• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize pot?

  • Total voters
    113
angrybeaver said:
The danger of high concentrations of thc in cannabis is that the effect is that the toker gets wasted anyway.
A bottle of beer and a bottle of whisky has the concentration of alchohol written on the bottle.
It doesnt follow that one will put less bud in a spliff it is stronger..so people get used to smoking strong spliffs from the start.
Click to expand...

One last time, your reasoning is FATALLY flawed. Concentration changes dosage.

You have already been thoroughly rebutted, you keep arguing the same thing over and over. There is no need to keep going in circles with you, when you have not presented a cogent case.

Whatever the effects of absinthe is does not alter my original argument.
You compared it to comparing one form of alchohol with another..it wasnt but you seem to think that by stating that thujone has a different effect than thc has any bearing on the argument..you are just opening up another argument to disguise the weakness it your original point.
Click to expand...

my argument?? you were the one who brought up the absinthe comparison, I just showed you how inaccurate it was, and now you want to distort it to be my argument that I am opening up??

angrybeaver: "Pot has some good points but allowing the strong bud to be legal is simply wrong..like only allowing alchohol to be sold as absinthe."

me: "Those are two different drugs you are comparing there, if you wanted a parallel, then your argument would have to say "but pot laced with PCP should be illegal""

angrybeaver: "As for the absinthe I have read that wormwood has similar effects as thc ."

me: "it is not the same, nor are the effects the same." [backed by supporting evidence]

Now, will you please kindly stop distorting what I post? It is not appreciated.
 
Theres a flurry of books PROVING why alcohol is far worse than pot.

Yes alcohol is legal and pot isnt?
 
marduc said:
One last time, your reasoning is FATALLY flawed. Concentration changes dosage.
Click to expand...
Mathematically, yes, this is correct.
But it's already been explained how this may well work differently in practice.

While I do not agree that hi-thc grass should be treated differently from other varieties in law, the impact on user habits, specially critical young age groups, deserves consideration.
 
roderic said:
Mathematically, yes, this is correct.
But it's already been explained how this may well work differently in practice.

While I do not agree that hi-thc grass should be treated differently from other varieties in law, the impact on user habits, specially critical young age groups, deserves consideration.
Click to expand...

First: critical young age groups should NOT be a consideration, part of making it legal is to get it out of their hands.

A drug user will self regulate to get the dosage and the effect they desire, just as they do with alcohol.

This is even easier with marijuana since the effects can be felt almost immediately. If you roll up a joint of crappy weed and pass it around the room after you are done there will likely be a consensus of "wow I am not really that stoned, roll up another". Do the same with high THC and repeat, and you will find people half way through saying "nah, i'm good, go ahead I'll pass"

And yes I know this is anecdotal, but it is also something I have in the past seen played out literally hundreds of times.

Regardless, we are getting sidetracked on a tangent. What dosage is consumed is completely up to the user, there is no reason to try to regulate this for them at the supply side.

Providing only an inferior product that virtually insures a black market will continue to thrive completely defeats the purpose.
 
Last edited:
to be honest, if it doesnt affect me as an individual, and people want it legalized....


GOGOGOGOGOGO
 
I've read through this thread and have a few points to make. I'll start by addressing this post and will then add on a few thoughts afterwards.

(After writing this out, it turned out really long...sorry)

angrybeaver said:
The danger of high concentrations of thc in cannabis is that the effect is that the toker gets wasted anyway.
A bottle of beer and a bottle of whisky has the concentration of alchohol written on the bottle.
It doesnt follow that one will put less bud in a spliff it is stronger..so people get used to smoking strong spliffs from the start.
Saying that having to smoke more joints to get to the same level of being stoned is more dangerous is just stupid.
Click to expand...

First of all, you have used the argument that "one dangerous drug is enough" a few times, and I think this view is pretty ridiculous. You assert that alcohol and marijuana are both dangerous, and you claim that only one should be legal. If so, why alcohol? It is difficult to argue that it is the lesser of the two evils. If alcohol is more dangerous, surely it should be the illegal substance. If they are equally dangerous, they're statuses should be correspondingly equal. Do you think that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol? I don't think you've addressed this (sorry if you have, please just send your quote if you don't mind).

Secondly, the potency of marijuana can be measured. If it were legal, I think it would be reasonable (and responsible) to, as with alcohol, display the potency on the packaging. If you are saying that one spliff/joint of ANY potency is enough to get a smoker "wasted," this is a silly argument.

angrybeaver said:
Whatever the effects of absinthe is does not alter my original argument.
You compared it to comparing one form of alchohol with another..it wasnt but you seem to think that by stating that thujone has a different effect than thc has any bearing on the argument..you are just opening up another argument to disguise the weakness it your original point.

You can happily sit on what you want, your argument is weak and pointless.
Click to expand...

I think everyone should move on from the absinthe issue. It's just a side argument and not really relevant, especially if there's not agreement on whether or not it is a valid comparison.

angrybeaver said:
Cannibis is a dangerous drunk that really should be banned. If that is impossible then the higher thc forms should be banned and the weaker ones allowed to be used.
Its a compromise a bad one but a compromise all the same.
Click to expand...

OK, so now the issue of whether or not cannabis is actually "a dangerous dru[g]." I'll try to address the main arguments-let me know if I missed anything. I have citations for some of my points, but I don't want to bother looking them up for everything unless you really want me to...

1. Psychosis (esp. schizophrenia): There has not been a proven causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Studies have found varying, inconclusive results about whether cannabis use can increase the likelihood of schizophrenia, but it seems that it is only a concern for those who are genetically predisposed. For people who have schizophrenia, cannabis use has varying effects. For some, consumption worsens their symptoms, but, for others, consumption relieves negative symptoms of both the condition as well as medication. Also, although cannabis use has increased in recent years, incidence of psychotic disorders (inc. schizophrenia) has not.
[Prashant Phillips. Soft drug, hard facts. Mental Health Practice; Apr2002, Vol. 5 Issue 7, p25, 1p]

2. Gateway theory: Despite a correlation between cannabis use and harder drug use, there is no evidence of a causal relationship. General conduct problems and genetic predisposition to substance abuse are far more likely. This is mentioned in the same article I cited before. Just because a heavy drug user once used marijuana, this doesn't mean that using marijuana led to heavier drugs. Most heavy drug users were breast fed-does breast milk lead to heroin use? The only causal element is that the illegal status of marijuana forces people to interact with dealers who often sell harder drugs as well.

3. Addiction: Marijuana has been shown to not be physically addictive. This means that the human brain does not "crave" THC, like it does with opiates,cocaine, etc. Marijuana may be addicting in the sense that it's enjoyable and some people like to do it as much as possible, but this is the same kind of addiction that people get to video games and potato chips.

4. Potheads are lazy good-for-nothings: Sure, lots of stoners sit around doing nothing all day, but this is true of plenty of non-stoners as well. It's just the way some people are. There are countless regular users of marijuana who are motivated, successful, brilliant people-Carl Sagan, for example.

5. Marijuana causes lung cancer: Many studies have actually found that there is no relationship. It has even been found in some studies that marijuana use may decrease likelihood of lung cancer by stimulating the bronchi in the lungs to open up.


So even if marijuana is "dangerous," should it be illegal? I'll ignore the position held by some that EVERY drug should be legal, even the hard ones like heroin-this is a different argument. The negative effects of marijuana prohibition are far worse than the effects of smoking itself, for both individuals and society.

There are enormous costs in pursuing marijuana users. Not only does it use money that could be better spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure, national debt, etc, but it also wastes our police officers' time. Rather than busting college kids toking up on Saturday night, police officers ought to be protecting people from burglars, rapists, muggers, etc. These same arguments go for those responsible for prosecuting marijuana offenders. In addition, putting marijuana users in jail is both expensive and risky. Besides the cost that it takes to keep someone in jail, having a guy who has never broken a law in his life, besides smoking weed, hang out with a bunch of real criminals is probably not going to be a great influence. Not only does legalizing marijuana eliminate the costs associated with its prohibition, but it also gives an opportunity to generate revenue via taxes.

Putting marijuana users in jail strips them of their freedom, tears apart their families, and makes it hard for them to get jobs once they get out. Given the nature of the crime, this is ridiculous.

Currently, the people making the most money from marijuana prohibition are drug dealers who often resort to violence to distribute their product. Legalization would take this money and power away from these evil people.

Lethal overdose is impossible.

Hemp is an incredibly useful material.

That some people deny the medical uses of marijuana is absurd and hardly worth addressing.


I probably left a lot out. The main point is this: even if marijuana is harmful, prohibition is far more costly. I realize that this post is pretty much a novel, so thanks to everyone who read it all. I look forward to hearing what others have to say (especially you haters out there)-if anyone has the time to go through this point-by-point, that would be awesome, but I'll take what I can get.

:flames: :smoking: :flames:

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marihuana."
- Jimmy Carter

"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
- Carl Sagan quote on Marijuana

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
- William F. Buckley Jr.

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein quote on Hemp

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction."
- Bob Marley
 
marduc said:
One last time, your reasoning is FATALLY flawed. Concentration changes dosage.

You have already been thoroughly rebutted, you keep arguing the same thing over and over. There is no need to keep going in circles with you, when you have not presented a cogent case.



my argument?? you were the one who brought up the absinthe comparison, I just showed you how inaccurate it was, and now you want to distort it to be my argument that I am opening up??

angrybeaver: "Pot has some good points but allowing the strong bud to be legal is simply wrong..like only allowing alchohol to be sold as absinthe."

me: "Those are two different drugs you are comparing there, if you wanted a parallel, then your argument would have to say "but pot laced with PCP should be illegal""

angrybeaver: "As for the absinthe I have read that wormwood has similar effects as thc ."

me: "it is not the same, nor are the effects the same." [backed by supporting evidence]

Now, will you please kindly stop distorting what I post? It is not appreciated.
Click to expand...

You present a ridiculous argument and claim you have rebutted mine.
According to you offering a glass of beer to someone is more dangerous than offering them a glass of neat whisky. Its a plainly stupid argument and you know it!

As for going in circles, its you that is repeated saying what is plainly wrong.

Wormwood was supposed to have the same effect as thc but apparently this was disproved.

The point that I was making is that absinthe is a distinctly more potent and dangerous drink than an alchoholic one just as high concentration thc bud is a far more dangerous drug as say a mild hash or weaker bud.
You misunderstood my point and keep trying to find some relevance to the fact that absinthe has slightly different effect than what I was informed..this does not alter my point.
If you want to cherish this little victory then knock yourself out but your basic premise is ridiculous
 
angrybeaver said:
You present a ridiculous argument and claim you have rebutted mine.
According to you offering a glass of beer to someone is more dangerous than offering them a glass of neat whisky. Its a plainly stupid argument and you know it!
Click to expand...

I never made this argument, I said they were the same.

either you are deliberately misrepresenting me, or you are failing to comprehend what I am saying.

If you want to cherish this little victory then knock yourself out but your basic premise is ridiculous
Click to expand...

what premise is ridiculous? do you even know what my premise is? because you have repeatedly failed to represent what I am saying accurately during our short discussion our.

My premise is that this is ridiculous:

There is room for compromise maybe.
A relatively low thc content bud or hash may be an answer.
Click to expand...

now, regardless of if you lack comprehension skills, or are deliberately misrepresenting my argument, it has occurred repeatedly, and I already politely asked you to not do this. It is getting hard to remain civil in light of this. Go ahead and get your last swipes in, I am done trying to have a discussion with you.
 
modobrofo said:
I've read through this thread and have a few points to make. I'll start by addressing this post and will then add on a few thoughts afterwards.

(After writing this out, it turned out really long...sorry)



First of all, you have used the argument that "one dangerous drug is enough" a few times, and I think this view is pretty ridiculous. You assert that alcohol and marijuana are both dangerous, and you claim that only one should be legal. If so, why alcohol? It is difficult to argue that it is the lesser of the two evils. If alcohol is more dangerous, surely it should be the illegal substance. If they are equally dangerous, they're statuses should be correspondingly equal. Do you think that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol? I don't think you've addressed this (sorry if you have, please just send your quote if you don't mind).

Secondly, the potency of marijuana can be measured. If it were legal, I think it would be reasonable (and responsible) to, as with alcohol, display the potency on the packaging. If you are saying that one spliff/joint of ANY potency is enough to get a smoker "wasted," this is a silly argument.



I think everyone should move on from the absinthe issue. It's just a side argument and not really relevant, especially if there's not agreement on whether or not it is a valid comparison.



OK, so now the issue of whether or not cannabis is actually "a dangerous dru[g]." I'll try to address the main arguments-let me know if I missed anything. I have citations for some of my points, but I don't want to bother looking them up for everything unless you really want me to...

1. Psychosis (esp. schizophrenia): There has not been a proven causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Studies have found varying, inconclusive results about whether cannabis use can increase the likelihood of schizophrenia, but it seems that it is only a concern for those who are genetically predisposed. For people who have schizophrenia, cannabis use has varying effects. For some, consumption worsens their symptoms, but, for others, consumption relieves negative symptoms of both the condition as well as medication. Also, although cannabis use has increased in recent years, incidence of psychotic disorders (inc. schizophrenia) has not.
[Prashant Phillips. Soft drug, hard facts. Mental Health Practice; Apr2002, Vol. 5 Issue 7, p25, 1p]

2. Gateway theory: Despite a correlation between cannabis use and harder drug use, there is no evidence of a causal relationship. General conduct problems and genetic predisposition to substance abuse are far more likely. This is mentioned in the same article I cited before. Just because a heavy drug user once used marijuana, this doesn't mean that using marijuana led to heavier drugs. Most heavy drug users were breast fed-does breast milk lead to heroin use? The only causal element is that the illegal status of marijuana forces people to interact with dealers who often sell harder drugs as well.

3. Addiction: Marijuana has been shown to not be physically addictive. This means that the human brain does not "crave" THC, like it does with opiates,cocaine, etc. Marijuana may be addicting in the sense that it's enjoyable and some people like to do it as much as possible, but this is the same kind of addiction that people get to video games and potato chips.

4. Potheads are lazy good-for-nothings: Sure, lots of stoners sit around doing nothing all day, but this is true of plenty of non-stoners as well. It's just the way some people are. There are countless regular users of marijuana who are motivated, successful, brilliant people-Carl Sagan, for example.

5. Marijuana causes lung cancer: Many studies have actually found that there is no relationship. It has even been found in some studies that marijuana use may decrease likelihood of lung cancer by stimulating the bronchi in the lungs to open up.


So even if marijuana is "dangerous," should it be illegal? I'll ignore the position held by some that EVERY drug should be legal, even the hard ones like heroin-this is a different argument. The negative effects of marijuana prohibition are far worse than the effects of smoking itself, for both individuals and society.

There are enormous costs in pursuing marijuana users. Not only does it use money that could be better spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure, national debt, etc, but it also wastes our police officers' time. Rather than busting college kids toking up on Saturday night, police officers ought to be protecting people from burglars, rapists, muggers, etc. These same arguments go for those responsible for prosecuting marijuana offenders. In addition, putting marijuana users in jail is both expensive and risky. Besides the cost that it takes to keep someone in jail, having a guy who has never broken a law in his life, besides smoking weed, hang out with a bunch of real criminals is probably not going to be a great influence. Not only does legalizing marijuana eliminate the costs associated with its prohibition, but it also gives an opportunity to generate revenue via taxes.

Putting marijuana users in jail strips them of their freedom, tears apart their families, and makes it hard for them to get jobs once they get out. Given the nature of the crime, this is ridiculous.

Currently, the people making the most money from marijuana prohibition are drug dealers who often resort to violence to distribute their product. Legalization would take this money and power away from these evil people.

Lethal overdose is impossible.

Hemp is an incredibly useful material.

That some people deny the medical uses of marijuana is absurd and hardly worth addressing.


I probably left a lot out. The main point is this: even if marijuana is harmful, prohibition is far more costly. I realize that this post is pretty much a novel, so thanks to everyone who read it all. I look forward to hearing what others have to say (especially you haters out there)-if anyone has the time to go through this point-by-point, that would be awesome, but I'll take what I can get.

:flames: :smoking: :flames:

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marihuana."
- Jimmy Carter

"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
- Carl Sagan quote on Marijuana

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
- William F. Buckley Jr.

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein quote on Hemp

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction."
- Bob Marley
Click to expand...

America tried to ban alchohol but it proved impossible.
Alchohol can be a dangerous drug but we must accept that we cant ban it.
We know about the long term effects of alchohol abuse and we know and can define what alchohol abuse is.
Cannabis can be a dangerous drug and it is already 'banned'.
We know that both drugs are dangerous so what good would it do us to have two dangerous legal drugs.
There is agreat deal of evidence to show that cannabis can exacerbate mental illness but there is not a great deal of evidence of the total effect of long term use and the health problems that it may bring.
It took quite a few years for the full evidence of how destructive tobacco was to health..those people today who say how dangerous tobacco is probably had fathers or grandfathers that thought smoking 30 a day was fine!

I never said that smoking a low thc spliff would get you just as wasted as smoking a high thc spliff..just the opposite.
I said that if we have to legalise cannabis then a compromise would be to make a lower thc bud legal but ban the high thc bud or hash because this is far more dangerous.

This has caused much consternation in one poster who seems to think a nice
bit of lower thc hash the same that was about say in the 60s or 70s(enough to get you mellow and a little high) is far more dangerous than white widow or chronic( enough to get you wasted if you either dont know what you are doing or are a heavyweight toker).
 
marduc said:
low THC marijuana is arguably MORE dangerous in that you have to smoke more of it to get the same effect.

Which is worse: someone drinking 120 ounces of beer, or someone drinking 15 ounces of Scotch, which is 8 times as concentrated???

This is like saying an 800 mg motrin is more dangerous than a 400 mg. - If I take (2) 400 mgs, or if I take (1) 800 mg motrin, to get the exact same effect, they are equally as dangerous.

Of course if you want to play the "high THC content is so much more dangerous" game, then why is there a prescription 100% THC pill available that is touted as a "safer" alternative?

If 20% THC is so much more dangerous than 5% THC, than 100% THC has to be MUCH MUCH more dangerous than 20%.

your reasoning is FATALLY flawed. Concentration changes dosage.




has the same effect as THC? it interacts with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain and causes the same intoxication??

the effects of absinth are a result of the drug Thujone, which has its own specific effects, it is nothing like a cannabinoid.

your argument stands as well as a two legged stool.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to remember what you posted, so maybe you are wise not to continue to debate it.
 
angrybeaver said:
You dont seem to remember what you posted, so maybe you are wise not to continue to debate it.
Click to expand...

lack of comprehension skills it is then
 
modobrofo said:
I've read through this thread and have a few points to make. I'll start by addressing this post and will then add on a few thoughts afterwards.

(After writing this out, it turned out really long...sorry)



First of all, you have used the argument that "one dangerous drug is enough" a few times, and I think this view is pretty ridiculous. You assert that alcohol and marijuana are both dangerous, and you claim that only one should be legal. If so, why alcohol? It is difficult to argue that it is the lesser of the two evils. If alcohol is more dangerous, surely it should be the illegal substance. If they are equally dangerous, they're statuses should be correspondingly equal. Do you think that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol? I don't think you've addressed this (sorry if you have, please just send your quote if you don't mind).

Secondly, the potency of marijuana can be measured. If it were legal, I think it would be reasonable (and responsible) to, as with alcohol, display the potency on the packaging. If you are saying that one spliff/joint of ANY potency is enough to get a smoker "wasted," this is a silly argument.



I think everyone should move on from the absinthe issue. It's just a side argument and not really relevant, especially if there's not agreement on whether or not it is a valid comparison.



OK, so now the issue of whether or not cannabis is actually "a dangerous dru[g]." I'll try to address the main arguments-let me know if I missed anything. I have citations for some of my points, but I don't want to bother looking them up for everything unless you really want me to...

1. Psychosis (esp. schizophrenia): There has not been a proven causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Studies have found varying, inconclusive results about whether cannabis use can increase the likelihood of schizophrenia, but it seems that it is only a concern for those who are genetically predisposed. For people who have schizophrenia, cannabis use has varying effects. For some, consumption worsens their symptoms, but, for others, consumption relieves negative symptoms of both the condition as well as medication. Also, although cannabis use has increased in recent years, incidence of psychotic disorders (inc. schizophrenia) has not.
[Prashant Phillips. Soft drug, hard facts. Mental Health Practice; Apr2002, Vol. 5 Issue 7, p25, 1p]

2. Gateway theory: Despite a correlation between cannabis use and harder drug use, there is no evidence of a causal relationship. General conduct problems and genetic predisposition to substance abuse are far more likely. This is mentioned in the same article I cited before. Just because a heavy drug user once used marijuana, this doesn't mean that using marijuana led to heavier drugs. Most heavy drug users were breast fed-does breast milk lead to heroin use? The only causal element is that the illegal status of marijuana forces people to interact with dealers who often sell harder drugs as well.

3. Addiction: Marijuana has been shown to not be physically addictive. This means that the human brain does not "crave" THC, like it does with opiates,cocaine, etc. Marijuana may be addicting in the sense that it's enjoyable and some people like to do it as much as possible, but this is the same kind of addiction that people get to video games and potato chips.

4. Potheads are lazy good-for-nothings: Sure, lots of stoners sit around doing nothing all day, but this is true of plenty of non-stoners as well. It's just the way some people are. There are countless regular users of marijuana who are motivated, successful, brilliant people-Carl Sagan, for example.

5. Marijuana causes lung cancer: Many studies have actually found that there is no relationship. It has even been found in some studies that marijuana use may decrease likelihood of lung cancer by stimulating the bronchi in the lungs to open up.


So even if marijuana is "dangerous," should it be illegal? I'll ignore the position held by some that EVERY drug should be legal, even the hard ones like heroin-this is a different argument. The negative effects of marijuana prohibition are far worse than the effects of smoking itself, for both individuals and society.

There are enormous costs in pursuing marijuana users. Not only does it use money that could be better spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure, national debt, etc, but it also wastes our police officers' time. Rather than busting college kids toking up on Saturday night, police officers ought to be protecting people from burglars, rapists, muggers, etc. These same arguments go for those responsible for prosecuting marijuana offenders. In addition, putting marijuana users in jail is both expensive and risky. Besides the cost that it takes to keep someone in jail, having a guy who has never broken a law in his life, besides smoking weed, hang out with a bunch of real criminals is probably not going to be a great influence. Not only does legalizing marijuana eliminate the costs associated with its prohibition, but it also gives an opportunity to generate revenue via taxes.

Putting marijuana users in jail strips them of their freedom, tears apart their families, and makes it hard for them to get jobs once they get out. Given the nature of the crime, this is ridiculous.

Currently, the people making the most money from marijuana prohibition are drug dealers who often resort to violence to distribute their product. Legalization would take this money and power away from these evil people.

Lethal overdose is impossible.

Hemp is an incredibly useful material.

That some people deny the medical uses of marijuana is absurd and hardly worth addressing.


I probably left a lot out. The main point is this: even if marijuana is harmful, prohibition is far more costly. I realize that this post is pretty much a novel, so thanks to everyone who read it all. I look forward to hearing what others have to say (especially you haters out there)-if anyone has the time to go through this point-by-point, that would be awesome, but I'll take what I can get.

:flames: :smoking: :flames:

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marihuana."
- Jimmy Carter

"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
- Carl Sagan quote on Marijuana

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
- William F. Buckley Jr.

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein quote on Hemp

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction."
- Bob Marley
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Mega dittos.:)
 
Marijuana is a cash crop in our county, and it is easy for anyone to obtain a permit to grow and smoke 'medical marijuana.' At the same time, we have huge pot farms grown on National Forest and BLM land, with armed guards which makes hiking and back packing in some areas dangerous.

My concern is people driving while stoned and exposing babies and young children to secondary marijuana smoke. For these reasons I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Some say it would benefit the government to tax pot, but my feeling is the big pot farms would still avoid taxes.
 
windovervocalcords said:
Marijuana is a cash crop in our county, and it is easy for anyone to obtain a permit to grow and smoke 'medical marijuana.' At the same time, we have huge pot farms grown on National Forest and BLM land, with armed guards which makes hiking and back packing in some areas dangerous.

My concern is people driving while stoned and exposing babies and young children to secondary marijuana smoke. For these reasons I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Some say it would benefit the government to tax pot, but my feeling is the big pot farms would still avoid taxes.
Click to expand...

We could make it illegal for them to avoid taxes.......:mrgreen:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Excellent post. Mega dittos.:)
Click to expand...

You know it would save a lot of bandwidth,... if you (and several others) would just click on the "thanks" button beneath a post,... rather than posting something as profound and revealing of your thoughts with an example of brevity and wit,... wrapped up in a seeming superficial display of 'mega-dittos?'

But I digress.... t'was just an observation that likely wasted even more bandwidth.
 
Chuz Life said:
You know it would save a lot of bandwidth,... if you (and several others) would just click on the "thanks" button beneath a post,... rather than posting something as profound and revealing of your thoughts with an example of brevity and wit,... wrapped up in a seeming superficial display of 'mega-dittos?'

But I digress.... t'was just an observation that likely wasted even more bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Yes, we must help conserve bandwidth.
 
windovervocalcords said:
It's already illegal for them to grow on federal land. I'm saying that they would continue to do what they're doing.
Click to expand...

It was a joke......:doh
The only thing that will make them stop is incarceration or when it is no longer profitable.....
If it is legalized, profits will plummet.....;)
 
Chuz Life said:
You know it would save a lot of bandwidth,... if you (and several others) would just click on the "thanks" button beneath a post,... rather than posting something as profound and revealing of your thoughts with an example of brevity and wit,... wrapped up in a seeming superficial display of 'mega-dittos?'

But I digress.... t'was just an observation that likely wasted even more bandwidth.
Click to expand...

:moon:......................
 
So far it is slightly over four to one here in favor of legal pot.

It makes me proud to be an American.

I would like to also say that American pot growers have been trailblazers (especially california) in growing even better pot than any where in the world.

Thank you Calfornia.:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom