Pot

[MtrxMn]

:-] Posted this like 2 pages ago...

 

gave him rep too

[LegalSmash]

Medical Marijuana has a lot of uses and when it becomes legal (no longer a question of 'if'), a lot of pharmaceutical companies will be going out of business. Marijuana helps reduce pain, relieves symptoms of many diseases and is non-lethal. There is no recorded case of anyone, ever, overdosing on marijuana. There are also very few cases of marijuana related violence (outside of buying/selling) like there are with alcohol. Pot doesn't make you angry or prone to violence.

 

I've never smoked it but I am an advocate of it. It is a useless drug to penalize people for. It causes over crowding in jail and ruins lives. All for a harmless plant, one that can be smoked without any processing or chemicals.

 

Personally, I think all drugs should be legalized and taxed. Everyone owns their own body, they should be able to do what they want with it. As long as what they do does not harm anyone else it should be legal. The only reason why marijuana is illegal is because of the threat of hemp used to replace clothing and other industrial needs. It is amazingly strong and cheap to manufacture. All the bullshit scare tactics from the 50's and 60's are false.

 

Anyone who thinks that marijuana should be illegal needs to get their head out of their ass and do some research on it. It is an amazing drug that could help a lot more people than you think. It's not an evil thing that keeps parents up at night. It's not something we need to waste billions on trying to stop. It's something that can be used, not only an aide for people in need, but also as income for the country. The money made by taxing marijuana is also compounded by the people not sent to jail for owning or smoking it.

 

Legalize it.

 

and

 

" Originally Posted by GUMPY THE HAT!!! View Post

Weed has been proven to be less harmful then alcohol and cigarettes, respectively. Hash is another story, as it is heavily treated with chemicals, but even then it isn't too bad, so the big deal is not over medical issues. The big deal is that the selling of pot is used to finance terrorists and by making weed illegal it lowers an insurgents capital."

 

First, Gumpy, you are completely, utterly, incorrect. A Marijuana joint contains more tar than a pack of unfiltered cigarettes. Lucky Strikes, unfiltered... think about that. Second, if you mean SOCIAL HARM, then Marijuana is less harmful than Alcohol, but physiologically, Marijuana is full of free radical chemical agents and other neurologically important variables that we just DONT know what the hell they do. To say Weed is "Safe" is the understatement of the year, because there is not sufficient research on it. As for the remainder of your statement, Slavic has the win here, as the "terrorist funding" BS is pretty much the "War on Drugs" getting lazy with advertising, and paying their idea-men.

 

As for Virus: You need to go buy a tin foil hat bro, your statement is flat out stoned if anything. Pharmaceutical companies, even if marijuana WAS legalized would either incorporate it into their list of sale items, or not even feel a bump due to the new market entry because they do not treat the same thing. The fact you consider marijuana a panacea drug that "solves X or Y" pretty much invalidates your opinion, as well as the remainder of the statement. I'm bored though, so I'll nit pick:

 

Cost of legalization in Healthcare costs, infrastructure changes to deal with newly required paperwork for jobs, clearance issues, and treatment of marijuana and now illicit drug related conditions will completely overshadow any tax revenue gained.

 

Additionally, you must consider the 500,000 plus people working for the DEA, subsidiaries, and other organizations and agencies that have employment due to the drug war. Granted, imprisonment for the possession of SMALL amounts of marijuana should be a ticketable offense, if at all proscribed by law. Imprisonment for marijuana possession in small amounts is counterproductive to the current economic conditions and our attempts to reintegrate offenders into society successfully.

 

The legalization of drugs controlled by the Controlled Substance Act in GENERAL, as piecemeal is an entirely foolish premise. Drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, PCP, and other related drugs have no reasonable societal use, nor a medical use that cannot be achieved with a less addictive, less socially destructive and physiologically damaging substance. This is why we have Fentanyl as an anesthetic and painkiller now rather than Heroin, and why new medicines that are not Opiate based are now taking a larger share of Pharmaceutical prescriptions for pain, surgery prep, and in-surgery anesthetic use. These substances are a PROBLEM. Which is why they were nailed in the first place. Hallucinogenics are socially destructive because people cannot carry out daily activity on them. Crack, Meth, and its derivatives are COMPLETELY medically irrelevant and serve no purpose than make black people and rednecks into punchlines. This being the case, a reasonable person cannot possibly come to the conclusion that our fellow man, retarded as he is, can possibly stand having these substances to their disposal, at will, on the premise that "its his body"... that sounds like a Paultard statement, which my friend, I am not.

 

Unfortunately for you, you miss the whole point of correlation and causation... correlation just points a GIANT FUCKING SIGN at causation, its the warning shot for the intelligent, and at worse, a pre-shock to the great big earthquake in a situation.

 

Drug use is inextricably linked to problems with fetal development in lung function, brain patterns, and reaction timing with "low level drugs" and in utero addiction and death/miscarriage at the highest levels. If you've ever seen a crack baby, you would know just how ridiculous and wrong your entire point of view is. Put it this way: It is more likely that Sean Penn can successfully teach astrophysics than any of your points be remotely correct.

 

Its cool though, kids/young people like to argue for drug legalization... mostly because they don't think anything more than "the man" and "drug", there are a LOT more factors that go in then "d00d just tax it and well be like r0xx0rs maaaayn". While drug possession cases will go down, parental neglect cases will go up, and MY ass, not yours, has to deal with the family fuck ups who traded baby Jameriquai because momma tamika needed to get her fix... and Tamika is indigent, so I get paid shit for it.

 

Its the same idiot kids who argue this who have the audacity to call Bush a murderer and wear a che guevara tshirt to a college full of cuban kids.

 

Let me put it simply: drug legalization is a bad idea across the board. The lowering of reactive justice and punitive measures (thats "punishment" for you illiterate types), is warranted, where the costs incurred do not outweigh the benefits gained from the action.

 

You, Gumpy, and about 86% of people at SG/ZM are a total detriment to the identity and reputation of recreational drug users... DAMN you people can sound stupid sometime.

 

+ rep to red. for basically saying the last line.

[Ramb0]

Funny thing is that many prescription drugs are probably far worse in the long run for a person than Marijuana could ever be. In fact, a chart on wikipedia detailing the dependence and harm of various drugs were made, and drugs like Klonopin and Xanax were ranked much more harmful than pot. If you take enough Klonopin, you will easily become more fucked up than smoking copious amounts of weed.

 

 

Fact of the matter is, there is no good reason that Marijuana should be illegal. The drug does not harm a person nearly as much as many legal ones including alcohol. The reasons it is illegal are purely economic, not a good enough reason to outlaw something in a capitalist society.

 

I don't smoke weed.

[Slavic]

Funny thing is that many prescription drugs are probably far worse in the long run for a person than Marijuana could ever be. In fact, a chart on wikipedia detailing the dependence and harm of various drugs were made, and drugs like Klonopin and Xanax were ranked much more harmful than pot. If you take enough Klonopin, you will easily become more fucked up than smoking copious amounts of weed.

 

Since your talking about the long run it would be wise to say that marijuana would be just as destructive if not more then cigarettes. Lung and throat disease, cancer, free radical damages just to name a few. Not to mention that prescription drugs are clinically tested to provide the least amount of bodily damage to its user or else it would have ever gotten out of the animal testing phase.

 

I don't know how you can say with a straight face that prescription drugs are far worse then marijuana in the long run.

[Zargotelc]

Good news everyone!

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guugOzn-7vbdxHu8h8XXPbKWRpbAD99A88GG2

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A pro-marijuana group is launching another television bid to legalize pot in California — this time with the pitch that legalizing and taxing the drug could help solve the state's massive budget deficit.

 

The 30-second spot, airing Wednesday and paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project, features a retired 58-year-old state worker who says state leaders "are ignoring millions of Californians who want to pay taxes."

 

"We're marijuana consumers," says Nadene Herndon of Fair Oaks, who says she began using marijuana after suffering multiple strokes three years ago. "Instead of being treated like criminals for using a substance safer than alcohol, we want to pay our fair share."

 

State lawmakers are bitterly debating how to close a $26.3 billion budget deficit that likely means cuts to state services.

 

In February, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. Bill supporters estimate the state's pot industry could bring in more than $1 billion in taxes.

 

Given the budget crisis in California they really should look into legalizing tree there.

[LegalSmash]

The only thing that will solve CA's budget woes is banning CA IRL from life.

[Ramb0]

Since your talking about the long run it would be wise to say that marijuana would be just as destructive if not more then cigarettes. Lung and throat disease, cancer, free radical damages just to name a few. Not to mention that prescription drugs are clinically tested to provide the least amount of bodily damage to its user or else it would have ever gotten out of the animal testing phase.

 

I don't know how you can say with a straight face that prescription drugs are far worse then marijuana in the long run.

 

 

Those prescription drugs are more harmful because they cause a great dependence and need for them. Some of them mess up your brain enough to cause a lifelong dependence. Also most pot smokers would not smoke enough to cause long term damage to the lungs. I personally do not know many people at all that got lung cancer from just smoking weed. Its not to say it cannot happen, but it isn't an urgent problem. Cigarettes are worse because much more of them are smoked.

 

The thing is, the drug companies profit based on this need so they need to create some dependence for those types of drugs.

 

And if you want to argue about long term damages, abuse of alcohol causes just as much if not more damage to the body than cigarettes.

 

And besides, the main point wasn't about how damaging the drugs were to the body, it was the societal damage caused when people are on them. Alcohol trumps weed by a fair margin, and the prescription drugs do as well. If you want to look at the health problems though, alcohol and tobacco far outclass weed in number of cases where disease was caused. Hardly anyone gets lung cancer from smoking weed compared to the amount of people that got it from tobacco.

[Slavic]

"Those prescription drugs are more harmful because they cause a great dependence and need for them. Some of them mess up your brain enough to cause a lifelong dependence."

 

First of all you have to tell me which prescription drugs are harmful and cause a great dependence. Your statement is so vague and broad that it is of no use in this discussion.

 

"Also most pot smokers would not smoke enough to cause long term damage to the lungs. I personally do not know many people at all that got lung cancer from just smoking weed. Its not to say it cannot happen, but it isn't an urgent problem."

 

The question being analyzed isn't whether or not pot smokers would smoke enough to incur chronic health problems; the question was whether or not prescription drugs were more damaging over time with use then marijuana. Long term marijuana usage does cause forms of cancer because it has been proven that it's smoke contains carcinogens, just like cigarette which can be referenced on the medical article below.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

 

"Cigarettes are worse because much more of them are smoked."

 

This is a subjective comment and isn't statistical. Defining a substances' adverse effects primarily on how much of such substance is consumed would produce a plethora of useless information. I could use the same argument and say that alcohol is a completely safe and socially moral substance when the quantities consumed are within your states' allowed blood alcohol level.

 

"The thing is, the drug companies profit based on this need so they need to create some dependence for those types of drugs."

 

All of these over the counter drugs require written prescriptions from certified physicians and are given out on a as need basis. The drug companies are not profiting on the drug's addiction and the dependence it creates; or else they wouldn't make it prescription only. The drug companies are profiting on the effectiveness of these drugs to cure the ailments that your physician diagnosis's you with. Your argument would only make sense if there wasn't a 3rd party between the drug companies and the consumers which moderate and control the amount of OTC drugs to be given to the consumer.

[Daze]

My lecturer had a discussion about this with us yesterday ironically and he brang up most of the points that TheVirus did. Hemp is a natural material and couldn't be trademarked by a company and produced by them (Hemp paper doesn't turn yellow over time). It also made people question war tactics and gave them a mellow attitude to fighting a war, thus it was banned and anyone found smoking it was sent to prison.

 

The US alone has a $5 Billion budget to tackle drugs in it's homeland, 4 billion purely for marijuana and $1B for crack, cocaine and any other hard hiting drug out there. I think the figure is something like 80% of prisoners are inside due to marijuana offences. He also said that the prison industry is the second biggest in america revenue wise (not sure if that's true).

 

Makes you think about it? ...right

[Omar]

Weed funding terrorism.... No

Cocaine funding terrorism.... Hardly

Heroin funding terrorism.... Skip the middle man and send a check to Omar in Afghanistan

 

Sorry to be a cock, but i've seen some National geographic about this shit, and It's like the exact opposit, yes, afghanastan is making drugs and selling to USA, but!

 

Actually, the people making it is civilians, and they can't do anything else for a living.

Taliban is against that shit

 

Not because it drugs USA

they just want to be cunts to the civilians lol