Yes.
But what about all those police branches made to stop weed.
the system they set up will have to be closed down , not that i have simpathy for them but it would be too hard.
And those fat mothers who will prevent it

I don't think the stuff should be legal.

Before I get the 'pro' guys hurling their bongs at me allow me to explain why.

Firstly, one very common arguement in support of marijuana is that it has stress relieving qualities and is a very relaxing past-time. I personally think that you have some serious issues if you have to resort to a foreign substance to get through a 'stressful' day without having a nervous breakdown (what ever happened to listing to soothing music and reading a nice book by scented candle light?).

Just as I disagrre with people using anti-depressants to 'make their problems go away' I think that the same arguement can be make for the users of weed, deal with your own damn problems and control your own damn emotions.

Secondly, healthcare in both the UK and US is riddled with problems as it is, we really do not need pot-heads running into a nearby clinic to get free 'medicinal' herbs when we have bigger problems to deal with (like giving alchoholic celebrities, actors and football players new livers and lungs so they can continue using legal drugs...okay, maybe not the best example).

Finally, every drug has potential for harmful side effects (even the beneficial ones that you would normally buy in a local chemist). Since this is something that is frequantly denied or otherwised undermined I would say that until we can acknowledge this fully and work our way around this that we, the public, are not responsible or mature enough for recreational drug use.

It IS legal :)

TheDean:

orifice:

TheDean:
i never understod why it wasn't legal in the first place.

It was! It was lobbyists from the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries that pressurized governments into outlawing it. Marijuana was competing with both! So it wasn't even owlawed for moral reasons.

WHAT?!?!? It WAS legal already? Then why on earth isn't it made legal agian? It is clear that people want it to be legal, and i see no reason for it not to be if it is what people want.

Besides, i heard it is less harmful than alcohol and has no long term side effects.

it is less harmful

It would be nice I guess. It wouldn't really make it any easier to get a hold of, but I guess quality would be standardized.

Weed is a social drug for me. I only smoke with friends, and only on weekends when we are hanging out.

I don't think that it really matters. I don't smoke marijuana, but if you really want to use it, you don't stop to think if it's legal or not.

Obama:
I smoked pot at university and I inhaled. That was sort of the point.

As for the topic, I believe (as was mostly decided last time this poll was done) that it should be de-criminalized, until unbiased research can be done.

Should be legalised but it ain't gonna happen. They're happy with alcohol and cigarettes being taxed.

Yes, 'nuff said.

Marijauna was made illegal due to racist tensions and hysteria- like most drugs in history ironically. Opium was initially illegalized because it was believed Chinese immigrants smoked it and used it seduce white women. Heroin was illegalized because it was believed African Americans used it, went crazy, and raped white women.

I present you "Hooked: A History of Drugs in America; Marijuana"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA

A rather nice series of specials that covered illegal drugs and why they became that way that were first shown on the history channel. Most drugs were illegalized for the WRONG reasons, but overwhelmingly should've become illegal and should stay illegal. Marijuana (which this episode covers) is the exception.

hubertw47:
Yes.
But what about all those police branches made to stop weed.
the system they set up will have to be closed down , not that i have simpathy for them but it would be too hard.
And those fat mothers who will prevent it

You re-tool those branches to fighting drugs that are actually causing problems like Heroin, cocaine, designer drugs, etc.

BlindTom:

Rankao:

BlindTom:
[His First Post]

[My Reply]

Hmm, I see what your getting at. All in all it's very much like the auld prohibition ain't it? I'm just wondering about the repercussions of uprooting a 'business' that's been growing and doing rather well for itself for a decent while now. I don't know much about what bootleggers and the like got up to when prohibition ended. The guys responsible for the pot supplies will want to defend their business... Hell, maybe they'll all just go legit...

Well likely the big tobacco corporation would simply invest into Marijuana, so the people who were trading big time in their local towns will basically(but not literally) have their face punch in by the corporation. Marijuana isn't considered a hard drug because its only got a mental addiction so there isn't as powerful illegal trade such as Crack, Meth, and Opium based drugs. I doubt they would ever legalize any hard drugs mainly because they are outrageously destructive to society while being illegal.

I support the legalization of Marijuana but I also support that companies should be able to still be able fire you for use of it. I know I will get crap for that.

If cigarettes are legal, than pot should be. Cigarettes are worse for your body than marijuana and yet they stay legal.

Sewblon:
I think that it should be because it would help the economy and kill the existing cartels since no one would go to a back alley to buy dope from a dealer if they could buy a jumbo box of it at wallmart along with their preferred snacks.

For the record, my vote is yes.

No, your argument isn't as concrete as you'd like it to be. Helping the economy is yet to be determined. There was a proposition in Nevada (not sure what the number was), which quoted a case-study that showed that a certain taxation of marijuana for responsible use would net a specific amount of money. I do remember that the report said that it would net a profit for the state, but I'm not sure what the difference was, what the number of the prop was, and what the specifics were. In any case, it's not something that's hard to find, I was just too lazy...

Destroying the cartels is another situation that is much more complicated than it would seem. Cartels don't make money off of the trasportation and distribution of marijuana. People who make the most off of marijuana have a local supplier/grower, and deal within their own municipalities. On occasion, they deal with people in other areas, areas which are close by, less than 150 miles.

I believe that the ultimate argument which can't be countered by the anti-marijuana lobby is: If marijuana is so bad, why are alcohol and tobacco legal? Alcohol and tobacco when combinded, are responsible for far more deaths per year than marijuana. Even if you were to split the two, they are still individually more responsible for more deaths per year than marijuana. Also, if you were to believe many reports done in the US, you would find that 1/3 of American adults have either admitted to, or admit to smoking marijuana, which, compared with the statistics that represent tobacco and alcohol, aren't that far off. My point is this: Marijuana is labled as a "gateway-drug." When you look at the numbers, you see that more people are affected by alcohol and tobacco than marijuana.

I would love to continue the debate with anyone who is game...cheers :)

DeathSnipa1992:
it should be. the government could pull itself out of this recession with all that tax. plus its not even really bad for you. alcohol and tobacco are worse.

Arguable. People with innate psychosis can have them unlocked by use of marijuana.

And when I say have-them-unlocked I mean get-fucked-up-for-the-rest-of-their-lives.

If cigarettes and alcohol are legal, then marijuana should be legal, too. However, harder drugs (e.g. heroin and cocaine) should not be legal.

By the way, I despise all drugs. I'm just trying to follow the logic of the laws that have been passed throughout my country's history.

Armitage Shanks:

DeathSnipa1992:
it should be. the government could pull itself out of this recession with all that tax. plus its not even really bad for you. alcohol and tobacco are worse.

Arguable. People with innate psychosis can have them unlocked by use of marijuana.

And when I say have-them-unlocked I mean get-fucked-up-for-the-rest-of-their-lives.

ok thats true. but, lots of things can have a side effect for only certain people. some peeple cant play a game withou having a seizure, but video games aren't bad
ojk

DeathSnipa1992:

Armitage Shanks:

DeathSnipa1992:
it should be. the government could pull itself out of this recession with all that tax. plus its not even really bad for you. alcohol and tobacco are worse.

Arguable. People with innate psychosis can have them unlocked by use of marijuana.

And when I say have-them-unlocked I mean get-fucked-up-for-the-rest-of-their-lives.

ok thats true. but, lots of things can have a side effect for only certain people. some peeple cant play a game withou having a seizure, but video games aren't bad
ojk

No, and I agree that is only a small percentage of people who will be affected by the side effects, a seizure is very different to a lifetime in a ward.

Armitage Shanks:

DeathSnipa1992:

Armitage Shanks:

DeathSnipa1992:
it should be. the government could pull itself out of this recession with all that tax. plus its not even really bad for you. alcohol and tobacco are worse.

Arguable. People with innate psychosis can have them unlocked by use of marijuana.

And when I say have-them-unlocked I mean get-fucked-up-for-the-rest-of-their-lives.

ok thats true. but, lots of things can have a side effect for only certain people. some peeple cant play a game withou having a seizure, but video games aren't bad
ojk

No, and I agree that is only a small percentage of people who will be affected by the side effects, a seizure is very different to a lifetime in a ward.

ya i know. its actually worse if you die

This has been done a million times before.

Anyway, I voted no, because marijuana, while not directly deadly, turns the smoker into a braindead moron. And that's something that we don't need in an age where we really need to take a more active role in protecting our planet; more idiots.

Now, I have argued before on these forums with a junkie with an (alleged) university degree, but I still stand by the fact that every marijuana addict that I have ever met is amazingly stupid.

And while your at it:

Iron Mal:
I don't think the stuff should be legal.

Before I get the 'pro' guys hurling their bongs at me allow me to explain why.

Firstly, one very common arguement in support of marijuana is that it has stress relieving qualities and is a very relaxing past-time. I personally think that you have some serious issues if you have to resort to a foreign substance to get through a 'stressful' day without having a nervous breakdown (what ever happened to listing to soothing music and reading a nice book by scented candle light?).

Just as I disagrre with people using anti-depressants to 'make their problems go away' I think that the same arguement can be make for the users of weed, deal with your own damn problems and control your own damn emotions.

Secondly, healthcare in both the UK and US is riddled with problems as it is, we really do not need pot-heads running into a nearby clinic to get free 'medicinal' herbs when we have bigger problems to deal with (like giving alchoholic celebrities, actors and football players new livers and lungs so they can continue using legal drugs...okay, maybe not the best example).

Finally, every drug has potential for harmful side effects (even the beneficial ones that you would normally buy in a local chemist). Since this is something that is frequantly denied or otherwised undermined I would say that until we can acknowledge this fully and work our way around this that we, the public, are not responsible or mature enough for recreational drug use.

For each of your three points:

1. Who the hell are you to pass judgment on people's recreational activities? Who the hell are you to say that this is an acceptable way to spend your time, but this is not?
2. I don't know about the UK's system, but drugs are not "free" in the Canadian socialized health care system, and are most definitely not free in the States' private system. Furthermore, in order to get drugs you generally need to have a prescription.
3. Everybody is fully aware that drugs have various effects. The effects of marijuana use are especially well-documented. Marijuana's effects are pretty tame unless you happen to have schizophrenia, and most of its ill effects can be completely avoided if you imbibe it by some means other than smoking it.

Armitage Shanks:
No, and I agree that is only a small percentage of people who will be affected by the side effects, a seizure is very different to a lifetime in a ward.

Here's the thing: we can treat schizophrenia now, and marijuana only has an impact on schizophrenic symptoms if the person already has schizophrenia. It's like banning fudge because it could cause harm to diabetics.

Lord Krunk:
This has been done a million times before.

Anyway, I voted no, because marijuana, while not directly deadly, turns the smoker into a braindead moron. And that's something that we don't need in an age where we really need to take a more active role in protecting our planet; more idiots.

Now, I have argued before on these forums with a junkie with an (alleged) university degree, but I still stand by the fact that every marijuana addict that I have ever met is amazingly stupid.

And while your at it:

Controversial Statement - Back Away Slowly

I'm not going to sit here and claim that hardcore stoners tend to be anything other than burnouts and layabouts, but the vast majority of marijuana users are normal people who like to take a drag every now and then to relax. There's a difference between a "marijuana addict" and an average cannabis user.

YES RIGHT THIS INSTANT! Is it legal yet?

Good morning blues:

Lord Krunk:
This has been done a million times before.

Anyway, I voted no, because marijuana, while not directly deadly, turns the smoker into a braindead moron. And that's something that we don't need in an age where we really need to take a more active role in protecting our planet; more idiots.

Now, I have argued before on these forums with a junkie with an (alleged) university degree, but I still stand by the fact that every marijuana addict that I have ever met is amazingly stupid.

And while your at it:

Controversial Statement - Back Away Slowly

I'm not going to sit here and claim that hardcore stoners tend to be anything other than burnouts and layabouts, but the vast majority of marijuana users are normal people who like to take a drag every now and then to relax. There's a difference between a "marijuana addict" and an average cannabis user.

Probably true, but I haven't seen anything promising in anyone that I have seen.

Mind you, I know someone who recently quit smoking marijuana, and I've begun to garner a little bit of respect for the guy, who used to walk into class and cling to ceiling fans.

Good morning blues:

Armitage Shanks:
No, and I agree that is only a small percentage of people who will be affected by the side effects, a seizure is very different to a lifetime in a ward.

Here's the thing: we can treat schizophrenia now, and marijuana only has an impact on schizophrenic symptoms if the person already has schizophrenia. It's like banning fudge because it could cause harm to diabetics.

As I understand it you can have the psychosis, but they are inert, in a way, and that use of marijuana makes them become un-inert, when they otherwise wouldn't have.

Of course I could be wrong but thats what I remember reading about it.

Lord Krunk:

Now, I have argued before on these forums with a junkie with an (alleged) university degree, but I still stand by the fact that every marijuana addict that I have ever met is amazingly stupid.

I can post a photocopy if you like...

scumofsociety:

Lord Krunk:

Now, I have argued before on these forums with a junkie with an (alleged) university degree, but I still stand by the fact that every marijuana addict that I have ever met is amazingly stupid.

I can post a photocopy if you like...

Oh. Oh...

Don't bother; I've already said what I needed to say on the matter.

I think it should be legalized. It should however fall under many of the same restrictions as tobacco and alcohol. Laws against driving high, age restriction and all that jazz. It IS still harmful and addictive, just less so than tobacco.

Lord Krunk:

Don't bother; I've already said what I needed to say on the matter.

As have I. I really think the search function on these forums needs to be improved, or at least people need to search with a few similar phrases or words to what they intend to post. I think the last one I saw used 'weed' instead of 'maruijana'(or however the hell you spell it). [/clone nazi mode]