The Marijuana CONPIRACY!

[Tyguy]

The Marijuana CONSPIRACY!

To start off, I realize there have been threads regarding the legalization softer drugs but I feel this is a very interesting topic, so here goes.


I was reading Erowid like many of you frequent, and while being stuck at work with not a ton to do, I found myself reading the Marijuana FAQ section, which provides a lot of information regarding the history of marijuana and the events which transpired making it illegal. Heres the Main Article for those of you who have time to read it.

Basically, it is saying the reason for marijuana becoming illegal is due to a sequence of racially motivated events. For example,

" Opium, a very addictive drug (but relatively harmless by today's standards) was once widely used by the Chinese. The reasons for this are a whole other story, but suffice to say that when Chinese started to immigrate to the United States, they brought opium with them. Chinese workers used opium to induce a trance-like state which helped make boring, repetitive tasks more interesting. It also numbs the mind to pain and exhaustion. By using opium, the Chinese were able to pull very long hours in the sweat shops of the Industrial Revolution. During this period of time, there was no such thing as fair wages, and the only way a worker could make a living was to produce as much as humanly possible. Since they were such good workers, the Chinese held a lot of jobs in the highly competitive industrial work-place. Even before the Great Depression, when millions of jobs disappeared overnight, the White Americans began to resent this, and Chinese became hated among the White working class. Even more than today, White Americans had a very big political advantage over the Chinese -- they spoke English and had a few relatives in the government, so it was easy for them to come up with a plan to force Chinese immigrants to leave the country (or at least keep them from inviting all their relatives to come and live in America.) This plan depended on stirring up racist feelings, and one of the easiest things to focus these feelings on was the foreign and mysterious practice of using opium."

How do you feel about the legalization of soft drugs like marijuana and harder stuff as in cocaine and Meth etc, and how do you feel about our governments agenda in making marijuana illegal?

 

[brink's]

I watched a documentary on the history network a few months ago that revealed that the illegalization of most drugs was racially motivated. It's ridiculous imo.

As long as people like to have fun and as long as drugs are highly profitable you will continue to lose the war on drugs. So why not throw in the towel? The DEA spends billions of dollars a year trying to stop drug rafficing with little to no success, I don't know why they just don't legalize everything and spend a fraction of it on EDUCATION and rehab.

 

[Tyguy]

The thing that aggravates me is the fact that marijuana is so safe when compared to alcohol and many over the counter medications, yet its labeled "bad"

 

[JNightshade]

Well, of course it is. I mean, it's used by lots of mexicans and blacks, so it must be evil

But seriously, that's really what it comes down to. Most excuses for the prohibition we're experiencing are absolutely absurd. I mean, in eighth grade my DARE teacher actually had the nerve to tell us that weed was severely addictive, and commonly cut with rat poison :|

 

[Tyguy]

We all know DARE was an extremely successful program too

The fact that dare is still around is laughable

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

I have a grower's guide from the '70's that was very confident it would be legal in "just a few years". Sigh. Maybe after all the old haters die off.

BTW, mj con piracy? Is that anything like chilli con queso?

 

[Tyguy]

I have a grower's guide from the '70's that was very confident it would be legal in "just a few years". Sigh. Maybe after all the old haters die off.

BTW, mj con piracy? Is that anything like chilli con queso?

Its more like tostitos and salsa...the American shitty stuff

Fixed

 

[PvtRyan]

What never ceases to amaze me is that while marijuana is illegal, alcohol is legal. It's mind boggling. I've never heard of a dad who comes home stoned and then beats his wife and kids. Alcohol is a terrible drug, it's not even fun (drunk people are terribly annoying, not fun).

 

[No Limit]

I watched a documentary on the history network a few months ago that revealed that the illegalization of most drugs was racially motivated. It's ridiculous imo.

As long as people like to have fun and as long as drugs are highly profitable you will continue to lose the war on drugs. So why not throw in the towel? The DEA spends billions of dollars a year trying to stop drug rafficing with little to no success, I don't know why they just don't legalize everything and spend a fraction of it on EDUCATION and rehab.

That's exactly it. Drugs are bad, there is no secret about it. But as long as people are addicted to drugs locking them up isn't going to make it better for them, it is going to make it worse. Prisons in this country are filled with drugs, in most cases once a person is sent to prison on drug charges they have a better access to those drugs inside those prison walls than they do on the outside.

All that money needs to be spent on education and rehab, not on destroying families because a person in that family made a stupid decision at some point in their life and got addicted to a drug.

Is all this racially motivated? Of course it is.

For cocaine, the white man's drug, the penalites are fairly minor. For crack, the black man's drug, the penalites are severe, some offenders do more time for possesion of crack than others did for murder. This point is just insane when you understand that crack and cocaine are the exact same drug, one is simply cheaper than the other.

But that's our justice system in a nutshell, its been like that for as long as this country has been around.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I do my best coding when drunk

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Tyguy]

No matter what, it all comes down to money and politics...plain and simple

 

[ríomhaire]

I cannot think of a good reason why marijuana should be illegal and alcohol legal.

 

[JNightshade]

I cannot think of a good reason why marijuana should be illegal and alcohol legal.

The negroes :hmph:

 

[Ennui]

Shh, I'm gone, but you all know I can't resist a cannabis thread.

A paper I wrote for my independent study on drugs earlier this year (definitely one of the worst papers I've ever written, and obviously slanted, but still a lot of information in there):

On August 2nd, 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act, heavily pushed by Harry Anslinger, the first “Drug Czar”, was approved by Congress and passed into law, effectively criminalizing the possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of cannabis in the United States. Samuel R. Caldwell was the first person to be arrested for the illegal sale of marijuana on the very day that act was passed. He was sentenced to four years of incarceration in Leavenworth Penitentiary, a high-security prison in Kansas, for his possession with intent to distribute of two joints of cannabis. During the sentencing, the judge commented, “I consider marijuana the worst of all narcotics, far worse than the use of morphine or cocaine. Under its influence men become beasts. Marijuana destroys life itself.”

This was the federal stance on marijuana when prohibition was first established in the late 1930s, the hearings – generally overly long, drawn out processes that take months or years – taking place over a span of two one-hour sessions in two consecutive mornings. Anslinger’s testimony on behalf of the federal government in support of the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act (the primary aim of which was to criminalize marijuana, not tax it) was “marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.” Doctor and lawyer William Woodward, who was the chief counsel for the American Medical Association at the time and testifying on its behalf, stated “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.”

He was immediately responded to by a pair of Congressmen, the first of whom said “Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?” followed immediately by the second Congressman chiming in: “Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you.” It is self-evident from these responses and the atmosphere of propaganda and deliberate gross exaggeration and misinformation surrounding cannabis that prohibition was first enacted as part of a political and economic agenda, not based on fact in any sense of the word.

And yet it persists. Today, marijuana prohibition is the result of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. Schedule I is reserved for the most dangerous and potentially harmful drugs known to man, including heroin. To put it in perspective, cocaine, widely acknowledged as one of the most dangerous recreational drugs on the planet, is Schedule II, a milder classification (though still very illegal to use recreationally), along with morphine, amphetamines (speed), PCP, and methamphetamine, all of which are more dangerous than cannabis regardless of context. The Marihuana Tax Act was repealed in 1969 as the result of the Supreme Court ruling on Leary v. the United States of America, which designated the Act as unconstitutional due to it violating the 5th Amendment.

Modern support for the continuance of prohibition is based off of a number of potentially harmful factors that supporters associate with the decriminalization or legalization of cannabis. Their first argumentative point is the widely-known Gateway Drug theory, which holds that people who smoke marijuana are far more predisposed to try harder drugs such as cocaine or heroin, due to biochemical changes in the brain effected by marijuana use. They also hold that the legalization of marijuana would result in a significant increase in marijuana use among American citizens.

Most of the rest of the argument opposing cannabis legalization is derived from the government’s official stance on the mental and physical health risks of use of the drug. They hold that there are no medical benefits from cannabis that are significant enough to override the potential dangers of use, saying that cannabis can cause damage to the body, citing that cannabis smoke has more tar than tobacco and also contains a number of carcinogens. They also refer to addiction, pregnancy complications, negative mental effects such as disruption of memory, and increased susceptibility to developing mental disorders like schizophrenia as probable or possible dangers of marijuana use.

Each of these reasons is flawed to some degree. The Gateway Drug theory has only one factual, nonbiased foundation, a 2006 study that gave half of a group of lab rats injections of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannibinol, the primary active chemical in cannabis, and then allowed them to self-administer heroin. The rats that had been injected with THC used 1.5 times more heroin than those who hadn’t been, demonstrating that at least in rats there is a small physiological basis for the theory. It is also pertinent to note that two legal inebriants, alcohol and nicotine, were both mentioned in the study as other likely gateway drugs. However, even if this effect is also true in humans, it still requires exposure to the harder drugs first. This is where the primary flaws of the Gateway Drug theory become apparent – the effect itself is almost entirely a result of prohibition. Because marijuana is illegal, the people who choose to use it are forced to purchase it through illegal underground channels and are therefore exposed to the drug underworld, where use and glorification of extremely dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine is rampant, and those drugs are also available to the user. This effect is amplified by the government misinformation and propaganda campaign against marijuana, because the people, upon their realization that marijuana is not quite as diabolical or harmful as it is made out to be in public education and government-sponsored media, are more likely to assume that the government was lying or exaggerating about other drugs as well, when in reality those drugs may deserve their negative stigma. Thus, the Gateway Drug theory is an artifact of prohibition, and would not likely be a problem in the event of legalization, as supported by a very recent study in December 2006 by the American Psychiatric Association that concluded that “the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug, but instead by the user's individual tendencies and environmental circumstances.”

Another of the primary reasons given in support of prohibition, the belief that decriminalization of cannabis would lead to a significant increase in use among the American population, has been refuted multiple times. There have been many studies with results that show evidence to the contrary. A report from the official Connecticut Law Revision Commission in 1997 found that the increases in marijuana use in those states that had to some degree decriminalized possession of cannabis was lower than any increases in states for which harsher penalties existed. An article in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2001 called “Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes” drew the conclusion that “the available evidence indicates that depenalisation [sic] of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence.”

The mental dangers of cannabis are also relatively negligible, particularly when compared with the implied gravity of the danger referred to in government support of the subject. There appears to be a relationship between marijuana usage in young adults who are genetically predisposed to developing mental illness and risk of developing symptoms of psychosis, but no causality between the two is established, and the relationship is subject to many confounding environmental factors that make it extremely unclear whether cannabis is responsible for the increased risk, or if the increased risk merely causes someone to be more likely to smoke cannabis. The latter stance, that people more susceptible to developing psychosis are more likely to smoke marijuana, is supported by evidence that symptoms of schizophrenia are more severe when levels of an endogenous cannabinoid called anandamide are lower; thus, seeking and using marijuana may be a natural form of self-medication for individuals prone to developing symptoms of psychosis. Furthermore, an Australian study on the relationships between cannabis and psychosis suggests that cannabis does not cause psychosis, because of the fact that despite steadily increasing levels in marijuana use in recent history, there does not appear to be a likewise increasing level in prevalence of mental illness.

Aside from the possible risk of psychosis in certain individuals, anti-legalization advocates often espouse the dangers of cannabis to memory and mental functioning, as well as effects on behavior and motivation. Cannabis certainly affects chemistry of the brain for the duration of the drug inebriation, as the cannabinoids bind to cannabinoid receptors in various parts of the brain. However, the only impairment seems to be in motor functions (a very slight but noticeable impairment) and in short-term memory formation and attention span. All negative effects appear to cease after the drug is metabolized, and these functions return to normal after that, with no permanent negative effects. In the realm of behavioral changes, the only evidence that marijuana use has a negative impact is from poorly-designed studies by organizations like Monitoring the Future, whose study is not credible because it only samples people who have been arrested for drug offenses and thus does not remotely represent the entire marijuana-using population. Numerous more well-designed studies show evidence to the contrary, concluding that people who smoke cannabis are no less productive or successful economically, academically, or socially than those who do not.

Physical harm from cannabis is another complex issue. While cannabis smoke has been analyzed and shown to contain tar and carcinogens like tobacco smoke, it appears to be far less harmful for a number of reasons. First, marijuana smoke does not appear to cause lung cancer, and may even have therapeutic effect. A landmark 2006 study at the University of California at Los Angeles by Donald Tashkin supports this. “We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said, but "what we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.” Furthermore, cannabis smoke affects the respiratory tract differently than does tobacco smoke, because it does not penetrate the smaller passageways of the lungs, only the larger ones, and thus there appears to be no risk of emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Also, as evidenced by a study from the Research Triangle Institute, THC dilates the bronchi and may help clean the lungs, protecting against tumors.

A number of alternative methods to ingest marijuana and still get the psychoactive effects also exist, such as cooking it into food, filtering the smoke through water, or using a vaporizer which activates the THC without combusting the plant material. All of these have been shown to reduce harmful agents, particularly vaporization or cooking. A recent NORML/MAPS study (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies) stated in a press release that “The analysis showed that the Volcano? vapor was remarkably clean, consisting 95% of THC with traces of cannabinol (CBN), another cannabinoid. The remaining 5% consisted of small amounts of three other components: one suspected cannabinoid relative, one suspected PAH, and caryophyllene, a fragrant oil in cannabis and other plants. In contrast over 111 different components appeared in the gas of the combusted smoke, including a half dozen known PAHs. Non-cannabinoids accounted for as much as 88% of the total gas content of the smoke.” In essence, use of a vaporizer removes the vast majority of toxic gases and particulate matter, and leaves 95% THC (as opposed to 12% in normal marijuana smoke), which has not been shown to be neurotoxic or hazardous in any way.

Beyond mere rebuttals of popular anti-drug opinions and propaganda, we find a number of compelling reasons for marijuana legalization or decriminalization, which can be organized into three primary categories: personal use, industrial use, and medicinal use. The mere fact that a single species of plant has this many uses and can be used in a relatively safe manner speaks for itself about the legalization issue.

Personal use encompasses people who use it for any reason non-medical and non-industrial. This can be primarily for recreation – relaxation, enhancement of senses, increased appreciation, and mild euphoria – or for spiritual reasons, like the Ethiopian Zionist Coptic Church or the Rastafari. In addition to organized religions such as these that promote the use of marijuana as sacrament (similar to magic mushrooms, ayahuasca, and peyote used by other organized, sanctioned religions), a large portion of the tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana regularly consider their use to be spiritual to some degree. There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral, or harmful about either recreational or spiritual use, as long as it is used responsibly and in moderation, guidelines that the majority of mature cannabis users willingly embrace.

Some people are not aware that hemp and marijuana are the same plant – the waxy fibers of the hemp plant are useful for a thousand things, from making clothes and rope to the paper that the Constitution was written on. Anti-hemp lobbyists in the 1920s and 1930s are considered by many people to be largely responsible for the criminalization of marijuana in the first place, because the versatility, usefulness, and availability of the hemp plant posed significant dangers to their respective industries. Hemp is merely another name for a variety of cannabis. Industrial-grade cannabis is not adequate for smoking, because it has not been bred for high levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol like medicinal or recreational plants have been. It generally can only be used for industrial reasons, but was still outlawed with marijuana. Now, a select few farmers have been approved to grow small plots of hemp, but it is still illegal in most places due to fear that it could be used to disguise commercial marijuana grow operations. Hemp grows extremely fast, as cannabis is actually a weed, and does not require much attention or labor to tend to. It was the most important cash crop in the country earlier in our history, grown at Washington’s home at Mount Vernon. It simply defies logical reasoning to make it illegal. An interesting note to close with is that marijuana is currently the #1 cash crop in the entire country, despite its legal status.

 

[Ennui]

Too long:

The single most compelling reason for cannabis legalization is for medicinal reasons, emphasized by both public opinion and the primary focuses of many anti-prohibition organizations. Cannabis’s classification as a Schedule I drug mandates that it has “no currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States”. While nine US states have passed laws in the past decade allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal reasons when recommended by a doctor, it is still illegal at a federal level, and even if the state or city law enforcement will not prosecute medical marijuana users, federal law enforcement still does. Thus, the laws are more symbolic than anything else. However, there appears to be little dispute against the fact that there are acceptable medical uses for the drug. Federal organizations such as the NIDA hedge around the subject, stating as evidence the drug’s classification as Schedule I: “under U.S. law since 1970, marijuana has been a Schedule I controlled substance. This means that the drug, at least in its smoked form, has no commonly accepted medical use.” They also make a larger point than is necessary about the possible health risks of smoking: “whole marijuana contains hundreds of chemicals, some of which are clearly harmful to health.” While this is true, they seem to ignore the fact that using vaporizers or cooking the marijuana can provide the medicinal or therapeutic benefits without the possible health hazards.

The actual medical uses of cannabis are myriad. A study recommending the medicinal use of cannabis in California referred to more than 250 conditions for which cannabis could be beneficial. It works as an antiemetic (reducing the nausea that can result from AIDS and cancer), an appetite stimulant (also benefiting AIDS and cancer patients who often have no appetite), an antispasmotic effective in preventing spasms (to the aid of epileptics and people suffering from multiple sclerosis), and an analgesic (helping people suffering from arthritis, migranes, and spinal or skeletal disorders). Furthermore, it can aid glaucoma patients, asthma patients (due to its aforementioned action of dilating the bronchi in the lungs), and people with mood disorders, from clinical depression and bipolar disorder to OCD and post-traumatic stress disorder. NORML.org also lists fibromyalgia, hypertension, Tourette’s syndrome, Alzheimer’s, and hepatitis as conditions for whose symptoms marijuana can help alleviate or slow the progression of. Hundreds of international, national, and state medical organizations support the research and eventual legalization of medicinal use of cannabis, notably the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the British Medical Journal, among others.

Despite all of this, and despite the hypocrisy inherent in the unregulated status of alcohol and tobacco, which have both been shown conclusively to be far more dangerous and harmful both in the long and short term than marijuana (the former killing half a million Americans every year, compared to approximately zero killed by marijuana despite wide prevalence of use), cannabis remains illegal, and the government obstinately refuses to budge from its position, prohibiting and resisting even reasonable discussion or research on the issue. Three major past attempts to reschedule marijuana have failed – the 1970s NORML petition, a 1995 petition by Jon Gettman and High Times magazine, and a 2002 petition by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis – but every new study cracks the shell a tiny bit more, and every time someone learns the true facts about marijuana, a new supporter is created. The government has no right to restrict access to cannabis from anyone, but particularly not from those who need it or benefit from it.

Morally, logically, and empirically, there can be no reasonable argument, with our current legal system and population, against the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. It is an imperative that the American people must, and eventually will, act upon.

 

[Ravioli]

I think that hash should be legal, it is in the netherlands and its a very successfull country!

 

[Solaris]

The majority of drugs should be legal.

You have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body when there is not a direct risk of death or serious injury presented to myself.

 

[No Limit]

The majority of drugs should be legal.

You have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body when there is not a direct risk of death or serious injury presented to myself.

That really depends.

Many drugs will make you so addicted you will try to harm me to get those drugs. I think heroin, cocaine, and a few others definitely should be illegal. People do not hurt other people to get marijuana, so legalize it!

 

[Tyguy]

Ya, I dont think "hard" drugs should be legal....at least not to retards like human beings...

 

[Stigmata]

That really depends.

Many drugs will make you so addicted you will try to harm me to get those drugs. I think heroin, cocaine, and a few others definitely should be illegal. People do not hurt other people to get marijuana, so legalize it!

Not entirely true, but it is the difference between "give me the weed I paid for or I'm going to beat you up" and "I will literally murder you because I need that heroin to function".

 

[No Limit]

Not entirely true, but it is the difference between "give me the weed I paid for or I'm going to beat you up" and "I will literally murder you because I need that heroin to function".

I'm not too sure I understand your point.

If you are talking about somebody getting ripped off that's a different story.

My point was about innocent people getting stuck in the middle of it. This never happens with marijuana but it happens all the time for the hard drugs I mentioned as like you said addicts need them to function. So if they don't have the money for those drugs they will find a way to get that money even if they have to take it from me or you.

But to calrify my point above eventhough I believe those hard drugs should not be legalized I don't think people arrested for possesion of them should be sent to prison.

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

I think all substances should be legal. There are probably a lot more "responsible" heroin, cocaine, etc. users than you may think. If you act like an asshole, yeah, prosecute that. If you search for help / get out of control, the $40,000 a year or whatever it is to cage someone with a medical problem would buy quite a bit of treatment, or better preventive education for others...

 

[Tyguy]

i just used some...my way of sticking it to the man

 

[Ennui]

If a government exists, it's irresponsible for them to legalize things like heroin or cocaine, purely because there is an obligation there to protect their citizens... both of those (and several other very addictive substances) are the sorts of things that are beyond any sort of acceptable allowance for freedom when it comes to the fact that they're extremely dangerous and far more powerful than the willpower of the vast majority of those who would choose to use them.

Bear in mind that I am an anarchist and believe that there should be no government, so ideally they'd be legal anyway (I couldn't give less of a shit if people destroy their lives through addictions like that).

In the current situation, marijuana should be made legal for recreational use and drugs like LSD, psilocybin, DMT, and ketamine should be made legal for spiritual purposes (with allowances for those who choose to use them recreationally as well).

Also, I agree with No Limit - possession [for personal use] of these substances is not something that people should be incarcerated for... that's just the entirely wrong way to go about it.

 

[No Limit]

I think all substances should be legal. There are probably a lot more "responsible" heroin, cocaine, etc. users than you may think.

In the case of heroin I will flat out say there isn't a single responsible user of that drug what so ever. This drug is way too addictive for anyone to have control over it, period.

With cocaine there might be a few, but it is only a matter of time before those people start using it irresponsibly. Addiction is a complicated issue, a lot of people think they have a grip on the drug when in reality the drug has a grip on them. They will tell you they can quit any time they want, but ask them to and all they will do is get angry at you.

In many cases the same goes for marijuana, people think they aren't addicted until they try to quit. But in this case when marijuana has them by the balls their addiction doesn't get to the point where they will steal of get violant to get the drug, this is why I think there is no harm in legalizing marijuana yet there is a big danger in legalizing harder drugs where the addiction is much more controlling.

If you act like an asshole, yeah, prosecute that. If you search for help / get out of control, the $40,000 a year or whatever it is to cage someone with a medical problem would buy quite a bit of treatment, or better preventive education for others...

I simply don't understand how we lock these people up in our country. It is by far one of the biggest evils of our local society yet nobody with any power seems to want to even mention this issue. Its a real shame and a lot of innocent people are paying the price for it. And it has nothing to do with republican or democrat, I was pleasantly suprised that on a far right republican message board many people shared this view when it was brought up. So why this issue isn't on the agenda is beyond me.

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

If a government exists, it's irresponsible for them to legalize things like heroin or cocaine, purely because there is an obligation there to protect their citizens...

With respect, I don't see how you can claim this while professing to be an anarchist (as I identify, except for that damn human nature thing). Where does that end? Who decides? What manner shall we use to address that problem? You and No Limit seem to agree that incarceration is the wrong response to posession, so where does the illegality come in?

In the current situation, marijuana should be made legal for recreational use and drugs like LSD, psilocybin, DMT, and ketamine should be made legal for spiritual purposes (with allowances for those who choose to use them recreationally as well).

Well said, couldn't agree more with that! I would add mescaline, as well (well, I'd add everything, but I'll take what I can get). Psychedelics could be such a great teacher and catylyst for humanity.

In the case of heroin I will flat out say there isn't a single responsible user of that drug what so ever. This drug is way too addictive for anyone to have control over it, period.

I've seen those who can control it, and watched a good friend almost get his arm amputated from it. Luckily I never went down that path. But what should your average po-liceman do when he finds it on somebody?

 

[TCfromBN]

Any drugs that can cause harm to your body shouldn't be legal.

Marajuana, since it has been known to not be directly harmful to your health (except for the fact that you are inhaling smoke), should be legal.

In fact, THC has been known to make certain cells live longer.

 

[No Limit]

You and No Limit seem to agree that incarceration is the wrong response to posession, so where does the illegality come in?

There are many crimes that don't require jail time. I'm sure we can come up with a good system to handle arrests without getting jail involved. A good example is how MIP (minor in possesion of alcohol) works in this state. If you are caught for it and you are over 18 you get a ticket where you are required to go to court. I don't think this would necessarly work but its an idea.

Psychedelics could be such a great teacher and catylyst for humanity.

I really worry about psychedelics. I've personally seen what these drugs do to certain people and its ugly.

I've seen those who can control it, and watched a good friend almost get his arm amputated from it.

Don't take offense from this but I simply can not believe that. By the time somebody gets to the point of using heroin they have fallen off the deep end.

But what should your average po-liceman do when he finds it on somebody?

See above.

Anyway, would I rather see all these hard drugs legal than the current system we have now? Yes.

But I still don't believe we should make any drug that makes the person lose that kind of control of their addiction legal if we can send them into rehab instead of prison.

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

Any drugs that can cause harm to your body shouldn't be legal.

Why? Guess you're making the case for banishment of alcohol, then? Yeah, that worked out so well before...

 

[No Limit]

Any drugs that can cause harm to your body shouldn't be legal.

Marajuana, since it has been known to not be directly harmful to your health (except for the fact that you are inhaling smoke), should be legal.

In fact, THC has been known to make certain cells live longer.

I don't think you have to be a sceintist to know when you inhale smoke it is bad for you. Marijuana has a lot of bad short term effects and I would argue it has a lot of bad long term effects too.

But that really isn't the point, so do a lot of other things that are legal (fast food, alcohol, gambling, etc.). So if you want to harm yourself go for it, as long as you don't get to the point where you will harm somebody else in the process of getting you high which is the case with harder drugs.

 

[TCfromBN]

Well, look at how many people get liver cancer from drinking, and look at how many people get lung cancer from smoking pot...

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

 

[No Limit]

Well, look at how many people get liver cancer from drinking, and look at how many people get lung cancer from smoking pot...

I don't know how many studies have been done regarding marijuana and cancer but I really wouldn't be shocked if there was a link.

But again, that really is not the point. Marijuana has many proven long term and short term side effects, so does fast food, so does tobacco. Who are you to say which side effects are more dangerous?

 

[No Limit]

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

I don't know how many studies have been done regarding marijuana and cancer but I really wouldn't be shocked if there was a link.

Looks like you disproved me before I even posted. Do you have a link to this study by any chance?

 

[TCfromBN]

http://www.fcda.org/cannabinoids.htm

If you were wondering, number 6 speaks of the prolonged life of brain cells from the use of cannabinoids.

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

This is the WP story, I'm not finding anything right away published directly by the UCLA, but it seems to be corroborated.

 

[guitars savior]

Cigarettes have all these extra chemicals in them, can kill, and are extrememly addictive (still trying to quit), and I smoke them for a feeling of satisfaction, but somehow its legal. Weed is all natural, I'm still smoking a plant, I'm smoking it for satisfaction, and it is not addictive. I smoke, I know this. But some how, its illegal. I can't tell you how many times I want cigarettes more than pot.

 

[Dinkleberry]

I saw this article the other day...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6551327.stm

Even though a study hasn't found a link between lung cancer and smoking weed, it doesn't mean other nasty conditions aren't going to manifest themselves after smoking lots (there still could be a link to cancer - a study of 2000 people is not exactly representative, even if half were cancer patients.
It's the same with any consumable thing - there's always a point at which its bad for you!

Besides, if you're willing to spend the time preparing butter, you can have some good times with cake! It isn't smoked, so there's no damage to lungs, and a larger proportion of the active chemicals are absorbed in the eating.

I'm not entirely sure how the tax system works in the US, but in the UK if
weed was to become legalised I could see the government regulating it to **** - there is a lot of tax on alcohol and tobacco and if the government make a big fuss preventing kids from getting hold of weed (which they almost certainly would), it would be taxed in a similar manner and the price would go up. And I could also see them outlawing home-growing.
In principle, the arguments for legalisation make it seem like a no-brainer, but in practice I think we might be worse off for it.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

True about the excessive use health problem thing. People are always going on about how good vitamins are for you - an overdose of vitamin D can do odd things to your bone structure, amongst other things.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Reaktor4]

That really depends.

Many drugs will make you so addicted you will try to harm me to get those drugs. I think heroin, cocaine, and a few others definitely should be illegal. People do not hurt other people to get marijuana, so legalize it!

That makes absolutely no sense. The more "bad" a drug is, the more important it is to legalise, because it is the very fact that it is illegal that causes the problems you just mentioned, among others.

I saw this article the other day...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6551327.stm

That link proves nothing. They don't even say whether or not she is smoking the badly contaminated hashish (soap) sold in the UK or whether she is smoking tobacco with it. Another stupid scare article.