Should cannibis be considered legal.

[Ducimus]

Whats bull**** is the whole "make pot legal" crusade. The entire thing is a self serving bull**** story. Drugie's will do anything to get their next hit. They don't care where, or how. Making pot legal, is a potheads dream. Medical reasons? Horse****! If you went to the right people im sure you can produce stuides that say theres a valid medical reasons for cocain, LSD, Heroin, or anything else you might want to snort, swallow, inject or inhale.

Making Pot, or ANY other illiceit narcotic legal is saying, "its ok to do drugs!". And even IF there is a medical reason for pot, that doesnt justify making it legal. Theres plenty of anethisia and painkillers that is used in the medical field that is just as mood altering and habit forming, and they arent legal to own on the street.

If your looking for a debate, you wont find it with me. The answer will always be, NO, i dont care what self serving bull**** story you hatch.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Whats bull**** is the whole "make pot legal" crusade. The entire thing is a self serving bull**** story. Drugie's will do anything to get their next hit. They don't care where, or how. Making pot legal, is a potheads dream. Medical reasons? Horse****! If you went to the right people im sure you can produce stuides that say theres a valid medical reasons for cocain, LSD, Heroin, or anything else you might want to snort, swallow, inject or inhale.

Making Pot, or ANY other illiceit narcotic legal is saying, "its ok to do drugs!". And even IF there is a medical reason for pot, that doesnt justify making it legal. Theres plenty of anethisia and painkillers that is used in the medical field that is just as mood altering and habit forming, and they arent legal to own on the street.

If your looking for a debate, you wont find it with me. The answer will always be, NO, i dont care what self serving bull**** story you hatch.

Whatever. You're doctor, lawyer, government regulator, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. Hopefully someday people like you will be consigned to the dustbins of history like the inquisitors and witch hunters of old.

In spite of what you want to believe, Marijuana is not a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant that has been used by man for thousands of years for everything from a mild anti-depressant to an appetite enhancer. Putting it into the same classification with a real man made narcotic like crack cocaine only tells people that your artifical definitions are not to be believed. Hence my original point.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by August

In spite of what you want to believe, Marijuana is not a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant that has been used by man for thousands of years for everything from a mild anti-depressant to an appetite enhancer. Putting it into the same classification with a real man made narcotic like crack cocaine only tells people that your artifical definitions are not to be believed. Hence my original point.

You guys are misusing the term "narcotic". In medical terms a narcotic is a class of analgesics that reduces pain and is often abused for its sedative effects. Another name for them is opioids, such as morphine, dilaudid, codeine, or heroin. Crack, speed, and marijuana are not "narcotics".

Its also important to realize that many pyschoactive substances are found in nature. Your own body produces opium-like hormones secreted by your nervous system to induce nervous system effects. Exogenous opium is dervided from naturally occuring plants to produce drugs like heroin.

Crack itself is a derivative of cocaine, which itself is procured from a naturally occuring plant.

So the argument that marijuana is naturally occuring thus such be legal is pretty weak and baseless.

[August]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Crack itself is a derivative of cocaine, which itself is procured from a naturally occuring plant.

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.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

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.

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

[August]

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

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.

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?

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.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Marijuana not being legalized because of safety reasons is hypocritical. Alcohol and tobacco are far more addicting and kill more people than marijuana ever will. If people are supposedly responsible enough to use alcohol I don't see a problem with marijuana. Presently, the laws are not very strictly enforced anyways. Most people I know who were caught with pot on them simply had it taken away or their paraphernalia destroyed and a short lecture from the cop. As to the gateway drug argument, there is truth in it. But keep in mind that the same logic that damns marijuana as a gateway drug could also be used to classify caffeine as a gateway drug.

PD

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Whats bull**** is the whole "make pot legal" crusade. The entire thing is a self serving bull**** story. Drugie's will do anything to get their next hit. They don't care where, or how. Making pot legal, is a potheads dream. Medical reasons? Horse****! If you went to the right people im sure you can produce stuides that say theres a valid medical reasons for cocain, LSD, Heroin, or anything else you might want to snort, swallow, inject or inhale.

Making Pot, or ANY other illiceit narcotic legal is saying, "its ok to do drugs!". And even IF there is a medical reason for pot, that doesnt justify making it legal. Theres plenty of anethisia and painkillers that is used in the medical field that is just as mood altering and habit forming, and they arent legal to own on the street.

If your looking for a debate, you wont find it with me. The answer will always be, NO, i dont care what self serving bull**** story you hatch.

: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.

[Bertgang]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

: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...

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.