A letter to my congressional representative on medical marijuana

[AlexanderSextus]

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.)

[Idaho]

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...

[Idaho]

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

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.

[AlexanderSextus]

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...

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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...

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.

[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.

[AlexanderSextus]

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.

[Tuuvi]

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.

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.

[Tratorix]

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. 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.

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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...

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

[Tuuvi]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[miotas]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[AlexanderSextus]

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 () 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.

[Idaho]

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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.

The Dutch and English were always considered to be close kin historically. I direct you to Othello; in which Iago comments that the Dutch are drunkards second only to the English.

[Moros]

If pot and alcohol were that dangerous I wouldn't be here right now. Discussion final. ;)

[Hosakawa Tito]

If pot and alcohol were that dangerous I wouldn't be here right now. Discussion final. ;)

And here's medical evidence to back him up. On the other hand, the researchers were all from UC San Diego, and results on non-California dope-users may differ...

[Idaho]

Humans have been using cannabis and alcohol for thousands of years. We definately know the dangerous effects of alcohol, but the effects of weed have never been so clear - primarily because it is illegal and a political/moral football.

[drone]

Humans have been using cannabis and alcohol for thousands of years. We definately know the dangerous effects of alcohol, but the effects of weed have never been so clear - primarily because it is illegal and a political/moral football.

Moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would allow doctors to do medical research on it's effects and benefits. Schedule I drugs are essentially out of the loop in this regard. DA's proposition would allow more study into the effects of short and long term use. At this point, all we know is based on this study.

[Major Robert Dump]

The best way to get marijuana decriminalized would be to un-privatize the prison industry and deregulate the market for weapons/equipment contracts with police departments. There's far too much money to be made by the people who provide these services, and there's far too much money to be gained by government workers who receive the lobby cash and the stock dividends and lucrative consulting jobs after they cease to be government employees.

Tax marijuana you say? PFFFFFT! That would help the entire country. Daddy needs a new Jaguar. And some more vodka to drink out of someone's buttcrack.

[Idaho]

I think they should make it fully legal and tax it.

That won't stop people growing it for free in their back gardens.

[Fragony]

Pot is harmless, people. Seriously.

Not with the THC-concentrations we find in pot today, maybe if you grow some herbs at your farm but plants are chemicals-fueled growing machines nowadays. You should wonder if it is still a soft-drug it's hardly a plant anymore. It's better to legalize it but it's not harmless, prolonged use can lead to all sorts of mental conditions. You wouldn't be legalizing the same thing we legalized, that is something the pro-crowd should take into consideration.

[Idaho]

Not with the THC-concentrations we find in pot today, maybe if you grow some herbs at your farm but plants are chemicals-fueled growing machines nowadays. You should wonder if it is still a soft-drug it's hardly a plant anymore. It's better to legalize it but it's not harmless, prolonged use can lead to all sorts of mental conditions. You wouldn't be legalizing the same thing we legalized, that is something the pro-crowd should take into consideration.

This is nonsense wrapped around a kernel of truth.

There have always been strong strains around. Decent Thai or good indian Charas could knock you on your arse if you smoked them anytime in the last 3000 years. There are some wild African sativas which are extremely trippy and disorientating if you try them. The original Haze strains of the 60s are far far stronger than anything available now - and that comes from several people I know who smoked them, and still smoke now.

There are strong strains around now - many of aren't that nice. Given the choice not many people want the really strong stuff. It's like alcohol. Some people like lots of weak beer, some people want a few pints of good ale. Some want a bottle of fine wine. Some want as much strong cider as they can get their hands on. Some just want a glass or two on special occassions. Some like a splash of whiskey as a nightcap.

Cannabis is still the same as it was 1000 years ago, and the media nonsense around it is still the same as it was 50 years ago.

[Fragony]

Did all these breeds get the additives they get now

The original Haze strains of the 60s are far far stronger than anything available now - and that comes from several people I know who smoked them, and still smoke now.


Yeah that is why I usually advice people to avoid Amsterdam. It's there but not there, because it's here, 8 euro a gram 20 meter from my door.