Should marijuana be legal?

[Kur]

You can't dismiss the laws and proper education as meaningless, or there's no point in MAKING laws. Yes some people break law and some would break those laws but by far, not everyone would. Everyone who smokes and drinks doesn't drive. I never have, and I never will, because I'm properly educated to the dangers. Even under the influence, I know NOT to drive. And so will the large majority of properly educated users. That's why proper education is necessary, the issues can't just be swept under the rug. Since marijuana is legal, we put less effort into education about its safe use. That's a problem. There's much better education for alcohol consumption.

You're completely exaggerating the matter. These substances impair judgement, they don't abolish it! I've been drunk and high plenty of times, and plenty of times with the opportunity to drive while so impaired and I never have. It doesn't work the way you want to pretend. Drunk people don't just FORGET that driving drunk is bad. People who do so are irresponsible or not properly informed of the reality of the dangers.

Laws don't exist to deprive law-abiding citizens of privileges they have never done anything to deserve the removal of, they exist to discourage and to punish violations. Car accidents kill people, but I'm still allowed to drive. People who drive dangerously are punished, even to the point of having those privileges revoked. Maybe there should be drinking licenses, actually, so that people who prove unable to control themselves are not allowed to indulge. But there is no reason EVERYONE should lose a privilege because some people abuse it.

The fact that some people violate laws is no reason to stop making laws. If we did that, we'd never make ANY laws. Some people are still going to murder, so what's the point of making it illegal? To emphasize that it is wrong and that conscionable, law-abiding good people should not do it, and to discourage it through the threat of prosecution. Nothing is different here.

You have misattributed that second quote to me. It was cF=), not me.

I can not believe you still don't get it.

I listed it out step by step and everything.

I am not saying that all laws are useless because of this. I am saying that a law is not a deterrent to somebody who is impaired to the point of not knowing they are impaired.

Yes, it is one thing to know that driving while drunk is illegal. But what happens when you are so drunk, that your impaired judgment tells you that you aren't drunk? Why do you think so many people drive while they are drunk? It is because they don't think they are. And it is even easier to make that mistake while high on marijuana.

In their impaired little brains, they aren't breaking the law. That is why education and laws have never impacted drunk driving at all. Tougher laws and road stops and all that lead to more arrests, but never to fewer drunk drivers. Believe me, I live in Arizona. We have probably the toughest Dui and Dwi laws in the country, but it never stops the drunks and pot heads from driving.

And I never said we should not have these laws, only that they do not work as a deterrent.

And trying to twist this around to say that just because these laws don't work means that all laws don't work is foolish. Other laws don't require you are under the influence of a mind altering substance to obey them.

 

[cF=)]

I am saying that a law is not a deterrent to somebody who is impaired to the point of not knowing they are impaired.

It is because they don't think they are. And it is even easier to make that mistake while high on marijuana.

Tell me where you got this, because it's tremendously stupid.

 

[CivicSmash]

Marijuana is a great thing.

I have heard many things in this blog that have made me laugh. There aren't any good reasons for legalizing marijuana? How about taking billions of dollars of the streets and putting it back in the governments pocket? We need the money considering we are paying 400 million a day on the ridiculous war and we are 4 trillion in debt. We pay for offenders in jail everyday. My dad is a medical doctor and he agrees with me that the positives FAR outweigh the negatives.

Marijuana IS NOT A GATEWAY DRUG. I have smoked it for years and I have not and will not do anything else. This is just a bullcrap republican phrase that has no meaning but to make marijuana look bad.

Personally, I play smash better when I have smoked, and do many things better high, like be more creative and see things from new perspectives. When i smoke I get motivated. I smoked marijuana for months and the one day that i didnt i got into a car accident.

Like with alcohol, marijuana is fine in moderation.
Its all about self control. Work before you play. Some people don't understand this concept because they don't have goals or positive outlooks. Why the hell do non-smokers care if people smoke weed anyway? Its none of there **** business.

Sadly, the only reason why marijuana is illegal is because of racist white people. People living on the borders of Mexico were looking for a reason to get the Mexicans off the streets. They knew that many of them smoked marijuana, so they made it illegal and threw them in jail. Then all of those crazy stupid propaganda movies came out similar to the commercials on t.v. now that the republicans have put out claiming that if you smoke you will run people over in your car.

Hemp is one of the most durable and strong fibrous plants on the planet. Search for hemp on wikipeida and read about it. Hell even Thomas Jefferson grew it. Many industries and people would benefit from it.

Marijuana drug tests are an invasion of privacy. The only reason why they exist is because it is illegal, because the government decided that for arbitrary reasons.

Before I was 18, it was MUCH easier to get than cigarettes, and before I was 21, it was MUCH easier to get than booze.

Once again its all about self control. If you wanna sit around all day and smoke pot all day be my guest. Thats your bad choice. If you guys out there have parents that do this, that is their own dumb decision. Not the weeds.

People who smoke marijuana are not violent, in fact they are just the opposite. Marijuana doesn't impair you to make bad decisions, it allows for more options to be considered.

Sure...if you smoke marijuana all day you will see some short term memory loss. DDUUUHHHH.

Just look at amster**** as an example. There society and government are more advanced than our own.

T-minus 13 days till im in AMSTER****. Oh and im not just going to smoke a lot (yes people a lot is 2 words) im going to take classes there and study as well.

Its kind of like my friend who eats nothing but pizza and chicken fingers. He will never know how good sushi tastes because he will never try it, and if he did, his mind would tell him that he doent like it because of his habits. He needs to eat his veggies. Life is about balance, and not extremes. If you do anything to much its bad. McDonalds is killing people everyday, but why aren't they being put out of business?

I will end by saying that when I first smoked marijuana I didn't like it at all. I was pressured into it by my friends and when I smoked I got paranoid because I would fight the feeling. Eventually I started to like it tremendously. I'm not stupid, I don't think that anyone should be able to get high whenever they want. I wouldn't want my surgeon getting high before he operated on me.

What is the big deal? If I want to get high watch tv and then go to sleep what is wrong with that? Will I have some sort of accident dialing out for pizza hut? NO

Open your mind people, seriously.
Everyone knows that marijuana can cause short term memory loss. You just have to smoke in moderation and keep your mind active, which sadly most people don't.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

While I might agree with some of the things you say (I don't smoke though), do you actually have any REAL evidence for this assertion besides ad hominem circumstantials:

Sadly, the only reason why marijuana is illegal is because of racist white people. People living on the borders of Mexico were looking for a reason to get the Mexicans off the streets. They knew that many of them smoked marijuana, so they made it illegal and threw them in jail. Then all of those crazy stupid propaganda movies came out similar to the commercials on t.v. now that the republicans have put out claiming that if you smoke you will run people over in your car.

 

[cF=)]

to HyugaRicdeau, a quote from http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity -- a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from "Gore Files" -- wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and... Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:

"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"

 

[Taymond]

Yes, it is one thing to know that driving while drunk is illegal. But what happens when you are so drunk, that your impaired judgment tells you that you aren't drunk? Why do you think so many people drive while they are drunk? It is because they don't think they are. And it is even easier to make that mistake while high on marijuana.

And you don't seem to understand the real nature of this impairment. You talk about it like it's pure magic. I say again: these substances impair judgement, they no not abolish it. What you know to be wrong DOES matter. Current education isn't enough, that's why it works so poorly.

Alcohol is not magic.

 

[RaptorHawk]

Yes, it is one thing to know that driving while drunk is illegal. But what happens when you are so drunk, that your impaired judgment tells you that you aren't drunk? Why do you think so many people drive while they are drunk? It is because they don't think they are.

Anybody so drunk that they don't realize they are drunk most likely can't even make it out the door. People drive drunk, not because they think they're not drunk, but because their impaired judgement makes them think that even though they are drunk they are still capable of driving safely.

And it is even easier to make that mistake while high on marijuana.

After talking to my friend who is a psychology student, she said she was taught that a person high on marijuana would actually be MUCH LESS likely to make a mistake like that.

That is why laws and education simple will not work. The only people it will work on are those who do not drink to the point of being drunk...

Not only do I drink to the point of being drunk, I often drink to the point of being completely wasted. And during these times I have not once thought to myself that I was ok to drive and I have never attempted to. I have always either found a place to stay or a ride home. And I know many people who are just as careful as I am.

So if laws and education can keep even just one person from driving drunk then yes they do indeed work.

 

[blazedaces]

The following is a website with a lot of general information about drunk driving, plus some links at the bottom for more if needed: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/drinkinganddriving.html

Here's some quotes from sections I found useful to point out to Kur and others who believe that being drunk is equivalent to a mind-controlled urge to drive:

* A study of drivers admitted to a Maryland trauma center found that 34% tested positive for drugs only, while 16% tested positive for alcohol only. 12

* A study by the Addiction Research Foundation of vehicle crash victims who tested positive for either legal or illegal substances found that just 15% had consumed only alcohol. 13

* In a large study of almost 3,400 fatally injured drivers from three Australian states, drugs other than alcohol were present in 26.7% of the cases. Fewer than 10% of the cases involved both alcohol and drugs. 14

* NIDA’s Monitoring the Future survey indicated that in 2004, 12.7% of high school seniors in the U.S. reported driving under the influence of marijuana and 13..2% reported driving under the influence of alcohol in the two weeks prior to the survey. 15

* In the State of Maryland’s Adolescent Survey, 26.8% of the state’s licensed, 12th grade drivers reported driving under the influence of marijuana during the year before the survey. 16

* The U.S. has a low traffic fatality rate (drunk, as well as sober) and is a very safe nation in which to drive. And it's been getting safer for decades. 32 There are now fewer than one and a half deaths (including the deaths of bicyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, auto drivers, and auto passengers) per one hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 33 Alcohol-related traffic fatalities have dropped from 60% of all traffic deaths in 1982 down to 39% in 2005 (the most recent year for which such statistics are available). 34

* Alcohol-related traffic fatalities per vehicle miles driven has also dropped dramatically -- from 1.64 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1982 down to 0.56 in 2005 (the latest year for which such statistics are available). 35

* The proportion of alcohol-related crash fatalities has fallen 35% since 1982, but the proportion of traffic deaths NOT associated with alcohol have jumped 53% during the same time. We’re winning the battle against alcohol-related traffic fatalities, but losing the fight against traffic deaths that are not alcohol-related. 36

The obvious truth: even though alcohol related accidents end up in hospitals a lot more because people drink more the percentage of accidents (driving in particular) involving alcohol versus other substances has declined.

Education indeed does work. In fact, there were many other methods on that very site, methods that some of you have heard about, like taking someone's keys or the idea of a designated driver. These ideas do not apply to drugs for some reason. Why? Because people have not been educated in the matter.

I'll bring this point up again because kur seems to ignore it completely: banning something doesn't stop it from being done.

Kur, you, and others who agree with you, in fact, are promoting the death in many of these accidents because you refuse the idea of making marijuana legal. If marijuana was legal there would be proper education, which would reduce the number of marijuana-related driving accidents (this is proven above, do not argue with it unless you have actual evidence which states otherwise!).

-blazed

 

[Kur]

Here's some quotes from sections I found useful to point out to Kur and others who believe that being drunk is equivalent to a mind-controlled urge to drive:

Don't put words in my mouth.

You are using an obvious straw man argument in an attempt to make my arguments sound silly.

I never said it is an urge to drive, I said you don't even think about whether it is right or wrong, you just do it because you want to.

And I never claimed that EVERYBODY is like this. Some people are capable of getting hammered or stoned off their gourd and still know what they should or should not be doing.

BUT then their are people like my aunt (and many others) who get drunk and lose the ability to tell what is happening in the real world. She would often get so drunk she could barely walk and then decide she was not drunk at all and try to drive to the local bar. I would have to disable her car or hide her keys at least 4 times a week. She would get just tipsy and get in her car to go to some party at a cousins house. She always said she never drives drunk and that she never would, but guess what, she always did, and I always had to try to stop her.

But then why should my nights be ruined because of her inability to control herself? Why is it my responsibility to make sure she doesn't drive when she thinks she isn't drunk? She knows the danger, she has seen the education and knows the laws.

I'll bring this point up again because kur seems to ignore it completely: banning something doesn't stop it from being done.

And again I never claimed this foolishness either.

But what it does is reduce the number of people who do use it. Legalizing marijuana will only make it more available and easier to get. It will only cause an increase in usage.

Kur, you, and others who agree with you, in fact, are promoting the death in many of these accidents because you refuse the idea of making marijuana legal. If marijuana was legal there would be proper education, which would reduce the number of marijuana-related driving accidents (this is proven above, do not argue with it unless you have actual evidence which states otherwise!).

-blazed

This is just a ridiculous line of faulty reasoning. The fact that the deaths are compared to miles driven shows that the statistics are skewed to favor one view over another. Why not take a look at the average miles per person driven and the rates from 1982 to the present? I bet you will find that people are driving farther now than they were back then meaning there is more available miles per person meaning an increase in drunk driving per person would be negated or reversed if compared to miles driven.

And show me any direct evidence that laws and education (both of which there are plenty in Arizona) concerning drunk driving has significantly reduced the average persons inclination to drive while under the influence. Because it certainly hasn't here. Sheriff Joe can attest to that.

Your whole argument is based on what 'could be' or 'might happen' with no real basis on evidence.

 

[CivicSmash]

http://www.marijuana.com/movies-television/95359-magic-weed.html

look at the one at the top.

 

[cF=)]

But then why should my nights be ruined because of her inability to control herself?

First, she's old. Old people's mentality is often different and she's been probably educated in a family where her parents also might have drink and drive without any consciousness of the danger. This is hypothetical, but why didn't you let her drive, call the cops and then report a drunk driver? When she'll be caught and taught by the law (which you say never acts because you take on your own charge to act as a policeman), maybe she'll realize it was bad. I don't know, suspending a permit seems enough to make someone think twice.

But what it does is reduce the number of people who do use it. Legalizing marijuana will only make it more available and easier to get. It will only cause an increase in usage.

The current rates couldn't really go any higher... about half your high school kids have tried marijuana in some statistics I read. Do we currently see such an increase in road kills related to marijuana use?

I find strange you push away blazed's statistics for absolutely no reason. We should not even be speaking about marijuana driving, it should be already settled down; legal marijuana doesn't make the act of driving under the influence good! The setting you're throwing us into is "what if people smoke and drive?", but you totally forget that this behaviour is condemn by current laws concerning alcohol. We all know alcohol won't go illegal any soon, so why this double standard? Don't go any further, it's not necessary until we settle this question.

I bet you will find that people are driving farther now than they were back then meaning there is more available miles per person meaning an increase in drunk driving per person would be negated or reversed if compared to miles driven.

Prove it lucky boy. Betting doesn't constitute an argument in any way.

 

[blazedaces]

Don't put words in my mouth.

You are using an obvious straw man argument in an attempt to make my arguments sound silly.

I never said it is an urge to drive, I said you don't even think about whether it is right or wrong, you just do it because you want to.

And I never claimed that EVERYBODY is like this. Some people are capable of getting hammered or stoned off their gourd and still know what they should or should not be doing.

First of all, it was an obvious use of satire. I don't think anyone reading it actually believes you think drinking = "I want to drive right now" (except maybe you, I'm not sure...).

Note: I'm trying not to be insulting here, but I realize I am a bit. I hope you'll take in good humor and not be overly offended as I don't intend it.

By the way, for a straw-man fallacy to exist I would have to attack a specific argument, like after I claimed you think drinking = wanting to drive I would just prove this to be true and then sit there, laughing. While I find the idea hilarious I didn't try to discredit the argument and therefore show that you're wrong.

All I did was point out some information to you.

BUT then their are people like my aunt (and many others) who get drunk and lose the ability to tell what is happening in the real world. She would often get so drunk she could barely walk and then decide she was not drunk at all and try to drive to the local bar. I would have to disable her car or hide her keys at least 4 times a week. She would get just tipsy and get in her car to go to some party at a cousins house. She always said she never drives drunk and that she never would, but guess what, she always did, and I always had to try to stop her.

But then why should my nights be ruined because of her inability to control herself? Why is it my responsibility to make sure she doesn't drive when she thinks she isn't drunk? She knows the danger, she has seen the education and knows the laws.

I asked you to stop using anecdotal evidence before. I don't like asking you again. Why do you think I use statistics? To counteract your heart breaking stories?! You're practically using an appeal to emotion here. It's like if I disagree with you I don't feel bad for your situation. I really do, but it has no place in this debate (anecdotal evidence never does).

And again I never claimed this foolishness either.

In one of my major posts on page two I mentioned the following and you completely ignored it. You didn't stand there saying "I'm ignoring this post!", but not responding is in fact ignoring. You acted like the entire rest of my post wasn't there. To be honest, and I still feel this way, I'm assuming you didn't respond out of convenience, since ignoring the good points I brought up is easier than countering them.

The following is the point I already made and you never responded to it (that's called ignoring):

You guys, I want to make this point really clear now: banning something does not necessarily stop it from happening! It's banned now and to be quite frank all attempts to slow it down have failed (anti-drug programs have been proven to fail, perhaps if they changed the way they educated from "just say no" to something a little smarter). When you guys understand that you'll agree with me...

Now you say:

But what it does is reduce the number of people who do use it. Legalizing marijuana will only make it more available and easier to get. It will only cause an increase in usage.

And earlier in the same post:

Use the very site that Kur posted ( http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html )
and now compare it with the following site on cigarette rates amongst high school students: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5323a1.htm

Notice something? I was honestly a bit surprised, but I would have to say that these statistics aren't exactly comparable per say, yet still, the numbers (remember to combine male and female together) aren't too different. Even the annual usage (as opposed to lifetime) are fairly close.

Also, while I know I've been guilty of this too, it doesn't make it right. Statements like "I see..." are not valid here. Please try to back up your statements with evidence or I'm not going to accept it...

What does this tell us: [highlight]marijuana usage while illegal is nearly as high as tobacco usage that is legal[/highlight]. Your argument is completely void. Just as many children currently obtain cigarettes. Also, the tobacco industry makes plenty of money. It's not worried about a few kids that slip through the cracks and steal from their parents. Also, you're ignoring the fact that they're not stealing from the store, but from their parents. Economy still wins.

Economically, while the numbers stay relatively the same in usage, legally we would benefit a tremendous amount economically by making marijuana legal.

I do not like that I have to go and point out what sections you forgot about. You literally are acting like I never said this when my post was a perfect response to what you said above.

I also would like to remind you what that highlighted section must imply. If cigarettes, which are legal, are smoked nearly as often as marijuana, which is illegal, the rates (according to evidence, not speculation!) would not rise dramatically.

This is just a ridiculous line of faulty reasoning. The fact that the deaths are compared to miles driven shows that the statistics are skewed to favor one view over another. Why not take a look at the average miles per person driven and the rates from 1982 to the present? I bet you will find that people are driving farther now than they were back then meaning there is more available miles per person meaning an increase in drunk driving per person would be negated or reversed if compared to miles driven.

And show me any direct evidence that laws and education (both of which there are plenty in Arizona) concerning drunk driving has significantly reduced the average persons inclination to drive while under the influence. Because it certainly hasn't here. Sheriff Joe can attest to that.

Your whole argument is based on what 'could be' or 'might happen' with no real basis on evidence.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There were 7 paragraphs in my quotes from that website (as I'm sure you didn't bother to read the entire thing) and each one had a percentage or statistic in it. Only two mentioned miles driven and one of those two even had a second percentage not related to miles driven.

I don't know the name of this fallacy, but I'm sure it exists: you're picking and choosing one point to contradict amongst the many and then ignoring the rest, trying to discredit the whole argument by that one point. Unfortunately in this case, I wasn't even making a point by referring you to any information about miles driven. That has NOTHING to do with my argument.

I just showed you some general information. The major portion of information I was relying on was that the percentage of accidents related to alcohol/drugs. The percentage with alcohol have gone down (but just as many, even more have to do with drugs). That's it. It has to do with number of fatalities and number of accidents (read it again!).

So if the percentage is going down then something must be causing this. Whatever it is we're doing with alcohol, we would do the same thing with marijuana, which means the same trend would occur.

-blazed

Edit: Kur, if I'm wrong about this I apologize. But I get this notion from your responses that you're taking this all a bit too personally. Like instead of this being a debate which we're saying straight to each other somehow I'm making these remarks behind your back. You seem to be sometimes too busy defending yourself against "accusations" to respond to actual arguments.

Again, I'm not personally attacking you. To be honest I very much enjoy this debate.

 

[Kur]

First, she's old. Old people's mentality is often different and she's been probably educated in a family where her parents also might have drink and drive without any consciousness of the danger. This is hypothetical, but why didn't you let her drive, call the cops and then report a drunk driver? When she'll be caught and taught by the law (which you say never acts because you take on your own charge to act as a policeman), maybe she'll realize it was bad. I don't know, suspending a permit seems enough to make someone think twice.

First, shes not old. Her parents almost never drank when she was young.

And I didn't let her drive because an accident could happen just down the road. When I wasn't home one night to stop her, she did drive drunk and made it about half a mile away and ran over the curb into an empty parking lot. A few feet sooner and she would have hit a light pole.

And again, I have to say that she knew it was bad. While she was sober she swore up and down she never drives drunk and often stopped other people from doing so. But get 3 or more beers in her and she swears she is ok to drive.

The current rates couldn't really go any higher... about half your high school kids have tried marijuana in some statistics I read. Do we currently see such an increase in road kills related to marijuana use?

I am not concerned with the people who try marijuana once and leave it alone. I am concerned with the people who are habitual users.

I find strange you push away blazed's statistics for absolutely no reason. We should not even be speaking about marijuana driving, it should be already settled down; legal marijuana doesn't make the act of driving under the influence good! The setting you're throwing us into is "what if people smoke and drive?", but you totally forget that this behaviour is condemn by current laws concerning alcohol. We all know alcohol won't go illegal any soon, so why this double standard? Don't go any further, it's not necessary until we settle this question.

I gave a perfectly valid reason why Blazed statistics were garbage. I explained why they are biased in one direction.

And my argument is not "what if people smoke and drive?" It is "why the hell should we legalize something that reduces a persons ability to judge right from wrong, or whether they are ok to perform certain tasks, thereby placing others in danger?"

And I have told you people a dozen times that I do not agree with the double standard and that alcohol should also be illegal and that just because one bad thing is legal does not mean all bad things should be as well.

Prove it lucky boy. Betting doesn't constitute an argument in any way.

Fine. Allow me to reword my statement.

"You will find that people are driving farther now than they were back then meaning there is more available miles per person meaning an increase in drunk driving per person would be negated or reversed if compared to miles driven."




Blazed.

I use the anecdotal evidence because I can't seem to find any statistics concerning the number of people who think they are not drunk when they are. It would seem that no such study has been done and I am not in a position to perform such a study. However in my personal experience there is a significant number of people who fall into that category.

And I am not using an appeal to emotion. If you are getting emotional, that is your problem. What I am doing is using a personal experience as an example. Just as many other do who say things like "Well I get high all the time and don't drive!"

And I am not ignoring your posts. I simply do not have the time to sit down and counter every little detail of your responses so I have to pick and choose the most important points to debate.

And just to address the point you highlighted in yellow, both marijuana and tobacco are illegal as far as minors in high school are concerned. That alone completely invalidates that entire argument. But on top of that, taking a sample of only high schoolers does not accurately represent the population as a whole and makes the argument only valid among high schoolers.

If I discredit some statistics because of some flaw, then those are the only statistics I am discrediting. Your other set of stats really had no bearing on anything as far as I could see.

The fact that the one set of statistics was based on vehicle miles driven, rather than number of people on the road, it is flawed and invalidated the statement you made based on the statistics.

And now once again I am out of time and have to go.

 

[cF=)]

First, shes not old. Her parents almost never drank when she was young.

Fine then, I deny your anecdotal (and traumatizing) experience as evidence because you're making a hasty generalization about drunk people behaviour under the influence. If a black man robbed me, I wouldn't say all black people are burglars.

And again, I have to say that she knew it was bad. While she was sober she swore up and down she never drives drunk and often stopped other people from doing so. But get 3 or more beers in her and she swears she is ok to drive.

It almost look like propaganda: smoke some of that and you're likely to kill your brother.

I am not concerned with the people who try marijuana once and leave it alone. I am concerned with the people who are habitual users.

Please define "habitual" users and why you're concerned about them. Sounding like a soccer mom won't give you the edge.

I gave a perfectly valid reason why Blazed statistics were garbage. I explained why they are biased in one direction.

No you did not, your hypothesis isn't supported by anything else than your own judgement.

And my argument is not "what if people smoke and drive?" It is "why the hell should we legalize something that reduces a persons ability to judge right from wrong, or whether they are ok to perform certain tasks, thereby placing others in danger?"

The problem I'm faced with is your misunderstanding of drugs and how they really "reduces a person's judgement". Argue all you want, if you think smoking marijuana is equal to drinking beer, you're dead wrong, first, but you probably have no experience with psychedelics whatsoever and their effects on the brain. I would uselessly type words if I wanted to describe what feeling marijuana gives.

And I have told you people a dozen times that I do not agree with the double standard and that alcohol should also be illegal and that just because one bad thing is legal does not mean all bad things should be as well.

Brushing away an argument much? If we debate in the real world, we follow the world's rules and this argument completely applies.

Fine. Allow me to reword my statement.

"You will find that people are driving farther now than they were back then meaning there is more available miles per person meaning an increase in drunk driving per person would be negated or reversed if compared to miles driven."

No! For the last time, no.

Prove that people in 1982 were driving nearer than today, because you have NO numbers to support what you say.

 

[CivicSmash]

And I have told you people a dozen times that I do not agree with the double standard and that alcohol should also be illegal and that just because one bad thing is legal does not mean all bad things should be as well.- Kur.

You actually think that alcohol should be illegal? Wow. The country already tried that once and it ruined the country. Drinking rates shot wayyyyyyyy up and since alcohol was no longer regulated by the government many people died from bad booze. Not to mention all of the criminals making money who had a new industry to deal in, in turn the government lost money. Ever heard of Al Capone? You need to have a drink yourself and quit judging things that you have no idea about. Oh, and it insn't the alcohols fault that your aunt drinks and drives, its hers. Alcohol doesn't FORCE anyone to get into their car and drive. Your logic is off.

 

[Crimson King]

Stop posting signatures.

There is absolutely no proof marijuana usage will go up. Alcohol is legal, and it's usage INCREASED when it was made illegal. If anything, a lot of people will probably stop doing it because there is no extra thrill to it. Teenagers for example mostly drink underaged to fit and to take a huge risk. Personally, I didn't drink for the first time until I was 17 or 18 and even then, it wasn't that much fun. I only got buzzed when I was 21 (after drinking a mason jar of vodka with some beers between sips) because I never really trusted anyone to be drunk around. I hated the fact that for a length of time I would be without control of myself. Now, is that universal? **** no. I think if you want to lose complete control over yourself, you have every right.

Laws do not stop crime; they punish criminals. Murder laws will not stop someone from murdering someone, but once they are caught they will be given the set punishment for it. Same with Marijuana laws. When police bust someone in the act of committing a crime, they do so because they got lucky. Police work is all about detective work and following clues to SOLVING a crime and punishing an offender.

With marijuana and alcohol, you hurt no one in your own home, but if you are driving, I hope you die because you are endangering people all around you that chose not to drink or get high.

What Kur is basically trying to say is that alcohol and marijuana take away your complex thought processing abilities. Instead of thinking "Hey, I'm too drunk to drive." You will, more than likely think you are ALMOST too drunk to drive, so you try to drive slower. But honestly, this works just a dangerously with cold medicine. ANYTHING that skews your perceptions and mind is dangerous when behind the wheel of a car.

To add: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml

This site has a TON of drug information, and its weed source is very intriguing. The site is VERY biased towards drugs, but it does present some good arguments.

 

[Kur]

Fine then, I deny your anecdotal (and traumatizing) experience as evidence because you're making a hasty generalization about drunk people behaviour under the influence. If a black man robbed me, I wouldn't say all black people are burglars.

It almost look like propaganda: smoke some of that and you're likely to kill your brother.

Please define "habitual" users and why you're concerned about them. Sounding like a soccer mom won't give you the edge.

No you did not, your hypothesis isn't supported by anything else than your own judgement.

The problem I'm faced with is your misunderstanding of drugs and how they really "reduces a person's judgement". Argue all you want, if you think smoking marijuana is equal to drinking beer, you're dead wrong, first, but you probably have no experience with psychedelics whatsoever and their effects on the brain. I would uselessly type words if I wanted to describe what feeling marijuana gives.

Brushing away an argument much? If we debate in the real world, we follow the world's rules and this argument completely applies.

No! For the last time, no.

Prove that people in 1982 were driving nearer than today, because you have NO numbers to support what you say.

I am going to answer this in reverse order here.


http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/...1b99270af4d213be85257275005e30ac?OpenDocument

"But to the surprise of many economists, U.S. motorists changed their ways enough to cut the nation's per-driver mileage by 0.4% in 2005, ending a string of increases dating back to 1980, government data show."

It does not give direct statistics, but it clearly says that since 1980, the average person in the US is driving more miles today than the average person in 1980.

I am not brushing off an argument. I am stating that I do not agree with alcohol being legal, so I have no reason to give a response as to why there is a double standard. I do not think there should be a double standard. They should both be illegal.

Stating that marijuana should be legal because alcohol is legal is a fallacy called an "Appeal to common practice" combined with an "Appeal to fair play"

1. X is a common action.
2. Therefor X is correct or morally justified.

1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y (alcohol consumers) in manner X (legal) and to treat people of type Z (marijuana users) in a different manner (illegal).
2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
3. Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.



What does me not having ever done marijuana have to do with my knowledge of the effects of the drug? I know there is a name for this sort of fallacy but I can not recall it right now. The effects have been studied and written down. I already provided a link and there are many others available at google.

I don't feel I need to defend this argument further. But I will. His argument was based on misleading statistics. His statistics showed a decrease in crashes compared to miles driven. What the statistics should be based on is number of crashes per person on the road. And as I just showed in the link above, people are driving more miles today than in the past, meaning a reduction in crashes per miles could represent nothing more than no change in crash rate at all or even an increase in crashes per person.

Habitual users - People who smoke marijuana on a consistent basis. Whether that be once a month, once a week, or 11 joints a day.

I never said she was likely to drive just because she was drunk. I said she often did not think she was drunk when she was. Just because it is a little scary to think about, does not mean it is not true.

I am not making a hasty generalization. I have already pointed out that this reduction in judgment is not universal. But it is enough of a problem to warrant the use of marijuana being illegal.



CivicSmash

Again, I said I think alcohol should be illegal. I know what happened with prohibition. But just because the majority of people like their hooch, does not mean it is a good thing. But marijuana is already illegal and there are no riots in the streets and big mob bosses running cities into the ground.

And I do not know how many times I have to say it, but I never said alcohol forces anybody to drive. I said that a lot of people drive while drunk because they do not feel that they are drunk. It is not a hard concept to get but do try.

 

[Pure-???]

Marijuana is terrible on your body in general. there aren't many place marijuana doesn't affect negatively. Overall, the bad seriously outweighs the good.

also, it's true that no one would support the cause.

 

[OffTheChain]

Well I am just going to throw my 2 cents in.

I am kind of half and half on the issue I suppose, although it has medicinal purposes some abuse this reason to obtain weed just so they can get high. At the most they can allow it with a doctor's prescription and for those who actually need it.

I could see its use for say chemo patients since the medication they take can make them sick and they won't eat, the weed reinforces eating which will help in their recovery.

Or so I hear.

 

[Pure-???]

Of course, one issue with medicinal marijuana is that people are given a way to legally use an otherwise illegal drug.

 

[OffTheChain]

That is true, it would give them an excuse to use an illegal drug legally but under the circumstance I am suggesting it was initially being given for medical benefits.

Free range use of this drug for someone just wanting to get there fix is not something I support but for someone who could use it to get better from a sickness its not all bad. Hopefully there is a way to get the health benefits from it w/o the dependency and addiction.

 

[manhunter098]

I can agree with legalizing marijuana. However I am opposed to personal growing of it, since it would discourage people from working in order to make the money to buy weed.

 

[Kur]

That is true, it would give them an excuse to use an illegal drug legally but under the circumstance I am suggesting it was initially being given for medical benefits.

Free range use of this drug for someone just wanting to get there fix is not something I support but for someone who could use it to get better from a sickness its not all bad. Hopefully there is a way to get the health benefits from it w/o the dependency and addiction.

They can isolate the substances in marijuana and put it into pill form, but nobody is arguing for that. They just want legal 'medical' marijuana to smoke. Wonder why?

And the health benefits are limited to pain relief and nausea relief after such treatments as chemotherapy.

Marijuana does not cure anything. It does not help fight anything. It has no benefit against any cancer, virus, bacteria, or any such thing.




On a side note, the very next person who brings up hemp rope should be slapped across the face.

There is no rope shortage. The rope we have is plenty strong and not likely to be eaten by bugs, or horses. I have no problem going to Home Depot and buying 200 feet of nylon rope for $5. Unless the earth is taken over by aliens and the only way our species can survive is by swinging through forests on natural material rope, I do not see a need for hemp rope.

 

[CivicSmash]

"And my argument is not "what if people smoke and drive?" It is "why the hell should we legalize something that reduces a persons ability to judge right from wrong" - Kur.

Marijuana in no way reduces a persons ability to judge right from wrong. I would say it makes you distinguish right from wrong even more than being sober.

"What does me not having ever done marijuana have to do with my knowledge of the effects of the drug?" - Kur


EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"But marijuana is already illegal and there are no riots in the streets and big mob bosses running cities into the ground." - Kur


Were there riots during prohibition? I don't think so. There was no need to riot because the government realized its mistake and changed it. Today there are non-violent protests all the time, including mass smoke outs in Colorado.

The American mob isn't nearly as powerful or ruthless as it was in the 1920's. And they aren't "celebrity" figures like Capone was. The reason why they had such power back then was only due to the fact that alcohol, the most widely abused drug by far, was made illegal and they made more money selling illegal booze than they could count. Of course mob bosses aren't "running cities into the ground" because they couldn't if they wanted to, and don't have the financial resources they once had due to illegal alcohol to do so.
However, there are many marijuana drug dealing fat-cats that keep low profiles to hide from the cops. Billions of illegal dollars are being made. We are paying billions to keep offenders in jail. Just because marijuana is illegal doesn't mean that it should be. The only reason why it was made illegal in the first place was for arbitrary reasons.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/504/marijuana_prohibition_costs_billions_jon_gettman_study

This potential money could be used for so many others things. We need it now more than ever considering our ****** president decided it was necessary to spend 400 million A DAY on this war. No wonder the dollar sucks ***. What kind of president declares war and then LOWERS taxes? Hes the first.

"I said that a lot of people drive while drunk because they do not feel that they are drunk. It is not a hard concept to get but do try." - Kur.

If you don't feel drunk than you probably aren't. I would say that the vast majority of drunk drivers know at the time that they shouldn't be driving. But they do anyway. Another problem with the laws is that you can get covicted of DUI after one beer. This is ridiculous. What is drunk? Apparently the government thinks its after 1 drink.


"They can isolate the substances in marijuana and put it into pill form, but nobody is arguing for that."

Why on earth would someone argue to put the substances in marijuana into a pill? They have the same effects either way. Why spend the money, time and effort. Thats like eating ice instead of drinking water . It makes no sense.

http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html

http://www.benefitsofmarijuana.com/benefits.html

"It does not help fight anything. It has no benefit against any cancer, virus, bacteria, or any such thing."
-Kur
Yes, it does.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=5771385

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/health/webmd/main2696726.shtml

http://www.soop.ca/potfacts/cancer.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070607171120.htm

There are more and more studies being done on marijuana, and more and more they are finding that there is no serious harm or threats, but benefits. The more marijuana is studied the more health benefits they recognize.


"On a side note, the very next person who brings up hemp rope should be slapped across the face.

There is no rope shortage. The rope we have is plenty strong and not likely to be eaten by bugs, or horses. I have no problem going to Home Depot and buying 200 feet of nylon rope for $5. Unless the earth is taken over by aliens and the only way our species can survive is by swinging through forests on natural material rope, I do not see a need for hemp rope." -Kur


On a side note, you should be slapped in the face. You just don't get it do you. What are you talking about? Hemp has thousands of uses. It is cultivated virtually everywhere in the world besides the united states. Funny considering that the Constitution is written on hemp and hemp plays a big role in American history. Hemp is also less costly on the environment than other materials to produce.Hemp rope is just one thing hemp can produce and shouldnlt really be a factor in whether or not hemp should be cultivated.

Please read this. I hope you understand that there is a need for hemp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"It also runs parallel with the "Green Future" objectives that are becoming increasingly popular. Hemp requires little to no pesticides, replenishes soil with nutrients and nitrogen, controls erosion of the topsoil, and produces a lot of oxygen, considering how fast it grows. Furthermore, Hemp could be used to replace many potentially harmful products, such as tree paper (the processing of which uses bleaches and other toxic chemicals, and contributes to deforestation), cosmetics (which often contain synthetic oils that can clog pores and provide little nutritional content for the skin), and plastics (which are petroleum based and cannot decompose)."


Ever heard of the phrase don't knock it till you try it? In my case I had to try it several times before I quit knocking it and started to like it. The first highs can be pretty intense, even with crappy weed. After you have built a small tolerance it is much more enjoyable. Just don't fight the feeling or you will have a bad time. Go smoke. You will realize that it isn't "dangerous" or "unsafe". It is actually very pleasurable and safe, and nobody in history has ever overdosed on it because you can't. A MILLION TIMES SAFER THAN ALCOHOL.

It's not a question of IF marijuana will be legalized, but WHEN.

 

[blazedaces]

What the statistics should be based on is number of crashes per person on the road.

I just showed you some general information. The major portion of information I was relying on was that the percentage of accidents related to alcohol/drugs. The percentage with alcohol have gone down (but just as many, even more have to do with drugs). That's it. [highlight]It has to do with number of fatalities and number of accidents (read it again!).[/highlight]

From the original source I quoted:

* The U.S. has a low traffic fatality rate (drunk, as well as sober) and is a very safe nation in which to drive. And it's been getting safer for decades. 32 There are now fewer than one and a half deaths (including the deaths of bicyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, auto drivers, and auto passengers) per one hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 33 [highlight]Alcohol-related traffic fatalities have dropped from 60% of all traffic deaths in 1982 down to 39% in 2005 (the most recent year for which such statistics are available).[/highlight] 34

* Alcohol-related traffic fatalities per vehicle miles driven has also dropped dramatically -- from 1.64 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1982 down to 0.56 in 2005 (the latest year for which such statistics are available). 35

* [highlight]The proportion of alcohol-related crash fatalities has fallen 35% since 1982, but the proportion of traffic deaths NOT associated with alcohol have jumped 53% during the same time. We’re winning the battle against alcohol-related traffic fatalities, but losing the fight against traffic deaths that are not alcohol-related.[/highlight] 36

I'm not going into detail about why your analysis of that particular statistic is awful.

I don't understand, do you not know how to read properly? Do you purposefully ignore when people talk straight to you? You have no valid excuse for this.

Blazed.

I use the anecdotal evidence because I can't seem to find any statistics concerning the number of people who think they are not drunk when they are. It would seem that no such study has been done and I am not in a position to perform such a study. However in my personal experience there is a significant number of people who fall into that category.

And I am not using an appeal to emotion. If you are getting emotional, that is your problem. What I am doing is using a personal experience as an example. Just as many other do who say things like "Well I get high all the time and don't drive!"

I have answered this nonsense already. I don't care if other people try to use anecdotal evidence. Call them out on it just like I'm doing with yours. Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable!

And I am not ignoring your posts. I simply do not have the time to sit down and counter every little detail of your responses so I have to pick and choose the most important points to debate.

Not responding is ignoring, I already pointed this out. You have a bad excuse for ignoring them, but that's your fault. You pick and choose only points you wish to respond to, but conveniently ignore others that are clearly significant. You also seem to skim rather than read properly and it's getting a little ridiculous.

And just to address the point you highlighted in yellow, both marijuana and tobacco are illegal as far as minors in high school are concerned. That alone completely invalidates that entire argument. But on top of that, taking a sample of only high schoolers does not accurately represent the population as a whole and makes the argument only valid among high schoolers.

I was responding directly to someone who's issue was with underage smoking of marijuana and was claiming that underage students smoked more tobacco than smoked marijuana. In the context it was a perfect response, but I can understand why you have issue with it being a direct response to you now. Still, the conclusion I have come up with still stands.

It's not illegal for minors to smoke or possess tobacco. It's only illegal for them to buy it from a store. Even if this wasn't the case there is such a drastic difference between something that is banned entirely and something that only has an age at which you currently are allowed to use it.

First of all, again, my point was in direct response about high school students, so an argument only about high school students was my goal and works in my case. Still, to ignore that the rates aren't directly related to all other rates of the population is faulty reasoning (it's obvious high school students grow up to become the rest of the population).

And now once again I am out of time and have to go.

This excuse wouldn't work anywhere else and it certainly doesn't here. If you were a lawyer responding to another in court and gave this excuse you would look pathetic. Just because you don't care that you disrespect other people by ignoring them in this case doesn't make the excuse any better.

-blazed

 

[CivicSmash]

"It's not illegal for minors to smoke or possess tobacco." - Blazedaces

This depends on your state, but the majority of states prohibit minors from smoking and possession. Including your own.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0015.htm

 

[blazedaces]

"It's not illegal for minors to smoke or possess tobacco." - Blazedaces

This depends on your state, but the majority of states prohibit minors from smoking and possession. Including your own.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0015.htm

Interesting. Guess I was wrong about that one...

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

Well just to point something out...if the percentage of alcohol related deaths goes down...the percentage of all other causes NATURALLY will rise...since added together it MUST equal 100%.


Just because a lower percentage of alcohol related deaths is occuring, doesnt mean that other causes are increasing at all in total number of incidences. They can stay the same and their percentages will still rise.

 

[blazedaces]

Well just to point something out...if the percentage of alcohol related deaths goes down...the percentage of all other causes NATURALLY will rise...since added together it MUST equal 100%.


Just because a lower percentage of alcohol related deaths is occuring, doesnt mean that other causes are increasing at all in total number of incidences. They can stay the same and their percentages will still rise.

No **** sherlock.

Was someone claiming otherwise?

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

I dont know, I think I confused myself a bit.

 

[Taymond]

That is true, it would give them an excuse to use an illegal drug legally but under the circumstance I am suggesting it was initially being given for medical benefits.

This is irrelevant. An excuse to use an illegal drug legally? That's called a prescription. I can't just go shoot up on Demerol, but does anyone complain about its use in prescribed treatment? Medicinal marijuana use is no different.

 

[blazedaces]

This is irrelevant. An excuse to use an illegal drug legally? That's called a prescription. I can't just go shoot up on Demerol, but does anyone complain about its use in prescribed treatment? Medicinal marijuana use is no different.

Taymond, I don't know if you should even bother. These "new guys" come into the thread, don't read anything besides the first post, make a grammatically incorrect post that's two lines long bringing up points that have already been argued against in this very thread (which is only 5 pages long).

-blazed

 

[KoalaBear]

I personally beleve that if alcohol is legal then marijuana should be legal. Along with that salvia is legal and the salvia plant has stronger effects then that of marijuana. Marijuana has no bad sad effects besides being "high". Although i do believe it could be abusive but what other drug isnt abusive...

 

[chucklesXcore]

whoa whoa whoa, some of the stuff said here has been pretty ridiculous. Like Marijuana has no negative effects whatsoever? yah it definitely does, I'm not going to cite anything because I'm lazy though. I will say that I've been told my doctor's (my dad got cancer) that smoking a joint is the equivalent of smoking ten cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs. So its still bad for you. I'm not sure about the people who just straight up eat it.

Regardless of how potent it is to hurt someone or whether it heals, its clear that we already legalize stuff that doesn't exactly help people. Alcohol is just for pleasure/fun and smoking is usually used to "relax"(even though its just a psyche thing from what I've heard). So why not legalize it?

Don't know if its been said, but I think the reason it hasn't is because there is no profit in it for America. A ton of other countries would get a HUGE profit from it because they have a lot more of it than we do. Cigarettes are profitable, marijuana isn't as profitable for us since it would be coming for the most part from other places. This may be a completely false claim, I will admit. But its just an idea I'd like to put out there. I'm open to someone proving to me that we have more of it and can make a profit of it as opposed to other countries making a profit off of it.

And yah, it may sound like a shallow reason you would think, but seriously, whats the point of cigarettes? They are well documented that all they do is kill people and there are no positives that come from them, but we allow them still. There is a ton of revenue from them. Thats why. And thats why I think marijuana will never be legalized as long as there's no profit in it.

 

[manhunter098]

Im pretty sure that inhaling tobacco smoke is at least as bad as marijuana smoke. Furthermore cigarettes have a filter and you dont take the smoke into your lungs. Essentially your docotor is comparing two different methods of use as well as two different substances. So its not exactly a fair comparison.

Im not too sure on the profitability, but I think that given time it could become more profitable for the US, and for the government itself there would be pretty much an instant gain through something new that they can heavily tax. But if that would help the economy as a whole I do not know.

 

[cF=)]

It's not important if it's profitable or not for the government! Like gay marriage, drugs legalization is another moral issue which won't benefit the government but everybody's rights in the end. Being jailed, fined, harassed and frowned upon by society after half a century of money-wasting anti-drug propaganda is something drug activists are trying to put a stop to.

 

[Pikaville]

I think it should.

The plant hemp is one of the most usefull on our planet(paper,clothes,fuel,a less harmfull tobacco)Even its medicinal purposes in some cases are unrivaled.

Its also incredibly easy to grow so most countries could grow it no problem.

Marajuana was used as a scapegoat by goverment to throw the general public off the rising "hard" drug problem way back in the 30's maybe 40's.

Here are a few quotes that were used in propaganda proposals to ban the drug.

"Persons using this narcotic [marijuana] smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain, and could be injured without having any realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility. . . . If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely death of its addict."


Emily Murphy
Edmonton Canada, 1923
campaigner for cannabis prohibition in Canada


"I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.” -Ronald Reagan


“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”


“Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.”


“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing.”


“You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother.”


“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”


“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days – Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”


-Harry J Anslinger


I mean is this not completely ridiculous or what?I smoke weed alot I actually much prefer it to getting drunk,it is great for relaxing,socialising(depends on the person),creating,it also makes for great sex! (Im telling you,you will come harder than you've ever come before.


The pros far outweight the few feeble attempts that call themselves cons.


Gateway drug my hole!If you'll take any drug in the 1st place the likelyhood is you would have taken a different(possibly harder) drug 1st if it was around alot(like how most weed smokers start)


If I saw my friends take esctasy(as my 1st experience of drugs)and saw the effects im pretty sure I would definitly have started taking it too.It just so happens that weed was the 1st.


Anyways im ranting time to sit back light up and wait for your responses.

**** I am seriously biased in this debate.

 

[manhunter098]

Pikaville, you do know that the cannabis plant used for its fibers and oils is not the same as the one cultivated for obtaining marijuana. Furthermore you cant really use a hemp plant for both, since the version that actually produces enough THC to make it a viable drug crop has very poor fibers (though Im not sure about the quantity of the oils though).