View Poll Results: Should marijuana be legalized?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    14 27.45%
  • Yes but only for medicinal uses

    0 0%
  • Yes for both medicinal and recreational uses.

    37 72.55%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 88

Thread: Legalizing Mary-Jane Yes or No?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Beef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Irving,Tx.
    Posts
    383
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Legalizing Mary-Jane Yes or No?

    Over the last 20 years this has become quite a hot topic. Especially in the medical sense. Marijuana has been proven to help all types of medical conditions such as glaucoma,cancer, & binge drinking? Yes, now they say marijuana can help protect the brain from some of the effects of binge drinking which can be really great news to some of us.

    http://localwireless.com/wap/news/te...ational%20News

    So honostley- should marijuana be legalized?

  2. #2
    Strangle Hazard thank mr skeltal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Abyss
    Posts
    5,300
    Credits
    6,192
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Ok so you want to start a thread on a serious topic of drug reform, yet you call it "mary-jane" in the thread title, use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do) and use "localwireless.com" as your source?

    In an attempt to save the thread, I'll bite on your topic - the problem with the marijuana legalization movement is because those who most avidly support it are retarded potheads that cannot make a good traditional argument. They come off as stupid potheads and no one pays any attention to them.

    My personal position is that ALL drugs should be legalized, in the sense that they are not illegal to consume or possess. You should have the right to do whatever harm to your body you want as long as it does not endanger others. Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production. It is much safer than alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs and many more things I'd guess, even safer than caffeine or aspartame. If a kid can buy a diet coke and get two drugs in it that have proven harmful in lab rats, why can't a legal adult buy a joint? Do you know how much marijuana it takes to kill a lab rat? About 20 pounds... dropped on the rat's head. (I didn't make that up, I paraphrased it from something I heard).

  3. #3
    I killed Tupac Shinysides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,139
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Where's Killuminati when I need him?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't think it is as simple a matter as saying "ok, you are legal", I would imagine the process of legalisation would bring with it many challenges - all of which I feel are worth the effort. I would support legalisation, here is why I would.

    First off, the legal status of marijuana is inconsistent with the legal status of other substances such as tobacco and alcohol, two substances significantly more dangerous and harmful. Tobacco smoking is essentially a process of slow, legal poisoning and its health destroying effects are common knowledge. Alcohol not only does untold damage to the brain and internal organs, the social damage it can cause is even more severe. In the UK for instance, something like 60% of all A+E admissions are alcohol related over the weekend period, costing the NHS billions each year. The cost of policing town and city centres also runs into the millions because so many people do not drink in a responsible manner.

    That it should be ok to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, yet not smoke marijuana or take other drugs is just nonsensical, it is inconsistant and it sends out a very misleading message.

    Secondly, the act of criminalisation almost certainly causes more problems than it solves. If you drive a product or service underground, where it can be afforded no legal protection, it will get into the hands of thugs. Drug dealers, not being able to use the legal system to protect their business often have to resort to violence and intimidation, drugs being one of the main sources of the UK's gun crime problem. Having the industry in the hands of thugs, with no legal duty of care to the consumer means there is no way of being sure what you buy is a quality product, there is also no way of protecting the consumer from inscrupulous dealers which in itself can lead to other criminal acts i.e., revenge attacks since there is no legal recourse.

    Imprisoning people who take these drugs, and indeed in some cases people who sell them, especially when there is no evidence of violence ends up creating an unjust criminal class. People who are addicts, especially to harder drugs like heroin will not get clean if you jail them. And that someone can get a criminal record, which in itself can have a terrible impact on a persons job prospects just for getting high on an unsanctioned substance is so mind bogglingly unfair and stupid it staggers me that such a system is in place.

    Thirdly, attitudes need to change. I can only speak for the UK, but there has been a massive and very successful campaign of misinformation by the state, meaning popular opinion of drugs is often very innacurate in relation to facts. It seems that drug policy is developed more with the use of muisinformed popular opinion and fear mongering than it is from facts and evidence, a classic example being a few months ago when an Oxbridge proffessor who advises the UK government on drug policy advised that esctacy be downgraded from a class A as it was no more harmful than horse riding, advice promptly ignored by the then home secratary and lampooned by certain interest groups on the media, primarily parents who lost kids to drugs.

    It struck me as disgusting that an Oxbridge scientist, whose opinion is formed using evidence could be so hastily disregarded, and indeed have his opinion clouded out because it doesn't fit with popular opinion. Things need to change, I do honestly think we should strive as a society to form opinions etc using as many facts as possible, I know humans do not have a good track record with such things, but none the less it would be nice to see if we as a society could do this as it would mean we would "grow up" and stop being so childish around the drugs issue.

  5. #5
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    66
    Credits
    243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Scarf View Post
    use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do)
    Irony ITT.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Beef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Irving,Tx.
    Posts
    383
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Scarf View Post
    Ok so you want to start a thread on a serious topic of drug reform, yet you call it "mary-jane" in the thread title, use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do) and use "localwireless.com" as your source?


    My personal position is that ALL drugs should be legalized, in the sense that they are not illegal to consume or possess. You should have the right to do whatever harm to your body you want as long as it does not endanger others. Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production. It is much safer than alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs and many more things I'd guess, even safer than caffeine or aspartame. If a kid can buy a diet coke and get two drugs in it that have proven harmful in lab rats, why can't a legal adult buy a joint? Do you know how much marijuana it takes to kill a lab rat? About 20 pounds... dropped on the rat's head. (I didn't make that up, I paraphrased it from something I heard).
    Regardless of my spelling,grammar,or source you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~ I can understand how you feel or why you might feel that way.. However a bunch of heroin or pcp addicts biting the eyes out of little children just doesn't fly with me. Yes that's where becoming a danger to others comes in. I understand that an addict in itself is a danger to others (robbing,stealing,mugging,littering AIDS infested needles everywhere). However MARY JANE alone tends not to cause these types of problems. In fact it has had some very important breakthroughs medicinaly in the last 20 years. And although you may be richer (BAHAH!) and more educated than myself I find your response complete JACKASSERY~ but to each their own. I hope you voted.

  7. #7
    I killed Tupac Shinysides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,139
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beef View Post
    Regardless of my spelling,grammar,or source you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~ I can understand how you feel or why you might feel that way.. However a bunch of heroin or pcp addicts biting the eyes out of little children just doesn't fly with me. Yes that's where becoming a danger to others comes in. I understand that an addict in itself is a danger to others (robbing,stealing,mugging,littering AIDS infested needles everywhere). However MARY JANE alone tends not to cause these types of problems. In fact it has had some very important breakthroughs medicinaly in the last 20 years. And although you may be richer (BAHAH!) and more educated than myself I find your response complete JACKASSERY~ but to each their own. I hope you voted.
    You sir, are an idiot.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    121
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Scarf View Post
    Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production.
    They should regulate it and tax it, if they offered a better deal than drug dealers then that would drive them out of business, or at least reduce their income significantly.

    It would also make it a lot safer, im not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK there was/is a problem with contamination, people adding stuff such as sand, glue and even some reports of lead to increase their profit.

  9. #9
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beef View Post
    you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~
    *chortles quietly*



    this isn't flames, mon ami

    normally i would object but hes banned so he got what he deserved already

    object in flames, or contribute and object there really isn't any other alternative here

    yes sir mr coq sir

    that's better
    Last edited by coqauvin; 09-17-2009 at 09:47 AM.
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  10. #10
    Kokonuts
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    +42° 27' 16.09", -83° 58' 8.27"
    Posts
    44
    Credits
    439
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    One topic that no one has addressed is the economy. Marijuana posses a violent threat to many other products that basically run the global economy. To make it legal would require billions of dollars spent lobbying the senators and Reps that are backed by the paper companies, the pharmaceutical company's and others that contribute a huge percentage to their reelection. If they were to suddenly legalize it, there would be a multitude of new products that would effectively annihilate other products from the market.

    Family Guy actually touched on this during their 420 episode, how Hearst had run the smear campaign to protect his interests in the timber industry. This remains true today, how much money is brought in through the timber industry, and now with that logging show on Nat-Geo or whatever there is more money than ever coming out of the rain forest. If marijuana were to be legalized, farms would be set up where it wouldn't be the bud, but rather the stalks of hemp that could be cultivated and sold at a cheaper and more efficient price than timber.

    Also, By legalizing Marijuana you are effectively announcing that the government was wrong. And in modern society that causes a lot of uneasiness between voters and the elected officials. If suddenly everyone were to change their minds about this, then perhaps they could suddenly change their minds about religion or about gun control. It allows for too much instability within the political arena for it to just HAPPEN like that.

  11. #11
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatSocrates View Post
    One topic that no one has addressed is the economy. Marijuana posses a violent threat to many other products that basically run the global economy. To make it legal would require billions of dollars spent lobbying the senators and Reps that are backed by the paper companies, the pharmaceutical company's and others that contribute a huge percentage to their reelection. If they were to suddenly legalize it, there would be a multitude of new products that would effectively annihilate other products from the market.
    So basically you're saying that the government is artificially altering what succeeds in the market so that things that make less sense end up winning out. This will fix that. Sounds like a pretty good thing that should have happened awhile ago.

    As for the government "admitting that it was wrong." I think a lot more people have a bigger problem with the government's LACK of willingness to admit that it gets things wrong. It would be a nice breath of fresh air. Very rarely does the government make any steps to let us have more control of our own lives though instead of the extremely common practice of intruding into our lives more and more; I'd be really surprised if this happens anytime soon.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Beef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Irving,Tx.
    Posts
    383
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach 5 View Post
    They should regulate it and tax it, if they offered a better deal than drug dealers then that would drive them out of business, or at least reduce their income significantly.

    It would also make it a lot safer, im not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK there was/is a problem with contamination, people adding stuff such as sand, glue and even some reports of lead to increase their profit.
    I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does. I just don't see the downfall for medical marijuana.

  13. #13
    Senior Member ShitFace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,022
    Credits
    3,238
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beef View Post
    I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does. I just don't see the downfall for medical marijuana.
    ehm lol
    people shouldn't be driving after a 12 pack anyway. if everyone drove after a 12 pack of beer, your highways would be a graveyard anyway.
    Last edited by ShitFace; 09-02-2009 at 07:26 AM.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beef View Post
    I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does.
    Please. I agree that driving while high is dangerous, but it's less dangerous than driving while drunk, and alcohol is already legal for recreational use. So legalizing recreational marijuana use is not going to push us over the brink into some driving-safety nightmare where the highways are graveyards. It's not going to make that much of a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    So basically you're saying that the government is artificially altering what succeeds in the market so that things that make less sense end up winning out. This will fix that. Sounds like a pretty good thing that should have happened awhile ago.
    Yes, he's not denying that it's a good thing, he's pointing out the political difficulties that will nevertheless the attend to it due to the substantial size of the industries that legalized marijuana and hemp cultivation would compete with. He's not offering an argument against legalization, he's pointing out an obstacle to legalization. Although I think he's exaggerating. Industrial hemp farming will not "annihilate" other textile products or lumber-derived paper products, for instance; the US is the only country in the world that bans industrial hemp farming, so we can look to other countries for insight on this matter, and see that despite the legality of industrial hemp farming in those countries, non-hemp products have no problem existing in the market along with similar hemp-derived products. The same is true of the pharmaceuticals industry. Marijuana has some interesting applications but it is never going to "annihilate" a large portion of the pharma industry's profits.
    Last edited by Syme; 09-04-2009 at 07:40 AM.

  15. #15
    I killed Tupac Shinysides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,139
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'd rather see decriminalization versus legalization. I don't like the drug cartels, but I actually dislike the tobacco industry more. And the tobacco industry would be mass producing cheap, poor quality marijuana. I'd prefer to go to my dealer and spend a little more on the good stuff knowing that the tobacco industries won't see a dime of it.

    Also, this may or may not have been mentioned yet, but do you know who the main people contributing to anti-drug movements are? The alcohol companies. Legalization would take a massive chunk of their profits, and they know it. So they support any propaganda to get people to vote against it.

    Marijuana is proven to be safer than alcohol. That's really a non-issue. It cannot be disputed. Driving while high is less safe than driving sober, but not even on the same level as driving even buzzed. From a recreational viewpoint, few drugs are both as harmful and addicting as alcohol. Alcohol withdrawals from addiction are only surpassed by those from a benzodiazepine addiction. Alcohol withdrawals can actually kill you. There is not one recorded case of physical withdrawals from marijuana. Whether marijuana is safer than alcohol is a point that has been decided for years. there really is no dispute on it.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinysides View Post
    I'd rather see decriminalization versus legalization. I don't like the drug cartels, but I actually dislike the tobacco industry more. And the tobacco industry would be mass producing cheap, poor quality marijuana. I'd prefer to go to my dealer and spend a little more on the good stuff knowing that the tobacco industries won't see a dime of it.
    You know that it's still possible to buy good-quality tobacco from suppliers who specialize in it, despite the fact that the big cigarette companies are also making a lot of cheap crappy tobacco, right? The same would presumably hold true for marijuana. A huge portion of the marijuana user base wants good stuff, so if it was legalized, that demand is going create a large market for high-quality marijuana that many suppliers will get into. You'd still be able to get the good stuff, and you wouldn't have to give any of your money to big tobacco companies if you didn't want to (it'd go to smaller niche suppliers, many of them probably totally unconnected to the tobacco industry), AND that good stuff would cost substantially less than you are paying to your dealer for it now. It's not like legalizing weed will make good stuff harder to get, or mean that the only available weed will be low-quality.
    Last edited by Syme; 09-06-2009 at 03:25 PM.

  17. #17
    pfft Sheepz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Last house on the left
    Posts
    358
    Credits
    486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yes I think it should be made legal but fat chance of that happening in America or Britain.

    I think the governments just have the worst case scenario in mind (legalizing it and a good portion of the population becoming lazy stoners, among other inconclusive health issues). Not everyone's gonna smoke it if it's legal, and not every smoker will become lazy or crazy. It's the smoker's fault (albeit assisted by the weed) if they lose motivation or fuck up their perception and that's when it's time to take responsibility for themselves and cut it out (some will, some won't). It's the same with alcohol, people handle it in different ways, some use responsibly and some don't. I think the effects are much more drastic with alcohol though. Irresponsible drinkers just need to keep themselves away from it but that doesn't mean that by law, everyone else has to. I'm sure the amount of drunken hooligans driving recklessly, endangering themselves/others, losing friends etc would outweigh the amount of people affected negatively by weed.

    My personal opinion, smoking weed recreationally is a much healthier hobby than a lot of things. Extreme sports are legal and people get killed participating, people get killed in all sorts of ways, that's life. If it's their personal choice to smoke weed then why not? And if it's legal then it 'kills the dealer' so to speak and regulations would benefit people in a lot of ways. We wouldn't get contaminated hash mixed with plastic and boot polish etc, and kids wouldn't be able to get hold of it so easily with the age restrictions (but they still would, I mean alcohol proves that).

    I'd make the 1st paragraph a little less confusing but I don't have the time to go back and re-write it all. I will post again later though.

  18. #18
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepz View Post
    Extreme sports are legal and people get killed participating, people get killed in all sorts of ways, that's life.
    being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
    The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

    smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
    extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  19. #19
    Senior Member Killuminati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,931
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
    The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

    smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
    extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed
    Smoking marijuana is not very bad for you and as you know there are other ways of taking it. Between smoking and other forms of consumption there are plenty of [ame=http://www.drugsandbooze.com/showthread.php?t=29722]benefits.[/ame] It shouldn't matter anyway, what I choose to do in the privacy of my home is my business and the government has no right to tell me what I can or can't do.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
    The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

    smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
    extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed
    "Responsibility to maintain the health of the nation"... This is nanny-state crap. By this logic fatty foods, cigarettes, and a host of other things should be illegal as well. They are far more unhealthy than marijuana, especially since marijuana can be taken without smoking it, which in fact totally removes the unhealthy part of marijuana consumption. I can't believe I'm actually hearing you say that something should be illegal because it's unhealthy. Killuminati is right, people have the right to decide what they are going to put into their own bodies.

  21. #21
    pfft Sheepz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Last house on the left
    Posts
    358
    Credits
    486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
    The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

    smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
    extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed
    Right. You missed my point though. Extreme sports have risks and so does smoking weed, and it's upto the person if they take the risk. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who basejumps goes splat. Not a very good comparison I know because extreme sports take practice, but anything could be around the corner.

    Same with the government though, I think with the length of time weed has been outlawed they're thinking 'better safe than sorry'.

  22. #22
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killuminati View Post
    Smoking marijuana is not very bad for you and as you know there are other ways of taking it. Between smoking and other forms of consumption there are plenty of benefits. It shouldn't matter anyway, what I choose to do in the privacy of my home is my business and the government has no right to tell me what I can or can't do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    "Responsibility to maintain the health of the nation"... This is nanny-state crap. By this logic fatty foods, cigarettes, and a host of other things should be illegal as well. They are far more unhealthy than marijuana, especially since marijuana can be taken without smoking it, which in fact totally removes the unhealthy part of marijuana consumption. I can't believe I'm actually hearing you say that something should be illegal because it's unhealthy. Killuminati is right, people have the right to decide what they are going to put into their own bodies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepz View Post
    Right. You missed my point though. Extreme sports have risks and so does smoking weed, and it's upto the person if they take the risk. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who basejumps goes splat. Not a very good comparison I know because extreme sports take practice, but anything could be around the corner.

    Same with the government though, I think with the length of time weed has been outlawed they're thinking 'better safe than sorry'.
    I agree that people have the right to put mind altering substances into their own bodies. However, there is already a widely avaliable substance that alters the mind with premisies deticated to its distributon. Alcohol causes many problems in every nation and I personally doubt that had it been discovered yesterday, it would be heavily restricted and probably illegal. But something else would be avaliable where the bars and pubs and restaurants are.

    My point is that I believe one is enough. Legilisation of marijana would only add to the problems we already have with mind altering substances.

    I do, however, believe that legilisation would lead to a drop in demand for the stronger, more dangerous strains but not altogether. Some people would not be satisfied. Like Everclear, stronger and stronger examples of a legal substance that if are freely avaliable and totally uncontrolled could be extremely dangerous not only to the consumer but the people around them. I think one is enough.
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  23. #23
    Senior Member Killuminati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,931
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    I agree that people have the right to put mind altering substances into their own bodies. However, there is already a widely avaliable substance that alters the mind with premisies deticated to its distributon. Alcohol causes many problems in every nation and I personally doubt that had it been discovered yesterday, it would be heavily restricted and probably illegal. But something else would be avaliable where the bars and pubs and restaurants are.

    My point is that I believe one is enough. Legilisation of marijana would only add to the problems we already have with mind altering substances.

    I do, however, believe that legilisation would lead to a drop in demand for the stronger, more dangerous strains but not altogether. Some people would not be satisfied. Like Everclear, stronger and stronger examples of a legal substance that if are freely avaliable and totally uncontrolled could be extremely dangerous not only to the consumer but the people around them. I think one is enough.
    So everyone who smokes pot should just drink alcohol instead? Plus you said one drug is enough? What about nicotine or caffeine then? Both are much more dangerous than weed is, nicotine is like a fucking supertoxin to humans. How do you even compare the dangers of drinking alcohol to smoking weed anyway, there is no comparison.

  24. #24
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  25. #25
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    drug induced psychosis through marijuana is an incredible rarity. i'm relatively certain that it's possible to reach a state of psychosis through consuming enough thc (bceause I glanced at the DSM-IV once), but the limit is beyond what you'd get if you were smoking/vaporizing the drug. You'd actually have to eat a shitload of concentrated thc, so much that you couldn't really do it by accident unless you were some special kind of stupid. So what's your point again?

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured
    The odds of getting this are slim. Any study looking at the relationship between weed and mental illness always say the same, usually reported as a small footnote - it is rare, indeed in most cases only those with genetic pre dispositions are really at risk, if they smoke lots over a prolonged period of time.

    Indeed as coqauvin points out, the ingredient which causes the damage isn't abundant enough in the actual drug, this is the same with other drugs and I do believe that many studies looking at these compounds often use them in concentrated doses, isolated from the acual product you buy off the street (i.e., you don't smoke some weed, but instead take a concentrated dosage of the part of the drug they suspect can cause problems), I know they do this with ecstacy and I am pretty sure it is the same with weed.

    Also, I am assuming by this comment that you have never met a full blown alcoholic, whilst they might not have psychosis, they clearly are not fully mentally able.

  27. #27
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    the odds of you becoming addicted to alcohol are slim. the odds of you being struck by lightning are slim. the odds that you will get so pissed off with a teacher you shoot her in the face are slim

    but it still happens. Surely a government has a responsibility to prevent even the rarest of chances not only because of the individual involved but the people they come into contact with
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  28. #28
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No, that's the concept of the nanny state. The government shouldn't be required to completely look after our well being - I am perfectly intelligent and responsible enough to do so for myself. I don't want the government enforcing its or someone else's sense of morality on me, simply because there is an astronomically low chance of me hurting myself by doing something. All I want the government to do is maintain order where I live, and take care of taking money from me and spending it on infrastructure to improve my quality of life.

    Also, the odds for getting addicted to alcohol aren't necessarily slim. It's either a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition to crave the effects of alcohol. Native Americans are particularly susceptible to this, theoretically because they have no genetic history of dealing with alcohol (although, from personal experience, some are certainly working hard on making up for millenia of not getting drunk). Not to mention that calculating odds of committing murder, premeditated or otherwise, is an exercise in foolishness and futility at best.

    Here let me summarize my thoughts on this: People should be allowed to smoke up if they want simply because there is a precedent set of drugs with a greater detrimental effect on our personal lives (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine) that is already legal and widely regulated. It is not the responsibility nor the right of the government to enforce this sort of morality, and it is foolishness to expect it of them.

  29. #29
    Senior Member Killuminati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,931
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured
    Are you fucking kidding me? Are you talking about the supposed link between cannabis use and Schizophrenia? Because if you are then read this.

    article
    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/co...mental-illness

    abstract
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900
    Last edited by Killuminati; 09-17-2009 at 07:39 PM.

  30. #30
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    For the sake of clarity and common understanding, I'm copy/pasting the DSM IV TR's entry on Cannabis here.

    Cannabis-Related Disorders


    Cannabis Use Disorders

    304.30 Cannabis Dependence (see p. 236)
    305.20 Cannabis Abuse (see p. 236)

    Cannabis-Induced Disorders

    292.89 Cannabis Intoxication (see p. 237) Specify if: With Perceptual

    Disturbances

    292.81 Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (see p. 143)
    292.]] Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder, With Delusions (see p. 338)
    Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
    292_11 Cannabis·lnduced Psychotic Disorder, With Hallucinations
    (see p. 338) Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
    292.89 Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder (see p. 479)
    Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
    292.9 Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (sec p. 241)

    Cannabis Use Disorders

    304.30 Cannabis Dependence


    305.20 Cannabis Abuse


    Cannabis-Induced Disorders

    292.89 Cannabis Intoxication


    Diagnostic criteria for 292.89 Cannabis Intoxication


    Other Cannabis-Induced Disorders


    Additional Information on Cannabis-Related Disorders

    Associated Features and Disorders


    Associated laboratory findings.


    Associated physical examination findings and general medical conditions.



    Specific Culture, Age, and Gender Features


    Prevalence


    Course


    Differential Diagnosis


    292.9 Cannabis-Related Disorder

    Not Otherwise Specified

    The Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified category is for disorders associated with the use of cannabis that are not dassifiable as Cannabis Dependence, Cannabis Abuse, Cannabis Intoxication, Cannabis Intoxication Delirium, Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, or Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder.
    Last edited by coqauvin; 09-17-2009 at 11:32 PM.

  31. #31
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor jack View Post
    Surely a government has a responsibility to prevent even the rarest of chances not only because of the individual involved but the people they come into contact with
    This is just... utterly terrible.

  32. #32
    Senior Member TwoStoopid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    78
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    For the sake of clarity and common understanding, I'm copy/pasting the DSM IV TR's entry on Cannabis here.
    This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana. Also, see Kulluminiti's post.

    And just for kicks:
    Cannabis Stimulates brain cell growth

    Cannibis can help get rid of tumors
    Last edited by coqauvin; 09-18-2009 at 06:35 PM. Reason: eyesore

  33. #33
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoStoopid View Post
    This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana. Also, see Kulluminiti's post.

    And just for kicks:
    Cannabis Stimulates brain cell growth

    Cannibis can help get rid of tumors
    I have my doubts that it's filled with myths - this is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Admittedly, it's dated by about 9 years, but the next revision is supposed to be available sometime in 2012. This is, essentially, an encyclopedia entry on cannabis and it's use that doctors around the world rely on.

    In all honesty, I remembered reading a section about consumption levels of thc that can induce a psychotic state, but I couldn't seem to find it in this entry.

  34. #34
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoStoopid View Post
    This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana.
    Uhh, anything that's in the DSMMD is pretty well supported by a lot of hard medical fact and research. As coq says, it's basically an encyclopedia for doctors and medical scientists. This doesn't mean everything in there is automatically guaranteed to be totally correct in every detail (as coq also points out, it's several years old at the moment), but it's not "myths". That stuff about cannabis dependence isn't just made up; it's taken directly from observation of patients, so if it's in there, then there are people who are dependent upon cannabis. This doesn't mean the dependence is physical--you are right, becoming physically dependent on cannabis in the same way that one might be physical dependent on nicotine or opioids is not possible. Nevertheless cannabis dependency does exist and is possible. Not all substance dependence is physical dependence. You will note that the section on cannabis dependence doesn't state that it's a physical dependence.

  35. #35
    Senior Member Killuminati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,931
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There were no myths in the DSMMD article, everything that I read sounded accurate.

  36. #36
    Senior Member TwoStoopid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    78
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.cannabisculture.com
    This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence
    Quote Originally Posted by DSMMD
    Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder

  37. #37
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Now, I'm just running on memory here, and I'm pretty sure I've said this already - it is possible to induce a state of psychosis by consuming enough thc. You cannot, however, cross that threshold if your method of getting high is smoking or vaporizing the pot; you'll black out well before that happens. But consider cookies or brownies that are made by leaching the thc out of the plant and having it absorb into butter. The thc levels in that butter could be concentrated and higher than anything you'd find in the plant, or even in other forms of concentrate, like hashish or hash oil. Consuming vast quantities of those levels of thc can induce a psychotic state in a person (a cannabis induced psychotic disorder), but it's not referring to a permanent psychosis based on one episode of consuming the drug. On this website, there are two people who can provide anecdotal evidence of what happens when you eat too much thc, but then anecdotal evidence, especially over the internet is questionable.

    There is, however, evidence that those who suffer or have latent paranoid schizophrenia are more likely to have a psychotic episode if they use marijuana, and that consistent marijuana use brings forward symptoms of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. This isn't something that will happen to everybody - just people who have a pre-existing medical condition. A small group of vulnerable individuals. The key distinction with such an episode that gets doctors concerned is the length of time the psychotic episode persists. In most people, it will last a couple hours and eventually fade away with 0 chance of remission. In a small group of vulnerable individuals, the symptoms can persist past a 48 hour mark, but that's more indicitive of larger medical/mental issues in the person in question, and studies haven't really been done in this particular area too much because there are too many variables to control easily.

  38. #38
    Senior Member TwoStoopid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    78
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If anyone consumes enough THC in one sitting to make that happen to them they deserve it.

  39. #39
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    TwoStoopid, the study that your "cannabis culture" website was citing is a statistical study by Dr Fisher at Keele University finding that, in the UK, increasing rates of cannabis usage among the population didn't correlate with an increased frequency of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia or other psychosis disorders. That in no way justifies your claim that cannabis-induced psychosis disorder is "a myth." As I said, disorders aren't included in the DSMMD unless they have actually been clinically observed. There's nothing in there that's hypothetical. If it's in there, that means there are actually people who suffer from cannabis-induced psychosis. It is a completely real medical condition. There are people sitting in psychiatric hospitals right now because they have cannabis-induced psychosis. So claiming that the disorder is nonexistent is utterly absurd. Here's a precis for an article from the British Journal of Psychiatry by a group of psychiatrists and doctors who have examined 535 cases of cannabis-induced psychosis: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510

    The very fact that you would put a quote from the website of Cannabis Culture Magazine next to a quote from an authoritative medical text, and try to claim that the former proves that the latter is a "myth", suggests to me that you should not be trying to make any statements about scientific facts.

    I gather that you don't WANT to believe that cannabis-induced psychosis is real--and certainly it's not common, and is no reason to keep weed illegal--but it is a real set of conditions. Deal with it.

    EDIT: If you had done a bit more research into the claims of Cannabis Culture's website, you might have found that Dr. Fisher's study has attracted some skepticism; there are other researchers out there who feel that unrelated factors may have lowered the UK's incidence of psychosis diagnoses concurrently with the rise in cannabis usage. All Fisher's study said was "The number of people smoking pot in the UK increased by X percent over X interval, and the rate of diagnosed psychotic cases didn't increase by a corresponding rate over the same interval". That's not the same thing as debunking the idea that cannabis usage can cause psychosis disorders.
    Last edited by Syme; 09-19-2009 at 06:39 PM.

  40. #40
    Senior Member TwoStoopid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    78
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    TwoStoopid, the study that your "cannabis culture" website was citing is a statistical study by Dr Fisher at Keele University finding that, in the UK, increasing rates of cannabis usage among the population didn't correlate with an increased frequency of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia or other psychosis disorders. That in no way justifies your claim that cannabis-induced psychosis disorder is "a myth." As I said, disorders aren't included in the DSMMD unless they have actually been clinically observed. There's nothing in there that's hypothetical. If it's in there, that means there are actually people who suffer from cannabis-induced psychosis. It is a completely real medical condition. There are people sitting in psychiatric hospitals right now because they have cannabis-induced psychosis. So claiming that the disorder is nonexistent is utterly absurd. Here's a precis for an article from the British Journal of Psychiatry by a group of psychiatrists and doctors who have examined 535 cases of cannabis-induced psychosis: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510

    The very fact that you would put a quote from the website of Cannabis Culture Magazine next to a quote from an authoritative medical text, and try to claim that the former proves that the latter is a "myth", suggests to me that you should not be trying to make any statements about scientific facts.

    I gather that you don't WANT to believe that cannabis-induced psychosis is real--and certainly it's not common, and is no reason to keep weed illegal--but it is a real set of conditions. Deal with it.

    EDIT: If you had done a bit more research into the claims of Cannabis Culture's website, you might have found that Dr. Fisher's study has attracted some skepticism; there are other researchers out there who feel that unrelated factors may have lowered the UK's incidence of psychosis diagnoses concurrently with the rise in cannabis usage. All Fisher's study said was "The number of people smoking pot in the UK increased by X percent over X interval, and the rate of diagnosed psychotic cases didn't increase by a corresponding rate over the same interval". That's not the same thing as debunking the idea that cannabis usage can cause psychosis disorders.
    Your forgetting that your authoritative text is 9 years old. Just because it is an authoritative text does not necessarily mean it is true. Although this time you have provided support for the claim in this instance it does not mean all instances are true. As an example (I'll use the CIA for shits and giggles): There were many "Authoritative Texts" released on studies and experiments conducted by the CIA. Today we are finding that some of these were previously thought "facts" are entirely false. An intellectual should challenge ideas not follow them.

Similar Threads

  1. The Far-Reaching Consequences of Legalizing Marijuana
    By CountFloyd in forum Armchair Intellectuals
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 05:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •