Legalize Pot! (?)

[theimage13]

Inspired by some recent posts in the Martin/Zimmerman thread, I thought it could be interesting to open a dialogue on the benefits/dangers of legalizing pot.

For now, I'm not going to offer an opinion one way or another. I'll simply state that I've never tried it, and have never been in direct company with people who were smoking it while I was present. I won't get into the reasons why, and I won't say whether I'll ever try it, legally or otherwise. But it seems that a debate on the merits and pitfalls of legalization (not just medicinally) could make for some good reading.

So, anyone want to state their case for either side?

[botley]

It's just fucking pot. Get over yourselves, America.

[allegro]

Totally agree.

It's SO much less dangerous and addictive than alcohol, yet alcohol is legal and pot isi illegal, and this makes zero sense.

The only reason that pot is illegal in this country is the ghettoization of minorities and the bribes taken by the DEA. Without paying off DEA, there is no way all these drugs and guns could get into this country. The "War on Drugs" is a total scam.

If pot was legal, it could be taxed like alcohol, and it actually has proven MEDICINAL purpose, which booze does not.

I used to smoke pot but found that it had undesirable aspects, just like booze. But, that shouldn't make it illegal.

Also, people who think pot is a "gateway" drug haven't seen all these studies showing that ALCOHOL is actually the biggest gateway drug.

[Jinsai]

There is no good reason for marijuana to be illegal, and the fact that people actually go to jail for possession is a disgrace.

[theruiner]

Everyone else has summed it up pretty well. I'm definitely for legalization. This just seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Isn't everyone pretty much aware at this point that it's pretty much harmless? I can't think of a single reason why it should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. It's just pointless.

Then again, I don't see why gay people aren't allowed to get married, so there are certainly laws/societal rules that don't make any sense whatsoever.

[Goldfoot]

This is the shittiest way to start a thread. If you aren't willing to give your side, why do you ask others to?

I think all drugs should be legalized because the government doesn't have to right to tell you what you can or can't do to your own body.

[Jinsai]

This is the shittiest way to start a thread. If you aren't willing to give your side, why do you ask others to?I think all drugs should be legalized because the government doesn't have to right to tell you what you can or can't do to your own body.

Some drugs are dangerous not just to the person who takes them but to everyone around. We don't need to go for an all or nothing approach to legalization. You don't need to watch "Breaking Bad" to know that meth is a dangerous substance that destroys lives. I don't think we should be throwing people in jail for using or even supplying these drugs. At the same time, it's a shitty idea to allow general consumption of meth, crack, or PCP. It's a detour from the point: Pot is fucking harmless so it shouldn't be illegal.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Some drugs are dangerous not just to the person who takes them but to everyone around. We don't need to go for an all or nothing approach to legalization. You don't need to watch "Breaking Bad" to know that meth is a dangerous substance that destroys lives.

Plenty arguments pro-legalization point this out, and emphasize that the illegality of drugs is a significant detriment to our dealing with and mitigating their effects.

[Goldfoot]

Some drugs are dangerous not just to the person who takes them but to everyone around. We don't need to go for an all or nothing approach to legalization. You don't need to watch "Breaking Bad" to know that meth is a dangerous substance that destroys lives. I don't think we should be throwing people in jail for using or even supplying these drugs. At the same time, it's a shitty idea to allow general consumption of meth, crack, or PCP. It's a detour from the point: Pot is fucking harmless so it shouldn't be illegal.

In my vision I see there being regulations on them and some sort of control over the production. People wouldn't be making it in their basement, risking neighboring families and shit. That's not a discussion for this particular thread, though, you are right. I consider marijuana to be a recreational drug, and to keep it on topic I think it, and all recreational drugs, should be legal. One issue is being able to test for it to be active in your system, say when you get pulled over. There are ways to test for the presence of active alcohol, but marijuana is significantly harder. I think being able to do that would be a huge step toward it becoming widely legalized.

[Jinsai]

There are ways to test for the presence of active alcohol, but marijuana is significantly harder. I think being able to do that would be a huge step toward it becoming widely legalized.

A blood test can reveal the active level of THC in the person's system. It's not entirely precise, but if you pull someone over, do a roadside sobriety test, check their pupils, and then check their blood for THC, you can have a pretty solid case.

They're also working on preparing saliva tests which should be able to reveal recent activity.

Hair and urine tests do not show the active level of THC, which is the psychoactive component, so they show no evidence or indication of whether or not the person was impaired at the time the test was administered.

[allegro]

In my vision I see there being regulations on them and some sort of control over the production. People wouldn't be making it in their basement, risking neighboring families and shit. That's not a discussion for this particular thread, though, you are right. I consider marijuana to be a recreational drug, and to keep it on topic I think it, and all recreational drugs, should be legal. One issue is being able to test for it to be active in your system, say when you get pulled over. There are ways to test for the presence of active alcohol, but marijuana is significantly harder. I think being able to do that would be a huge step toward it becoming widely legalized.

In the U.S., "driving under the influence" includes just about anything, including over-the-counter and prescription drugs. Contrary to popular belief, no chemical tests are necessary to successfully convict someone of driving under the influence. Police officers are considered to be "expert witnesses" in a court of law, and they conduct extensive on-site tests using a lengthy checklist, plus they generally videotape these tests. A breathalyzer won't detect that you just ate 4 Benedryls and hopped behind the wheel. Blood and hair tests are invasive and illegal and, really, unnecessary. I saw a guy convicted of a DUI who blew UNDER the limit, but failed every other sobriety test.

Further, Marijuana is NOT solely a recreational drug; it has proven medical uses.

[Goldfoot]

A blood test can reveal the active level of THC in the person's system. It's not entirely precise, but if you pull someone over, do a roadside sobriety test, check their pupils, and then check their blood for THC, you can have a pretty solid case.

They're also working on preparing saliva tests which should be able to reveal recent activity.

Hair and urine tests do not show the active level of THC, which is the psychoactive component, so they show no evidence or indication of whether or not the person was impaired at the time the test was administered.

I'm aware of the current ways of testing, especially blood tests, which is why I used the term active; the presence of THC in someone's urine or blood doesn't indicate a narrow enough time frame on its own to determine if the person was under the influence when driving. I'm not saying it's impossible to know, but there aren't any accepted methods right now like there are for alcohol.

In the U.S., "driving under the influence" includes just about anything, including over-the-counter and prescription drugs. Contrary to popular belief, no chemical tests are necessary to successfully convict someone of driving under the influence. Police officers are considered to be "expert witnesses" in a court of law, and they conduct extensive on-site tests using a lengthy checklist, plus they generally videotape these tests. A breathalyzer won't detect that you just ate 4 Benedryls and hopped behind the wheel. Blood and hair tests are invasive and illegal and, really, unnecessary. I saw a guy convicted of a DUI who blew UNDER the limit, but failed every other sobriety test.

Further, Marijuana is NOT solely a recreational drug; it has proven medical uses.

I feel like this depends on the state and circumstances of the traffic stop. Everyone reacts to drugs in different ways. Not saying that you are wrong, but I've had plenty experience with cops over the years (not in a criminal capacity), so I know that there's no cut an dry way to handle every situation.

As for the recreational statement, I didn't say it was only recreational. It is mostly used for recreational purposes, and even though it has medical uses, that doesn't take away the other ways it is used. Morphine has a illegitimate medical use, but does that mean it should be legalized?

[Rdm]

My opinion is bias so please don't rip off my head. I am bias because I work in an acute Psychiatry hospital.My experience does not count as medical research and should be took with a grain of salt. While working in the hospital I have heard stories while assessing adolescences who have tried marijuana only one time and they lost their minds temporally, acute psychosis. I have also seen patients try marijuana one time and lose their minds permanently. I don't base this opinion off of one story. Also, 9/10 of these children I assess state they have not tried any other drug. The patient who " lose their minds" are vulnerable to psychiatric disease. My advice to anyone reading this who has psychiatric illness in a family to not do drugs period due to genetic vulnerability.

So to answer the question " should marijuana be legal" I would have to say no due to how this drug affects people who are vulnerable to psychiatric illnesses. I also believe if its legal it is easier to obtain, and if easier to obtain it is easier for ignorant people to abuse the product such as children. This pretty much goes for any drug that ranges to a class 2 drug. According to the "Deadiversion" (1974) website classes one through five means the lower the number the higher rate of abuse and addiction ("Deadiversion", 1974).

I know not a popular answer, but I think marijuana is a dangerous drug based on my experience.


deadiversion. (1974). Retrieved from http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pu...t/section5.htm

[pakkopaita]

Is there anything that isn't potentially dangerous in some situation?

[Jinsai]

My opinion is bias so please don't rip off my head. I am bias because I work in an acute Psychiatry hospital.My experience does not count as medical research and should be took with a grain of salt. While working in the hospital I have heard stories while assessing adolescences who have tried marijuana only one time and they lost their minds temporally, acute psychosis. I have also seen patients try marijuana one time and loose their minds permanently. I don't base this opinion off of one story. Also, 9/10 of these children I assess state they have not tried any other drug. The patient who " loose their minds" are vulnerable to psychiatric disease. My advice to anyone reading this who has psychiatric illness in a family to not do drugs period due to genetic vulnerability.

So to answer the question " should marijuana be legal" I would have to say no due to how this drug affects people who are vulnerable to psychiatric illnesses. I also believe if its legal it is easier to obtain, and if easier to obtain it is easier for ignorant people to abuse the product such as children. This pretty much goes for any drug that ranges to a class 2 drug. According to the "Deadiversion" (1974) website classes one through five means the lower the number the higher rate of abuse and addiction ("Deadiversion", 1974).

I know not a popular answer, but I think marijuana is a dangerous drug based on my experience.


deadiversion. (1974). Retrieved from http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pu...t/section5.htm

thing is, people can have psychotic episodes after their first exposure to legal pharms. I've seen people "freak out" on weed, but I've seen far worse freak outs as a result of anti-depression meds affecting someone in an adverse way. Some people will die from eating peanuts, that doesn't mean they should be illegal... and on that note, nobody directly dies from pot.

Also, I don't buy this "try marijuana one time and lose their minds permanently" thing. I have never seen any evidence to support that. In my personal experience, I've never encountered anything close, and I've definitely never heard of a case study with results coming anywhere near that conclusion.

[Beef of the Sea]

In principal I don't have a problem with it, probably more so now than ever. I never have, or ever will smoke it.
Brothers and sister in my family were users of it while I was growing up (But at the time I just thought it was a different kind of tobacco.) so I was never that fussed.
Never really been around anyone using it for a very long time, mostly because I've pushed all my friends that used to deal etc. out of my life.
If it helps people, I'm all for it, power to them. Just wish there wasn't so much biased and half-cocked information* out there about marijuana.
Should it be legal? I guess yeah it should, or at the very least completely decriminalised.

*

[hobochic]

I love how the same people pointing out the hazards of pot and how it ruins lives continue their day uncorking bottles of wine. It's just grapes, right? Apparently what big brother says is legal fits perfectly fine in their logic.

Didn't Al Capone already teach the world that prohibition doesn't eliminate the "problem"? It just invents a game called "crime". The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs. The "problem" will always be there. What can be done is accepting that and instead of criminalizing and ruining lives with absurd sentences, actually taking care of people who are vulnerable to substances.

[fillow]

Randy Marsh digs this thread

[halloween]

I really wonder what the effect of that "loosing their mind' comes from the fact that they are developing brains. From what I've read, is that it can expose/trigger latent psychological disorders. This is where RESEARCH and AGE LIMIT would really help a lot.

[aggroculture]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/a-user...h-barack-obama

[allegro]

I think, eventually, that pot is a self-regulating drug because eventually you WILL notice certain negative effects from abuse, or even from continued mild use, like paranoia, forgetfulness, etc., and you'll go "you know, I really need to limit this shit." Or, like me, cut it out completely. Pot is NOT physically addictive. There is absolutely zero true reliable scientific evidence showing that pot has any physical addictive qualities. And, I agree with those in this thread who say that any psychiatric flipout was probably NOT directly related to the pot. I don't believe a lot of these biased bullshit "scientific' studies with limited samples. People with psychiatric illnesses can DRINK legal booze and have a fucking breakdown. How many people commit suicide while DRUNK? (Answer: Lots) And, like Jinsai said, they are more likely to have a breakdown from legal prescription drugs.

Booze, however ... it's legal, and how many fucking DUIs do we have? How many people do you know who've died because of a drunk driver? Me = at least 2. And I have a friend who died of liver disease from overdrinking. But if my grandpa had been able to legally smoke pot while getting chemo for pancreatic cancer, it would've been a good thing.


My stepdad, when he was high on pot after a visit with his eldest son, was pulled over by a cop back in the 70s. (Pot wasn't such a huge offense in the 70s. EVERYBODY smoked it. Doctors, lawyers, your parents. There were "head shops" on every corner, they were like 7-11s, I swear.) Anyway, stepdad was pulled over.

The cop said, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"

Stepdad: "Well, officer, I was keeping up with traffic."

Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Stepdad: "Well, no, actually, I, um ..."

Cop: "SEVEN! SEVEN MILES PER HOUR!"

This is our favorite family story.

Even G sometimes looks at me and goes "SEVEN! SEVEN MILES PER HOUR!" and we'll crack up.

The story pretty much sums up why you don't see too many DUIs related to pot use.

[Magtig]

[allegro]

Haha, that was such a funny thing back then, everybody high on weed lying around listening to COMEDY RECORDS. Like, on VINYL. Cheech and Chong, George Carlin (who had that album "Toledo Windowbox"*), we'd get stoned and lie on the floor and LISTEN to comedy records.

Now, comedy records are just a good way to end a party. Everybody flees, "Woo, wow, getting late, I gotta get up early tomorrow."


*

[Fixer808]

Haha, that was such a funny thing back then, everybody high on weed lying around listening to COMEDY RECORDS. Like, on VINYL. Cheech and Chong, George Carlin (who had that album "Toledo Windowbox"*), we'd get stoned and lie on the floor and LISTEN to comedy records.

Now, comedy records are just a good way to end a party. Everybody flees, "Woo, wow, getting late, I gotta get up early tomorrow."


*

I still do this.

[PooPooMeowChow]

[Lutz]

They should make all drugs legal and handle the drug problem as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem.

Drugs are so widespread and so commonly used these days. For people who know how to control their use and continue to live high functioning lives the negative effect that drugs can have can be very incremental with the bigger problem being the side effects that come about from the social stigma attached to it i.e. Mental health issues or HIV infection that could be avoided by better access to clean needles vs the actual physical side effects from recreational use not really being any worse than eating junk food or not exercising.

There needs to be more conversation and more tolerance in this area and I don't think we can ever have that unless we take the focus off criminal use.

[aggroculture]

There goes Amsterdam
http://www.channel4.com/news/holland...gners-drug-ban

[Fixer808]

There goes Amsterdam
http://www.channel4.com/news/holland...gners-drug-ban

"What the hell, Amsterdam, you used to be COOL."

[Sutekh]

Yep legalise it, stop the money going to the black market, free up police resources etc. However weed is not as benign as a lot of people make out... it's not as bad as booze, but like booze (or anything else) if you rely on it for a release it will start to erode your life

I'm not sticking up for the current legislation at all by the way - I find the legalise-it crowd often try to make out it's no worse than a cup of strong coffee, which is bollocks, some people can get fairly messed up on weed & i think the benign image it has helps suspend (as in maintain) their state of denial. A lot of people end up doing not much apart from smoke weed of an evening, and from what I see they're not as proportionately marginal as alcoholics.

edit - just to reiterate this /\ is an aside

[BlueCalx]

Here in Vancouver, one has to work really hard to get in trouble with the law over weed - a prominent section of downtown is so saturated with head shops, cafes, and seed stores that it's known as the 'pot block' even to non-smokers. In theory, I'm behind legalization 100%. Cannabis generates at least $4 billion in revenue annually in BC alone, and legal, well-taxed pot could be just the thing to help get this awful economy out of its ceaseless depression. I think the reason why the 'legalize it' movement is perennially stuck in second gear here is that nobody's coming around to offer solutions to the potential problems that legal cannabis would bring. How do we keep out rowdy drug tourists? How does Canada maintain a working relationship with the United States, which is almost guaranteed to overreact if we chuck our cannabis prohibition? How do we manage to allow for pot cafes and keep cigar lounges illegal? Policy can be legislated pretty easily for all this stuff, I think, but the short-sighted activists at the front of the movement don't seem to want to touch these issues.