[QUOTE=yuki;33116932] The biggest fucking post I've ever seen in my life[/QUOTE]
Holy shit dude, slow your roll.
I'm not arguing against weed being legalized, I'm FOR weed being legalized, I believe it should be in the same category as alcohol.
However I have to say, I am more annoyed by the people who try to make out like marijuana is perfectly harmless and is a super plant sent here to cure cancer and AIDs and make the world a better place, than I am by the government bodies who spout baseless lies about marijuana use.
Yes there are a lot of benefits to marijuana use, there are also a lot of negative side effects, and it would be ignorant to deny this. Is this grounds for making it an illicit substance? Certainly not, as alcohol has arguably far worse side effects from long term use. There are a number of substances that have really no justification for being an illicit substance, and when we look at the history of why they are banned substances, it's often quite ridiculous (anabolic steroids comes to mind).
So in essence the only thing I'm arguing against is people who blindly pretend it's impossible for marijuana to have negative effects, just so they can paint it in a positive light, even though i can empathize with WHY they are doing that.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33117610]Holy shit dude, slow your roll.
I'm not arguing against weed being legalized, I'm FOR weed being legalized, I believe it should be in the same category as alcohol.
However I have to say, I am more annoyed by the people who try to make out like marijuana is perfectly harmless and is a super plant sent here to cure cancer and AIDs and make the world a better place, than I am by the government bodies who spout baseless lies about marijuana use.
Yes there are a lot of benefits to marijuana use, there are also a lot of negative side effects, and it would be ignorant to deny this. Is this grounds for making it an illicit substance? Certainly not, as alcohol has arguably far worse side effects from long term use. There are a number of substances that have really no justification for being an illicit substance, and when we look at the history of why they are banned substances, it's often quite ridiculous (anabolic steroids comes to mind).
So in essence the only thing I'm arguing against is people who blindly pretend it's impossible for marijuana to have negative effects, just so they can paint it in a positive light, even though i can empathize with WHY they are doing that.[/QUOTE]
Didn't mean to sound like I was trying to tear you a new one, my post started as a response but I went off on a tangent to such a degree that... Well, you can clearly see it. Anyway I agree completely. Even pot isn't harmless, nothing truly is, but responsibility and moderation are what make these substances safe to use to a negligible degree. What I was trying to get at is that we shouldn't be arguing for legalization of pot, we should be arguing for the end of substance prohibition entirely. We understand these substances, and we understand them well. Many, MANY years of legitimate scientific research has been done on these substances, we understand them quite well pharmacologically speaking. That is to say, while we don't fully understand why LSD causes such vivid hallucinations in the way that it does, we can safely say that it's nearly impossible to ever overdose on it and that any potential risk involved is purely psychological and not physiological.
Prohibition in its entirety, not just the prohibition of weed, is an affront to our civil rights. It violates our right to decide what we do with our own bodies in the safety of ours or a comrade's home. I could drop acid and chill here all night, no one would know, and I'd wake up tomorrow feeling fine, but the fact that that's a crime is outrageous, it's unethical. All of the various arguments aside, that, I think, is the most powerful. Almost no one can disagree in light of the situation. No one wants the government to decide what they can drink or eat or wear, that's 1984-esque socialism. Really, this applies to everyone, users and non-users alike. Just because a non-user doesn't encounter the injustice doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Injustice is still injustice regardless. Our drug policy for the past 50 years has been based entirely on irrationalism, irresponsibility, lies, and propaganda. Disregarding the fact that that alone should majorly piss people off, the worst part is that no one questioned it and it just sort-of slid into the mainstream and nearly replaced fact as common knowledge.
So what we've got is a government that lies to and misdirects its people while simultaneously ignoring scientific evidence and the suggestions of its advisers, a people too apathetic, ignorant, or indolent to recognize, question, or refuse to tolerate the government that continued and continues to spread blatant pseudo-information, and a point in time where we've [i]finally[/i] told the government "Hey, we know now, apparently pot is safer than alcohol, mushrooms are safer than pot, tobacco kills more people per year than heroin, coke, and meth combined, LSD is harmless, and MDMA might be effective in fighting cancer and is also harmless for recreational usage. We read the reports, so uh, explain yourselves," to which they responded "We have no idea what you're talking about. Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na I can't hear you." The entire populous has rolled along in blissful ignorance instigated by our own government for 50+years. For that long, the people, our people, have been told blatant lies by politicians who were obviously quite aware of the underlying truth. They consciously lied to their own citizens, and no one is nearly as pissed off as they should be.
[QUOTE=yuki;33118390]Didn't mean to sound like I was trying to tear you a new one, my post started as a response but I went off on a tangent to such a degree that... Well, you can clearly see it. Anyway I agree completely. Even pot isn't harmless, nothing truly is, but responsibility and moderation are what make these substances safe to use to a negligible degree. What I was trying to get at is that we shouldn't be arguing for legalization of pot, we should be arguing for the end of substance prohibition entirely. We understand these substances, and we understand them well. Many, MANY years of legitimate scientific research has been done on these substances, we understand them quite well pharmacologically speaking. That is to say, while we don't fully understand why LSD causes such vivid hallucinations in the way that it does, we can safely say that it's nearly impossible to ever overdose on it and that any potential risk involved is purely psychological and not physiological.
Prohibition in its entirety, not just the prohibition of weed, is an affront to our civil rights. It violates our right to decide what we do with our own bodies in the safety of ours or a comrade's home. I could drop acid and chill here all night, no one would know, and I'd wake up tomorrow feeling fine, but the fact that that's a crime is outrageous, it's unethical. All of the various arguments aside, that, I think, is the most powerful. Almost no one can disagree in light of the situation. No one wants the government to decide what they can drink or eat or wear, that's 1984-esque socialism. Really, this applies to everyone, users and non-users alike. Just because a non-user doesn't encounter the injustice doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Injustice is still injustice regardless. Our drug policy for the past 50 years has been based entirely on irrationalism, irresponsibility, lies, and propaganda. Disregarding the fact that that alone should majorly piss people off, the worst part is that no one questioned it and it just sort-of slid into the mainstream and nearly replaced fact as common knowledge.
So what we've got is a government that lies to and misdirects its people while simultaneously ignoring scientific evidence and the suggestions of its advisers, a people too apathetic, ignorant, or indolent to recognize, question, or refuse to tolerate the government that continued and continues to spread blatant pseudo-information, and a point in time where we've [i]finally[/i] told the government "Hey, we know now, apparently pot is safer than alcohol, mushrooms are safer than pot, tobacco kills more people per year than heroin, coke, and meth combined, [b]LSD is harmless, and MDMA might be effective in fighting cancer and is also harmless for recreational usage[/b]. We read the reports, so uh, explain yourselves," to which they responded "We have no idea what you're talking about. Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na I can't hear you." The entire populous has rolled along in blissful ignorance instigated by our own government for 50+years. For that long, the people, our people, have been told blatant lies by politicians who were obviously quite aware of the underlying truth. They consciously lied to their own citizens, and no one is nearly as pissed off as they should be.[/QUOTE]
Please don't say LSD and MDMA are harmless, this is not correct. Also it was a modified form of mdma that could cure cancer, I dont even think it was psychoactive as well.
[editline]4th November 2011[/editline]
And over here it is illegal to drive drugged already which I believe to be a good think because no matter how much people say they drive safer when high it still effects your judgement therefore not making as safe. Especially with reaction times.
Apart from people who are mentally unstable LSD is harmless.
MDMA on the other hand is not.
Well for some people doing a lot of acid often can result in hppd so it is still incorrect to say harmless. However it would be correct to call it relatively safe
A 300 gram caffeine package, about 5 euros.
A 1 gram weed baggy, about 20 euros.
[b]Edit[/b]
Legalize everything, mass product the shit out of them, sell at a ridiculously lower price and the whole world benefits, not just the individual drug dealers.
The only real ethical issues I've had with drugs is the idea of selling people something for the sole purpose of them taking it and in the process hurting themselves, I've never really be bothered by drug possession and taking for the most part (although I see it as fairly foolish)
However since it has been proved that legalisation reduces the amount of drug users and crime related to drug trading, I support drug legalisation.
[QUOTE=Dextro;33110167]Studies found that marijuana did not affect driving ability
Source: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360[/url]
So you can strike marijuana off the list. There'd be a ton of drivers out there high on weed, as opposed to cocaine or meth, where not nearly as many people would do in general. I could see cocaine and meth creating a problem with driving too quickly. But marijuana, not so much.[/QUOTE]
I could swear that those drivers weren't that high.
[editline]5th November 2011[/editline]
Did you even read the abstract of that study you linked?
[quote]Both levels of THC cigarettes significantly affected the subjects in a dose-dependent manner. The moderate dose of alcohol and the low THC dose were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities, with some differences between the two drugs.[/quote]
I mean really, why would you take the risks that come with ingesting cannabis in America, if you weren't being affected in some significant way?
I was originally on line when it came to legalizing all drugs are not but according to studies of countries that did its a good idea. Less crime, use of hard drugs and people know how to use drugs more responsibly. Not to mention a 4rth of the people in jail are in there because of drug use so it would definitely help overcrowding and lower government spending.
I don't really understand why people compare drugs like LSD or marijuana to caffeine. Caffeine is necessary to today's constantly active society, and greatly improves the production efficiency of the overall workforce. You can't really say that about illegal drugs.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33127634]I don't really understand why people compare drugs like LSD or marijuana to caffeine. Caffeine is necessary to today's constantly active society, and greatly improves the production efficiency of the overall workforce. You can't really say that about illegal drugs.[/QUOTE]
Why can't people take amphetamines, ritalin and the like then?
They tend to be better stimulants, with the unfortunate downside that they make people feel good, unlike caffeine.
[QUOTE=Contag;33127668]Why can't people take amphetamines, ritalin and the like then?
They tend to be better stimulants, with the unfortunate downside that they make people feel good, unlike caffeine.[/QUOTE]
Because coffee tastes nicer.
To the extent of my knowledge, they are more harmful and the chances of someone developing a dependence on them is greater.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33127705]To the extent of my knowledge, they are more harmful and the chances of someone developing a dependence on them is greater.[/QUOTE]
Oh wait hey cigerettes, shit..
[quote]Caffeine is necessary to today's constantly active society, and greatly improves the production efficiency of the overall workforce. You can't really say that about illegal drugs.[/quote]
Amphetamines were used the same way, and based on your 'necessary' argument you just described how someone could easily develop a dependence on them.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33127705]To the extent of my knowledge, they are more harmful and the chances of someone developing a dependence on them is greater.[/QUOTE]
With the same effects-based dosage they do about as much damage as each other. The issue is that taking twice as much caffeine doesn't make you feel twice as good, so people tend to do [I]lots[/I] more than they really should.
How about a wakefulness promoter like modafinil?
[QUOTE=Callius;33127765]Oh wait hey cigerettes, shit..[/QUOTE]
I was unaware that cigarettes provided the same, or even comparable, benefits to society as caffeine. Would you mind citing your sources?
[QUOTE=Conscript;33127858]Amphetamines were used the same way, and based on your 'necessary' argument you just described how someone could easily develop a dependence on them.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to a physical dependency. Caffeine is necessary in today's society simply to perform certain jobs, as humans were not made to work nearly as hard or as often as they do today. In certain instances, it is as necessary as drinking water or eating food. And, it does not have the same physical dependency effects (that is, to the point where not consuming caffeine would result in severe withdrawal) as other (less effective) alternatives such as amphetamines or Ritalin.
[editline]4th November 2011[/editline]
Also, people can take amphetamines and Ritalin in certain cases.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33128033]I was unaware that cigarettes provided the same, or even comparable, benefits to society as caffeine. Would you mind citing your sources?
[/QUOTE]
My point was that you say caffine should be legal because of benefits but I'm pointing out that cigerettes which have very little benefit expect servicing an addiction or providing a little stress relief are legal despite being both harmful and creating dependancy as you were talking about.
[QUOTE=Callius;33135614]My point was that you say caffine should be legal because of benefits but I'm pointing out that cigerettes which have very little benefit expect servicing an addiction or providing a little stress relief are legal despite being both harmful and creating dependancy as you were talking about.[/QUOTE]
Caffine doesn't cause you to die, at least not in the doses most people take it any way
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33135890]Caffine doesn't cause you to die, at least not in the doses most people take it any way[/QUOTE]
It's unhealthy though. But then again what isn't unhealthy.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;33135980]It's unhealthy though. But then again what isn't unhealthy.[/QUOTE]
Unhealthy as it may be, it is nowhere near as damaging as breathing in tobacco smoke.
Why would our government "legalize" one of their most profitable black market operations that also allows them to send countless people to work camps (prisons) and increase their police funding?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking[/url]
[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;33143235]Why would our government "legalize" one of their most profitable black market operations that also allows them to send countless people to work camps (prisons) and increase their police funding?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking[/url][/QUOTE]
Wouldn't surprise me of drug gangs weren't influencing congress to keep it all illegal.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33135890]Caffine doesn't cause you to die, at least not in the doses most people take it any way[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about caffiene I'm saying about you think drugs have to have a good effect and no side effects to be legal yet cigerettes completely disregard this.
There ought to be no drug policy. You own your own body, you have full right to damage your body in whatever way you want granted you do not cause harm to others, therefore individuals have a right to use any drug they wish. The requirement for purchasing drugs should be the ability to understand and make a contract. An age restriction is nonsensical as there is nothing about a particular age that implies the ability to contract. Why the ability to contract is the test is because it ensures a person's ability to understand risks and implied contracts.
I think everyone should follow the law, and if neutral research shows the law is flawed then change it.
But no, humans have to grant themselves freedoms all the time.
There needs to be a system that could measure how high somebody is, if they are high at all. Kinda like a breathalyzer, but for weed.
Cannabis should be legal for medical purposes, getting a prescription should be as easy as walking into the doctors office and asking for one.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5A6sn.jpg[/img]
It can be smoked, eaten or taken as a suppository. It has not been linked to cancer and there are no recorded deaths.
[U]Desirable effects of cannabis[/U]
Increased Appetite
Euphoria
Pain Relief
Drowsiness (Indica)
Alertness (Sativa)
[U]Undesirable effects of cannabis[/U]
Increased Heart Rate
Paranoia
[U]Rare side effects[/U]
Psychosis
I would take a THC pill over the latest anti-anxiety/depressant pill any day.
Approx 106,000 people in the US die each year from prescription drugs
[url=Death By Medicine]http://www.vacinfo.org/Null.pdf[/url]
[U][B]The Marketing of Madness[/B][/U] - Documentary about how bad pharmaceutical drugs are
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nbZCNDgbY&feature=related[/media]
[QUOTE=GiantBollux;33208211]
I would take a THC pill over the latest anti-anxiety/depressant pill any day.
Approx 106,000 people die each year from prescription drugs
[url=Death By Medicine]http://www.vacinfo.org/Null.pdf[/url]
[U][B]The Marketing of Madness[/B][/U] - Documentary about how bad pharmaceutical drugs are
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nbZCNDgbY&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE]
Those pills are the worst. Anti anxiety medications are SUPER ADDICTIVE. and depression medications take forever to start working (2-4 weeks), and takes even longer to get off the shit. Usually includes negative side effects. Oh, and it's not guranteed to work.
[QUOTE=Mac2468;33121282]Apart from people who are mentally unstable LSD is harmless.
MDMA on the other hand is not.[/QUOTE]
Any substance that impairs your mind in any way can not be considered harmless. If you mean harmless as far as physical addiction and/or damage, that may be true, but that doesn't mean there aren't other dangers involved (such as a bad trip or something of that nature).
In my opinion I find it extremely ignorant and repressive of any government to ban any drug. As others have said, we dump far too much time, man-power, and money into the war on drugs. I don't need the government to tell me that Heroine is bad for me, it's my body and I should be able to do what I want with it.
A lot of people argue that drug use adversely effects people other than those taking the drugs, to which I would agree. Sometimes people do cause problems while on drugs. Sometimes people cause problem when sober too though, so I don't really see how this argument makes sense. If a person is causing problems, they should be dealt with THEN. It seems counter-intuitive to revoke my right to consume drugs because I MIGHT do something wrong on them. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty?
I'd also like to address Yuki (Sorry man, but I didn't read your whole block of text, I did skim enough to understand what you were talking about, and read what you bulleted), on the subject of DUI. You say that you would stop DUI if the drug was legalized, but I fail to believe that. At first, yes, you probably would stop, but I think eventually you would get right back into it.
Like it or not, marijuana adversely effects your judgement and your perception. This can positively OR negatively effect your driving abilities, which in my opinion should mean that you can not drive under the influence. This may seem like I'm going against what I just said about innocent until proven guilty, but the difference here is that the person under the influence is operating a vehicle (a deadly weapon as far as the courts are concerned). I have driven high, drunk, and on a few different drugs, and I know it's wrong and I shouldn't. While marijuana does not effect my driving in a noticeably negative way (actually most times I am more focused on driving and do quite a bit better), sometimes it will and then it's not just my life at risk, it's others as well.
I'll stop now because I feel I am ranting. To sum up my points:
*All drugs should be legalized, there is no reason why they should be banned.
*DUI is wrong and should be illegal
*No drug is "harmless", but they all differ in severity
[editline]10th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=brianosaur;33205777]There needs to be a system that could measure how high somebody is, if they are high at all. Kinda like a breathalyzer, but for weed.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[editline]10th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Talishmar;33203165]I think everyone should follow the law, and if neutral research shows the law is flawed then change it.
But no, humans have to grant themselves freedoms all the time.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes when a law is unjust, the only way to fix it is through breaking it. There have been countless petitions and arguments for legalization directed specifically at the white house, and yet they ignore these questions and refuse to even acknowledge the topic. When your government won't talk about drugs for fear of losing votes, that's screwed up. If they have good reason to keep it banned, then they should express that. If they do not, they should remove the ban. Communication can't be one way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.