC when cannabis is inhaled.

Fears that chronic cannabis use may be positively associated with various mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia, are also long-standing. However, a recent meta-analysis investigating the use of cannabis use and its impact on mental health reported that those who use cannabis in moderation, even long-term "will not suffer any lasting physical or mental harm. ... Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug."



The phrase "relatively safe" is appropriate in any discussion regarding cannabis and mental health. No substance is harmless and in many cases, the relative dangers of a drug may be increased or decreased depending on set and setting. Cannabis is no different.

There is limited data suggesting an association, albiet a minor one, 2-3 between chronic cannabis (primarily among adolescents and/or those predisposed to mental illness) and increased symptoms of depression, psychotic symptoms, and/or schizophrenia. 4-6 However, interpretation of this data is troublesome and, to date, this observation association is not well understood. 7-9 Identified as well as unidentified confounding factors (such as poverty, family history, polydrug use, etc.) make it difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to adequately determine whether any cause-and-effect relationship exists between cannabis use and mental illness. Also, many experts point out that this association may be due to patients' self-medicating with cannabis, 10 as survey data and anecdotal reports of individuals finding therapeutic relief from both clinical depression and schizotypal behavior are common within medical lore, and clinical testing on the use of cannabinoids to treat certain symptoms of mental illness has been recommended. 11

Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis. "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded. 12

Investigators in the study did not address whether cannabis consumers had greater odds of contracting schizophrenia when compared to otherwise matched controls who did not have a history of cannabis use. However, a 2006 review by Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) previously concluded, "For individuals, the current evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by one percent." 13

Nevertheless, until this association is better understood, there may be some merit to various government warnings that adolescents (particularly pre and early teens) and/or adults with pre-existing symptoms of mental illness refrain from using cannabis (and/or other psychoactive substances), particularly in large quantities. This statement, however, is hardly an indictment of cannabis' relative safety when used in moderation by adults or an endorsement of the federal government's efforts to criminally prohibit its use for all Americans. If anything, just the opposite is true.

---

Taken from This Link:

Quote:

---

Alcohol-related traffic accidents claim approximately 14,000 lives each year, down significantly from 20 or 30 years ago (attributed to improved education and enforcement). Figures for THC-related traffic fatalities are elusive, especially since alcohol is almost always present in the blood as well, and since the numbers of "marijuana-only" traffic fatalities are so small. But evidence from studies, including laboratory simulations, feeds the stereotype that those under the influence of canniboids tend to (1) be more aware of their impaired psychomotor skills, and (2) drive well below the speed limit. Those under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be clueless or defiant about their condition, and to speed up and drive recklessly.

Hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur annually. There has never been a single recorded marijuana OD fatality.

According to the American Public Health Association, excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of death in this country. APHA pegs the negative economic impact of extreme drinking at $150 billion a year.

There have been no documented cases of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, nor has pot been scientifically linked to any type of cancer. (Don't trust an advocate's take on this? Try the fair and balanced coverage over at Fox.) Alcohol abuse contributes to a multitude of long-term negative health consequences, notably cirrhosis of the liver and a variety of cancers.

While a small quantity, taken daily, is being touted for its salutary health effects, alcohol is one of the worst drugs one can take for pain management, marijuana one of the best.

Alcohol contributes to acts of violence; marijuana reduces aggression. In approximately three million cases of reported violent crimes last year, the offender had been drinking. This is particularly true in cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and date rape. Marijuana use, in and of itself, is absent from both crime reports and the scientific literature. There is simply no link to be made.

Over the past four years I've asked police officers throughout the U.S. (and in Canada) two questions. When's the last time you had to fight someone under the influence of marijuana? (I'm talking marijuana only, not pot plus a six-pack or a fifth of tequila.) My colleagues pause, they reflect. Their eyes widen as they realize that in their five or fifteen or thirty years on the job they have never had to fight a marijuana user. I then ask: When's the last time you had to fight a drunk? They look at their watches.

All of which begs the question. If one of these two drugs is implicated in dire health effects, high mortality rates, and physical violence--and the other is not--what are we to make of our nation's marijuana laws? Or alcohol laws, for that matter.

Anybody out there want to launch a campaign for the re-prohibition of alcohol? Didn't think so. The answer, of course, is responsible drinking. Marijuana smokers, for their part, have already shown (apart from that little matter known as the law) greater responsibility in their choice of drugs than those of us who choose alcohol.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Sorry, i'm gonna have to post something a bit long, because i'm really :wall: right now. The things you are saying are IMHO a result of listening to mostly twisted and skewed stats.

---

What I take from that is that THC is dangerous and should not be used recreationally. CBD may not be, but it's also not the medical-application component irrc.

So, no justification for smoking cannabis really. Further, smoking tobaco or cannabis is dangerous because it's carcenogenic.

You argument about alchohol and traffic accidents/poisening is totally irrelevant because of the sheer amount you have to consume, and because you should not drink anything if you are going to be taking responsibility for something important or dangerous.

I never drive, shoot, or opperate heavy machinery under the influence and I have only been ill twice in the whole time I have consumed alchohol. In both instances the quantity I consumed was best measured in litres.

Pot can cause psychosis, long term memory damge and paranoia without taking anything like the same quantities. Further, it stays in your system for up to 6 months, it can still be found in your hair at that point. Alchohol is flushed in 24 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What I take from that is that THC is dangerous and should not be used recreationally. CBD may not be, but it's also not the medical-application component irrc.

So, no justification for smoking cannabis really. Further, smoking tobaco or cannabis is dangerous because it's carcenogenic.

You argument about alchohol and traffic accidents/poisening is totally irrelevant because of the sheer amount you have to consume, and because you should not drink anything if you are going to be taking responsibility for something important or dangerous.

I never drive, shoot, or opperate heavy machinery under the influence and I have only been ill twice in the whole time I have consumed alchohol. In both instances the quantity I consumed was best measured in litres.

Pot can cause psychosis, long term memory damge and paranoia without taking anything like the same quantities. Further, it stays in your system for up to 6 months, it can still be found in your hair at that point. Alchohol is flushed in 24 hours.

---

LULWUT?!?

first of all, the psychoactive component does not stay for 6 months, only the metabolites stay.

Did you tl;dr the first article?

Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis. "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded.

people REGULARLY die of alcohol poisoning and drunk driving. Just because it is illegal to do doesnt make the fact irrelevant that alcohol causes lots of people to die but marijuana causes NO DEATHS yet it is illegal.

*

Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.

Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

*
Wetzel, C.D. et al., “Remote Memory During Marijuana Intoxication,” Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81.

*
Deadwyler, S.A. et al., “The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory.” Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83.

*
Block, R.I. et al., “Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-917.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The psychois alone is reason enough to keep it illegal. What you call "Type C" people are far more common than you think. The fact is that Cannabis is not less dangerous than alchohol because it is extremely dangerous in small quantities. You have to drink a lot to suffer any real longterm damage, and the damage is progressive and predictable.

Pot, will screw you up really quick, just like E will kill you first time. Booze, you have to abuse yourself for a long time to really mess things up.

---

There is a significant population of people who have a physical intolerance of alcohol, and can die very easily from drinking. Just like the people predisposed to cannaboid psychosis or mental impairments, they should choose not to use the substance; but at the same time, they should not prevent those who can use it safely from using it.

Quote:

---

Further, smoking tobaco or cannabis is dangerous because it's carcenogenic.

---

And drinking causes liver damage -- and BRAIN damage, something that cannabis does not, despite what a lot of people seem to think.

Quote:

---

You argument about alchohol and traffic accidents/poisening is totally irrelevant because of the sheer amount you have to consume, and because you should not drink anything if you are going to be taking responsibility for something important or dangerous.

I never drive, shoot, or opperate heavy machinery under the influence and I have only been ill twice in the whole time I have consumed alchohol. In both instances the quantity I consumed was best measured in litres.

---

Doesn't matter; people who use alcohol are more likely to do this. Just because you are smart enough not to doesn't change the fact that a lot of people aren't.

Quote:

---

Pot can cause psychosis, long term memory damge and paranoia without taking anything like the same quantities. Further, it stays in your system for up to 6 months, it can still be found in your hair at that point. Alchohol is flushed in 24 hours.

---

Psychosis: read above. Long-term memory damage: that's just false, except in extreme cases of abuse, and considering that marijuana causes no direct damage to the brain, I suspect it comes from brain atrophy rather than the cannabis itself. As for paranoia, I have several friends who, while drunk, suddenly thought that their friends were going to kill them, or developed similar pathological obsessions, and that's not to mention the blackout, which happens to all my friends, all of whom are seasoned drinkers who can hold their alcohol.

Arguing about quantity is useless, because it's the intoxication itself that matters, not the quantity of substance being consumed.

And THC staying in your system is a pointless argument, because it exists in such minimal quantities that it has no effect, or people would be high for days.

Hmm..

Smoking:Bad

Alcohol:Bad

Marijuana: Not as bad as alcohol or tobacco but still bad.

Does someone else want to argue for legalizing any other harmful substances or just the cool ones?

Me, I miss ephedrine. :jumping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

There is a significant population of people who have a physical intolerance of alcohol, and can die very easily from drinking. Just like the people predisposed to cannaboid psychosis or mental impairments, they should choose not to use the substance; but at the same time, they should not prevent those who can use it safely from using it.

---

Isn't that a document racial intollerence, i.e. not everyone used alchohol historically. I only know of one chap who died from drinking and the ammount was truely horrific.

Quote:

---

And drinking causes liver damage -- and BRAIN damage, something that cannabis does not, despite what a lot of people seem to think.

---

Lung damage? Lung Cancer?

Quote:

---

Doesn't matter; people who use alcohol are more likely to do this. Just because you are smart enough not to doesn't change the fact that a lot of people aren't.

---

No, a larger proportion of people drink, and do so in public and then drive home. Given that you can't smoke a spliff in public you're more likely to be at home anyway. Given that ALL users of cannabis break the law they cannot claim to be responsible.

Quote:

---

Psychosis: read above. Long-term memory damage: that's just false, except in extreme cases of abuse, and considering that marijuana causes no direct damage to the brain, I suspect it comes from brain atrophy rather than the cannabis itself. As for paranoia, I have several friends who, while drunk, suddenly thought that their friends were going to kill them, or developed similar pathological obsessions, and that's not to mention the blackout, which happens to all my friends, all of whom are seasoned drinkers who can hold their alcohol.

---

So you're all alchoholics. Honestly, I have never blacked out, and I don't know many people it happens to. Anyway, it's not the same as being on anti-psychotic meds for the rest of your life, is it?

Quote:

---

Arguing about quantity is useless, because it's the intoxication itself that matters, not the quantity of substance being consumed.

---

No, it's the long term damage that matters.

Quote:

---

And THC staying in your system is a pointless argument, because it exists in such minimal quantities that it has no effect, or people would be high for days.

---

You are certain of this? You have proof that those "minimal" quantities are not effective?

If you truly believe alchohol is more dangerous, work to have it banned. I won't complain too much if you pass it into law. Actually, I won't complain at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Lung damage? Lung Cancer?

---

There has never been a case of Lung Cancer attributed directly to marijuana alone. THC has also been shown to have a type of Anti-Cancer effect!

Quote:

---

So you're all alchoholics. Honestly, I have never blacked out, and I don't know many people it happens to. Anyway, it's not the same as being on anti-psychotic meds for the rest of your life, is it?

---

This does not happen to most people

Quote:

---

No, it's the long term damage that matters.

---

of which there is practically none....

Quote:

---

You are certain of this? You have proof that those "minimal" quantities are not effective?

---

I am certain of this by my own personal experience as well as research.

Quote:

---

If you truly believe alchohol is more dangerous, work to have it banned. I won't complain too much if you pass it into law. Actually, I won't complain at all.

---

No one agrees that banning Alcohol is a good idea. You want to create MORE Al Capones?

Consequently, that is what we are doing with Marijuana now...

Oh yes, the Al Capone argument. The only ways to eliminate crime and crime bosses are 1) Eliminate all laws, and B) Eliminate all people.

Al Capone=Hitler=Godwin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

What's this:

Quote:

---

Schedule I to Schedule III

---

Please, could you explain me'

---

There are 5 schedules (or classifications) in the Controlled Substances Act here in the US. IIRC, Schedule I drugs are banned, and deemed to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Heroin, E, shrooms, acid, etc. Schedule II drugs are available through tightly monitored prescriptions/medical use. These include your high-test painkillers like morphine and percocet, plus other potentially dangerous drugs like cocaine and PCP which have a medical use. Schedule III and IV drugs are lower-test painkillers like Vicodin, antidepressants, Valium, etc, available through prescription. Schedule V includes cough syrups with small amounts of codeine, no prescription necessary but purchases are recorded.

What DivA is proposing to his congresscritter is not a complete legalization, but just the recognition that pot has a medical use and should be controlled through prescriptions for that use. Not a ridiculous stance by any means. I'm not sure how this would change enforcement and punishment for sale/possession outside the auspices of a doctor's prescription, I would assume instead of jack-booted thugs breaking your door down they just knock.

Quote:

---

The only ways to eliminate crime and crime bosses are 1) Eliminate all laws,

---

Noooooooooo... there is a basic legal theory here. As long as you do not infringe on another person's civil rights and/or cause them any harm, you should be able to use any drug you want. What to do when the drugs cause harm to a person is a public health issue and not a criminal law issue.

They made alcohol illegal and that created Al Capone and only forced the market underground as the demand for alcohol not only remained, it increased upon prohibition. Making Alcohol illegal once again, would be EVEN WORSE, than prohibition in the 20's.

60% of all drug cartel profits are from Marijuana, just as the majority of profit for organized crime in the 20's was illegal alcohol.

The fact that Marijuana is illegal is currently creating "Al Capones" and "Pablo Escobars" across the globe.

"Eliminate all laws" as you put it would be ludicrous because we would not be able to deal with cases involving injured parties and/or disputes in Equity... For example, under a purely common law stance on Cannabis, If one were to smoke marijuana, that would be fine, but if a person then got behind the wheel of a vehicle they would then be in possession of a Lethal Weapon while under the influence and that person should be prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Noooooooooo... there is a basic legal theory here. As long as you do not infringe on another person's civil rights and/or cause them any harm, you should be able to use any drug you want. What to do when the drugs cause harm to a person is a public health issue and not a criminal law issue.

They made alcohol illegal and that created Al Capone and only forced the market underground as the demand for alcohol not only remained, it increased upon prohibition. Making Alcohol illegal once again, would be EVEN WORSE, than prohibition in the 20's.

60% of all drug cartel profits are from Marijuana, just as the majority of profit for organized crime in the 20's was illegal alcohol.

The fact that Marijuana is illegal is currently creating "Al Capones" and "Pablo Escobars" across the globe.

"Eliminate all laws" as you put it would be ludicrous because we would not be able to deal with cases involving injured parties and/or disputes in Equity... For example, under a purely common law stance on Cannabis, If one were to smoke marijuana, that would be fine, but if a person then got behind the wheel of a vehicle they would then be in possession of a Lethal Weapon while under the influence and that person should be prosecuted.

---

In the UK most Pot seems to be grown by spotty, fat, lazy slobs. Very little is actually imported, I suspect. After all, what would be the point when Dave down the road grows it in his shed.

Maybe it's different in the US, but here I don't think Pot is really huge business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In the UK most Pot seems to be grown by spotty, fat, lazy slobs. Very little is actually imported, I suspect. After all, what would be the point when Dave down the road grows it in his shed.

Maybe it's different in the US, but here I don't think Pot is really huge business.

---

To the US posters: The UK has, for the last 3 years or so, experienced a media offensive greater than the 'reefer madness' nonsense of 1950's USA. This seems to have been orchestrated by some very well connected and well organised (but entirely misguided) campaigners.

Sorry Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla - but your replies show that you know absolutely nothing about the UK cannabis market, or about the drug itself. You seem to be informed only by the media frenzy.

Cannabis can trigger psychosis in rare occasions - alcohol increases your chance of psychosis by 400%. Making it/keeping it illegal makes no difference to levels of consumption. All it does is guarantee a profitable black market run by gangs (spotty fat lazy slobs? Where did you get that nonsense from?). The market is worth billions a year. Also the quick grown, poorly dried and cured product tends to be much more edgy and paranoid than well grown weed.

Making drugs illegal is about moral panic, and nothing to do with sensible law-making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

To the US posters: The UK has, for the last 3 years or so, experienced a media offensive greater than the 'reefer madness' nonsense of 1950's USA. This seems to have been orchestrated by some very well connected and well organised (but entirely misguided) campaigners.

Sorry Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla - but your replies show that you know absolutely nothing about the UK cannabis market, or about the drug itself. You seem to be informed only by the media frenzy.

Cannabis can trigger psychosis in rare occasions - alcohol increases your chance of psychosis by 400%. Making it/keeping it illegal makes no difference to levels of consumption. All it does is guarantee a profitable black market run by gangs (spotty fat lazy slobs? Where did you get that nonsense from?). The market is worth billions a year. Also the quick grown, poorly dried and cured product tends to be much more edgy and paranoid than well grown weed.

Making drugs illegal is about moral panic, and nothing to do with sensible law-making.

---

Well, all the dealers I've ever met are fat spotty slobs. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Very little is actually imported, I suspect.

---

Wrong, don't forget about the hash, only natives smoke weed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, all the dealers I've ever met are fat spotty slobs. :no:

---

That's great. You assume all dealers are fat lazy dealers from the select few you have met.

This nonsense is still what drives this idiotic "reefer madness" crap Idaho refers to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

That's great. You assume all dealers are fat lazy dealers from the select few you have met.

This nonsense is still what drives this idiotic "reefer madness" crap Idaho refers to.

---

Hey, sorry I've only met a dozen or so.

In any case, I have yet to see any evidence presented here that Cannabis is a positive thing. Right now, this reads like a bunch of guys who smoke the stuff and want it legalised so they can do it in public. Not a single source has been presented to actually refute the claim that Cannabis can cause a psychotic break. The claim that alchohol makes a break 400% more likely has not been supported, and the only positive stuff has been claims along the lines of, "hey, we're more responsible than drinkers anyway."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hey, sorry I've only met a dozen or so.

In any case, I have yet to see any evidence presented here that Cannabis is a positive thing. Right now, this reads like a bunch of guys who smoke the stuff and want it legalised so they can do it in public. Not a single source has been presented to actually refute the claim that Cannabis can cause a psychotic break. The claim that alchohol makes a break 400% more likely has not been supported, and the only positive stuff has been claims along the lines of, "hey, we're more responsible than drinkers anyway."

---

Quote:

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Does Cannabis Cause Psychosis? #
There are several distinct types of "causes": necessary, sufficient, and component. A necessary cause is one that must be present before the result can occur. A sufficient cause is one that is, by itself, enough to cause the result. A component cause is one that is part of a "constellation" of causes that work together to bring about a result.

All of the recent research into this issue has found that cannabis is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause schizophrenia by itself.5 Rather, it is most likely a component factor when combined with a variety of other potential issues such as genetic pre-disposition or difficult childhood. Cannabis use, along with its attendant lifestyle and subculture, probably worsens symptoms in some of those vulnerable to psychotic disorders. The same is commonly said of the psychedelics such as LSD or psilocybin. As we don't know what causes schizophrenia, determining how important a factor cannabis use is cannot be determined.

Cannabis use could be a precipitating component in several ways. Heavy cannabis use may worsen certain coping mechanisms and weaken familial or social support through social disapproval. Fear of legal problems could cause anxiety and paranoid feelings; actual legal problems could damage self-esteem, damage hopes for life goals, or cause serious life problems. Cannabis intoxication can lower inhibitions and self control, worsen some symptoms to the point of dysfunction, or be part of a lifestyle that involves irregular sleep or other instability. It is easy to imagine that the effects of frequent or high dose cannabis intoxication could exacerbate these underlying instabilities and lead to increased paranoia and delusions.

Hundreds of papers have been published in the last few years looking at the very popular issue of whether cannabis causes psychosis. This issue has received the international attention of media, governments, researchers, and the general public, all looking for answers. Yet we are still sorting through cluttered fields of data. The main anchor point in the noise is that there is a near consensus that cannabis use and psychotic disorders are correlated, but the nature of the relationship is still far from clear.

---

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health3.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hey, sorry I've only met a dozen or so.

In any case, I have yet to see any evidence presented here that Cannabis is a positive thing. Right now, this reads like a bunch of guys who smoke the stuff and want it legalised so they can do it in public. Not a single source has been presented to actually refute the claim that Cannabis can cause a psychotic break. The claim that alchohol makes a break 400% more likely has not been supported, and the only positive stuff has been claims along the lines of, "hey, we're more responsible than drinkers anyway."

---

I posted a really long article refuting the claim that it causes psychosis.

Once again, did you just tl;dr it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

I posted a really long article refuting the claim that it causes psychosis.

Once again, did you just tl;dr it?

---

The one where the boys at Kings demonstrated a link and then the rest of the article tried to dance around that, and it ended with a totally subjective claim that Cannabis users are more responsible than drinkers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The one where the boys at Kings demonstrated a link and then the rest of the article tried to dance around that, and it ended with a totally subjective claim that Cannabis users are more responsible than drinkers?

---

Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis. "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis. "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded.

---

All that demonstrates is that they cannot link Cannabis to a specific form of the disease.

"Investigators in the study did not address whether cannabis consumers had greater odds of contracting schizophrenia when compared to otherwise matched controls who did not have a history of cannabis use. However, a 2006 review by Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) previously concluded, "For individuals, the current evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by one percent." 13"

Selective reading will not prove your point. The next paragraph goes on to suggest that until the linkage can bee disproven the substance should be controlled. From my point of view, it might as well remain illegal in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

All that demonstrates is that they cannot link Cannabis to a specific form of the disease.

"Investigators in the study did not address whether cannabis consumers had greater odds of contracting schizophrenia when compared to otherwise matched controls who did not have a history of cannabis use. However, a 2006 review by Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) previously concluded, "For individuals, the current evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by one percent." 13"

Selective reading will not prove your point. The next paragraph goes on to suggest that until the linkage can bee disproven the substance should be controlled. From my point of view, it might as well remain illegal in that case.

---

You're right. If we can't conclusively, without a doubt prove something doesn't cause schizophrenia, it should be illegal. :rolleyes:

Don't you remove the smoke caused carcinogens by making it into butter?

Quote:

---

Figures for THC-related traffic fatalities are elusive, especially since alcohol is almost always present in the blood as well, and since the numbers of "marijuana-only" traffic fatalities are so small.

---

Its like saying "How many people of Flu have died", few people die of Flu, they die of something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Don't you remove the smoke caused carcinogens by making it into butter?

---

or simmering it in vegtable oil... or vaporizing it... there are many ways

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tratorix

You're right. If we can't conclusively, without a doubt prove something doesn't cause schizophrenia, it should be illegal. :rolleyes:

---

Look, I'm not screaming "reefer madness", but this whole "It's safe Guv, honest!" routine winds me up. Currently it's illegal, the jury is out on how dangerous it is, so it's going to stay illegal for the forseeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Look, I'm not screaming "reefer madness", but this whole "It's safe Guv, honest!" routine winds me up. Currently it's illegal, the jury is out on how dangerous it is, so it's going to stay illegal for the forseeable.

---

I disagree. Slowly, but surely, medical marijuana is being legalized in many states here in the US, while many states also are decriminalizing it along with other countries. It's a slow process, but your much hated herb will eventually be legal in my lifetime. I'll smoke an extra large blunt to spite you when the time comes. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I disagree. Slowly, but surely, medical marijuana is being legalized in many states here in the US, while many states also are decriminalizing it along with other countries. It's a slow process, but your much hated herb will eventually be legal in my lifetime. I'll smoke an extra large blunt to spite you when the time comes. :yes:

---

SECONDED

Quite literally, alcohol is an intoxicant; cannabis is not.

The word intoxicant is derived from the Latin noun, toxicum, meaning: “a poison.” It’s an appropriate description for booze. Alcohol is toxic to healthy cells and organs, a side-effect that results in some 35,000 deaths per year. Ethanol, the psychoactive ingredient in booze, is carcinogenic following its initial metabolization, which is why even moderate drinking is positively associated with increased incidences of various types of cancer. Heavy alcohol consumption can depress the central nervous system — inducing unconsciousness, coma, and death — and is strongly associated with increased risks of injury (Booze plays a role in about 41,000 fatal accidents per year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.) and acts of violence. In fact, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Crime Statistics, alcohol consumption plays a role in approximately one million violent crimes annually.

By contrast, the active compounds in marijuana, known as cannabinoids, are remarkably non-toxic and actually mimic chemicals naturally produced by the body, so-called endocannabinoids, that are vital for maintaining one’s proper health. Unlike alcohol, marijuana is incapable of causing fatal overdose — cannabinoids do not act upon the brain stem — and its use is inversely associated with aggression and injury. Finally, lifetime use of cannabis is not associated with increased risk of mortality or various types of cancer — including lung cancer — and may even reduce such risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Look, I'm not screaming "reefer madness", but this whole "It's safe Guv, honest!" routine winds me up. Currently it's illegal, the jury is out on how dangerous it is, so it's going to stay illegal for the forseeable.

---

i have stated that it is not harmless, this is hardly any reason to keep it illegal however.

While I am not a user, I used to believe in the legalization of marijuana, mostly because of the huge number of deaths and corruption that have resulted in banning it. However an officer of the DEA once came and gave a presentation in my U.S government class in high school and he made an interesting point. Marijuana growers are now producing plants with concentrations of THC never seen before. According to the DEA officer, those levels were so high that someone who smoked the plant wouldn't even be able to function. If the government does legalize marijuana, it will most likely place some sort of limit on the levels of THC allowed in the plant. Drug cartels will then resort to selling marijuana that is above the legal limit, so basically the black market for marijuana will never disappear. The only way to completely eradicate the black market for marijuana would be to legalize it without restriction. Because of the nature of U.S politics, this will never happen because no bill will be able to get through congress without some sort of concession/compromise made to anti-marijuana groups.

Personally I believe the massive amounts of murders committed by drug dealers is the ONLY reason for legalizing it. While I agree that the negative side effects of marijuana have been blown out of proportion, I've seen what it does to the people who use it and I hate it. Pot probably won't kill you or make you go crazy, but it will suck your life away and leave you with no freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

Personally I believe the massive amounts of murders committed by drug dealers is the ONLY reason for legalizing it. While I agree that the negative side effects of marijuana have been blown out of proportion, I've seen what it does to the people who use it and I hate it. Pot probably won't kill you or make you go crazy, but it will suck your life away and leave you with no freedom.

---

Marijuana does not have addictive properties. People who spend all their time doing nothing but smoking weed and screw up their life because of it are people with no self control. If it wasn't weed, it would be cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, cocaine, etc.

good on you Divinus, the DA's Office that I've been interning at has been trying to push Legislation for the Decriminalization of Cannabis, the amount of cases we're handed every year to prosecute on minor possession charges is just staggering, and costing the state a god awful amount of money.

Quote:

---

Marijuana growers are now producing plants with concentrations of THC never seen before.

---

OK? So? if you cant overdose on THC then this does not matter. If i have to smoke a whole jont/blunt/bowl to be stuck to my couch then if i had a joint/blunt/bowl of the superweed you are talking about then i would just not smoke as much of it, and save the rest for later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

A lot of those bad symptoms only come into play when:

[...]
B. You smoke weed somewhat regularly, and in a particular session you smoke more than you usually would, or you are smoking higher quality stuff then you are used to.
[...]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I disagree. Slowly, but surely, medical marijuana is being legalized in many states here in the US, while many states also are decriminalizing it along with other countries. It's a slow process, but your much hated herb will eventually be legal in my lifetime. I'll smoke an extra large blunt to spite you when the time comes. :yes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

SECONDED

---

:inquisitive:

So much about the responsible smokers? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

:inquisitive:

So much about the responsible smokers? :inquisitive:

---

you can smoke a crapload of weed and be responsible.

Being Irresponsible would entail something like getting really high and then going for a drive or something of that nature.

And as far as the "bad symptoms" i talked about, some people dont get them at all.

I know I dont. Maybe a little paranoia now and then but it's usually along the line of:

"*hears weird noise* what the :egypt: is that?!?! oh, its just two cats fighting outside. Weird, that shouldn't have startled me so much. Phew! *puffs blunt*"

And who says Ice is gonna smoke the WHOLE extra large blunt anyway?

Has anyone ever thought that maybe the reason pot smokers are paranoid could be that they arrest a marijuana user every 43 seconds??!? (in the US, anyway.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case, I have yet to see any evidence presented here that Cannabis is a positive thing. Right now, this reads like a bunch of guys who smoke the stuff and want it legalised so they can do it in public.

---

Of course it isn't positive when used recreationally. Same as drinking wine isn't positive. Or sky diving. Or jerking off. Or watching America's Most Dangerous Car Crashes. It's not about being positive. It's about letting adults make their own choices about what they do with their time and bodies without threat of arrest and losing their livelyhood. The legal status makes no difference to usage. It does make a massive difference to people's liberty, and to the power and wealth of gangs.

When I walk through our town on a friday night, saturday night, or worst of all, sunday late afternoon. I see that this country has a massive drug problem. It's that fermented yeast based drug that has the streets covered with puke, the A&E stocked with injuries and assaults and the bar, pub, off-licence and supermarket tills ringing. Go into those pubs and many of them have a sign up:

PAD: Pubs against drugs... :dizzy2::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Maybe it's different in the US, but here I don't think Pot is really huge business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hey, sorry I've only met a dozen or so.

---

So you have never had any or been involved with the illegal cannabis industry but have met over a dozen dealers? Surely that tells how big and all-pervasive the industry is. How many Avon ladies have you met? That business is worth a fair few million a year.

Quote:

---

It's that fermented yeast based drug that has the streets covered with puke, the A&E stocked with injuries and assaults and the bar, pub, off-licence and supermarket tills ringing.

---

And also that i like to order ingredients for and make myself...:clown: :laugh4:

As much as i bash alcohol when comparing it to weed, i do enjoy a pint now and again.

Nobody thinks making alcohol illegal would be a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

When I walk through our town on a friday night, saturday night, or worst of all, sunday late afternoon. I see that this country has a massive drug problem. It's that fermented yeast based drug that has the streets covered with puke, the A&E stocked with injuries and assaults and the bar, pub, off-licence and supermarket tills ringing. Go into those pubs and many of them have a sign up:

PAD: Pubs against drugs... :dizzy2::laugh4:

---

I can't remember the last time I saw someone puke up outside the Old Firehouse, and that is the only place in the city that has allowed me personally to drink enough to become remotely ill.

Though, admittedly, I understand the new carpet in Arena didn't stay white for long.

I love a pint too. It isn't good for you - but I like the taste, I like the effect, I like to be in the company of others also drinking beer. The same is true of weed. And yet one can have me arrested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I love a pint too. It isn't good for you - but I like the taste, I like the effect, I like to be in the company of others also drinking beer. The same is true of weed. And yet one can have me arrested.

---

LOL I KNOW right?

it's so stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tratorix

Marijuana does not have addictive properties. People who spend all their time doing nothing but smoking weed and screw up their life because of it are people with no self control. If it wasn't weed, it would be cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, cocaine, etc.

---

Marijuana does not have to have addictive properties (like heroine or nicotine) to be mentally addictive. Anything that causes pleasure, whether it's sex, t.v., this forum, computer games, the internet, good food, etc. can be addictive. Sure it depends on the person and some people are more prone to addiction than others, but I think most people have a mild addiction of some sort. Personally I think marijuana is more addictive than other things, because of the amount of pleasure that one gets from being high. My opinions on marijuana have come from observation and personal experience. I had a lot of friends who smoked pot in middle and high school and I thought of trying many times but I never did when I saw what it can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

OK? So? if you cant overdose on THC then this does not matter. If i have to smoke a whole jont/blunt/bowl to be stuck to my couch then if i had a joint/blunt/bowl of the superweed you are talking about then i would just not smoke as much of it, and save the rest for later.

---

You're right, it doesn't matter. My argument was that if marijuana does become legal the government will place some sort of restriction on it, which will just create a new black market for higher quality weed. Then we'll be having the same problems all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

You're right, it doesn't matter. My argument was that if marijuana does become legal the government will place some sort of restriction on it, which will just create a new black market for higher quality weed. Then we'll be having the same problems all over again.

---

I don't think this is correct at all for one reason: price. Companies could grow and sell marijuana at far lower prices than criminals will, even with the heavy taxation it would surely be under. Anyone who has ever bought weed will tell you it's very expensive. :laugh4: That would be the main thing that would have to be taken into account when trying to reduce the black market for this sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

Marijuana does not have to have addictive properties (like heroine or nicotine) to be mentally addictive. Anything that causes pleasure, whether it's sex, t.v., this forum, computer games, the internet, good food, etc. can be addictive.

---

The bolded part just kind of proves my point. We can't exactly ban anything pleasant. It's up to the person to try and keep their habits in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Of course it isn't positive when used recreationally. Same as drinking wine isn't positive. Or sky diving. Or jerking off. Or watching America's Most Dangerous Car Crashes. It's not about being positive. It's about letting adults make their own choices about what they do with their time and bodies without threat of arrest and losing their livelyhood. The legal status makes no difference to usage. It does make a massive difference to people's liberty, and to the power and wealth of gangs.

When I walk through our town on a friday night, saturday night, or worst of all, sunday late afternoon. I see that this country has a massive drug problem. It's that fermented yeast based drug that has the streets covered with puke, the A&E stocked with injuries and assaults and the bar, pub, off-licence and supermarket tills ringing. Go into those pubs and many of them have a sign up:

PAD: Pubs against drugs... :dizzy2::laugh4:

---

Well said, Idaho. I usually find my opinions very different from yours, but on this we're in complete agreement. I personally abhor alcohol and its many ill effects on people and society, but I would never support an effort to criminalize it (though I'm fine with banning driving or operating other heavy machinery, or otherwise endangering others while impaired). I would never consider taking cannabis, but I am entirely in favor of its decriminalization (with similar restrictions to alcohol). I don't care whether it has some harmful side effects. People have to be allowed to make such decisions for themselves. And its ridiculous to ban pot when two drugs that take a huge and demonstrable toll on society are perfectly legal. All the studies I've seen on the subject show cannabis to be less harmful, on both an individual and societal level, than either tobacco or alcohol. Why on earth do we persist in spending so much of our tax funds on prosecuting and detaining non-violent drug users, and simultaneously encouraging a booming and violent black market trade? It doesn't make any sense.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tratorix

The bolded part just kind of proves my point. We can't exactly ban anything pleasant. It's up to the person to try and keep their habits in check.

---

True. And I do believe that it's ridiculous to prosecute casual users. Gang members and drug dealers are the ones who should be going to jail. I think the correct approach would be to allow it for personal use, but make it illegal to sell it in large amounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

True. And I do believe that it's ridiculous to prosecute casual users. Gang members and drug dealers are the ones who should be going to jail. I think the correct approach would be to allow it for personal use, but make it illegal to sell it in large amounts.

---

Decriminalisation of use is the worst option. It merely ignores use and maintains a massive uncontrolled black market. Legalise it and have society take responsibility for it's own habits rather than sweeping it all under the carpet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Decriminalisation of use is the worst option. It merely ignores use and maintains a massive uncontrolled black market. Legalise it and have society take responsibility for it's own habits rather than sweeping it all under the carpet.

---

It takes a whole lot of discipline to allow certain things, do you think it is a good idea for the English because I'm not so sure. Everybody likes to look at us and thinks it's the solution, but we have can handle our liberties, we take things in moderation but the English seem to go for being hammered. From what I have seen the Americans as well we would never get that drunk. Legal marihuana, not that good an idea for you guys says gut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Decriminalisation of use is the worst option. It merely ignores use and maintains a massive uncontrolled black market. Legalise it and have society take responsibility for it's own habits rather than sweeping it all under the carpet.

---

Unless there's a difference in terminology here, decriminalisation doesn't mean that it's ignored, just that it's no longer a criminal offence, but a civil offence. This means that there is no gaol time for the offence, but it's still illegal and you will receive a fine. Speeding is something that is a non-criminal offence, this doesn't mean that the law ignores speeding drivers, just that a speeding driver won't go to gaol.

On topic, I'm not a pot smoker, and I have no interest in smoking pot, but I think that a person should be able to do what ever they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It takes a whole lot of discipline to allow certain things, do you think it is a good idea for the English because I'm not so sure. Everybody likes to look at us and thinks it's the solution, but we have can handle our liberties, we take things in moderation but the English seem to go for being hammered. From what I have seen the Americans as well we would never get that drunk. Legal marihuana, not that good an idea for you guys says gut.

---

:laugh4: Yeah right. You dutchies are made of different stuff.

The British already smoke more weed than you lot. The only difference is that we risk losing our jobs and going to jail. The British have always been a hard drinking, drug taking, unruly lot. That's part of our national character. The British conquered the world with a ruling class with no morals and a working class with no fear. Our gift to you all.

My point is that legal or illegal makes no difference to levels of consumption. All it does is make sure that there is uncontrolled quality and a vibrant black market run by criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

:laugh4: Yeah right. You dutchies are made of different stuff.

---

And what if that is just true. Of course we are. Built of different stuff, you were working the land and we just happened to land on the world, we've been over this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And what if that is just true. Of course we are. Built of different stuff, you were working the land and we just happened to land on the world, we've been over this.

---

There are a few, relatively small, cultural differences between the dutch and english, and hardly any genetic differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

There are a few, relatively small, cultural differences between the dutch and english, and hardly any genetic differences.

---

You English always confuse the lack of inbreeding with genetic differences, island thingie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It takes a whole lot of discipline to allow certain things, do you think it is a good idea for the English because I'm not so sure. Everybody likes to look at us and thinks it's the solution, but we have can handle our liberties, we take things in moderation but the English seem to go for being hammered. From what I have seen the Americans as well we would never get that drunk. Legal marihuana, not that good an idea for you guys says gut.

---

The great thing about America in this regard is that because we have a federalist system, if Pot were to be legalized on the Federal level, then it would be up to the individual states to decide whether to keep it illegal or not.

Lets say you are right, that Americans simply cannot handle it. States like California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New York, and New Jersey (:beam:) where use is already pretty much widespread could decide to legalize it, whereas states like Utah, Mississippi, and Tennessee, etc. that might not be able to handle it as well could keep it illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You English always confuse the lack of inbreeding with genetic differences, island thingie.

---

You dutch confuse tulips, cheese and windmills with a real culture :laugh4: