Print

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

Yes

67 (62.6%)

Yes, but only if the amount you could own at any one time was limited

14 (13.1%)

Yes, but for Medicinal uses only

10 (9.3%)

Yes, but only for chronic illnesses(Cancer, AIDS, Crohn's Disease, etc.)

3 (2.8%)

No

13 (12.1%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Max White]

Interesting fact: Despite what you have been told, people have died from marijuana. There are many storys of people driving stoned and crashing, leading to death. Ok, so there have been no chemical induced deaths, but there has been deaths.

I know, that sort of logic can be used to fight alcohol, and it is 'compleatly legal' isn't it? Well no, it isn't. You need to be over 18 to buy it, you need to to sober to buy it, and there is a long list of things it is illegal to do while under it's influance. Compleatly legal my ass, it is a restricted susbstance.

Alcohol is also so what of a 'gateway' drug, and would be even more so were it also illegal. It causes more then it's fair share of health problems, and people have died from drinking too much in a single night, while nobody has died from smoking too much marijuana in a single night.

Personaly, I don't want marijuana legalised, but I have been bought up in a household where drugs of that nature are always bad, no matter what. If I was in pain, and was prescribed marijuana, not only would I be reluctant to take it, but I would be reluctant to tell my freinds and family about it, so it is safe to say I am bias on this issue.

However, next to alcohol, logic dictates that it should be legalised, but under heavy restrictions.

[ChairmanPoo]

According to wikipedia cannabis was first illegalized in the second decade of the 1900s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_.281900s.29

and agrarian tensions were the major factor, apparently.

As to this whole line of "drug companies did it": Does anyone have any evidence in that sense?

[Fanofgaming]

I've heard so many people blame different, random industries for the illegalization of marijuana that I don't buy any of them.

The textile industry did it.
The drug industry did it.
The lumber industry did it.

I think it's all crap, honestly.

[Neonivek]

Easy for you to say, when you don't have a stutter

So tell me where my logic is mistaken? Mind you that stutters caused by anything but anxiety wouldn't be affected.

I've heard so many people blame different, random industries for the illegalization of marijuana that I don't buy any of them.

The textile industry did it.
The drug industry did it.
The lumber industry did it.

I think it's all crap, honestly

As I said it was more likely they strongly supported its illegalisation with cash, lobbyists do it all the time, because it benefited them.

[Tellemurius]

marijuana was illegalize due to lobbying efforts by the tobbacco companies. it was cheaper and people could grow it out of their yards. They should legalize it, think of the taxes the government can rake in instead of spending taxes on destroying the stuff.

[Taricus]

I'm going to agree with Tellemurius here, better to tax it then to waste.

[Neonivek]

I'm going to agree with Tellemurius here, better to tax it then to waste.

From what I understand the Precident is that it won't be taxed or at least not significantly enough that it matters.

Especially since if it is true and it is harmless then they cannot hide the taxes behind an heir of "to convince people not to use it"

Also the money the government spends to stop drugs wouldn't go away after it is legalized... As really it only shifts attention.

Which is why I ignore the term "Gateway drug" as REALLY it is whatever is perceived as the lightest illegal drug at the time... and frankly from what I understand the true gateway drugs, if I understand statistics, is actually the legal ones.

[Enzo]

Personaly, I don't want marijuana legalised, but I have been bought up in a household where drugs of that nature are always bad, no matter what. If I was in pain, and was prescribed marijuana, not only would I be reluctant to take it, but I would be reluctant to tell my freinds and family about it, so it is safe to say I am bias on this issue.

Actually, this brings up an interesting point. In highschool my mom told me she'd rather have me smoke a joint at a party than have a couple beers. So that gives a little perspective on my upbringing. But a few years wiser, and having given up pot, I still agree with that call. I've never gotten in a fight because I'd been smoking too much weed.

They should legalize it, think of the taxes the government can rake in instead of spending taxes on destroying the stuff.

Fun fact: Marijuana is BC's largest industry, beating out forestry by almost a billion USD over half a billion USD (I fail reading comprehension). OK, sure, I don't really trust the source, but I've heard similar statistics thrown around a lot.

Especially since if it is true and it is harmless then they cannot hide the taxes behind an heir of "to convince people not to use it"

Anything you smoke is harmful.

[Nadaka]

Legalize it.

Its not correct that it has no harmful side effects. Its long term negative side effects are similar to tobacco, and its short term negative side effects are similar to alcohol.

The gateway drug factor is a myth, the only merit in that is that people who try marijuana find it to be nothing like the propaganda against it and may be under the impression that other drugs supposed effects are similarly mythical.

You also have to balance the society damage of legalization with the societal damage of continued prohibition. Use will will most likely go up a bit with legalization. So will people seeking treatment for their problems. Prohibition harms society by imprisoning millions of otherwise non-criminals. That not only eliminates their ability to be productive members of society and poses a huge cost in corrections and law enforcement. But it also trains these people to be real criminals from their exposure to the rest of the prison population.  Legalization can lead to effective age control, currently it is far easier for a teenager to get illegal drugs than it is to get tobacco or alcohol. Legalization can also apply "moral" taxes for funding the government.  Legalization also allows us to cut of the flow of money to foreign cartels and support domestic farmers.

The benefits of ending prohibition (at least for cannabis) seem to significantly outweight the drawbacks.

[G-Flex]

Interesting fact: Despite what you have been told, people have died from marijuana. There are many storys of people driving stoned and crashing, leading to death. Ok, so there have been no chemical induced deaths, but there has been deaths.

Right, but this isn't a point against marijuana, it's a point against using marijuana in the wrong circumstances, or using it irresponsibly.

[quote[I know, that sort of logic can be used to fight alcohol, and it is 'compleatly legal' isn't it? Well no, it isn't. You need to be over 18 to buy it, you need to to sober to buy it, and there is a long list of things it is illegal to do while under it's influance. Compleatly legal my ass, it is a restricted susbstance.[/quote]

Yeah (although it's age 21 in the States), although I would prescribe similar measures with marijuana, most likely.

Alcohol is also so what of a 'gateway' drug, and would be even more so were it also illegal. It causes more then it's fair share of health problems, and people have died from drinking too much in a single night, while nobody has died from smoking too much marijuana in a single night.

Damn straight. Here's a story: In the US, obviously there's lots of anti-marijuana propaganda, and that extends to our schools. I had this one health class where we had a question on a true/false quiz: "Can you overdose on marijuana?" or something like that. The "correct" answer was "true", but I wrote "false", because in fact that kind of thing doesn't happen and marijuana itself is hardly capable of that. I got it wrong because, according to the teacher, marijuana can be spiked with other drugs, leading to an overdose. By that logic, you can overdose on tacos, fish, Ovaltine, air, or water.

Personaly, I don't want marijuana legalised, but I have been bought up in a household where drugs of that nature are always bad, no matter what. If I was in pain, and was prescribed marijuana, not only would I be reluctant to take it, but I would be reluctant to tell my freinds and family about it, so it is safe to say I am bias on this issue.

And yet they prescribe things for pain that are much, much worse than marijuana, such as opioids. What was your household's opinion on those, such as vicodin or percocet (or whatever they are called where you live)?

[Neonivek]

It depends on popularity Nadaka.

proper prohibition needs the support of its citizens. Cannabis' issue however is its largescale popularity brought on by its perception of being relatively harmless as well as a mood enhancer wonderdrug. It also has a strong underground following and culture.

As well it is easy to grow, treat, and manufacture and it is easily disguised.

Not to mention that even police enforcement, at least here, don't always take it seriously and don't crack down on its very hard most of the time (at least here in Canada).

Of course I know the dangers of going completely the otherway, though for the most part it is the danger of being the place where "everything is legal" surrounded by areas where a lot of things are illegal.

The gateway drug factor is a myth

No it is completely true. It is just meaningless.

It is when you try to apply any significant meaning to the term "Gateway drug" that you start creating a myth.

[optimumtact]

No.

Because I can't be bothered to get out there and change the minds of the millions of people who support the status quo.

[Vector]

Easy for you to say, when you don't have a stutter.

... Speaking as someone who does have a (very mild) stutter and used to have one so intense that I literally couldn't talk, there are easier ways to get rid of it than marijuana.  Really.  I've helped a friend get over hers, too, so my techniques aren't just a one-shot thinger.

(Of course, this isn't scientific proof, nor do I say that I'm indicative with all people with stutters, but all the same the argument is there).


Eh.  As always, I'm against the "getting baked out of one's mind" stance as an individual choice, but I don't know that it's necessary to implement as a federal law.  There's harder drugs to combat and, since I don't really think we'll ever be able to root the use of drugs in general out of our society, it's probably unnecessary to work that hard on marijuana.

Sadly, I'm arguing more because I know that our budget needs it than because I'm sure about it's actual... rightness.  I definitely think there needs to be some serious age-limitations on the stuff.

[Enzo]

The gateway drug factor is a myth

No it is completely true. It is just meaningless.

It is when you try to apply any significant meaning to the term "Gateway drug" that you start creating a myth.

So...it's true as long as it doesn't mean anything? What does that even mean? Or would applying meaning to your statement turn it into a myth?

[LordNagash]

Easy for you to say, when you don't have a stutter.

... Speaking as someone who does have a (very mild) stutter and used to have one so intense that I literally couldn't talk, there are easier ways to get rid of it than marijuana.  Really.  I've helped a friend get over hers, too, so my techniques aren't just a one-shot thinger.

(Of course, this isn't scientific proof, nor do I say that I'm indicative with all people with stutters, but all the same the argument is there).

I wasn't arguing that there weren't, I was just saying that it was very easy for someone who doesn't have a stutter to flippantly declare there's 'no benefit' for something that can treat it.