I just find it annoying that tax payers are the ones who have to pay to throw these ones in jail.
Printable View
I just find it annoying that tax payers are the ones who have to pay to throw these ones in jail.
i find it annoying that if you have a simple possesion charge you cant get a college loan, but if you rape or murder somebody you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by cycrosism
you serious? i'm gonna be more careful :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Failpailirl
Whether weed was legal or not, like many things it would need to be restricted.Quote:
Originally Posted by footballjds
Sure, just like you can't drink and drive. But if you get blazed till u start seeing shit (has not happened to me yet; would be awesome tho!) in your own house, it should be all cool.
Exactly, not to mention age restriction...Quote:
Originally Posted by LolL
:p
Same here, it's not really a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryJames
I'm not really sure if legalizing weed would be a good thing though. My main argument from both sides deal with the gateway part of it. It's true that if weed was legalized it would be harder to get for younger people. Weed is often viewed as a gateway drug, and legalizing it would cut off the "gateway aspect." The same people who sell weed are often the same who will offer up harder drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy. So if it was legalized weed smokers wouldn't have that easy bridge to other drugs. However, I'm not sure if younger people would turn to a more accessible drug if it was. I'm just unsure if legalizing it will push kids to "rebel" by trying other harder drugs instead to start off. Lots of people smoke only weed, but would the go to drug change to something else such as Cocaine?
All speculation, I'm sure tons of people are predicting the effects as we speak. As of now, I'm all for decriminalization. Still not sure if it should be legalized..
please, give me any link at all, that proves that marijuana is a gateway drug, honestly its like saying that coffee is a gateway drug to cigarettes or milk is a gateway drug to alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesehunk
I'm dutch. Same amount of people use weed. Same amount of people use hard drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesehunk
The only reason why I would want it to be legal is so that tax payers like my parents and me (a bit later on in life) aren't the ones who have to pay to throw these people in jail. Personally I don't smoke it and I probably never will.
You don't need to smoke it you could have a space cake or have it in tea ;) haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by cycrosism
Some of the 'space cakes' they sell at head shops in the US are full of shit like melatonin. They're nothing but brownies full of pills. The only way they're able to do this is because they're selling it as a dietary supplement.Quote:
Originally Posted by whacko999
Very easy to make yourself, Dutch kitch: space/pancakes/brownies/macaroni/pizza and every other meal with butter in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by noidea
THC is available in tablet form for those that want it prescribed as medicine, therefore weed does not need to be legal for medical use.
Any other argument about "money" is almost always easily disproved by the fact that many, many other countries in the world now allow hemp to be used commercially, BUT you don't see hemp dominating all these industries like fiber or paper or biofuels.
Sure, it COULD be used for all of those purposes, but for any one of those uses there is always another better, cheaper natural source.
societal values, can't turn a housewife into a potheadQuote:
Originally Posted by Failpailirl
also no medicinal value, yeah im gonna cure my glaucoma by taking up smoking, great plan you should be a doctor.
It doesn't have to be taken in the form of smoking. Obviously, any form of smoking is bad for your lungs, let alone a doctor prescribing it :duh:Quote:
Originally Posted by blackfire553
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass...w_Drug_programQuote:
Originally Posted by blackfire553
Maybe do some research before saying weed has no medicinal value. That's just a very small example, and you can see documentaries about at least one of the people in that program (George McMahon). I really dislike when people say that it has no value as a medicine. There are tons of people who would be dead if they never smoked/ate/vaped weed.
And pills are pure THC, and THC itself isn't the best for you. There is more to weed than just that one chemical, which is why Marinol and whatever other one(s) there are are not a viable option (yet). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9J2N6_bl0A shows the difference between pure THC and liquid marijuana. And it's not just her that had that reaction; THC is the main psychoactive ingredient in weed, and CBD (among others) "combat" it's psychoactive properties (or some shit like that, lol I dunno right now).
LOL, I watched the video.
If someone goes to the doctor because they are in horrible pain from cancer, does it really matter if the prescribed pill gives a high or a bad trip? As long as the pain is numbed, I don't think the doctor is going to care if you enjoyed yourself or not.
And the drug companies can always blend in other components if it really reduces adverse side effects. And then there would be standardized dosages, rather than a person having no idea if they're buying high THC pot or low.
If people want it to be used medically it needs to be held to the same high standards and scrutiny as other medical drugs are.
To add to that, just as Tylenol-3's cannot be purchased "over-the-counter" an d it must have a doctor prescription, the same would go for THC. Generally, this eliminates the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
I have thought about that quite a lot, and I don't think there's enough research to weigh my opinion. On one hand I do agree that consistent doses for medicine are better than people just taking it whenever, but one thing that I think is great about weed is that it can be "taken" as needed and there won't be any overdosing, side effects, or the like that modern western medicine would give you if you didn't take it consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
I also don't think it's a replacement for a good chunk of medicine, nor should it be used too self medicate, and talking to a physician is always a good choice if one is worried about their health.
I mostly want it to be legalized for recreational purposes to be honest. Pros outweigh the cons, in my opinion, to have drugs (weed, heroin, ecstasy, etc.) legal and regulated by the government.
I don't want to have it in my system at all haha :PQuote:
Originally Posted by whacko999
It's illegal because it was only discovered at a relatively recent date. Due to health and safety issues these days, many things that would have been legal if they were introduced 100/200 years ago aren't. We only have things like alcohol and tobacco because they've been in our culture for many years, and illegalising it would be far too much of a hassle. It's the same with things like cars, they're only legal because we depend on them.
wat. Weed has been being used forever. It was "introduced" before the current era. It's illegal in America as both hemp and marijuana because some paper guy called it "marihuana/marijuana" for the first time and said how it was used by blacks and Mexicans and it made them look at white women twice and step on white men's shadows and made them perform other "unacceptable" acts. People didn't know that hemp was from the same plant which they just outlawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Boo hoo you can't get high legally, I can understand the pro's being the medicinal benefits, recreation doesn't matter imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by i luffs yeww
lolwat? I smoke weed ERRDAY (not really). I live in Oregon, too, so it's pretty relaxed laws here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
The reason it'd be better to be legal (more so for harder drugs) and regulated by the government is because then people will have a lower chance of ODing due to not knowing the strength of what they're taking. I have a close friend who has almost OD'd a few times and has literally died before from not knowing the strength of the heroin she was doing.
There's more to it than getting high. You may say recreational use "doesn't matter," but you're being extremely naive for not accepting that people will do drugs for recreational purposes regardless of how bad it is for them, and that issue needs to be addressed.
Then again, this is just SRL, so it's not like a lot of the discussion about weed is thought out.
Not knowing the strength of the drug is a lack of proper judgement on the user's part. It's not that I don't accept that people will do drugs for recreational purposes, rather that it isn't a valid enough reason for doing them. Why do something harmful if it won't benefit you? Certain drugs just aren't worth the risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by i luffs yeww
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
i dont mean to sound like a dick, but have you ever even actually smoked marajuana before? just a questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
Lots of indigenous cultures use drugs to achieve altered state of consciousness. Not all of them are fun in the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
And as far as I am concerned it's not up to you to decide if a drug is worth a "risk". Are you a doctor? Are you the person taking the drugs?
I don't care if it's heroin, crack, meth, PCP, ketamine, weed, mushrooms, LSD, mescaline, MDMA or cocaine. What you put in your body and consume is your business not mine. We can sit here and argue the dangers and benefits of drugs, or we can all realize that's stupid and let people do what they wish instead of trampling on their freedoms.
Valid reason or not, why does it matter if it's not you? (I'm not even going to get into what a "valid reason" even is)
You haven't witnessed the destructive nature of meth. It should be as illegal...Quote:
Originally Posted by Capricorn
Like I said, I don't feel like getting into if X is bad/good. All I care about are personal freedoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterBB
I think it's more tragic for a person to die from a gang fight or from crazy drug cartels or a meth lab explosion then it is for a meth junkie to die from addiction. If meth were legal it would be easier for people to get help too, since they could openly say they do meth and not worry prosecution.
And what does it matter if I haven't witnessed the destructive nature of meth? What I have witnessed is people who have been addicted to meth as well as people who only used meth for a short period of time. None of them are wrecks rotting away in a back alley either. So from my experiences is it fair to conclude meth is perfectly safe to use?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote meth here. Sure meth ruins lives but not every person who uses it. The same goes for every other drug, weed included. And perhaps there are more cases of meth use ruining lives, it is addictive for sure and it does lots of damage after prolonged use.
Whatever though, like I said I don't care about if meth is addictive. What I care about is personal freedoms. Here is a article about methamphetamine by the way. It's biased of course but it's still a fairly good read (imo). It's semi-related to the topic at hand because since weed and meth are both illegal, there is some cross over about the issues applying to both.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html
I've read it, still I'm not completely convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capricorn
Here in the Netherlands we have a law that we have to wear seatbelts when the car is driving('engine running'). This has been because of several reasons. One of them is at a car accident, the driver and passengers would have dramatically more injuries. These injuries have to be paid. Indirectly this would cost the average civilian money. This law protects the other people.
If you make the selling and using of meth legal, you could have multiple problems. One of them is how do you explain against the not users that they have to pay for yet another meth user who has crossed the line. How would would explain to a car driver that it was not his fault he drove over that guy, that was tripping on the streets and felt for the car.
You can't. It's very hard to explain to the people who have been an indirect casualty of the meth legalization, that it's just for freedom that they have to suffer. Cause normally, when someone makes someone else suffer, we throw the in jail, don't we. I think that in contrast with soft drugs and drugs harvested directly from mother nature(paddos, weed, etc), Meth is much more addictive. Legalizing it could make hard drug addiction as common as cigarette addiction (<- probably not, this is just a worst case).
It's not easy to ban nor legalize it.
You're naive if you honestly think that marijuana in it's current state isn't a gateway drug. The people who sell weed are often the same people who sell other drugs. Not everyone who smokes weed does other drugs but I can't name very many people who do other drugs and didn't start with weed. Don't get me wrong, I smoke weed and I think that legalizing it could remove that gateway aspect and make other drugs more inaccessible. However, it scares me to think that another drug could substitute weeds place as young peoples "rebel," considering weed is fairly harmless compared to most recreational drugs. I'm 100% for decriminalization, my opinion is still developing on legalization, I'd like to see a more legalized version of Amsterdam before making a full decision. I'm from Canada by the way, weed isn't really frowned upon at all here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Failpailirl
You're selfish to not care about the well-being of others. Quit thinking about yourself. You're almost saying that if you witnessed someone light them self on fire, you'd just watch them burn and be like "who cares, not me?"Not to mention that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In addition, I may not be a drug user or a doctor but if I could help someone in any way possible, I would at least try to help and not let people do stupid things. [as you put it]Quote:
Originally Posted by Capricorn
The rights and freedoms of the people sometimes need to be limited for the benefit of society.
ok, i am only going to say this once, i do not use it to rebel at all, i first started smoking in the 10th grade, its not like ive been smoking since 6th grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesehunk
i did it when i was ready, and i like my friends for that as they did not pressure me into it whatsoever, it was my choice, not theirs.
now, if you have found any information from multiple sources supporting the same thing, please present it to me.
other than that, lets be honest. smoking pot has no addictive property's in it, now maybe you have forgotten what physically addictive is, it means when you stop consuming it, you are going to so major changes. now you could eat cheeseburgers everyday for a year and then if you stop you would see changes. now the withdrawals you see people suffering though with heroin, crack, meth, cigerettes, or alcohol, now thats addiction.
if you have any information regarding somebody that lives on this planet has ever gone though marijuana withdrawals, please, inform me of this.
"Addictive Potential
Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite the known harmful effects upon functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent) and among daily users (25-50 percent).
Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including: irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to remain abstinent. These symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2-3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation."
Source: http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
Getting two different results. Pro pot people say it is not addicting. Whereas sources such as ^ say otherwise.
So you would have extinguished ThÃch Quảng Đức? There's a big difference between someone doing some drugs and someone lighting themselves on fire. The former is only done to have a fun time, the latter is a form of suicide. Most of the time getting high doesn't kill you. Just like most of the time getting into a car doesn't kill you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
I like your ad hominem, sure I could be selfish and thinking about myself. And I guess I am a little - after all I am arguing for more freedoms and that directly benefits me. But thinking about myself? Aren't I arguing that other people should have more freedoms too? It doesn't work like that, either all of us have freedom or none of us have freedom. As far as someone killing themselves that's completely different, but to humour your question as long as it doesn't put me in any considerable danger I would help them. I think euthanasia should be an option and as long as somebody is in a stable state of mind they should have the choice to commit suicide. But that's entirely another topic.
I don't believe the situation you put forth happens. Just because a dealer has X doesn't make me want X any more if all I want Y. The problem is that it is fairly difficult to do any study on any illegal drugs. I believe people start with weed simply because it's the most available. Weed contributes the most to the revenue of the drug trade. Mexico's drug cartels make 60% of their money from marijuana. Going as far as calling people naive though I think is a little far, especially when you cannot prove 100% sure that marijuana is a gateway drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesehunk
*notices the .gov*Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
dont get all your information from all one source, especially when it is government regulated website, unless it is of course about government.
Hahaha, 'other sources', actually 'one source', that is manipulated by pharmaceutical companies, large industries, and government regulation. Not to mention the pressure of party affiliation and pressure from government agencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarter Child
There are dozens of sources that have conducted independent studies of cannabis - meaning they have no bias and are not manipulated. All disproving what your single source is advertising.