Legalisation of Cannabis

[B.Calhoun]

LOL! LOL! LOL!
You have to keep in mind when someone buys drugs they are buying them from friends, not some street corner in the hood as you see in movies.

Not where i live. I see drug dealers pretty often on street corners.

Its probally really different if you live somewhere like alabama...

 

[burner69]

Not where i live. I see drug dealers pretty often on street corners.

Its probally really different if you live somewhere like alabama...

One of the primary reasons why it needs to be legalised. If it were, people would have no need to buy them from such people - you could go into a cafe, or perhaps some shops, and purchase safer, better quality cannabis.

That's really bad about dealers on street corners btw, hope the police do something about it.

 

[chimpmunk]

It should be like in canada, you won't get arrested for using it or having a small quantity on you, but you will get arrested for selling it.

 

[burner69]

It should be like in canada, you won't get arrested for using it or having a small quantity on you, but you will get arrested for selling it.

Don't you think that if the government sold it, it would be of better quality, it would remove the dealers, therefore removing many people from jails who are there for only selling weed.

Although it seems Cananda is like the UK, it's a step in the right direction not arresting people for just having a little weed - especially as... well I odn't want to go into the whole good/bad effects of weed - my big post above, and in various other threads argues this point.

 

[Absinthe]

At the very LEAST, it should be decriminalized. I don't see how giving somebody a jail sentence for pot possession is helping anybody.

It's sad because these people are only guilty of smoking a relatively harmless herb. You can't honestly call them criminals. But shove an innocent man into prison for a few years and I guarantee that a criminal will walk out.

 

[burner69]

Drugs often create criminals. But only with the help of the system.

Without the system it just creates a bunch of normal people, who enjoy getting high once in a while (although some people over do it and ruin the reputation of the rest of us).

 

[Neutrino]

When you get high you DO see things from a different perspective, it's hard to explain but some things make a lot more sense when you're mashed - and I can't explain them here because, cheesey as it sounds, I'm not mashed at all and so can't describe it, and I'm not sure if there are words to describe it.

I apologize as I don't have the time at the moment to respond to everything you said. But I just wanted to hit on this one point.

As you stated it's all a matter of opinion. This is why I say that I see no logical argument as to why the mind state of a person under the influence is better than the mind state of a person not under the influence.

However, your statement about perspective is slightly different as you say in in a non-subjective way. How do you know for sure whether or not you are seeing things from a different perspective? If you cannot describe it how do you know it is true? Even if I were to admit that it provided a different perspective, if it cannot used unless you are actually under the influence of the drug then what good does it do you? How does it help your life in general? Also, is this perspective actually better? There are all sorts of different perspectives one can look at things with. What makes the perspective of being high better than another perspective.

One way to perhaps prove this is appreciation of art. It ges up tremendously when high. Put on some music and you really get into it, you'll get the goosebumps more often, and just generally be smiling and happy because of how nice the music suddenly seems to be.

But is that happiness good? Is it better than the happiness one feels without being high? I contend that it is a happiness that is seperated from reality, which I do not think is a good thing. It is that it is due to a drug which is altering the way your brain is functioning.

However, like you say it is all subjective. But, unless I see scientific evidence that says that being high actually improves your thinking or in some other way directly benefits you, I see no logical reason to use something that as far as I know could be having a detrimental affect on me as well. Basically, in the abscense of any evidence of a postive effect there is no reason to undergo the risk that there is a negative effect.

Bottom line is that I prefer to rely on my own mind to examine and judge things rather than rely on a chemical that may or may not be interfering with my ability to accurately perceive reality. There are already enough things interfering with that preception such as my emotions in general. I do not see a reason to add yet another layer of possible interference.

 

[Death.Trap]

You see things from a better perspective? What the hell are you smoking? (pun intended)

I got high for this first time in about 2 years a couple of weeks ago. Smoke about 4 bowls of hydro(the best there is around here) myself. I remember about 5 minutes of it. Maybe if you get mildly high, but not ****ed up like I was. Anyways, it was fun as hell. They should legalize it.

 

[MadHatter]

Note: I posted this in both the general discussion and political threads. I wasn't sure which thread was the 'hot spot' at the time. So this post mentions greater drugs than marijuana.


Okay. I said before I'd make a more constructed post after I gave this subject some more thought. I've come to a few conclusions. They are as follows:


Since marijuana isn't the most lethal and potent of drugs, perhaps it should be legalized / tolerated because the effects aren't terribly bad as opposed to other drugs. But, if it were to be legaized or tolerated, it should be heavily regulated and controlled like alcohol. I'm just going to use the term 'legaized' for legalization or tolerated, they both pretty much bear the same ideas.


My stance on other forms of drugs and narcotics remains the same: I strongly disagree with the legalization of other more potent and harmful drugs such as cocaine, heroin, e-pills, etc. My feeling is the effects of other more potent and lethal drugs are too great and pose too much of a threat to society. One can argue that if they were legalized with a sturdy system to maintain and help control substance usage would work well. I disagree. Alcohol already has many systems and laws tied to it and alcohol is responsible for many problems. Legalizing a broad amount of drugs, other than lesser drugs such as marijuana, would be multiplying the problems caused by alcohol by whatever number, x; the the problems can be auto accidents, negligence, abuse, overdose, anything's possible. Some people become alcoholics and it is tolerated because alcohol is legal. Last thing we need are people addicted to cocaine with a system that encourages and supports it (by encouraging and supporting, I mean there are would be no restrictions on amounts of usage and the fact that it's legal; sort of like alcohol).

I think the brainwashing debate is entirely a matter of opinion.

Yeah, the brainwashing subject / debate is utter nonesense. Since when has someone been brainwashed for having an opinion or simply disagreeing with another opinion? (Not asking you directly.)

I hate to say it, but the idea that marijuana improves peoples' thinking methods doesn't sound right. Alters the thought proccess? Yes. Improves? I seriously doubt it. How do I know and what am I basing this on? I was a stoner in my high school years. When I adopted weed into my life, my grades and attendance plummeted; I arrived to class half-conscience of my environment and had an extremely difficult time remembering and retaining content from class. It also greatly provoked my apathetic nature and lead me to procrastinate to a greater extent. So, I guess a valid argument would be: Marijuana does not improve, but rather alters the thought proccess, or it is simply not meant for everyone and affects other people in a variety of ways. I remember one of my high school friends was very mellow and calm while high and another friend was always giddy and vigorous with the attention span of a gnat.

This, of course, does not mean it shouldn't be legal or tolerated; only regulated and controlled with high attention the same way alcohol is. Alcohol has similar effects to what I previously stated, so I don't see why not.

Regarding the uglier and more lethal drugs -- no way should they be legalized. Sure, you can say, "Put them under regulation and schtuff and let things work from there; everything and everyone would benefit". But so what? Alcohol is potent and dangerous enough and look how much trouble it causes. Sad thing is, people cannot be trusted and dependable -- thus the dilemmas surrounding alcohol. Sure, you can slap on many regulations and laws on conaine, heroin, etc., but that doesn't mean everything will work smoothly and vast positive results would return. Do you encourage the dilemmas which these drugs would bring, or do you try preventing the dilemmas? I choose prevention. Alcohol and weed are enough.

 

[MadHatter]

I apologize as I don't have the time at the moment to respond to everything you said. But I just wanted to hit on this one point.

As you stated it's all a matter of opinion. This is why I say that I see no logical argument as to why the mind state of a person under the influence is better than the mind state of a person not under the influence.

However, your statement about perspective is slightly different as you say in in a non-subjective way. How do you know for sure whether or not you are seeing things from a different perspective? If you cannot describe it how do you know it is true? Even if I were to admit that it provided a different perspective, if it cannot used unless you are actually under the influence of the drug then what good does it do you? How does it help your life in general? Also, is this perspective actually better? There are all sorts of different perspectives one can look at things with. What makes the perspective of being high better than another perspective.



But is that happiness good? Is it better than the happiness one feels without being high? I contend that it is a happiness that is seperated from reality, which I do not think is a good thing. It is that it is due to a drug which is altering the way your brain is functioning.

However, like you say it is all subjective. But, unless I see scientific evidence that says that being high actually improves your thinking or in some other way directly benefits you, I see no logical reason to use something that as far as I know could be having a detrimental affect on me as well. Basically, in the abscense of any evidence of a postive effect there is no reason to undergo the risk that there is a negative effect.

Bottom line is that I prefer to rely on my own mind to examine and judge things rather than rely on a chemical that may or may not be interfering with my ability to accurately perceive reality. There are already enough things interfering with that preception such as my emotions in general. I do not see a reason to add yet another layer of possible interference.

I agree with Neutrino. Why do you need something to make you feel better or happier -- especially a mind affecting substance. Yeah, I occasionally smoke cigarettes and drink, but I'm not doing them to make my day, uplift my depression or change my feelings and emotions. A sense of happiness created from a substance is almost like lying to your mind and yourself. You'll feel better while under the influence, but when that influence is gone, you're left feeling just as you did before and in some cases, yearning for more of that 'feeling'. I rather find happiness and satisfaction from my own achievements, tangible reasons and people in my life.

 

[burner69]

I find the argument of "if you're happy when you're stoned, how do you know you're happy?" a strange one. Happiness is an emotion, I am happier when stoned - providing I'm not doing it for an extended period of days. I FEEL happy, doesn't matter if perhaps I shouldn't feel SO happy, that if I was straight head I wouldn't feel as happy - the fact is I am.
Of course it doesn't last forever, what emotions do? I got given a tenner back that some one owed me today, my happiness increased as it happened, but I'm still not feeling the same way now.

Granted that if I needed to be high to be happy I should worry. I don't. I still go about my day, do my work, and socialise fine. Don't give me any of that crap "how do you know if you weren't smoking weed you'd feel happier." I know, I'm really happy at uni at the moment, I've recently made some cool new friends, got things goin on with girls - I'm still happy when I'm straight head.
Also often things I do when straight head to make me happy relate to something thought about when stoned; when mashed one night I might come to the conclusion that going to watch a theatre production might be good. If I hadn't been high I wouldn't have thought that, and perhaps just spent the evening on hl.2.net (I ejoy it reeeally

I'm also not saying that if I don't smoke dope I don't get motivation the next day; I haven't been stoned now for 2 weeks and have been doing as many activities as when I was smoking a number of times a week.
Being stoned for me lasts the amount of time the cannabis is effecting my system; usually 3-4 hours.

And on the persepctive thing; as said, is opinion. But if I have experienced being stoned, and experienced (of course) being straight head, and still choose to enjoy getting high - despite it being effectively illegal, and could get me thrown out of university, I still do it. Those of you who have not been stoned (I'm not suggesting you do) cannot judge whether one state of mind is better or more enjoyable than another.

And yes, it's enjoyable. But no one should do it a lot. When you were a kid just because you had a favourite toy that made you happy, didn't mean you JUST played with that toy. If you smoked weed all the time it would get boring.

Again ^^ all opinion

 

[burner69]

Just out of ineterst. Why do you drink then?
If you don't do it to make you a little happier why drink something that is harmful to you?

Almost makes smoking weed make more sense really dosen't it? - it makes you happier whereas alcohol evidently does not.

As mentioned somewhere before; "alcohol removes my social inhibitions". That person obviously enjoys their social inhibitions being removed, by drink. Therefore = drink makes them happier. And I'm sure that person dosen't drink all the time, despite it improving their happiness.

 

[burner69]

Now: Regardless over whether you want to smoke cannabis or not - we all don't enjoy reading, dancing, computers game, there is no reason at all why we shouldn't all smoke - regardless of that, can anybody say they have read through this thread, looked at the links provided and read the information, and can say they think it should remain illegal.
If so give me one point, backed up with empirical evidence, that beats the argument for so strongly as to warrent it remaining illegal.
If you can I'll be one hat short.

 

[Ennui]

Shit, I'll eat his hat too if you all come up with a good reason.

 

[Reaktor4]

How? You talk about scientific evidence, well what scientific evidence is there that we're all victims of brainwashing? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking you were brainwashed? Just curious.

Its beyond me how you dont see it but ok, ill give you some examples:
If you read the tabloids (sun, mirror etc) and even some broadsheets or watch the news you will find anti some drug nonsense without too much effort. Sometimes this is just random bs, a specific example would be 'dr' miriam stoppard of the daily mirror saying on her page that smoking cannabis makes you infertile. Now not only is this untrue (it can lower sperm count slightly but they remain within normal levels), but its dangerous and irresponsible because it can make people think that it can be used as a contraceptive. More examples would be leah betts and her supposed death from 1 mdma tablet despite her actually overdosing on water, or the supposed heroin overdose of that other girl rachel whitear, when there was not enough in her body to have killed her (most likely the death was due to contaminants). Both were reported on the news and papers as drug deaths, and pictures and videos of rachels body were shown to school children. Another is the 'mdma study' by george ricaurte that was later retracted because they used methamphetamine in huge dosages, not mdma and claimed their bottles had the wrong labels on them. The rave act in america was passed because of this bullshit. Then theres things like the john hopkins brain scans which have been discredited. There are still people believing mdma puts holes in your brain. Every time a story like this is reported more damage is done because they make the front pages and everyone hears about them, in contrast practically nobody hears about retractions or discreditings.
The american government are particularly bad. The targeting of kids pisses me off no end. For the past hundred odd years theyve been promoting crap from reefer madness 1 and the ludicrous anti some drug movies/poster campaigns, harry anslinger, gabriel nahas and his rhesus monkeys, reefer madness 2 to more recent things like dare/just say no and the continued advertising of crap campaigns. On sites like wwe.com or gamespy.com and other places kids go on the internet, you can find advertisments for freevibe.com etc and also on american television. The advert with some girl showing an egg and saying "this is your brain", then smashing it with a frying pan and saying "this is your brain on heroin", and then going crazy and smashing up the whole kitchen is just ****ing laughable.
Not to mention the stupid rumours and urban legends, about lsd in particular, not a single one of which (that ive heard anyway) has been proven to have actually happened.
But of course all of this works, unfortunately. People, especially kids who dont know any better believe it.

I do not consider an purely emotional response to be a logical benefit. I can feel good without them, so why is the feeling of "good" they give you better than a feeling of "good" without them?

Of course you can feel good without them. 'Makes you feel good' probably isnt the best way to put it. How about 'makes you feel better than you already do'.
With your attitude to this id be surprised if you told me that you dont live on bread, water and vitamin pills. Why eat food that tastes nice, after all?

First of all, I obviously cannot affect this, so whether I like it or not is pretty irrelavant. Second, one can easily argue that those chemicals are part of the makeup of you mind. The mind isn't just a collection of neurons. Many chemical transmitters play an important role in many of the brains functions. Therefore, an externally applied chemical is different than one that is already internally present.

That question wasnt an entirely serious one btw, but anyway you can and do affect it. Eat something nice, excercise, do something you enjoy, take certain drugs. Of course external chemicals are different, but these arent always the direct cause of the feeling users experience. What about drugs that release serotonin for example? Do you take drugs when you have a medical problem?

Some most definitely do. Try taking a timed physics exam while stoned or drunk and then see how that score compares to your score when you are sober and alert.

Notice the word necessarily. Ok ill try that.

How do you know it is positive? Can you prove it? Is there scientific evidence to show that it one's thinking when stoned is better or positively influenced over thinking while not stoned? What perspective exactly can you look at things while stoned that you cannot see while not stoned? If there is no such proof how do you really know the experience was in fact positive or better? And if it is unknown then what logical reason is there to value one thinking process over the other? If you do not have a logical reason to value one more than the other what reason is there to subject yourself to the drugs, which do have identifiable and provable negative affects on you, such as poor hand eye coordination, motor control, and reflexes?

Firstly i havent personally had any of those problems. This can be easily tested when playing games like cs stoned and i do that quite often. I cant say it makes me a worse player, sometimes i own the whole server, sometimes i get owned by the whole server, just like when im sober.
Looks like my edit wasnt quick enough btw. Its not like your normal thought processes get replaced under the influence of cannabis. The only way i can prove to you what im talking about is if you try it for yourself, which probably isnt gonna happen, so it looks like there is no way to prove it. If you dont believe me, and others, fine. We enjoy donating our money to dealers for nothing in return, and wasting our time taking substances that do nothing but bad things to us.

Don't worry I won't. Also, remember that I'm not necessarily saying I think I should be able to stop you from using them if you want to, even if I disagree with their use. I don't think people should eat large quantities of junk food either, but I can't stop them.

Well ok but you seemed to be getting quite defensive.

 

[Reaktor4]

Since marijuana isn't the most lethal and potent of drugs, perhaps it should be legalized / tolerated because the effects aren't terribly bad as opposed to other drugs. But, if it were to be legaized or tolerated, it should be heavily regulated and controlled like alcohol. I'm just going to use the term 'legaized' for legalization or tolerated, they both pretty much bear the same ideas.


My stance on other forms of drugs and narcotics remains the same: I strongly disagree with the legalization of other more potent and harmful drugs such as cocaine, heroin, e-pills, etc. My feeling is the effects of other more potent and lethal drugs are too great and pose too much of a threat to society. One can argue that if they were legalized with a sturdy system to maintain and help control substance usage would work well. I disagree. Alcohol already has many systems and laws tied to it and alcohol is responsible for many problems. Legalizing a broad amount of drugs, other than lesser drugs such as marijuana, would be multiplying the problems caused by alcohol by whatever number, x; the the problems can be auto accidents, negligence, abuse, overdose, anything's possible. Some people become alcoholics and it is tolerated because alcohol is legal. Last thing we need are people addicted to cocaine with a system that encourages and supports it (by encouraging and supporting, I mean there are would be no restrictions on amounts of usage and the fact that it's legal; sort of like alcohol).

Youre missing the point. its not so important that cannabis is legalised because the illegality of it doesnt cause users and society as much problems as the illegality of other drugs does. If it was up to me heroin would be the first thing made legal.
Htf are clean drugs, administered as they are in hospitals, which users know the exact potency of (elimitating accidental overdoses, deaths from contamination and problems from not knowing how to inject properly) more lethal than contaminated drugs?

Regarding the uglier and more lethal drugs -- no way should they be legalized. Sure, you can say, "Put them under regulation and schtuff and let things work from there; everything and everyone would benefit". But so what? Alcohol is potent and dangerous enough and look how much trouble it causes. Sad thing is, people cannot be trusted and dependable -- thus the dilemmas surrounding alcohol. Sure, you can slap on many regulations and laws on conaine, heroin, etc., but that doesn't mean everything will work smoothly and vast positive results would return. Do you encourage the dilemmas which these drugs would bring, or do you try preventing the dilemmas? I choose prevention. Alcohol and weed are enough.

Are you saying that prohibition is working?
Again... http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,656700,00.html
And alcohol causes so many problems because that is the nature of the drug. Plain and simple. However it would cause more problems if it was illegal and sold with all sorts of shit in it.

 

[MadHatter]

Just out of ineterst. Why do you drink then?
If you don't do it to make you a little happier why drink something that is harmful to you?

Almost makes smoking weed make more sense really dosen't it? - it makes you happier whereas alcohol evidently does not.

As mentioned somewhere before; "alcohol removes my social inhibitions". That person obviously enjoys their social inhibitions being removed, by drink. Therefore = drink makes them happier. And I'm sure that person dosen't drink all the time, despite it improving their happiness.

If you drinking moderately, it's suprisingly healthy. I drink occasionally. I never said I was a heavy drinker.

I drunk to put myself in a drowsy sleep, to sometimes loosen up when I go out and sometimes I drink just to drunk to make an otherwise boring moment with some people interesting.

I monitor my consumption and I know I'm not doing anything nearly as detrimental to my health that a drug such as ecstacy, cocaine or heroin would do. Alcohol and marijuana are the moderate substances to me. I just don't use marijuana anymore and I hate it. Anything above those two is getting extreme and dangerous. If you control and monitor your alcohol intake, you can do just fine. :bounce:

 

[Neutrino]

Just out of ineterst. Why do you drink then?
If you don't do it to make you a little happier why drink something that is harmful to you?

Almost makes smoking weed make more sense really dosen't it? - it makes you happier whereas alcohol evidently does not.

As mentioned somewhere before; "alcohol removes my social inhibitions". That person obviously enjoys their social inhibitions being removed, by drink. Therefore = drink makes them happier. And I'm sure that person dosen't drink all the time, despite it improving their happiness.

That was probably referring to someone else, but for myself, I don't drink.

Though there are proven benefits to a moderate amount of alcohol.

 

[Reaktor4]

I monitor my consumption and I know I'm not doing anything nearly as detrimental to my health that a drug such as ecstacy, cocaine or heroin would do. Alcohol and marijuana are the moderate substances to me.

Thats because you dont know what youre talking about.

 

[MadHatter]

Thats because you dont know what youre talking about.

Oh, and you do? Speak for me why don't you.


It's funny. The majority of people I know who use drugs are pro-legalization and the majority who don't use drugs are against it.

By the way, mind your language in your posts. Younger people scan and read these forums.

 

[Reaktor4]

Oh, and you do?

Yes. I have put a lot of time over many years learning about this very subject.

It's funny. The majority of people I know who use drugs are pro-legalization and the majority who don't use drugs are against it.

That is funny. The very people suffering the detrimental effects and evils brought on by drugs want them legalised.

 

[MadHatter]

Yes. I have put a lot of time over many years learning about this very subject.

That is funny. The very people suffering the detrimental effects and evils brought on by drugs want them legalised.

Other than the evil part, thank you, you agree with me.

 

[Reaktor4]

Other than the evil part, thank you, you agree with me.

If theyre so bad then why are the people suffering this 'badness' wanting them legal?

 

[Phisionary]

In the words of Curly: "Soitenly!"

I fully support legalization of cannabis. With a few reservations, I support the same for many or most other drugs.

A very interesting page, possibly the most complete and inclusive summary of the effects, uses, and history of marijuana, here: Wikipedia, on Cannabis.
Wonderful information.

Incedentally, interest in legalization was my first real interest in political topics at all. ...Even at a time somewhat before I would have been able to legally use it even if it were legalized (with exception of a rejected Canadian proposal to make it legal to everyone over the age of sixteen).

 

[Neutrino]

If theyre so bad then why are the people suffering this 'badness' wanting them legal?

Let me think....

Why would someone who uses potentially addictive drugs which make them happy want them legal? Nope, I can't think of a reason.

 

[Reaktor4]

Let me think....

Why would someone who uses potentially addictive drugs which make them happy want them legal? Nope, I can't think of a reason.

Didnt you say it doesnt make you happy?
No answer for post #96?
Madhatter no answer to #97?

 

[Neutrino]

Didnt you say it doesnt make you happy?

No, I did not say that. I said why is the feeling of happiness it gives you better than the feeling of happiness you can get without it? I said I do not think it is a happiness connected with reality, thus why I don't like it.

No answer for post #96?

I'm getting to it. Hold your horses there.

 

[Phisionary]

Why would someone who uses potentially addictive drugs which make them happy want them legal? Nope, I can't think of a reason.

I can. These people may be fully in control of their substance use (as much as is possible), and want to minimise whatever negative effects that come to them from it. Such as: having to associate with criminal elements like drug dealers, some of whom really are bad guys.
Also, some dealers do not have the best interests of their users in mind, and may sell low quality drugs, or pass off a drug as something it isn't. The uncontrolled amateur production, and lack of labelling of 'illegal' drugs mean that their potency can rarely be known to any reliable and safe standard.
Perhaps the would prefer not to endanger their family, their job, their educational possibilities, and /or years of their life to the excessive and unreasonablre laws that exist regarding marijuana and the many narcotic substances out there.

There's just a couple reasons...
It's late and I can't think for lack of sleep, so don't expect too much from my arguments.

Edit: PS :cheers: to reactor4 for some good arguments. :thumbs:

 

[Neutrino]

I can. These people may be fully in control of their substance use (as much as is possible), and want to minimise whatever negative effects that come to them from it. Such as: having to associate with criminal elements like drug dealers, some of whom really are bad guys.
Also, some dealers do not have the best interests of their users in mind, and may sell low quality drugs, or pass off a drug as something it isn't. The uncontrolled amateur production, and lack of labelling of 'illegal' drugs mean that their potency can rarely be known to any reliable and safe standard.
Perhaps the would prefer not to endanger their family, their job, their educational possibilities, and /or years of their life to the excessive and unreasonablre laws that exist regarding marijuana and the many narcotic substances out there.

There's just a couple reasons...
It's late and I can't think for lack of sleep, so don't expect too much from my arguments.

Sarcasm.

 

[burner69]

Let me think....

Why would someone who uses potentially addictive drugs which make them happy want them legal? Nope, I can't think of a reason.

It's one of the more reasonable suggestions (not implying you haven't been giving reasonable ones - just that the majority dont).
However many things are addictive and fun: Computer games. Drink. Sex. Watching films. Reading books.
All, if done a lot, have negative side effects.
Weed is no different. Bare in mind that you can't say "just because other things are bad doesn't mean it's okay to throw weed in too" because, as aforementioned, and you can check government stats either on this thread or through yahoo, the number of users decreases when it's legalised = less people with these bad effects.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Phisionary]

Sarcasm.

Thank you, I did realise

You seemed to insinuate that the only reasons that a drug user would be interested in the legalization of their chosen drugs would be a self-interest in the continuation of their use and availability. I was meaning to highlight that there are many resonable arguments, once you pass the point of assuming all users are 'addicts' just looking for a 'fix'.

 

[Neutrino]

It's one of the more reasonable suggestions (not implying you haven't been giving reasonable ones - just that the majority dont).
However many things are addictive and fun: Computer games. Drink. Sex. Watching films. Reading books.
All, if done a lot, have negative side effects.
Weed is no different. Bare in mind that you can't say "just because other things are bad doesn't mean it's okay to throw weed in too" because, as aforementioned, and you can check government stats either on this thread or through yahoo, the number of users decreases when it's legalised = less people with these bad effects.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't there.

Just remember that I'm really not arguing either side of the legalization issue here. Kind of fun actually, not being on a specifc side.

But about what you said, there is a difference between an addictive drug and an addictive action. I do agree that both can be addictive. However, the addiction to something like nicotine is a physical addiction while the addiction to computer games or the like is a mental addiction.

For example if you stop drinking coffee suddenly it often leads to headaches. If you stop smoking cold turkey you can have physical withdrawl symptoms. This is different than the affects of a mental addiction.

Thank you, I did realise

Ok, sorry about that.

You seemed to insinuate that the only reasons that a drug user would be interested in the legalization of their chosen drugs would be a self-interest in the continuation of their use and availability. I was meaning to highlight that there are many resonable arguments, once you pass the point of assuming all users are 'addicts' just looking for a 'fix'.

I didn't mean to say it was the only reason, just that it is an obvious one.

 

[Phisionary]

But about what you said, there is a difference between an addictive drug and an addictive action. I do agree that both can be addictive. However, the addiction to something like nicotine is a physical addiction while the addiction to computer games or the like is a mental addiction.

A valuable clarification. I quite purposefully avoid physically addictive substances (though I have tried low potency opiates on occasion). Physical addition to a potentially harmful drug is a scary idea in my mind.

 

[Reaktor4]

For example if you stop drinking coffee suddenly it often leads to headaches. If you stop smoking cold turkey you can have physical withdrawl symptoms. This is different than the affects of a mental addiction.

I must point out that psychological withdrawals can be as bad as or worse than physical withdrawals.

I didn't mean to say it was the only reason, just that it is an obvious one.

It doesnt wash though. What about people who use non addictive/habit forming drugs?

 

[burner69]

Yeah, I'm currently mentally addicted to fags. I've been smoking for a year. I get no withdrawl symptoms if I stop smoking.
I have been regularly smoking weed for around 18months and can go for several weeks without any mental/ physical side effects. I start again because I see no reason not to, not because I 'need' to.

 

[Reaktor4]

I'm getting to it. Hold your horses there.

In your own time.

 

[B.Calhoun]

One of the primary reasons why it needs to be legalised. If it were, people would have no need to buy them from such people - you could go into a cafe, or perhaps some shops, and purchase safer, better quality cannabis.

That's really bad about dealers on street corners btw, hope the police do something about it.

Yeah, and Ive seen the cops arrest two of them awhile ago but not that often.

 

[Reaktor4]

No answer for post #96?
Madhatter no answer to #97?

Guess i win then :thumbs:

 

[Foxtrot]

I voted yes, but there should be huge fines for anyone who smokes it in a public place or is high in a public place. Jail time would be great too.

 

[Reaktor4]

I voted yes, but there should be huge fines for anyone who smokes it in a public place or is high in a public place. Jail time would be great too.

Any logical reason behind what you just said?