Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBlo
Angel dust is phencyclinide (also known as PCP) not marijauna.
|
Sorry you're correct. It's been nearly 30 years since i've heard of anyone using THC
Quote:
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 a man-made method of expediting the absorption of the compounds into systemic circulation to produce the desired effect.
|
I'd submit it's a heckuva lot more natural than extracting the active ingredients in a laboratory, then processing and concentrating it into a powder that is hundreds of times more powerful than the plant leaf it came from. Nor is smoking the only method for injesting it.
Quote:
How much or less a chemical needs processing is not a valid argument to the utilization of said chemical for pyschological effects.
|
Well i disagree. How many coca leaves would have to be eaten to produce heart failure compared to purified cocaine in powdered form? How many glasses of wine would one have to drink compared to 100% pure alcohol to produce alcohol poisoning?
Quote:
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
|
So what you're saying is the potential damaging effects of irresponsible alcohol drinking is outweighed by it's counterbalancing benefit and that's why it remains legal in most countries?
Really, other than the false idea that the use of marijuana somehow turns a productive member of society overnight into an irresponsible drug fiend who will take
any substance in order to get his or her "fix" (ie the "gateway drug" argument) what exactly is the overbalancing effect that legalizing it would have? Does its use make people violent? No it doesn't. If anything it inhibits violence, whereas violence induced by the use of alcohol is a well established fact. Does it cause a deadly disease? Maybe, there's recently been research evidence to the contrary but in any case it's certainly less dangerous than legal tobacco. What else?
It seems to me all that is left is "the message" that legalizing it would send, but what kind of message is sent by allowing more dangerous substances like alcohol and tobacco to remain legal? Inconsistancy for one. Hidden agendas for another. Distrust in the fairness and objectivity of ones government for a third and more.
On the other hand, like Scandium mentions, the cost of making gangsters rich and powerful, creating entire new classes of criminals, ruining innocent lives because of overzealous police activity, the billions of dollars lost investigating, prosecuting and jaiingl users without regard for their ability to use it responsibly and relinquishing any ability to regulate, tax and control a substance like marijuana, is an
enormous drain on society.
How much more effective would anti drug efforts be if they could be concentrated on truely dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin without being wasted on pot interdiction? How many violent criminals, rapists, murderers, etc will have to be released from prison because mandatory sentencing laws force the authorities to make room for the convicted pot smoker?
Marijuana prohibition has been a significant drain on society since it's inception and for all that effort and money it is still as prevalent, if not more so, as it was before it was first made illegal.
All I think people are saying here is the "war" on pot is just not worth it.
