|---Marijuana vs. Alcohol---|

[Raziaar]

I for one have no problem with pot or alcohol. I actually think that both are safe when used in moderation . It also depends on the person. Some will be affected more than others. And some will abuse the substances. This is no joke, I live in kentucky and where I live in kentucky pot is everywhere. Most of the people down here either grow or smoke it. As for alcohol, almost everyone drinks. Sure there are some who abuse it but most are responsible enough to know when they have had enough. I will be 19 this year and I have been smoking cigarettes since i was 13, I been drinking since I was 7 (my grandpa gave me beer to drink when i was 4 for god sakes), I have been smoking pot since i was 8. I could care less what they do about legalizing pot, I have been around it my whole life and to be perfectly honest pot is nothing more than another type of tobacco for me anymore. I can quit cold turkey if I wanted to with no problems. Now the tobacco is another thing altogether it would take a few days to quit that. As for alcohol, I don't drink to heavy or often and have never really abused it. And can't really say I would have any problems quitting that. If you ask me I would say that tobacco is the biggest problem, followed by alcohol, and then marijuana.

Yikes, let me ask one question. Do you treasure your childhood, what with all those drugs and alcohol at such young ages?

 

[Dedalus]

i don't know why so many of you are against legalising certain drugs, when you have no intention of using them in the first place. do you think it's your place to make that decision (or form that opinion)? if it's legalised then it'll be for the people who use it. i think a lot of people need to stop yammering on about it's negative side. you don't use it! you hate it! so forget about it and carry on watching GMTV or whatever!

like someone has said many times before 'nothing is inherently evil, it's who uses it' or words to that effect. there will always be dumb kids who overdose or some such, it's a sad thing and we can only educate kids about drugs, instead of letting them buy it from razza behind the bike shed.

Bill Hicks is a god.

 

[Raziaar]

i don't know why so many of you are against legalising certain drugs, when you have no intention of using them in the first place. do you think it's your place to make that decision (or form that opinion)? if it's legalised then it'll be for the people who use it. i think a lot of people need to stop yammering on about it's negative side. you don't use it! you hate it! so forget about it and carry on watching GMTV or whatever!

This is a pretty ignorant view don't you think? To actually believe that the use of drugs affects only those people using it. Legallizing drugs won't just affect the people who love to smoke it, and the negative concequences don't just happen to the people who smoke it.

Heh, I fear the day when drugs like pot are legallized, thus more exposure happens to kids and adults, as more people get drawn into it and have their futures crushed as their desires to work and otherwise act as hardworking citizens becomes less of a priority to them as their pot or families.

All the people I know who have done pot as kids, regret it now, and their educations and lives have suffered from it. This may not bother you though, who knows.

 

[Dedalus]

This is a pretty ignorant view don't you think? To actually believe that the use of drugs affects only those people using it. Legallizing drugs won't just affect the people who love to smoke it, and the negative concequences don't just happen to the people who smoke it.

Heh, I fear the day when drugs like pot are legallized, thus more exposure happens to kids and adults, as more people get drawn into it and have their futures crushed as their desires to work and otherwise act as hardworking citizens becomes less of a priority to them as their pot or families.

All the people I know who have done pot as kids, regret it now, and their educations and lives have suffered from it. This may not bother you though, who knows.

the effects drugs have now, and the effects drugs would have if legalised have been shown to be negligable. there was a bbc study on it (feretting for the link). do you think a goverment would just say 'woo pot for everyone' and shut the door and forget about it? think for a second. you don't legalise something like that unless you have laws and proper bodies to govern those laws. don't just read my post and take it literally, it makes you look like you're lacking something in the cranial department.

i fear your second paragraph gives you away a little. drugs are widely available to everyone and anyone who wants to get it. it's not hard to find, so it's already exposed. what kind of argument is that 'if you legalise it, it'll be more exposed'. it's everywhere! deal with it! legalising it will have either one of two affects: 1. we'd turn into mass dope heads and 2. (more realistic) people who wanted to smoke pot would be able to do it freely and in the designated places, and proper laws and proper education would be available.

one thing, kids go out and do drugs because it's illegal. it's simple teenage mentality. don't assume the second pot is made legal that every teenager in the world will become unmotivated etc. some of you hate drugs like i said, and naturally some of you won't ever touch drugs. more power to you. but with laws and regulations etc, someone can be introduced to safe drugs at the right age.

feel free to nitpick for your pedantic pleasures, i care not.

 

[Raziaar]

i fear your second paragraph gives you away a little. drugs are widely available to everyone and anyone who wants to get it. it's not hard to find, so it's already exposed. what kind of argument is that 'if you legalise it, it'll be more exposed'. it's everywhere! deal with it! legalising it will have either one of two affects: 1. we'd turn into mass dope heads and 2. (more realistic) people who wanted to smoke pot would be able to do it freely and in the designated places, and proper laws and proper education would be available.

one thing, kids go out and do drugs because it's illegal. it's simple teenage mentality. don't assume the second pot is made legal that every teenager in the world will become unmotivated etc. some of you hate drugs like i said, and naturally some of you won't ever touch drugs. more power to you. but with laws and regulations etc, someone can be introduced to safe drugs at the right age.

feel free to nitpick for your pedantic pleasures, i care not.

Well if you're gonna say i'm lacking in the cranial department, how am I not going to respond? lol. I think you misunderstood what i'm talking about. Pot today is viewed as a taboo by our society. Legalization will lessen that effect of taboo and thus increase the availability and widespread use of the drug for minors, like cigarettes. It's kinda silly to believe that drug use is at its peak of 'exposure', don't you think? With legalization will likely come media avertisements for the proliferation and of said drugs, dont'cha think? We're nowhere near how bad it could be.

And you're right only in part about what you say. Some kids do things because they are illegal, but most kids do things because of peer pressure. Their peers telling them how 'cool and awesome' it is to smoke pot and do drugs. That's how most people start off getting addicted. quite a few years ago I had my first tastes of peer pressure with drugs, and thankfully I avoided that, I certainly wouldn't dream of a life funneling all my cash into drugs(games and other entertainment, like the slave I am thank you very much! )


I don't think the term 'safe drugs' can be applied anywhere on the market, whether it be for pot, alcohol, or over the counter storebought stuff.

 

[Dedalus]

Well if you're gonna say i'm lacking in the cranial department, how am I not going to respond? lol. I think you misunderstood what i'm talking about. (1)Pot today is viewed as a taboo by our society. (2)Legalization will lessen that effect of taboo and thus increase the availability and widespread use of the drug for minors, like cigarettes. (3)It's kinda silly to believe that drug use is at its peak of 'exposure', don't you think? (4)With legalization will likely come media avertisements for the proliferation and of said drugs, dont'cha think? We're nowhere near how bad it could be.

wtf?! you didn't read a single thing in my post! well forget it, it's all there in plain language, re-read it as i'm not going to retype it.

(1) Correct.

(2) a. for our generation and the next 2 or 3 generations, drugs will always be taboo, it's not that easy to just glibly 'remove' it.

b. how the fookin hell will the supposed removal of taboo make a substance more available to society at large?! a government wouldn't be so irresponsible to just make it so freely available. again, think.

(3) i take it from your statement that you haven't tried drugs. good for you. but this would also mean that you wouldn't know as much about it's availibilty or mindset of it's seekers. who knows, maybe you know the ins and outs of drug culture (and you're most likely to claim that in your reply).

but really, living in london, living as a student, surrounded by students and young adults, drugs are so easy to get hold of. everyone is exposed to it at some point in their lives. wouldn't you rather it be in a controlled and enlightening environment, as opposed to the peer pressure situation like you said? it's much like underage sex in a way, we can either let kids run off and learn it on their own, or we can sit them down and teach them how to do it properly and safely without causing harm to others. dig?

(4) the only way drugs would be advertised is if it's regulation was privatised (no fookin way that's ever going to happen). a government wouldn't risk privatising something as tetchy as a drugs industry. a government can properly subsidise the right schemes and methods to teach and to control, and to make sure the laws are being followed. the only media exposure i can see is through newspapers and news channels. they'll sensationalise anything (read: janet jackson's tit).

also, aren't there enough drugs on tv and in films? don't you think it's exposed enough? how many of you have played Vice City? a boatload of you. the whole thing is based on drugs (not so much the use of, but transporation and dealing of). there is no way you could shove drugs into the limelight anymore than it already is.

and i apologise for that cranium thingy statement

 

[Raziaar]

(2) a. for our generation and the next 2 or 3 generations, drugs will always be taboo, it's not that easy to just glibly 'remove' it.

b. how the fookin hell will the supposed removal of taboo make a substance more available to society at large?! a government wouldn't be so irresponsible to just make it so freely available. again, think.

What the HELL are you talking about? MAKING A DRUG LEGAL will have a TREMENDOUS effect of making it more available.

(3) i take it from your statement that you haven't tried drugs. good for you. but this would also mean that you wouldn't know as much about it's availibilty or mindset of it's seekers. who knows, maybe you know the ins and outs of drug culture (and you're most likely to claim that in your reply).

No, I haven't tried drugs. Most i've ever used is two puffs of a cigarette. I saw what it did to my mother and I didn't want that <chuckles> Just because one hasn't tried drugs, doesn't mean they don't know something. I'm not an expert by all means, and I don't know all the ins and outs, but I do know some things from what i've been exposed to, with friends who have used drugs, and reading up on them etc.

but really, living in london, living as a student, surrounded by students and young adults, drugs are so easy to get hold of. everyone is exposed to it at some point in their lives. wouldn't you rather it be in a controlled and enlightening environment, as opposed to the peer pressure situation like you said? it's much like underage sex in a way, we can either let kids run off and learn it on their own, or we can sit them down and teach them how to do it properly and safely without causing harm to others. dig?

Well, you live in the UK, I live in the US, there's no doubt big differences there. I don't know... something just seems inherently wrong about 'teaching' kids how to properly use drugs, even if it means they won't try it on their own. Its still getting them to use drugs. Drugs should be something taught about, as it is... but not how to use it. We don't sit our kids down and say, "Here son, here's the proper way to smoke a cigarette and drink beer". Some parents might, but that's pretty irresponsible. I'm still an advocate that drugs regardless of their future legality, still remain illegal for minors, just like it is with cigarettes and alchohol. I can't believe how anybody could be an advocate of letting 8-15 year olds smoke pot because its fun.

 

[tokin]

Marijuana: Not actually addictive, and the way it infects you interally and emotionally is all depending on your personality. People are different, I was a pothead for 2-3 years, smoked all the time. I'll be a senior now and smoke rarely. I personally dont have a problem with pot as long as you do privately, not effecting anyone else around you as in being in public or doing it out in public. Just like whoever said, the government will really **** your life up.

Alcohol: I dont care what type of personality you have, in time you will become a real ****ed up person emotionally and physically. It will take you in a whole other direction in life. Drinking occasionally with friends, not getting to wasted, having fun...is no big problem. If you ever start drinking alone or friends get on to you about it, you've started a huge problem.

Overall: Alcohol is wayyyy worse. As for marijuana i think it should probably be legalized for 21+....and for all the people in here saying how stupid and wrong and gay it is, i agree that they are "up-tight dorks"

 

[Dedalus]

What the HELL are you talking about? MAKING A DRUG LEGAL will have a TREMENDOUS effect of making it more available.

you've said that many times now, each time with no debate to back it up.

 

[Raziaar]

you've said that many times now, each time with no debate to back it up.

Oh really? well, I haven't heard anything good come from you either. Anyways, i'm done with this conversation.

 

[OCybrManO]

Yeah, I don't see how putting joints in gas stations and stores all over the country (like cigarettes and beer) will fail to make it much more accessible.

the only way drugs would be advertised is if it's regulation was privatised (no fookin way that's ever going to happen). a government wouldn't risk privatising something as tetchy as a drugs industry. a government can properly subsidise the right schemes and methods to teach and to control, and to make sure the laws are being followed.

You know they won't go through all that effort. If they legalize pot it would be like beer and cigarettes (BTW, alcohol and tobacco are drugs).

 

[Raziaar]

Heh, funny, just watching MAD TV. they having a sketch on violent and dumb potusers, featuring Rusty.

 

[Dedalus]

Yeah, I don't see how putting joints in gas stations and stores all over the country (like cigarettes and beer) will fail to make it much more accessible.


You know they won't go through all that effort. If they legalize pot it would be like beer and cigarettes (BTW, alcohol and tobacco are drugs).

who said anything about putting joints in petrol stations and the like? how much different is it to put it behind a shopkeeper's till, to how it is now? the availability is still there. you seem to be a bit out of touch about how available this stuff is. legalising it will move it from 'behind the scenes' to 'out in the open', or that's what extremists and spin doctors would have you believe. don't you think with the right laws, the substances would be almost completely unavailable to those who aren't allowed at this current time? naturally a 'black market' would develop, but can you really see people using dealers who will now be watched like hawks?

governments would have to go to all the effort of making the law for drugs foolproof. they'd be forced to do it to satisfy all these groups who are for and against it etc etc.

Raziaar, yes really, you keep repeating the same thing, doesn't mean it makes more sense the more you repeat it. i feel i've argued my points fairly well, you're welcome to oppose this if you like.

anyway, this thread is a triumph of the phrase "people with little knowledge are dangerous". so **** you. i'm gonna go beat up a granny and smoke some pot. ****ing wankers.

:|

/frustration

 

[Pogrom]

who said anything about putting joints in petrol stations and the like? how much different is it to put it behind a shopkeeper's till, to how it is now? the availability is still there. you seem to be a bit out of touch about how available this stuff is. legalising it will move it from 'behind the scenes' to 'out in the open', or that's what extremists and spin doctors would have you believe. don't you think with the right laws, the substances would be almost completely unavailable to those who aren't allowed at this current time? naturally a 'black market' would develop, but can you really see people using dealers who will now be watched like hawks?

Well, you are talking about giving pot the same status as alcohol or tobacco. That's why the parallel to petrol stations and the like.

You state that legalising pot will ensure that the people that shouldn't get it (in this case I'm assuming minors) will not be able to get it. But that there would still be a black market for kids to exploit.

What you fail to explain is how this new black market will be adequately policed, seeing as how the current black market is so poorly policed.

 

[AmishSlayer]

I just have to say a few things. When/If I become a father, when my kid gets to the age of 15-16...I'm gonna give him/her tips. I'm gonna teach them about drinking and how to know when you've had enough and effects and problems if you do have too much. I'm gonna basically tell them...if you're gonna drink, do it responsibly and know what you're doing...because I certainly won't make up some bullshit about how terrible it is for you and how you're going to die if you use it. I'm gonna tell them just to watch themselves and any trouble they get into is on them.

I think direct parent involvement would greatly reduce teen accidents/deaths from alcohol and such becuase I feel that if you're a responsible parent raising a responsible kid...there shouldn't be too big of a problem with getting hooked on drugs and making them the center of your life.

One more thing... it bugs me when people get all high and mighty saying, "I don't need drugs and alcohol to have fun" Yeah well guess what? I'd bet money that I'm having more fun than you and am living out events that make great stories.

 

[DarkStar]

If I were to have children I would definitely not drink nearly as much and I certainly wouldn't use drugs. But at this point in my life I really have no dependents except myself. So...bring on the booze!

 

[Letters]

One more thing... it bugs me when people get all high and mighty saying, "I don't need drugs and alcohol to have fun" Yeah well guess what? I'd bet money that I'm having more fun than you and am living out events that make great stories.

Yes, because stoner/drunk stories aren't some of the most annoying things a person can say.

 

[DarkStar]

Yes, because stoner/drunk stories aren't some of the most annoying things a person can say.

No, only a stoner/drunk trying to TELL a story is annoying.

A sober person recounting a drunk escapade can actually be quite funny. I've got a doozy of a story about one time in college when I escaped from the hospital after being picked up by the cops on campus for being drunk. I've had people in tears they were laughing so hard at that particular story

 

[Neutrino]

One more thing... it bugs me when people get all high and mighty saying, "I don't need drugs and alcohol to have fun" Yeah well guess what? I'd bet money that I'm having more fun than you and am living out events that make great stories.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Your basically saying that I'm being conceited if I say that I don't need to be intoxicated or high to have fun? Oh, I didn't know that. Apparently I'll have to go experiment with some drugs and alcohol to see what I've been missing all these years.

 

[blahblahblah]

One more thing... it bugs me when people get all high and mighty saying, "I don't need drugs and alcohol to have fun" Yeah well guess what? I'd bet money that I'm having more fun than you and am living out events that make great stories.

Ummm...having great fun and living out events that make great stories, too? I doubt it. Why is it that every drunk story I hear usually involves somebody throwing up? Or making themselves look like an idiot? Or requiring them to go to the hospital to get their stomach pumped?

Yes, some of those stories are funny to hear about, but if they are so great, why don't people behave like that when they are sober? I don't seem to remember friends acting like they are in the middle of Vietnam when they are sober. Or see my friend sleeping in the shower (with the water turned on) when he is sober. The fact of the matter is that drinking causes you to do stupid things you shouldn't do.

As for marijuana, I've heard numerous people say its not addictive and it doesn't cause any problems. But, I know too many people who are addicted to marijuana that can't stop smoking it if they wanted to. I can name names if you would like; I have seen to many lives go down the drain because they can't stop smoking pot. Why should we endorse something that can hurt somebody's life?

 

[The Mullinator]

I suggest before anyone continues with this argument that they become aquainted with this information.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/

new scientist is a very reputable science magazine and the articles contain a lot of useful information on the subject to help eliminate opinions based on bad science. I will admit that the first article is a little biased however it still brings up some very good points.

EDIT: Links to the various articles are on the right side of the page.

 

[CyberSh33p]

while I do neither and hopefully never will, I believe, however don't know much about it, that pot is milder, in the sense that it mellows you out. my dads a raging alcoholic asshole who should die, so yeah. go marijuana.

again, I'm a clean liver.

 

[pat_thetic]

Marijuana is mentally addicting, not physically. It is the same as ice cream, if you really like it your going to just keep eating it, and no one is going to stop you. It is a lot like physically addicting(cigarettes) but usually not as bad.

On another note, after seeing pot heads, and how they reacte to things, and there behavior in class, I would definately say it's worse. If you can't say that marijuana effects your motivation, well... you're wrong, because it does. The kids will come into class acting like total dumbasses, and annoy me to death. When the test rolls around, they just cheat off of other people papers... Seriously, I want to just kill them. What are they going to do in life? Will they really do anything that will help anyone? bah.. on to another topic.

Gateway drug. Yes, marijuana is a gateway drug. I don't see how these scientists are saying that it isnt by doing "tests". You cannot test this. I know SO many potheads that went on to other drugs, mostly because they took marijuana first. I know several kids that were addicted to COCAINE at age 13! I hate today's society... I also know a 14 year old man-whore. Yes, girls pay him to have sex with them. It's ****ing disgusting.

On to alcohal. Alcohal is bad, yes, but in moderation(like not getting totally wasted every weekend) isn't bad either. I realize that it does hurt your kidneys, but marijuana screws up your lungs and your brain... Just not as bad.

Ok, rant over... I'll post some more later, when I get the time.

 

[Doppelgofer]

in my humble opinoin, i think alcohol is fine if your reasonable in the amount you drink and responsible with it...cannabis on the other hand very often leads onto harder drugs so im against it

 

[Pitbul]

in my humble opinoin, i think alcohol is fine if your reasonable in the amount you drink and responsible with it...cannabis on the other hand very often leads onto harder drugs so im against it

no it doesn't, your going to do other drugs whether or not you smoke weed. what about the people who jump straight to cain or glass? i guess weed had an influence on that as well, considering that it HAS to be the first step since weed is the cause of 1000% of societies problems with drugs...or not you morons. people are going to choose to do drugs or not to do drugs whether or not they are legal. and seriously if you have never done weed or drank alchohol your opinion is invalid. simply because you have never experience it and have a flawed biased opinion.filled with propaganda commercial that wants you to believe weed or worse the tobacco, even tho Marijuana is grow pure while tobacco is grow, soaked, and washed in chemicals. also there has never been one Cancer related death that was soley cause by Marjiuana. every person who has gottin cancer who smoked weed also smoked Tobacco long before weed. i could go on and on proving people in this discussion wrong but the majority of this board isn't intellegent enough to take the time to do so. and are to stupid to see through propaganda anyways so that shows it would be a futile attempt.

 

[The Mullinator]

no it doesn't, your going to do other drugs whether or not you smoke weed. what about the people who jump straight to cain or glass? i guess weed had an influence on that as well, considering that it HAS to be the first step since weed is the cause of 1000% of societies problems with drugs...or not you morons. people are going to choose to do drugs or not to do drugs whether or not they are legal. and seriously if you have never done weed or drank alchohol your opinion is invalid. simply because you have never experience it and have a flawed biased opinion.filled with propaganda commercial that wants you to believe weed or worse the tobacco, even tho Marijuana is grow pure while tobacco is grow, soaked, and washed in chemicals. also there has never been one Cancer related death that was soley cause by Marjiuana. every person who has gottin cancer who smoked weed also smoked Tobacco long before weed. i could go on and on proving people in this discussion wrong but the majority of this board isn't intellegent enough to take the time to do so. and are to stupid to see through propaganda anyways so that shows it would be a futile attempt.

As much as I agree with your points I will say this. Intelligent people don't insult the intelligence of others, they realize that it is counter-productive. Don't insult people just because they disagree with you, it shows immaturity.

 

[PvtRyan]

I have a few friends who are stoners, and I know whats happened to them.. (this is quite recent, and I don't really want to talk about it)

But I'm afraid, there is no way Pot should be legal. I don't care what you say, smoking weed de-motivates you. It just does, even when you're not high. I'd like to point out that

OH NOES smoking ANYTHING puts you at a greatly increased risk of lung cancer. Whether you're smoking spliffs or splints, it's carcinagenic.

Neither drinking or smoking pot is 'cool' and to be honest, I think you're an idiot if you base your life around that. As some of the people here know, I'm a bit of a piss artist, but thats my decision, and I don't go out to get drunk, and I don't need to get drunk to have fun. I socialise etc, and alcohol is part of that.

Oh, and weed gives you paranoia. Alcohol ****s your body slowly too, but it's no where near as bad as smoking draw.

By your reasoning, alcohol should be banned because there are alcoholics, cars should be outlawed because there are people who drive too fast... etc etc

What you're describing is the pot equivalent of an alcoholic. That there are potheads doesn't mean all people who use it (on a regular basis/once in a while) are that way. That's like saying all people who use alcohol are
alcoholics.

By your reasoning, our streets are supposed to be filled with mindless paranoid zombies. Yet they're not, because most people can handle the responsibility of a drug. Either outlaw all drugs or none, cause it's hypocritical to ban pot and allow alcohol and tobacco.

Gateway drug. Yes, marijuana is a gateway drug. I don't see how these scientists are saying that it isnt by doing "tests". You cannot test this. I know SO many potheads that went on to other drugs, mostly because they took marijuana first. I know several kids that were addicted to COCAINE at age 13! I hate today's society... I also know a 14 year old man-whore. Yes, girls pay him to have sex with them. It's ****ing disgusting.

Ever wondered why? Maybe because they're already involved in the "criminal world". But anyway, I don't remember us having any more cocaine addicts, let alone youth addicts. You're link from child prostitution to pot is ridiculous. Tobacco, alcohol and even freaking coffee are just as "druggy" as pot, so why aren't their users all skinny heroine skanks?

As for the topic of increased usage among youth and stuff.... well survey shows that it's used by 12% of the british youth versus 7% of our youth.

 

[OCybrManO]

no it doesn't, your going to do other drugs whether or not you smoke weed. what about the people who jump straight to cain or glass? i guess weed had an influence on that as well, considering that it HAS to be the first step since weed is the cause of 1000% of societies problems with drugs...or not you morons. people are going to choose to do drugs or not to do drugs whether or not they are legal. and seriously if you have never done weed or drank alchohol your opinion is invalid. simply because you have never experience it and have a flawed biased opinion.filled with propaganda commercial that wants you to believe weed or worse the tobacco, even tho Marijuana is grow pure while tobacco is grow, soaked, and washed in chemicals. also there has never been one Cancer related death that was soley cause by Marjiuana. every person who has gottin cancer who smoked weed also smoked Tobacco long before weed. i could go on and on proving people in this discussion wrong but the majority of this board isn't intellegent enough to take the time to do so. and are to stupid to see through propaganda anyways so that shows it would be a futile attempt.

No one is going to listen to you if you are an asshole about it. When you piss off the readers they close their minds even more than before you started.

Since I am not arguing for either side in this thread and I prefer discussions that don't spiral into an insult competition, here are some tips to avoid that:
* Start by showing some comprehension of the opponent's POV to let them know you have an open mind. (ie: "I understand how one might argue that using marijuana until the body builds up enough of a tolerance to minimize its effect on the user could cause said marijuana user to seek newer, stronger drugs to be able to reach the same high, but . . .")
* Present your thoughts as clearly as possible to avoid any misunderstandings. You don't need to use "fancy" words to make your arguments sound more logical. In fact, it is better to use simple words if they fit your thought appropriately than to pad your writing.
* Backup all of your arguments with examples/statistics/studies (preferrably from reputable sources).
* After showing examples/stats/etc you should usually try to explain, without sounding condescending, how they relate to the topic at hand (again, to avoid misinterpretation).
* Avoid sarcasm and other forms of joking about the topic of discussion. I know it may be hard, but you should not make jokes during a serious argument. It can be construed as an attack on the reader's intelligence.
* Never insult your target audience. Name calling just asks for retaliation. Once this starts there will be no chance for an open exchance of views. Once you taint your reputation you might as well leave.
* Whenever possible, avoid referring to the audience as anything that sounds like they are a spearate entity such as "you people" or "they." You will not benefit from turning it into an "us versus them" argument.

 

[Warbie]

In moderation both are fine, as with most things in life.

Heavy use of either is bad news though, and this is where the problem with weed lies.

Most people I know smoke weed, and have been doing so for the passed 10-20 years. None of them smoke in moderation. It isn't really that type of drug, more like coffee or a replacement for cigarettes. These people aren't bums either, most have high paid jobs and good degrees.

What's disturbing is that an unproportinally high percentage of them have developed psychological problems (a few have been put away, others have to take medication daily, many have hostile mood swings) I don't for a second believe that the majority of these people would have these problems if it wasn't for weed. Of course some cases could be attributed to other drugs, hereditary reasons or because they started heavy use as a child (and loads of others I can't think of right now).

Of all the people I know who don't smoke weed, none have any of these difficulties.

The image of the chilled stoner, who hasn't the energy to get off the sofa, is a myth imo - and only relevant to people who smoke very little, or not often. (just like with booze, it doesn't take much to knock out a infrequent drinker). Unfortunately, in many areas (affluent and poor alike) heavy use is becoming the norm (I blame the media and various other clueless idiots who say cannabis is harmless. I've also yet to read a study on cannabis use that I think is representative of the majority of users)

At the risk of repeating myself - weed is bad because you can do it all the time, while still being able to function in normal life. Tolerances build up extremely fast and going to work/school etc isn't a problem. As a result, you can smoke heavily for years without knowing the damage you're doing to yourself. (This isn't the case with most drugs, including booze. You'll either learn to control them, give up, die or become a tramp/junky. With weed you can just smoke untill it's too late)

 

[willyd]

I am not going to argue on this issue since arguing would be pointless.
Personally I wish marijuana would be legalized.

But here is a good site:
http://drugwarfacts.org/

 

[Asus]

While you may not reach the same troubled peaks when used in moderation, you are still drinking or smoking and are affected.
If you are against drunks and the like then "in moderation" probably is your policy.
If you are against what the drug does to you then "in moderation" is crap.
By drinking or smoking you are still taking in the drug.

Drinking, not that long ago, was illegal in the US as well. The reason smoking cigs has been legal was because the intoxication is low and you don't see smokers having trouble walkind down the sidewalk. lol

I'm against it because believe that one should be in control of themselves. I don't believe in giving up control to a drug, even a little or for a short time. Things happen and lead to other things. Having self control is very important in life, along with respecting and taking care of your body. You loose control while being intoxicated.
No matter how little you take in or what other 'benifts' there are doesn't matter. btw Most of the problems to which the 'benifts' solve are caused by it's own existance and use.

 

[ComradeBadger]

By your reasoning, alcohol should be banned because there are alcoholics, cars should be outlawed because there are people who drive too fast... etc etc

What you're describing is the pot equivalent of an alcoholic. That there are potheads doesn't mean all people who use it (on a regular basis/once in a while) are that way. That's like saying all people who use alcohol are
alcoholics.

By your reasoning, our streets are supposed to be filled with mindless paranoid zombies. Yet they're not, because most people can handle the responsibility of a drug. Either outlaw all drugs or none, cause it's hypocritical to ban pot and allow alcohol and tobacco.

Indeed, I was a bit over the top, I just don't feel that it should be legal. I'm also pro a smoking ban.. carcingagens are not good.

 

[DarkStar]

Drug War = 1920's Prohibition

Both are equally as pointless and futile.

 

[umop]

If I read this thread I'll vomit, adios

 

[DarkStar]

If I read this thread I'll vomit, adios

Nicely done. I like.

 

[[Matt]]

I'm of the view that all forms of drugs should be legal as prohibition causes more problems than it solves. Read this

article and see if it sways your opinion...

1. Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer.

As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel states in Heroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988 --- estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent/property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint or measure of central tendency. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding blamed drugs for 1/5 of murders and rapes, 1/4 of car thefts, 2/5 of robberies and assaults and 1/2 of the nation's burglaries and thefts." The numbers are much greater today at the end of the century. History repeats itself and we are re-learning the devastation of 1920's Prohibition today. Drugs are products, like alcohol in the '20s, that people want and will ignore the authorities to obtain. Nothing will stop the desire for any product that people want.

The theoretical and statistical correlations between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.

The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." Statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged in direct relation to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine are not available. The obvious point is that black markets for any desirable illegal products cannot be stopped.

For heroin, the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World Report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a 500% markup.

The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

1. Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
2. At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
3. Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
4. The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.

Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. Drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known drugstore retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront? When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."

2. End prison overcrowding.

Prison overcrowding is a serious and persistent problem. Studies show that the prison environment has become increasingly violent and faceless which exacerbates an already dangerous and dehumanizing environment. Prison is intended to punish "real" criminals for their crimes, however, as you will see, the overcrowding is due mostly to drug offenders.

According to the 1988 Statistical Abstract of the United States, between 1979 and 1985 the number of people in federal and state prisons and local jails grew by 57.8 %, nine times faster than the general population. Governments at all levels keep building more prisons (spending our money), but the number of new prisoners keeps outpacing the capacity to hold them. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' 1985 Statistical Report, as of September 30, 1985, federal institutions held 35,959 prisoners --- 41% over the rated prison capacity of 25,638. State prisons were 114% of capacity in 1986.

Of 31,346 sentenced prisoners in federal institutions, drug law violators were the largest single category, 9487. A total of 4613 were in prison but not yet sentenced under various charges. Since 1985, the courts have released drug-related criminals to the street as quickly as possible to free prison space for real criminals. We get a vicious cycle of repeated drug offenses followed by release to alleviate overcrowding. Burglaries and theft would decrease by 50% if drugs were legalized because the price would decrease.

Legalizing drugs would immediately relieve the strain and burden on the prison system, since drug offenders would no longer be incarcerated. Also, since drug users would no longer commit violent/property crimes to pay artificially high prices for their habits, there would be fewer future drug-related criminals to incarcerate. Instead of building more prisons, we could pocket the savings and still be safer.

Removing the 9487 drug inmates would leave 26,472. Of those, 7200 were in for assault, burglary, larceny-theft, or robbery. If the proportion of such crimes that is related to drugs is 40 percent, without drug laws another 2900 persons would never have made it to federal prison. The inmates who remained would be left in a less cruel, degrading environment. If we repealed the drug laws, we could eventually bring the prison population down comfortably below the prison's rated capacity.

3. Drug legalization would free up police resources to fight non-drug related crimes against people and property.

The considerable police efforts now expended against drug activity and drug-related crime (1/3 to 1/2 of resources) could be redirected toward protecting innocent people from those who would still commit crime in the absence of drug laws. The police could protect us more effectively, since police could focus resources on catching rapists, murderers and the remaining perpetrators of crimes against people and property.

4. Unclog the court system.

If you are accused of a crime today, your Constitutional Right to an expeditious, fair trial is impeded by our clogged court system. Guilty or innocent, you must live with the anxiety of impending trial for a much longer period of time. The process is even more sluggish for civil proceedings.

There simply aren't enough judges to handle the skyrocketing caseload. Since drug legalization would significantly dimish crime by the eliminatation of drug and drug-related crimes, the legislation would remove tens of thousands of cases from the court dockets across the continent, enabling the remaining cases to move sooner and faster. Prosecutors would have more time to handle each case; judges could return to real law and render more thoughtful and realistic opinions.

Improved efficiency at the lower levels would have a ripple effect on higher courts. Better decisions in the lower courts would yield fewer grounds for appeals, reducing the caseloads of Appeals Courts; and in any event there would be fewer cases to review in the first place.

(cont)

 

[[Matt]]

6. Legalization would save tax money.

Efforts to interdict the drug traffic alone cost $6.2 billion in 1986, according to Wharton Econometrics of Bala Cynwyd, Pa. If we add the cost of trying and incarcerating users, traffickers, and those who commit crime to pay for their drugs, the tab runs well above $10 billion annually. Don't forget --- these are mid-1980 dollars. The cost has grown by a factor of 10 times or more in the 1990s. The crisis in inmate housing would disappear, saving taxpayers the expense of building more prisons in the future.

Savings would be redirected toward better police protection and speedier judicial service. Or savings could be refunded to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut. Or the federal portion of the costs could pay down the budget deficit, national debt, and Social Security/Medicare costs. Or use the savings to renovate old schools or build new schools where children could be taught not to use drugs. For a change, it's a happy problem to ponder. But it takes legalization to make it possible.

7. Legalized drugs would cripple organized crime.

The Mafia (heroin), Jamaican gangs (crack), and the Medellin Cartel (cocaine) stand to lose billions in drug profits from legalization. On a per-capita basis, members of organized crime, particularly at the top, stand to lose the most from legalizing the drug trade.

The underworld became big business in the United States when alcohol was prohibited. Few others would risk setting up the illegal distribution networks, bribing officials or killing a policeman or competitor once in a while. When alcohol was re-legalized, reputable manufacturers resumed production. The risk and the high profits disappeared from the alcohol trade. Even if organized crime wanted to keep control over alcohol, the gangsters could not have targeted every manufacturer and every beer store. Customers preferred good alcohol over rot-gut and poison. The profits from illegal alcohol were minuscule compared to the dollars generated from today's illegal drugs. These dollars are the underworld's last great source of illegal income--dwarfing anything to be made from gambling, prostitution and any other vice.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate this huge income source from under organized crime. Smugglers and pushers would have to go legitimate or go out of business. There simply wouldn't be enough other criminal endeavors to employ them all. Drug users would buy from reputable manufacturers at a much lower price. A user's habit could be supported with honest work because high drug prices would be eliminated. Drugs that kill and blind people would disappear. Users of legal drugs would have the right to their day in court, if a drug manufacturer is negligent. No such rights exist today.

If we are concerned about the influence of organized crime on government, industry and our own personal safety, we could strike no single more damaging blow against today's gangsters than to legalize drugs.

8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection issue.

Because "controlled substances" are illegal, the drug trade today lacks many of the consumer safety features common to other markets: instruction sheets, warning labels, product quality control, manufacturer accountability. Forcing products underground makes those products, including drugs, more dangerous than if the products were manufactured by reputable firms.

Nobody denies that currently illegal drugs can be dangerous. But so can aspirin, countless other over-the-counter drugs and common household items; yet the proven hazards of matches, modeling glue and lawn mowers are not used as reasons to make them all illegal.

Practically anything can kill if used in certain ways. Like heroin, salt can make you sick or dead if you take enough of it. The point is to learn what the threshold is, and to keep below it. That many things can kill is not a reason to prohibit them all--it is a reason to learn how to handle these products and provide the desired safety instructions. The same goes for drugs. Today, there are instructions for the use of virtually every product, and recourse through the courts for damages caused by any product including drugs.

Today's drug consumer literally doesn't know what he's buying. The stuff is so valuable that sellers have an incentive to "cut" (dilute) the product with foreign substances that look like the real thing. Most street heroin is only 3 to 6 percent pure; street cocaine, 10 to 15 percent. Since purity varies greatly, consumers can never be really sure how much to take to produce the desired effects. If one is accustomed to 3 percent heroin and takes a 5 percent dose, suddenly you've nearly doubled your intake. Reputable drug manufacturers offering drugs on the open market are driven by different incentives than pushers. They rely on name-brand recognition to build market share, and on customer loyalty to maintain it. There would be a powerful incentive to provide a product of uniform quality: killing customers or losing them to competitors is not a proven way to success. Today, dealers can make so much from a single sale that there is no incentive to cultivate a clientele. In fact, police make it imperative to make the sale fast and move on --- hell with the customers.

Pushers don't provide labels or instructions, let alone mailing addresses. The illegal nature of the business makes such things unnecessary or dangerous to the enterprise. After legalization, pharmaceutical companies could safely try to win each other's customers, and guard against liability suits with better information and more reliable products.

Even pure heroin on the open market would be safer than today's impure drugs. As long as customers know what they're getting and what it does, they can adjust their dosages to obtain the intended effect safely. INFORMATION is the best protection against the potential hazards of drugs or any other product. Legalizing drugs would promote consumer health and safety.

9. Legalization would slow the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

As D.R. Blackmon notes ("Moral Deaths," June 1988), drug prohibition has helped propagate AIDS among intravenous drug users.

Because intravenous drug users inject heroin and other narcotics with hypodermic needles, access to needles is restricted. The shortage of needles causes users to share needles. If one IV user has infected blood and some enters the needle as it is pulled out, the next user may shoot the infectious agent directly into his own bloodstream.

Before the AIDS epidemic, this process was already known to spread other diseases, principally hepatitis B. Legalizing drugs would eliminate the motivation to restrict the sale of hypodermic needles. With needles cheap and freely available, the drug users would have little need to share them and risk acquiring someone else's virus.

Despite the pain and mess involved, injection became popular because, as The Washington Times put it, "that's the way to get the biggest, longest high for the money." Inexpensive, legal heroin, on the other hand, would enable customers to get the same effect (using a greater amount) from more hygienic methods such as smoking or swallowing--cutting further into the use of needles and further slowing the spread of AIDS.

10. Legalization would halt the erosion of other civil liberties.

Hundreds of government agencies and corporations have used the alleged cost of illegal drugs as an excuse to test their employees for drug usage. Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Walker (he was defeated) embarked on a crusade to withhold federal money from any company or government agency that didn't guarantee a "drug-free workplace". This is a Don Quixote crusade.

The federal government has pressured foreign countries to grant access to bank records so it can check for "laundered" drug money. Because drug dealers handle lots of cash, domestic banks are now required to report cash deposits over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for evidence of illicit profit.

The drugs and drug profits that led to the abrogation of civil liberties would disappear with drug legalization. Before drugs became big business, investors could put their money in secure banks abroad without fear of harassment. Mom and pop stores could deposit their cash receipts undaunted that they may appear like criminals.

Nobody tests urine for levels of sugar or caffeine as a requirement for employment or grounds for dismissal. However, if caffeine were declared illegal it would certainly become a lot riskier to use, and hence a possible target for testing "for the sake of our employees". Legalizing today's illegal drugs, which weren't illegal before 1913, would make them safer and deflate the drive to test for drug use.

 

[[Matt]]

11. Legalization would stabilize foreign countries and make them safer for residents and travelers.

The connection between drug traffickers and guerrilla groups is fairly well documented (see "One More Reason," August 1987). South American revolutionaries have developed a symbiotic relationship with coca growers and smugglers: the guerrillas protect the growers and smugglers in exchange for cash to finance their subversive activities. In Peru, competing guerrilla groups, the Shining Path and the Tupac Amaru, fight for the lucrative right to represent coca farmers and drug traffickers.

Traffickers themselves are well prepared to defend their crops against intruding government forces. A Peruvian military helicopter was destroyed with bazooka fire in March, 1987, and 23 police officers were killed. The following June, drug dealers attacked a camp of national guardsmen in Venezuela, killing 13.

In Colombia, scores of police officers, more than 20 judges, two newspaper editors, the attorney general and the justice minister have been killed in that country's war against cocaine traffickers. Two supreme court justices, including the court president, have resigned following death threats. The Palace of Justice was sacked in 1985 as guerrillas destroyed the records of dozens of drug dealers.

"This looks like Beirut," said the mayor of Medellin, Colombia, after a bomb ripped apart a city block where the reputed head of the Medellin Cartel lives. It "is a warning of where the madness of the violence that afflicts us can bring us."

Legalizing the international drug trade would effect organized crime and subversion abroad much as it would in the United States. A major source for guerrilla funding would disappear. So would the motive for kidnapping or assassinating officials and private individuals. As in the United States, ordinary Colombians and Peruvians once again could walk the streets and travel the roads without fear of drug-related violence. Countries would no longer be paralyzed by smugglers.

12. Legalization would repair U.S. relations with other countries and curtail anti-American sentiment around the world.

1. When Honduran authorities spirited away alleged drug lord Juan Matta Ballesteros and had him extradited to the United States in April, Hondurans rioted in the streets and demonstrated for days at the U.S. embassy in Tegucigulpa.

The action violated Honduras's constitution, which prohibits extradition. Regardless of what Matta may have done, many Hondurans viewed the episode as a flagrant violation of their little country's laws, just to satisfy the wishes of the Colossus of the North.
2. When the U.S. government, in July 1986, sent Army troops and helicopters to raid cocaine factories in Bolivia, Bolivians were outraged. The constitution "has been trampled," said the president of Bolivia's House of Representatives. The country's constitution requires congressional approval for any foreign military presence.
3. One thousand coca growers marched through the capital, La Paz, chanting "Death to the United States" and "Up with Coca" last May in protest over a U.S.-sponsored bill to prohibit most coca production. In late June, 5000 angry farmers overran a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration jungle base, demanding the 40 American soldiers and drug agents leave immediately.

U.S. pressure on foreign governments to fight their domestic drug industries has clearly reinforced the image of America as an imperialist bully, blithely indifferent to the concerns of other peoples. To Bolivian coca farmers, the U.S. government is not a beacon of freedom, but a threat to their livelihoods. To many Hondurans it seems that their government will ignore its own constitution on request from Uncle Sam. Leftists exploit such episodes to fan nationalistic sentiment to promote their agendas.

Legalizing the drug trade would remove some of the reasons to hate America and deprive local politicians of the chance to exploit their citizens. The U.S. would have a new opportunity to repair its reputation in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I believe and our Constitution specifies that the federal government must provide for the common defense. I believe the US should vigorously and overwhelmingly defend itself overseas for any and all military infractions against the US, but this drug war cannot be won. People will do what they want to do whether they live in the US or the USSR.

 

[Raziaar]

According to all that, legalize drug and all our problems go away?

It'll introduce a PLETHORA of new problems. but, i'm not discussing this anymore, you don't even see me, i'm not here and I do not exist.

 

[Razor]

Marijuana, now matter how many people think it is harmless, can still cause a lot of problems with memory loss, it can still cause cancer, it is a major cause of dementia and mental problems. It is bad for you and yes, it is addictive as well.