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

[Phmcw]

I'd make an answer myself but as I could make it entirely out of quotes of MetalSlimeHunt and of g-flex, I just invite you to reread their posts. They are good.

[DJ]

Pot is not heroine, guys. Hell, it's not even alcohol.

[G-Flex]

Agreed. I don't think it should be made into a corporate commodity, and I certainly think disallowing it from, say, anyplace you couldn't smoke or drink alcohol is a good idea, but criminalizing it entirely is just silly to the point that in some places, even the cops don't care anymore.

[scriver]

Pot is not heroine, guys. Hell, it's not even alcohol.

Nobody has said it is yet. The closest thing to it I guess would be what I said above, but then again I was talking about drugs "in general".

[Argembarger]

I don't know if this is simple Deja Vu or what, but

I swear the OP is a direct copypaste of a thread that was already around here a few months ago.

Anyway, in some semblance of staying on topic, the poll really requires an "I don't care" option.

[ChairmanPoo]

Why? I don't care can be easily represented by not voting.

[Argembarger]

But then you won't get an accurate representation of the people who don't care.

We want a voice too, ChairmanPoo!

[Nadaka]

Vote for the Apathy party in 20... eh, or not, why bother.

[Africa]

Last time I checked, those weren't addictive or chemically psychoactive.

They really are. (As the person below you said.) Chemical changes happen in your brain with everything you do. Thrilling activities are certainly addictive, and they definitely have a powerful impact on your psyche. Also, marijuana is not particularly addictive at all, as recreational activities go. Alcohol's got more addicts, and more withdrawal symptoms.

[Max White]

Well we could make the case that marijuana is addictive, and therefor should be illegal, however, the same case could be applied to cigerets, alcohol, junk food and shopping. Addiction does not seem to cover ground for making something illegal.

[Nadaka]

Well we could make the case that marijuana is addictive, and therefor should be illegal, however, the same case could be applied to cigerets, alcohol, junk food and shopping. Addiction does not seem to cover ground for making something illegal.

There is a difference between chemically addictive substances and psychologically addictive behaviors. Anything behavior that causes or is associated with pleasure or relief can become addictive. Cannabis use falls in the later category, just like shopping.

[Vector]

Spoiler: Block 'o text from G-Flex (click to show/hide)

Stuttering can be very socially crippling for an individual. It's hardly nonserious. There isn't any particular great way to treat it, either.

So... if, hypothetically, a controlled substance could be used to treat it effectively, why the hell not? Isn't that what we do for every other drug on the planet? We have legal opiates for pain control, legal stimulants for ADHD, legal just-about-anything as long as it serves a legitimate purpose. Why should marijuana be handled any differently? The fact of the matter is that marijuana does, in fact, have significant and legitimate medical use, is arguably a safer alternative to drugs people are using legally in some cases, and is generally not incredibly dangerous at all. Obviously stuttering is just some made-up example (which you seem to somehow doubt the seriousness of as a condition), but you seem to be perpetuating the notion here that marijuana "isn't worth" legalizing just because it has legitimate medical usage, even though we do that with nearly any class of much-more-dangerous substance you can think of.

I could walk into my physician's office and walk out a half-hour later with free samples of potent antidepressants, and he's not even a mental health professional. More legitimately, when I had an ear infection, I had no problem getting opioid pain relievers, which are pretty psychoactive and have high addictive potential. I've known people who have taken enough Tylenol to nearly kill them, and had done so accidentally, just because of unclear doctor's instructions, and that's over-the-counter. What's so harmful about weed that it shouldn't be a controlled, prescription medication at the very least if it has legitimate medical use (which it does)? The fact that it might make people sort of goofy or anxious?

I think that our society's reliance on "miracle-solutions" is going to screw us over in some way or another.  It already is, in a sense... taking the path of least resistance in the present often leads to enormous complications in the future.

I agree with this, though. We're a very pharmaceutically-oriented culture to begin with, and like to turn to pills at the first sign of trouble, and I think anybody who holds up marijuana as some kind of miracle cure is kind of foolish and not helping their cause. On the other hand, I think legalizing medical marijuana could be positive in this case, as it's a hell of a lot more safe, natural, and cost-effective (and with a smaller and less serious side-effect profile) than whatever else the person might be taking instead.

Stuttering is not that serious relative to chronic pain.  It sucks and it's extremely frustrating, but it just isn't the same thing.  I don't know that if we were only thinking about applications to something like stuttering the complete free-usage legalization of a drug that causes memory loss would be worth it to society.  How much regulation are we talking about here, anyway?  Are we talking about the usual way that the US "regulates" legal things, or are we talking about actual reasonable regulation?

For example, I think that anti-depressants should be more heavily restricted and diet pills can just fuck themselves right off the market.

That's a matter of personal opinion, though, as someone who has lost weight through diet and exercise but never really needed to.  Also as someone who never wanted unregulated anti-depressants.

[Max White]

For example, I think that anti-depressants should be more heavily restricted

I would just like to say that if there is anybody who is reading this and in a position of power who can do something...

THIS.

[lemon10]

For example, I think that anti-depressants should be more heavily restricted

I would just like to say that if there is anybody who is reading this and in a position of power who can do something...

THIS.

Ah, but if they are in a position of power to do something, they won't actually do it for fear of losing their money from the pharmaceutical companies, and because they might give lots of money to their opponent next election.

[atomicwinter]

The government has no right to tell you want you can and can not put into your body. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that they do. To tell me that I can not smoke Marijuana in the privacy of my own home, or shoot heroin in the privacy of my home, without doing harm to anyone or infringing the rights of anyone else is just rubbish. Some of you may hate Marijuana and all drugs, that's just great. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean you should vote for them to be banned, or carry heavy criminal charges. It's selfish, not sure where this quote comes from but "The rights that you should fight to protect the most, are the ones that you don't agree with." You may or may not agree with my viewpoint, I'm a pretty heavily left winged libertarian.