The key word here being a "derivative". A substance that is extracted, chemically separated, processed and concentrated far beyond the potential effects of the humble coca leaf it started out as. THC or "angel dust" would be the same thing when compared to pot.

The cost/benefit of marijuana to society that you mention is completely subjective depending on whose numbers you want to use. I've read estimates as high as a full third of adult Americans are what would be considered at least occasional users of pot. Not the bottom third mind but evenly distributed throughout all levels of society and totally indistinguishable from their non (or other) using fellow citizens. You'll rarely hear about them or see them included in offical government cost analysis because they aren't usually dumb or unlucky enough to let their use be exposed and their lives ruined because of it.

Besides the certainly plausible arguments that the government makes too much money and power off pot remaining illegal, I say where is the concept of personal responsibility anymore? If a person operates a vehicle under the influence of any drug, legal or otherwise, that impairs their judgement or ability as a driver then that is wrong and they should be punished if caught. End of story, especially if they endanger or hurt someone.

However, taking the extra step and saying "no you can't do this for any reason, even in a responsible manner in the privacy of your own home" just because some idiot couldn't handle his basic civic responsibility not to act like an irresponsible a$$ that endangers his fellow citizens, is not what i would consider a free society available to anyone that can use them win a responsible manner.

Worst of all such mass punishment is applied with no rhyme or reason, certainly not as long as tobacco and especially alcohol remain legal.

:rotfl: its not drug, its a herb, like a tobbacco plant. I dont see it as a drug. One of the best reasons to legalise cannibis is this: To put the gangs/dealers out of bussiness, they make millions per yr with cannibis, they will sell to a 8 yr old as long as they got the cash to payup. They kill, have drug wars all over a herb that has been around and respected since the begining of time. Civilizations before modern man came around freely distrubuted this herb, they didn't make gold or silver from it, it was just like another herb spice to them. But today greedy men see that they can make millions out of this. If its legalised those who wish to use it would be allowed to grow there own, and dealers would be out of pocket or move onto some other. In harvest season (Jan - April) over here blardy dealers make between, 500,000 to 1 million in 4 months. Then they sit around on there fat ass and wait till next harvest and repeat. What im saying is if someone wants to smoke/eat it then they should be allowed to grow it which they do anyways but without the worry of being busted. Yet the only ones with big grins on there faces are the dope dealers. Thanks to the laws.

I mean if its that bad then how come Amsterdam and certain states of other countries have legalise it. Have they all killed themsleves off or gone and jumped of the nearest cliff through madness? Man, the fear of a little herb called Cannibis. Tobbacco is more dangerous to your health.

Which is where? No complaints here.
So?

Though mind you, camel isn't kosher. Then again, neither are gnats. :stare:
This was just a language lesson.

As for the Torah's laws and our "servitude" to them, it's a great thing. Both Moses, David and many more were called by G-d "Avdi" - "my servant." It's an honor.

But hey! Who's forcing you?
Seems like my language lesson has gone to pot. :dead:
I'll have whatever he's drinking/smoking! :p
Absolute - Ly :rock:

That's exactly the official point of wiew of some italian politicians (mostly, left wing oriented) when supporting the legalistion of cannabis (still outlaw here).

I see that as an extreme and false semplification of the problem as, if some crime becomes less profitable, criminals simply move to a different illegal businness.
We also could legalise the murder, hoping that falling prices will have a dissuasive effect for professional killers, but I doubt that it could work fine...

As said by someone other, the real problem with any psychoactive substance isn't the price, but the impact on the society.
A moderate, responsible, use hasn't relevant effects, but too much people is ready to make everything in the wrong way when drunken, smoked, sniffed, filled with any sort of substance fit to change his mood or brain.

The sad side in this matter is that the usual "substance oriented" legislation can't have a decisive effect on the long run.
New drugs often appear, and aren't illegal until properly classyfied; moreover, even diffused things like glue or fuel are sometimes used as drugs (maybe the worst ones), and it's impossible to make them illegal.

On my point of wiew, the society needs a totally "effect oriented" approach, but won't be easy to set it properly.

I'm woundering how valid even this is. Are there any hard figures on this ?

EDIT: But as others have maybe already mentioned the danger to get on more hard drugs comes more from the criminal environment from where you have to by it. Interesting is that hamp is prohibited almost all around the world. There are strong indications that this happened becose of businessual reasons and not becose it's a dangerous drug. Did you guys know that a bio diesel can be won from hamp for engines ad stuff ?

It's incredebly what all can be made from this plant. This plant is a blessing for the human kind. And in a context of a naval warfare forum, all the seafaring wouldn't be possible without it at least till the steel hawsers were introduced in the modern time.

:lol: :yep:
A good moment to exploit the double morale of the government.

Deamon

Yes it's being used as an antidepressiva since ages :lol:

yet one more bad thing for our society
 

If we had the choice to legalize ]either alcohol or cannabis today, the choice would be cannabis. It would probably cause less problems than alcohol, but the problem is that the alcohol allready is here. Legalizing cannabis would just be adding one more bad thing to our society. It's not like people would stop using alcohol, alcohol is such a big part of our culture (especially here in Norway) that I don't think cannabis would have an impact on the consument.

Legalizing = adding ?

I think it's already added since thousends of years. It was ever a part of the human sociaty. Legalizing would be rather just an admition of it, IMHO.

Deamon

Although canabis is free to use here, the main problem for the future is alcohol. Many youngsters are all weekends drunk as Cooter Brown.
When looking at France ( most strict policy ) and The Netherlands ( most liberal) you see more users in France, both canabis and heroine. Also kids in Australia, England and Danmark in that order use more canabis.

For the record, I don't use, and I don't know people in my surrounding using canabis. It's not so every one here is high all the time.

I don't smoke pot but, but I am in favour of legalizing it. Here's why:

1. It is not physically addictive. This has something to do with the way the body metabolizes THC, but no matter how often you smoke pot the body never becomes dependent on it like it can with alcohol, tobacco, or heroin (all of which are extremely hard to kick, not the least of reasons being because of the physiological addiction). The "addictive aspect" that is attributed to pot lies solely in the fact that like anything that else that is enjoyed, the mind naturally wishes to experience the sensation again. The biochemicals, mainly endorphins, produced from sex and even exercise work in the same fashion and these activities are about as addictive for the same reasons; I would argue smoking pot is safer than sex has become, along with some "extreme sports" that are very hazardous but regularly engaged in for the "rush" they produce.

2. It is crime only because it has been criminalized; the act of smoking pot victimizes nobody. Decriminalize it and you will therefore see an immediate reduction in crime.

3. Decriminalizing it would place the distribution into the hands of government rather than the black market; this puts money into the regular economy rather than the underground economy where it can be taxed by the government and thus produce revenue that can be used to fund things beneficial to society (police, fire departments, education, etc) instead of into the hands of drug dealers.

4. It would eliminate the illicit traffic in pot and associated crime in the same way the elimination of prohibition killed the illicit traffic in alcohol and crimes associated with its distribution.

5. From points (3) and (4) we see a net gain to society in that decriminalizing pot, which people are smoking no matter what the law on it says, can generate tax dollars rather than wasting them to combat a non-problem to no effect, with ontold amounts being spent on the policing, courts, and prisons that could be freed up to be spent elsewhere.

6. Lastly, is policing the crminal offence of pot and underground distribution necessitated by its status as an "illicit" drug a rational use of police forces that are often overworked just dealing with real crimes? You know, rape, murder, child porn, assualts, burglaries, robberies, etc. And given the nature of our prisons, is it beneficial to incarcerate people for pot possession/trafficing whereby they go in for a victimless crime and come out stigmatized and experts on commiting real crimes through the school of higher criminal education that is our criminal system?

Point 1, I worked in a psychiatric clinic once. I know that both doctors and psychotherapists would strongly disagree with the opinion that the psychological habit of wanting to reapeat joyful experiences with smoking pot are as harmless as you make it appear, not to mention to say it is "safer than sex today". You can fall victim to psychological addictiveness as well. In fact this often is the greater problkem in therapy. A pure chimcal-dependant addictiveness you can heal with a decontamination procedures, in a longer process or - some cionsider it to be even better - a 24-48 crash-decontamination under anaestehtization or artificial coma. After the the physical dependence is gone - the tendency to want to follow the habit again for it felt so well (well=avoiding unpleasant symptoms of craving) remains.

You can also fall victim to the gestapo like tactics that are associate with the war on drugs. Case in point: a police helicopter spotted a crop of marijuana plants growing in someone's backyard. A warrant was then issued to raid the home on this suspicious that illegal drugs were being produced on the premises, and in the raid the unarmed homeowner was shot and killed. All of this would be bad enough but for one additional factor: it wasn't marijuana plants the guy was growing, he just happened to be a run of the mill joe with an interest in gardening.

I don't just see the supposed dangers of this drug which seem to serve only to drive the production and distribution underground (criminalizing pot is about as effective as prohibition, and alcohol has many dangers associated with it to both the individual and society that pot does not); my position on it, I giess you could say, is that its the criminalization of the drug that is detrimental to society, and not the drug itself.

Angel dust is phencyclinide (also known as PCP) not marijauna. And there is nothing natural about rolling a substance up and lighting it on fire in order to inhale the fumes through lung parenchyma. Its as artificial a process as any, and one thats man invented as a method of expediting the absorption of the compounds into systemic circulation to produce the desired effect.

How much or less a chemical needs processing is not a valid argument to the utilization of said chemical for pyschological effects.

A lot of codes and laws are enacted not because responsible people would hurt themselves, but to prevent the actions of the irresponsible. Why make seatbelts required for driving? If a person wants to not wear a seatbelt and get himself/herself injured unneccesarily then thats just their fault.... right? No, because in the end-analysis of its effect on a society, not wearing seatbelts represents a drain and nothing more than a drain on that society with no benifits to it. Why require building codes? If a person builds a house and its built like crap and falls on him then that's just his/her fault. Or if a person buys that house and its collapses on them its there fault for not checking the houses construction quality right? No, because faulty construction is a detriment to that society and will represent a drain on safey and livelyhood.

The total impact of a substance on society as a whole, not just those that use it responsibly but those that will use it irresponsibly must be viewed as well as the effects on a society and whether there is any counterbalancing benefit

EDIT: wording and clarity

That's a pretty weak argument... if that's what it was at all. And Skybird has a point. I'll be graduating with my M.D. next spring. We see alot of addiction/dependence around here, everyday actually. In psychiatric terms substance abuse is not as cut and dry as to whether or not a chemical is "addictive", but also entails whether or not a person developes an emotional dependence on the substance, feeling they need it to feel better, or that life isn't as good without their said chemical. Also factored into that is the judgement of the user and what's said person feels is responsible and unresponsible. Substance abuse is a complicated subject and one that really has no good answers. However, introducing just one more substance into a society to be used for its pyschoactive effects is just that... one more substance to be used by some without detriment, and used by others with detriment, and all the problems entailed.

Legalize cannibals?!! Are you people farking nuts?