Print

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

Definitely yes.

Leaning towards yes.

Maybe.

Leaning towards no.

Definitely no.

Undecided.

Other.

Don't care. / View poll.

[Nether]

What if they were to criminalize the manufacture and playing of guitars. If I start operating on the black market, selling guitars to my customers, does that make me an EVIL! person?

Let me see... Your profiteering off of the weaknesses of others.

I'd say yes.

Or perhaps you just think guitars are beautiful and that everyone should have and play them?

For example, that's what I think.

Guitars don't screw with your neighbor's brains. Bad example imo.

[Osmosis Jones]

The drug should be legal, but under strict ruling. A country has to have its own farms, unless they do no criminal activity will fall, it will only rise due to new markets.
It is also highly annoying for many people, as it does enter your brain (as one of very few products), and who does not want this to happen gets it pressed upon oneself. I would say yes only on the terms that it is allowed in secluded places where the outside world has minimal damage from it.

So only smoking it at home, or at special cafes set up for the fact? Isn't that the Amsterdam system?

What if they were to criminalize the manufacture and playing of guitars. If I start operating on the black market, selling guitars to my customers, does that make me an EVIL! person?

Let me see... Your profiteering off of the weaknesses of others.

I'd say yes.

Or perhaps you just think guitars are beautiful and that everyone should have and play them?

For example, that's what I think.

Guitars don't screw with your neighbor's brains. Bad example imo.

You've obviously never had neighbours who were shitty musicians then.


Anyway, to weigh in on the actual topic, I just voted as leaning toward legalization. I think there are still some issues that need to be worked out. I actually started writing a huge long post, but screw it, it boils down as follows;

Weed has proven pschological effects, and I have anecdotal examples of others. It is as hazardous to your lungs as cigarettes (do not give me that schtick about bongs, they just change some of the health effects to other ones). Given how easy it is to consume, and that there is no easy way to tell when a person is moderately stoned, it could cause serious hazards in the workplace from people sneaking a few doobies.

That said, in a controlled environment, it is a peaceful, relaxing euphoriant, with proven ability to both reduce pain in cancer patients, and increase appetite in chronic anorexics. Without some form of control (straight criminalisation doesn't count btw), people will obtain it anyway.

So, should it be outrightly criminalized? No.
Should it be available to those that need it? Definately.
Does that mean that it should be sold over the counter like ciggies or booze? That's a tough question, but ultimately I feel no, it should not. Maybe served in places such as bars, where responsible service laws can be enacted, but not general sale.

[Nether]

The drug should be legal, but under strict ruling. A country has to have its own farms, unless they do no criminal activity will fall, it will only rise due to new markets.
It is also highly annoying for many people, as it does enter your brain (as one of very few products), and who does not want this to happen gets it pressed upon oneself. I would say yes only on the terms that it is allowed in secluded places where the outside world has minimal damage from it.

So only smoking it at home, or at special cafes set up for the fact? Isn't that the Amsterdam system?

Yes, but that system flaws a bit. I personally think that it should be forbidden even at home, only available in the specific café's. Children/husband can't defend themselves against bad acting on parental order.

[Osmosis Jones]

Yes, but that system flaws a bit. I personally think that it should be forbidden even at home, only available in the specific café's. Children/husband can't defend themselves against bad acting on parental order.

Amen brother.

[fqllve]

Guitars don't screw with your neighbor's brains. Bad example imo.

Yeah, it's a bad example. But in that situation I would definitely continue to play, and begin to traffic, guitars. And it kinda offended me that someone would suggest I'd be evil for it when guitar criminalization is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

So, should it be outrightly criminalized? No.
Should it be available to those that need it? Definately.
Does that mean that it should be sold over the counter like ciggies or booze? That's a tough question, but ultimately I feel no, it should not. Maybe served in places such as bars, where responsible service laws can be enacted, but not general sale.

Pot is less dangerous than alcohol. It doesn't have the same effect of lowering your inhibitions. No one has ever died from THC poisoning. And it doesn't screw with your motor co-ordination to nearly the same degree.

I'd also say that pot is preferable to cigarettes because it at least has effects beyond "abates your nicotine withdrawals", but I'm an ex-smoker so I might be biased.

[Osmosis Jones]

Pot is less dangerous than alcohol. It doesn't have the same effect of lowering your inhibitions. No one has ever died from THC poisoning. And it doesn't screw with your motor co-ordination to nearly the same degree.

I have personally seen it slow reaction times and effect the ability to make judgement calls. It may not do so by lowering inhibitions as much, but it still gets you intoxicated, and that is never good in a situation where a clear head is necessary.

I'd also say that pot is preferable to cigarettes because it at least has effects beyond "abates your nicotine withdrawals", but I'm an ex-smoker so I might be biased.

Oh, I agree with you there, like I mentioned; the proven effects on cancer patients and anorexics is worth controlled usage alone. Similar arguments can also be made for MDMA (ecstacy).

[fqllve]

I have personally seen it slow reaction times and effect the ability to make judgement calls. It may not do so by lowering inhibitions as much, but it still gets you intoxicated, and that is never good in a situation where a clear head is necessary.

Oh, no doubt it has negative effects on judgment and reaction time. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near someone operating heavy machinery while high on pot. It's just, I don't think those effects are nearly as great as the ones alcohol has and alcohol in large doses is deadly.

Basically I don't see why we would continue our mostly unrestricted access to alcohol (which is dangerous) and cigarettes (which exist only to addict) and yet heavily regulate marijuana.

To me it is on about the same level as alcohol, only you aren't going to poison yourself with it.

[Osmosis Jones]

I'd put it as a bit worse, myself. Partly because IMO the propensity for psychological addiction is higher, partly because the toxicity (i.e. hangover) of alcohol also acts as a bit of a mediator, and also partly because I haven't encountered a surefire way to detect how stoned someone is.
For alcohol, we have digital breathalysers that can give accurate readings to an external scale, whereas weed we have a drug test that will tell you if it's been smoked sometime in the last month.
Here in Western Australia, we have a large mining industry. Most of the big companies require breathalyser tests every morning to ensure sobriety, as well as general drug tests. If weed becomes legal however, those drug tests become meaningless, and, well, I wouldn't want a 40 ton haulpak in the hands of someone baked out of their brain. That said, that view at least would change if you could find a breathalyser equivalent.

[rarborman]

I have personally seen it slow reaction times and effect the ability to make judgement calls. It may not do so by lowering inhibitions as much, but it still gets you intoxicated, and that is never good in a situation where a clear head is necessary.

Oh, no doubt it has negative effects on judgment and reaction time. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near someone operating heavy machinery while high on pot. It's just, I don't think those effects are nearly as great as the ones alcohol has and alcohol in large doses is deadly.

Basically I don't see why we would continue our mostly unrestricted access to alcohol (which is dangerous) and cigarettes (which exist only to addict) and yet heavily regulate marijuana.

To me it is on about the same level as alcohol, only you aren't going to poison yourself with it.

To be fair alcohol in the past was heavily regulated, but that only allowed unlawful entities to want to sell it and it didnt even stop people from drinking it, which is a good indication as to the nature of drugs in society...they are things to hold in your hand and say legal or not this is a problem with no solution.

[Shrugging Khan]

So far, it appears arguments point into the approximate direction of

"It's been illegal so far, so I'm scared of it", "It's been illegal so far, so society's scared of it", and "It's been illegal so far, and unless it magically changes, the law is god."

Amirite?

[Osmosis Jones]

Have you actually read the above arguments?

[eerr]

It seems to me that these arguements are much less significant than the politics involved.

and that we have been arguing an unnecessary / completely bullshitted angle for some time.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I'd put it as a bit worse, myself. Partly because IMO the propensity for psychological addiction is higher, partly because the toxicity (i.e. hangover) of alcohol also acts as a bit of a mediator,

Except a lot of people don't get hangovers. What is it, something like a third of the population doesn't get them after drinking? I know I sure don't, even when I've gotten blackout drunk the night before. In contrast, within a couple of hours of smoking pot my eyes start burning like I've been awake for days, and my head feels like it's full of cotton. So yeah, no. Alcohol is all around more pleasant, even if it destroys your liver.

and also partly because I haven't encountered a surefire way to detect how stoned someone is.

Uh, look for the person with bloodshot eyes who's giggling and smells like weed?

Basically I don't see why we would continue our mostly unrestricted access ... cigarettes (which exist only to addict) ...

Have you really forgotten what nicotine actually does? Or did you just find that the only way you could quit was to fill yourself with hatred for it, and insist that it didn't ever actually do anything? To insist that it does nothing but relieve its own withdrawal symptoms is just silly, and honestly sounds more like someone who's never smoked in their life would say.

[fqllve]

Have you really forgotten what nicotine actually does? Or did you just find that the only way you could quit was to fill yourself with hatred for it, and insist that it didn't ever actually do anything? To insist that it does nothing but relieve its own withdrawal symptoms is just silly, and honestly sounds more like someone who's never smoked in their life would say.

Well, it was an obvious exaggeration. Nothing's all negative. But yeah, for the most part I only ever smoked because I was addicted and I'm betting most people don't smoke for the appetite suppression or the mild buzz that only happens when you've been a while without.

A cigarette after a good meal or when you're drinking can be nice. But how easy is it to keep it to just that?

I'd put it as a bit worse, myself. Partly because IMO the propensity for psychological addiction is higher, partly because the toxicity (i.e. hangover) of alcohol also acts as a bit of a mediator, and also partly because I haven't encountered a surefire way to detect how stoned someone is.
For alcohol, we have digital breathalysers that can give accurate readings to an external scale, whereas weed we have a drug test that will tell you if it's been smoked sometime in the last month.
Here in Western Australia, we have a large mining industry. Most of the big companies require breathalyser tests every morning to ensure sobriety, as well as general drug tests. If weed becomes legal however, those drug tests become meaningless, and, well, I wouldn't want a 40 ton haulpak in the hands of someone baked out of their brain. That said, that view at least would change if you could find a breathalyser equivalent.

There are saliva tests that can detect THC up to about 24 hours.

As for psychological addiction, it can be. But it's nothing nearly as bad as say World of Warcraft. And pretty much anything can be psychologically addictive anyway. Whereas alcohol is physiologically addictive, which pot probably isn't, or isn't very.

[DJ]

Yes, but that system flaws a bit. I personally think that it should be forbidden even at home, only available in the specific café's. Children/husband can't defend themselves against bad acting on parental order.

If you wanna be an abusive father/husband, alcohol is a much better choice than pot. I mean, who's got the will to swing a leather belt when he's high as a kite?

Yes, we should ban both booze and leather belts, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!