Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The only kind of weed that can fuck your head is laced one, and if weed is legalized and regulated that won't be a problem.

Except regulated weed tends to be more potent.

[Frumple]

I don't think the facts are that vague. I assume it's already being studied in the places it's legal and we'd know about a sub-class of weeds with significant negative side effects (or whatever you're implying - enough negative effects to be worth making these strains illegal).

Been studied quiet a bit even before then, iirc. It's just, y'know, there's a metric ton of bald face lies involved in anti-marijuana propaganda. And then even more completely unsupported statements and badly misconstrued or exaggerated information.

[DJ]

The only kind of weed that can fuck your head is laced one, and if weed is legalized and regulated that won't be a problem.

Except regulated weed tends to be more potent.

Yeah, but potency isn't the issue, it's the chemicals that don't naturally occur in marijuana being added to mask bad quality.

[penguinofhonor]

I don't think the facts are that vague. I assume it's already being studied in the places it's legal and we'd know about a sub-class of weeds with significant negative side effects (or whatever you're implying - enough negative effects to be worth making these strains illegal).

Been studied quiet a bit even before then, iirc. It's just, y'know, there's a metric ton of bald face lies involved in anti-marijuana propaganda. And then even more completely unsupported statements and badly misconstrued or exaggerated information.

I know there are a ton. There are so many bald-faced lies that are so dominant that I don't think we should be giving every unbased criticism of weed the benefit of the doubt.

[MaximumZero]

I think the problem boils down to one question: is it the government's job to protect you from yourself, or just to protect you from others?

If you believe that the government should protect you from yourself, then you should be all aboard criminalizing all kinds of things: alcohol, tobacco, candy, bacon, candied bacon...there's a lot of things in the world that are bad for you.

I'll pass on the nanny state. Drugs should be labeled as toxic or addictive if they are, but we should have the ability to consume whatever we want, as long as we don't put others in danger. It's already illegal to drive high, so that won't even need to change. Furthermore, there would be some good effects from legalization: we cut the throats of the cartels and stateside gangs, and the government makes a shitload of money from taxes and regulations.

[Neonivek]

If you believe that the government should protect you from yourself, then you should be all aboard criminalizing all kinds of things

Yep, there is no middleground.

You either support total government non-intervention in substances and care to the point where there is government mandated suicide booths.

OR you want a nanny state that makes eating KFC illegal.

[DJ]

TBF KFC is a lot worse for you than weed.

[Neonivek]

TBF KFC is a lot worse for you than weed.

Well...

To be fair I'd fully support government mandated closing of Taco Bell.

Mind you in that case it is because food that bad should be illegal.

[Sheb]

I think the problem boils down to one question: is it the government's job to protect you from yourself, or just to protect you from others?

Not at all. Life doesn't exist in black and white. You can oppose criminalizing bacon while thinking puttin on your seat belt should be mandatory. However, there is another question: does criminalizing weed cause less harm than legalizing it? A lot of the issues with weed (Funding cartels, weed as a gateway drug/crime...) are products of its illegal status rather than intrinsic qualities of the product. As such, I'd argue that legalized weed would cause less harm than criminalized weed, even though more people would probably smoke.

[MonkeyHead]

Frankly, when we allow people to consume tobacco and alcohol, the "to protect people" argument is hardly a strong one.

Oh, and PTW BTW.

[Neonivek]

Frankly, when we allow people to consume tobacco and alcohol, the "to protect people" argument is hardly a strong one.

Oh, and PTW BTW.

Well... if the whole prohibition didn't happen and show exactly why we can't ban it.

[MonkeyHead]

The prohibition era is pretty much a blueprint of how not to do things though - making things like alcohol/weed/genericsubstance illegal plays into the hands of organised criminals who are ready to take advantage of such a scenario, and makes more things worse for more people than legally controlling things.

[Neonivek]

The prohibition era is pretty much a blueprint of how not to do things though - making things like alcohol/weed/genericsubstance illegal plays into the hands of organised criminals who are ready to take advantage of such a scenario, and makes more things worse for more people than legally controlling things.

You still need the government to control substances pretty much no matter what.

Unless you can tell me the difference between Weed and every other controlled substance out there.

By the way popularity is transient.

[DJ]

Well, for starters, you can't OD on weed.

[Neonivek]

Well, for starters, you can't OD on weed.

Plenty of controlled substances you can't overdose on.

As well a few are so deadly you can't ingest them at all making OD not a factor.