Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: The Far-Reaching Consequences of Legalizing Marijuana

  1. #1
    Senior Member CountFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    22
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default The Far-Reaching Consequences of Legalizing Marijuana

    First, I'm glad to see that AI was given a shot, let's make it as good as we can.

    Ok, this is more of a philosophical question rather than a debate on an issue, I'm only going off of my own personal experiences and those of the people I associate with. I know I make generalizations and distinctions between two big groups of people, but this is my personal experience.

    So lately as I've been smoking more marijuana, and I've realized that the propaganda surrounding this substance is much more pervasive than I would have thought. I too believed that the people who regularly smoke end up sitting on the couch, useless to society. However, as I've done a lot more thinking about the subject, I realized it is indeed quite the opposite. Instead of making you lazy and dead to the world, and a substance used by the "less intelligent" of society, I've realized that this is something used more by the intellectual elite of a society. Allow me to break it down.

    I am in a student group on campus, and the issue of marijuana in the group has come under intense fire of late. As it stands, there are about 1/3 of the members that smoke regularly, 1/3 that does it occasionally, and 1/3 that refuses to touch it. The case against the use of cannabis that was constantly used was that it made you lazy and stupid. So, for a case study I took all the GPA's of the third that smoke and all the GPA's of the third that refuse. The results were much as I predicted with the GPA of the smoking population being about 3.25 and that of the non smoking population to be about 2.43. Almost an entire grade point, quite a difference.

    One of the main reasons that marijuana became so intolerable during the 1960's was because it made people think, and thinking people tend to question the government. The Nixon administration was so frustrated with the youth movement against the government that they cracked down on its use. The youth were smoking and talking about the Vietnam war, not a good thing. When I smoke with the people that I do, there is a similar effect to what was seen in the 1960's. We often end up discussing topical issues such as the media's role in fear mongering, to the effectiveness of a "War on Terror". I think this is a result of being given a different prespective while thinking. When high, I am able to see different sides of an issue, which helps to give meaning and context to a topic. Perhaps the effects are based on the user: if an intelligent person smokes, perhaps they think more intelligently while high, while at the same time a generally lazy person would become more lazy, something of an amplifying effect. Those of you who smoke might be able to get my meaning, those of you who do not might have trouble understanding. Conversely, the people that refuse to smoke are the ones that take the laws at face value, and generally more concerned with playing xbox (keep in mind, this is what I experience day-to-day, not meant to be a generalization, and is not meant as an attack in any way). Perhaps the people that smoke are generally the ones who are willing to challenge authority, and it comes out in talking with them. Alternatively, maybe after smoking you begin to challenge authority due to the discovery of the propaganda you received while growing up. I know for me, as an example, I've begun to question things in society, and it has led to the maturation of the way I think.

    Now, enough back story and on to the meat and potatoes. I can only use my own personal experience to relate to, so if what I've described is a microcosm for society as a whole, the question is what will the effect on society be? If marijuana does indeed help you to think (usually in what would be considered a "liberal" way), and help people to understand issues facing the public, and more importantly care about whats happening outside of just TV, what will the results be? If marijuana became as widely used as alcohol, what would the consequences be for society? What if the CEO of ExxonMobil had a joint every once in a while? What if Maddoff smoked once in a while? Or Enron, or Bush/Cheney or any list of people. Maybe they wouldn't be doing or have done what they have (this, or course, being my opinion that they haven't been the most moral). I believe that it is a successful society that does, and is able to, question the government without fear. I believe that is what the American founding fathers believed when they wrote the American constitution. So my question to you is what will be the long term effects of marijuana on the consciousness of the people in a society? Will they as whole begin to question industries like Wal-Mart, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the government etc etc. Or, conversely, will it dumb down the population? Or will nothing change, and society will generally stay the same?

    As a side note, lets not forget the other industry that comes along with that of legalizing marijuana: Hemp. Hemp is such a versatile product that can grow anywhere and supply many products. Hemp is used to make better quality paper than trees, and thus fights deforestation. Hemp can be used for a stronger, softer clothing material than cotton. Hemp seeds can be eaten, and are very high in protein. Henry Fords first car ran on Hemp-seed oil, and there are thousand of other uses for this versatile crop. This is something that was called the worlds first billion dollar crop back in the 30's. I think it has the potential to vastly change global economics, and shake up a lot of industries.
    Last edited by CountFloyd; 03-25-2009 at 12:48 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Whatever your personal experiences may tell you about the respective mental faculties of people who do and don't smoke marijuana, that doesn't mean anything with regard to the nationwide trend. To the best of my knowledge, there is no meaningful evidence that people who smoke marijuana tend to be more intelligent or more thoughtful (or more academically successful, for that matter) than those who don't. I don't think you have any real basis for the claim that marijuana tends to be used by the "intellectual elite", no matter how intellectual you and your buddies feel when you're high, and no matter how the GPAs of your pot-smoking frat brothers compare to the GPAs of your abstemious frat brothers. Nor do you have any real basis for the suggestion that marijuana "helps you think". Mind you, I'm not claiming that smokers tend to be LESS intelligent or thoughtful or academically successful either. Unless we see some hard evidence to the contrary, I don't think we can say that people who smoke marijuana tend to be smarter or dumber, or more or less thoughtful/informed/aware/etc., than people who don't. My personal suspicion is that marijuana users are spread pretty evenly through society's intellectual spectrum.

    That said, I do agree that marijuana should be completely legalized. Though it's also worth pointing out that we could develop a hemp industry without legalizing marijuana; we would simply have to change the laws that currently do not distinguish between Cannabis plants used for hemp production, and Cannabis plants used for drug production (they are different, and the former could be legalized even if marijuana was still illegal).

    EDIT: In specific answer to your question, no, I don't think that legalizing marijuana would produce any kind of meaningful shift in public attitudes towards politics, economic issues, or anything else like that. And if you think that smoking a joint once in a while makes someone less likely to behave unethically than they would be if they didn't smoke that occasional joint... well, I hope you don't really think that. The reason that Madoff, Bush, etc. behaved unethically was not that they didn't smoke weed.
    Last edited by Syme; 03-24-2009 at 11:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member CountFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    22
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    As I said, I can only go on personal experience. Clearly there can be no evidence either way. My suggestion was based on the idea if the effects of a drug on myself and those around me act as a microcosm for society as a whole, would anything change?

    I think that you are right that it is something used throughout the entire intellectual spectrum, but my question remains what are the effects on perception? Perhaps its something that with occasional use, one can actually increase intellectual capacity. If it's taken for granted that doing a drug can make you stupid, I don't see why the opposite is so far-fetched.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CountFloyd View Post
    As I said, I can only go on personal experience. Clearly there can be no evidence either way. My suggestion was based on the idea if the effects of a drug on myself and those around me act as a microcosm for society as a whole, would anything change?
    You would know better than any of us. I don't think there's that much room for discussion on this issue. You are basically saying "Weed makes me and my friends think more... if everyone reacted to weed in the same way, would the world be different due to lots of people thinking more?" Yes, if everyone responded to weed in the same way that you and your buddies respond to it, and if lots of people smoked it, then I suppose that we would probably see corresponding shifts in public attitudes; we would see a general shift towards whatever attitudes you and your friends tend to have due to your marijuana use. If you feel that marijuana's effect on you and those around you is to make you more thoughtful or intellectual or what-have-you, then there you have it; that's what more people would be like, if more people smoked weed and responded to it in the same way that you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by CountFloyd
    I think that you are right that it is something used throughout the entire intellectual spectrum, but my question remains what are the effects on perception? Perhaps its something that with occasional use, one can actually increase intellectual capacity. If it's taken for granted that doing a drug can make you stupid, I don't see why the opposite is so far-fetched.
    I think it's baseless and absurd to assume that smoking marijuana makes someone stupid, and it's just as baseless to assume that it might make someone smarter. The fact that some people have made a baseless assumption about marijuana doesn't really make the opposite assumption any less baseless in it's own right. "Perhaps" it can increase intellectual capacity... "Perhaps" it can give you superpowers, "perhaps" it can turn your hair blue, "perhaps" it can help you find buried pirate gold in your backyard. Without facts in support, any supposition about what weed can "perhaps" do is basically meaningless. If we want to know about it's effects on perception and cognition, we should turn to studies that have examined those effects. If no such studies exist... we can't really reach any meaningful conclusion.

    Sorry if I wound like I'm busting your balls--that's not my intent, and I really am glad that you've taken an interest in posting in AI. But the questions that you've asked thus far, and the assumptions you've made thus far, don't really seem like they could lead anywhere meaningful.

  5. #5
    Take orally. no_brains_no_worries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,770
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think a great deal of problems might be solved if we legal pot. First off, I think that teenagers might find it less appealing and less mysterious and therefore, less likely to try it (or at least become a regular user). Still, I don't think that outweighs the fact that Marijuana is a gateway drug, and could lead to other, more dangerous drugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    He came to the states for his birthday and now he's going home in a body bag. That's what you get for sending your child to Utah.
    Quote Originally Posted by raghead View Post
    i would have whipped out my dick in that situation
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    News flash, guys can't get pregnant from vaginal sex either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmoscheer View Post
    But what is their policy on winning the hearts and minds through forcible vaginal entry?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries View Post
    I think a great deal of problems might be solved if we legal pot. First off, I think that teenagers might find it less appealing and less mysterious and therefore, less likely to try it (or at least become a regular user). Still, I don't think that outweighs the fact that Marijuana is a gateway drug, and could lead to other, more dangerous drugs.
    The "gateway drug" hypothesis is pretty much total crap. There have been a number of studies to this effect.

  7. #7
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,539
    Credits
    2,788
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries View Post
    I think a great deal of problems might be solved if we legal pot. First off, I think that teenagers might find it less appealing and less mysterious and therefore, less likely to try it (or at least become a regular user). Still, I don't think that outweighs the fact that Marijuana is a gateway drug, and could lead to other, more dangerous drugs.
    I have an unstudied pet theory that the reason it is (or is seen as) a gateway drug is because it is illegal.

  8. #8
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,782
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm quite certain the only far-reaching consequences are the bigoted and misinformed anti-drug brigade will be annoyed for longer than usual.

    If somebody were creating a new law book based on liberal premises, I'm pretty certain most drugs would not be illegal, especially drugs like cannabis, mushrooms and MDMA. I've given up so far on trying to rationalise the illegality of some drugs. Sometimes it just makes no sense and you have to hold your hands up and say, 'I just don't get it.'

    As something of a libertarian I object to banning drugs on an idealistic basis, but if you look at all the studies done into cannabis, check out the statistics about MDMA and, as gwahir said, consider the implications the illegality may be having (gateway drug theory is still rubbish, but i don't think there's any doubt that black market trading creates other kinds of crime) the ONLY realistic conclusion is: liberalise the sale and use of some drugs.

    edit: obviously drugs are illegal under the guise of 'public safety', which I've no reason not to believe. It's just misinformed. Especially when you consider that two of the most harmful and addictive drugs in the world are very much legal.
    Last edited by benzss; 03-25-2009 at 02:55 AM.

  9. #9
    windmills of your mind Think's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    a wheel within a wheel never ending nor beginning on an ever spinning reel
    Posts
    2,045
    Credits
    1,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm afraid that it should be noted that your conclusions do not necessarily follow from your premise. Even if (big if) your microcosm reflected society as a whole, it remains plausible that marijuana could be a recreational drug of the clever because they are capable of discerning what are good and bad laws, or even that they use marijuana as a respite from their intellectual faculties (i.e an opportunity to "dumb themselves down" temporarily).
    I myself don't buy into the idea that marijuana makes you more or less capable in any field (Carl Sagan was a pot smoker, but conversely, so are a LOT of stupid people). This comes with a caveat: I am well aware that the effects on perception are versatile. I have talked insightfully about topics from positions I wouldn't usually consider; equally, I have lain down, eaten chocolate, and watched heroes without being capable or willing to follow the plot line. I have even had extreme panic attacks. My experiences may vary more profoundly than the idiosyncratic reactions of others (this, again, only from my own experience), but it is at least certain in my mind that society as a whole is made up of people who together have this level of versatility in response to the drug. I don't have much else to add on the issue, except that, like benzss, I am all for the legalisation of some (in an ideal world, where people could take full responsibility, all) drugs and increased and more accurate education concerning them.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    404
    Credits
    516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    The "gateway drug" hypothesis is pretty much total crap. There have been a number of studies to this effect.
    Exactly, if you're going to go out and do drugs, you're going to go out and do drugs.
    These people tend to do drugs at a younger age, and pot doesn't open them up to these drugs, it's just the easiest to get.

  11. #11
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Pot is slowly becoming more legal. Hell, in Ann Arbor its a 25 dollar fine if your caught with it (it used to be 5 bucks). I see nothing wrong with it if is regulated like alcohol. I would even be fine if it was sold exclusively to the public by the government. I am sure that there would be people who would abuse its use, just like alcohol, and would live their lives in a friggen gutter. I probably still wouldn't use it.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    Pot is slowly becoming more legal. Hell, in Ann Arbor its a 25 dollar fine if your caught with it (it used to be 5 bucks).
    Some localities and states are moving towards more permissive marijuana laws, but many others aren't; I don't have any hard data on this to hand, but I'd guess that the number of states/localities that are liberalizing their marijuana laws is much smaller than the number that are keeping those laws like they are. Also, there doesn't seem to be any sign that federal marijuana laws are going to change any time soon. Overall, I don't think we can yet make a general claim that marijuana is becoming more legal. That may be true in certain places, but it's not true in the big picture.

  13. #13
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I know just as many stupid people who smoke as I do intelligent. I also think a lot of people just think they're being insightful while high, when in reality they're probably just more engaged.

    I don't mean to be rude, but I think the only thing your 'study' shows is a pretty good example of how easily small sample sizes can be skewed by confirmation bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    edit: obviously drugs are illegal under the guise of 'public safety', which I've no reason not to believe. It's just misinformed. Especially when you consider that two of the most harmful and addictive drugs in the world are very much legal.
    Granted, but I don't think I'd want to live in a world where heroin and meth were legal and non-stigmatized. There's also the question of the kind of burden, if any, this would place on the health care system. At first glance it seems plausible, although I'm unaware if we'd simply be shifting money from punitive to rehabilitative means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    The "gateway drug" hypothesis is pretty much total crap. There have been a number of studies to this effect.
    Even if this were a sound theory, the real gateway drugs would tend to be alcohol and tobacco.

  14. #14
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Some localities and states are moving towards more permissive marijuana laws, but many others aren't; I don't have any hard data on this to hand, but I'd guess that the number of states/localities that are liberalizing their marijuana laws is much smaller than the number that are keeping those laws like they are. Also, there doesn't seem to be any sign that federal marijuana laws are going to change any time soon. Overall, I don't think we can yet make a general claim that marijuana is becoming more legal. That may be true in certain places, but it's not true in the big picture.
    Proposal 1 passed with 63 percent of the vote in November, making Michigan the first state in the Midwest to have some kind of medical marijuana law. It also becomes the second-most populous of the medical marijuana states, behind California, which approved a similar ballot initiative in 1996.
    http://michiganmessenger.com/15232/m...estions-remain


    Besides, Obama did coke. I have a feeling he would be willing to let pot slide.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    Granted, but I don't think I'd want to live in a world where heroin and meth were legal and non-stigmatized. There's also the question of the kind of burden, if any, this would place on the health care system. At first glance it seems plausible, although I'm unaware if we'd simply be shifting money from punitive to rehabilitative means.
    Even if there was enough of an increase in health care costs to cancel out the decrease in police/court/prison costs, we'd still be seeing a pretty considerable decrease in the amount of needless suffering that goes on as a result of our drug policies. Every year, a huge number of people go to jail for recreational drug use; in addition to the fact that jail itself isn't much fun, even once these people get out they are stuck with that criminal record for the rest of their life, which makes it incredibly hard to get a good job, get a bank loan, and so forth--and that, in turn, is more likely to drive them to commit real crimes. We're ruining these people's lives because they want to put a recreational chemical into their own bodies. I don't think it's right. Not to mention the fact that the illegality of drugs in the US plays a large causal role in the cartel violence that's turning the Mexican border into a warzone.

    Also, it's worth pointing out that the main reason people use meth is because it's a much cheaper alternative to stimulants like cocaine. If things like cocaine were legal, they'd be cheaper and there would be much less incentive for people to use drugs like meth. Plus, I doubt the use of hard drugs like that would be non-stigmatized even if it were legal. Alcoholism is legal but there's definitely a stigma attached; I think the same would be true of meth addiction, heroin addiction, and so on.

    Right... to repeat what I said, some states/localities are moving to relax their laws, but many others aren't, so I don't think we can make a general statement that "pot is slowly becoming more legal". I think it's great that Michigan is one of the states that is relaxing it's marijuana laws, but that doesn't change my point. Aside from Michigan, California, and maybe a few others, most of the 50 states aren't doing anything like this, and neither is the federal government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer
    Besides, Obama did coke. I have a feeling he would be willing to let pot slide.
    Yeah, he probably would. He doesn't make the laws, though. His willingness to let pot slide will only matter if and when Congress decides to repeal the legislation that criminalizes marijuana possession, and sends the bill to him for a signature. And that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. So, again, my point stands.
    Last edited by Syme; 03-25-2009 at 06:52 PM.

  16. #16
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,939
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    http://michiganmessenger.com/15232/m...estions-remain


    Besides, Obama did coke. I have a feeling he would be willing to let pot slide.
    Bush did coke and 8 years of him didn't lead to any lighter drug laws.

  17. #17
    Take orally. no_brains_no_worries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,770
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    I have an unstudied pet theory that the reason it is (or is seen as) a gateway drug is because it is illegal.
    Really? I don't know. I've never met someone who's first drug was coke or X or schrooms. It's always been weed and then, over time, just gradually got into other things.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    He came to the states for his birthday and now he's going home in a body bag. That's what you get for sending your child to Utah.
    Quote Originally Posted by raghead View Post
    i would have whipped out my dick in that situation
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    News flash, guys can't get pregnant from vaginal sex either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmoscheer View Post
    But what is their policy on winning the hearts and minds through forcible vaginal entry?

  18. #18
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries View Post
    Really? I don't know. I've never met someone who's first drug was coke or X or schrooms. It's always been weed and then, over time, just gradually got into other things.
    Yeah, but this doesn't prove causation. That's the fundamental fallacy of the "gateway drug" hypothesis; it posits that because people who use hard drugs tend to have used weed first and then the harder drugs, using weed must put people at elevated risk of using harder drugs (and potentially engaging in other criminal behaviors as well). That doesn't necessarily follow, though, and it's unscientific to assume it. People who use hard drugs may have used weed first, but that doesn't mean that people who use weed are necessarily risk of getting sucked into harder drug use because they use weed.

  19. #19
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries View Post
    Really? I don't know. I've never met someone who's first drug was coke or X or schrooms. It's always been weed and then, over time, just gradually got into other things.
    And why is that? Could it be because marijuana is simply more readily available - not to mention cheap, especially at young ages - than LSD or coke?

    I seem to remember a study (although I don't recall by whom) that concluded that alcohol and tobacco were the first drugs used in nearly every case. I obviously can't cite the science, but this seems quite plausible. I know that when I was younger cigs and beer were ridiculously easy to get, and this was years before we ever knew where to buy weed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Even if there was enough of an increase in health care costs to cancel out the decrease in police/court/prison costs, we'd still be seeing a pretty considerable decrease in the amount of needless suffering that goes on as a result of our drug policies.
    You're probably right.

    Also, it's worth pointing out that the main reason people use meth is because it's a much cheaper alternative to stimulants like cocaine.
    I don't know about this. Every meth user I've ever known was all about staying tweaked for days on end, rather than just getting a recreational buzz. This was the goal, rather than the byproduct of use.
    Last edited by ephekt; 03-25-2009 at 07:47 PM.

  20. #20
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Right... to repeat what I said, some states/localities are moving to relax their laws, but many others aren't, so I don't think we can make a general statement that "pot is slowly becoming more legal". I think it's great that Michigan is one of the states that is relaxing it's marijuana laws, but that doesn't change my point. Aside from Michigan, California, and maybe a few others, most of the 50 states aren't doing anything like this, and neither is the federal government.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabi..._United_States

    What is that, like around 25% of America over a 12 year period?

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Yeah, he probably would. He doesn't make the laws, though. His willingness to let pot slide will only matter if and when Congress decides to repeal the legislation that criminalizes marijuana possession, and sends the bill to him for a signature. And that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. So, again, my point stands.
    Thanks for reminding us how the Government works. I totally forgot and I'm sure many of the people here didn't know this either.

    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    Bush did coke and 8 years of him didn't lead to any lighter drug laws.
    Great way to come in here and take a whack at Bush. You must feel like a man now. Thanks for your amazing contribution to this topic

  21. #21
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    I don't know about this. Every meth user I've ever known was all about staying tweaked for days on end, rather than just getting a recreational buzz. This was the goal, rather than the byproduct of use.
    In that case, cocaine might not be able to give them the effect they want, but various amphetamines (i.e., amphetamines other than meth) could. It's not like meth delivers something that no other drug can deliver; it's just easy to make, and therefore cheap as hell, and therefore popular with people who can't afford anything that's less terrible for their bodies. So if those various other amphetamines were legally available, we'd probably see a decline in meth abuse, since meth's only selling point would be gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabi..._United_States

    What is that, like around 25% of America over a 12 year period?
    I don't think the spread of medical marijuana laws indicates that weed is "slowly becoming more legal", which was your original claim. Allowing medical use isn't a very meaningful step towards legalization. There are jurisdictions where heroin (diacetylmorphine) is legal to use in a medical capacity; do you think that means that heroin is closer to legalization?
    Last edited by Syme; 03-25-2009 at 09:17 PM.

  22. #22
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    In that case, cocaine might not be able to give them the effect they want, but various amphetamines (i.e., amphetamines other than meth) could.
    Oh, no doubt. I was just pointing out that, at least in my limited experience with meth users, it really isn't seen as an alternative to coke. I'm pretty sure it costs more in most cases as well.

  23. #23
    Take orally. no_brains_no_worries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,770
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post


    Great way to come in here and take a whack at Bush. You must feel like a man now. Thanks for your amazing contribution to this topic
    Hey he was kinda on topic. Whoever said Obama would be easy on drug laws because he had done drugs before didn't consider that several Presidents have used drugs in the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    He came to the states for his birthday and now he's going home in a body bag. That's what you get for sending your child to Utah.
    Quote Originally Posted by raghead View Post
    i would have whipped out my dick in that situation
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    News flash, guys can't get pregnant from vaginal sex either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmoscheer View Post
    But what is their policy on winning the hearts and minds through forcible vaginal entry?

  24. #24
    Bikerdog is AWESOME Bowzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    322
    Credits
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I don't think the spread of medical marijuana laws indicates that weed is "slowly becoming more legal", which was your original claim. Allowing medical use isn't a very meaningful step towards legalization. There are jurisdictions where heroin (diacetylmorphine) is legal to use in a medical capacity; do you think that means that heroin is closer to legalization?
    But at least you could probably admit that weed is becoming slowly more accepted. If harder and more habit forming drugs (such as opiates) are already easily prescribed by doctors, then why is weed getting a bad rap?

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    I have an unstudied pet theory that the reason it is (or is seen as) a gateway drug is because it is illegal.
    This s a good point. Let's say you want to get drunk. You can visit an off licence or a bar. If you are underage, you get someone to go to the shops and buy it for you. If you want to get stoned, you need to visit a dealer who will almost certainly have other substances in stock. So the legal status of weed means you will almost certainly come into contact with harder stuff sooner or later due to the source.

    The legal status also means there can be no independant control over the quality of the substance. Alcohol for instance is subject to all kinds of regulations, which allow the consumer to be fairly assured about what they are buying. You cannot get that with weed. There has been a lot made by British anti drug politicians who feel the strength of some of the weed on the market, and the lack of control mean it shouldn't be legalized, for me it is another damning indictment of our policy towards drugs. Making it illegal does nothing to remedy the situation.

    If you drive something underground, then it no longer has the protection of law, like most businesses. Therefore sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on it. People like to get high, that is just a fact, and not everyone likes getting drunk. So banning all other substances, which leads to the market being controlled by thugs and criminalising those who use the substance causes so much trouble, and creates far more problems than it solves.

    It is about time governments started to grow up a little, not only is current drug policy utterly failing, it creates a whole new criminal class that need not exist (I mean seriously, imprisoning someone for getting high?) and also helps to alienate this group.

    It saddens me to an extent. Popular opinion seems to have been forged out of misinformation. I made a thread a while back about ecstacy and how the British home secratry utterly ignored the opinion of a leading scientist, how using facts and evidence, concluded that esctasy was no where near as dangerous as the media, and its legal status indicates. I can understand to an extent why politicians are worried to get into the debate, or concede ground, however the current stance flies in the face of some truths which at some point need to be recnognised:

    1. People like getting high, they always have done and always will do.
    2. Banning most of the substances capable of inducing a high causes more harm than good.
    3. The current legal status of alcohol completely contradicts the governments position on other substances.


    Popular opinion may be against drugs, but I think it is slowly changing. However I feel governments have a duty to preach facts, and use evidence to base policy and like it or not, there is a very strong case in support of the right to use weed and some other substances, which in my opinion strongly outweigh the case against.

    However, I think the process of legalisation might not be as clear cut as some would think. Because the trade has been driven underground and has been there for such a long time, it is often the case that drugs are interlinked with other criminal activity, legalising the trade may result in giving other forms of crime a legitimate face. This is a real concern, and I think there are 2 debates to be had here. The first is, should we have the right to use other substances to get high (let us say weed)? And I think yes, and I think most here will agree. The second, how do you go about changing the law?

    You would need to spend a lot of time trying to change public opinion, this would be no small task. Once you had really got the debate going, and show that there is a good case for allowing this right, how do you then turn it into a legal trade? I am sure this problem could be fixed, it is just no one at the top is willing to consider it.

    Scientists have shown that many banned substances do not merit their legal status, when put in context with alcohol. But years of misguided propaganda carry more weight than this. Whilst not safe (no drug that gets you high is 100% safe), we can trust people to be responsible with booze. Why not weed?

  26. #26
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post
    But at least you could probably admit that weed is becoming slowly more accepted. If harder and more habit forming drugs (such as opiates) are already easily prescribed by doctors, then why is weed getting a bad rap?
    Oh yeah, I would definitely agree that it is slowly becoming more accepted. And in time, that will probably lead to widespread decriminalization. I just don't think we can yet say that it's slowly becoming more legal on the basis of medical marijuana laws.

  27. #27
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,939
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowzer View Post

    Great way to come in here and take a whack at Bush. You must feel like a man now. Thanks for your amazing contribution to this topic
    Great way to miss the underlying point of my reply.

    As no_brains has already said, just because a president has done a drug doesn't mean it will affect their policies towards said drug.

    Luckily Obama is a teensy bit more likely to judge the drugs debate using logic and science (and probably a little bit too much rhetoric) as opposed to faith and hearsay (and probably not enough big words that might hurt the thinky ball in his head).


    (Bold text is what made me feel like a man)

  28. #28
    Can I haz weed nao? StonedOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Down the street.
    Posts
    177
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CountFloyd View Post
    As I said, I can only go on personal experience. Clearly there can be no evidence either way.
    Now why would you say that when there's

    GOOGLE TO THE RESCUE!!!

    http://www.nickpagan.com/blog/117/mu...duces-your-iq/
    Attempting to carry out multiple of tasks simultaneously just doesn’t suit the way that our brains work. In fact, research shows that multitasking reduces your intelligence more than smoking pot (I could have given you the link here, but then you would have to multitask and lose attention, so I’ve put it at the end of the article for you =) ).
    http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20021645.html
    Fried and colleagues followed 70 subjects in the Ottawa Prenatal Prospective Study, and compared intelligence quotient (IQ) scores of subjects at 9--12 years of age (before initiation of marijuana use) with their scores at 17-20 years. The authors grouped subjects as nonusers (n= 37), light users (less than 5 joints per week, n=9), former users of marijuana (no marijuana use in at least 3 months, n=9) or heavy users.

    The authors found that among heavy users (more than 5 joints per week, n=15) IQ scores decreased by 4.1 points on average, while gains in IQ scores were seen among light users (mean 5.8 points), former users (mean 3.5 points), and nonusers (mean 2.6).

    The authors state that while there was a significant decline in IQ scores, the scores of the subjects -- at a mean of 109.1 -- were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). They add that if preteen IQ had not been assessed, the subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. The authors suggest further investigation into the cognitive consequences of both current and previous marijuana use, particularly since the popularity of the drug has been increasing over the last 4 years.
    http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5105
    Marijuana smoking, even long-term, does not harm intelligence, according to findings published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
    Quote Originally Posted by gina View Post
    Your change of heart has left thousands of boners go unfulfilled.

    How the fuck do you sleep at night.
    Quote Originally Posted by sycld View Post
    so you're really not gay?

    I mean, that's a pretty homosexual thing to do.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    In the UK, the media and politicians often make a big deal about the mental health risks of smoking weed. I often laugh when the media reports on some study, as usually at the end they add in the small footnote "the risks to your average user are very low, with those with certain genetic pre conditions being the most at risk", and it is a very small footnote, with the risks often being blown out of proportion in order to induce fear of the drug.

  30. #30
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,939
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gismo View Post
    In the UK, the media and politicians often make a big deal about the mental health risks of smoking weed. I often laugh when the media reports on some study, as usually at the end they add in the small footnote "the risks to your average user are very low, with those with certain genetic pre conditions being the most at risk", and it is a very small footnote, with the risks often being blown out of proportion in order to induce fear of the drug.
    True, but it's only usually The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Express, ITV News or Sky News which does that. The idea that any of those are 'news' sources is laughable.

  31. #31
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    404
    Credits
    516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    yellow journalism ftw!

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    True, but it's only usually The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Express, ITV News or Sky News which does that. The idea that any of those are 'news' sources is laughable.
    The BBC did it too, which dissapointed me, as have Channel 4 news, which in my opinion are two of the best news programmes in the UK. Although Channel 4, any times they discuss drugs they tend to get someone in who is in favour of them to try and balance it out, but when it comes to the changes it seems to be pretty widespread, that is the ommission of the fact that the dangers aren't as big as they make out.

  33. #33
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,939
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Everything I've seen on the BBC and Channel 4 that is anti-weed is about the danger of the stronger and less pure strains of marijuana which are increasingly common on the streets of major cities and this is a valid point to bring up and discuss.

  34. #34
    Senior Member Nermy2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,573
    Credits
    4,150
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Default


  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    Everything I've seen on the BBC and Channel 4 that is anti-weed is about the danger of the stronger and less pure strains of marijuana which are increasingly common on the streets of major cities and this is a valid point to bring up and discuss.
    They have reported on the mental health issues in the manner which I talked about earlier. Yes, they do discuss this too.

    Stronger and less pure forms are a worrying issue. However it is often cited as justification for its legal status, however I do not see how prohibition would remedy the situation, it quite clearly isn't, I think it is another nail in the coffin of the legal status of the drug. If we treated it the same way that we treat alcohol, we could control and monitor the strength and quality of the product, it would be easier to inform the user of these attributes and give them legal recourse if the supplier failed to produce the drug to these standards.

    Getting the drug to a place where this could happen however would take some time and effort.

  36. #36
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What do you mean by "stronger" forms of weed, and how are "stronger" forms dangerous? It's not like you can overdose on this stuff.

  37. #37
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    What do you mean by "stronger" forms of weed, and how are "stronger" forms dangerous? It's not like you can overdose on this stuff.
    You can overdose on it, just not if you're smoking it. Ingesting enough THC (through cookies for example) can lead to a state of psychosis and, iirc, death. I know that you at least feel like you're dying.

    I can't remember terminology, amounts or scales, but I read it in the DSMIV or something like that in a doctor's office.

  38. #38
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,939
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    What do you mean by "stronger" forms of weed, and how are "stronger" forms dangerous? It's not like you can overdose on this stuff.
    True, but the stronger the strain, the more it can mess with your mind and if it's cut with shittier stuff then of course it's more dangerous.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    True, but the stronger the strain, the more it can mess with your mind and if it's cut with shittier stuff then of course it's more dangerous.
    Well yeah, of course cutting can be potentially dangerous, but I don't see how stronger strains are a "worrying issue", which is what gismo had said. Of course they can mess with your mind more, but that's not a problem anymore than 100-proof liquor is a problem in comparison to 80-proof liquor.

  40. #40
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,939
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It's already been established that laws are fairly hypocritical when it comes to alcohol over marijuana.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-08-2009, 03:45 AM

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
  •