marijuana should be legal
It should never have been made ilegal
89.8% (53)
89.8% (53)
I need to reaserch the cannabis plant before i vote yes
8.5% (5)
8.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Colorado,Washington,Oregon voting to legalize marijuana

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

evilneko:

Personally, I'm for legalization. I say treat it like alcohol: have a higher age limit for it than cigarettes, and apply the same DUI laws as with alcohol.

I love me some Concordance :D

I agree with most of what you say here, but I've always thought that one of the more credible arguments against full legalization of marijuana had to do with being able to detect stuff like DUI and such. Those sorts of logistic things, I think, are enough to keep us from legalizing marijuana fully.

I mean, right now, the tests for Marijuana usage are things like urinalysis, testing hair samples, perspiration, etc, which is going to be hard for an officer to collect on the scene. Then, he's going to have to wait for a lab to analyze it. Then, it will give no information about just how intoxicated the person was at the time. And, it might take up to 90 days for THC to clear the persons system depending on their usage history and stuff.

So how do we know if someone is driving under the influence of THC? Because they look like it? Do we really want cops making that kind of judgement calls, or people getting arrested on the basis of such judgment calls?

generals3:

GunsmithKitten:

generals3:

And i believe that that mere users of marijuana should be heavily fined. Those who grow it or sell it should get into jail.

Me and my hobby of brewing toxins out of honey for people to drink thank you for continuing the cultural hippocrisy that makes me a celebrated wine maker, and a pot grower a filthy criminal who deserves prison time even though we both grow poisons.

What is it you brew out of honey?

Probably mead.

Uszi:

evilneko:

Personally, I'm for legalization. I say treat it like alcohol: have a higher age limit for it than cigarettes, and apply the same DUI laws as with alcohol.

-snip-

So how do we know if someone is driving under the influence of THC? Because they look like it? Do we really want cops making that kind of judgement calls, or people getting arrested on the basis of such judgment calls?

Hm, well what we could do is cite them for reckless driving, and then tack on "under the influence" based on the results. I think such measures would end up being temporary, since I imagine multiple companies would be hard at work developing faster means of detection.

Lilani:

carlsberg export:

Lilani:

And alcohol doesn't have to be drunk, that doesn't mean it can't be regulated. And if you think marijuana and tobacco give off the same things when being smoked...then I'm afraid it's pretty clear you don't know a lot about marijuana :-\

yeah that's why I said weed dosent have to be smoked, I WAS backing your argument.
I never said they gave off the same stuff when smoked.
even so, you honestly think that breathing in smoke isn't harmful? Even if it's not mixed with tobacco (which a fair amount of users do) it's still smoke and therefore can't be good for you.

please don't make up things I didn't say like it can't be regulated, I was actually agreeing with you.

Okay, I guess I didn't understand what you were saying so I just filled in the gaps myself, lol. I read "weed doesn't have to be smoked, though" as "even if you regulate the smoking of weed that won't cover all of its uses," and I took the rest as you making them out to be the same thing as cigarettes.

And to answer your question, no, I have no doubt marijuana has some long-term effects in the long run. However, the most in long-term effects I've seen is mental problems, not physical problems. Cigarettes cause lung damage because of all the shit in them, but marijuana is full of a different kind of shit that the body processes differently. I've never heard of marijuana causing the same types of lung problems as cigarettes on their own, but I guess you could look it up. Again, there are several countries that have already legalized or decriminalized it.

hey no problem I guess I could of been a bit more clear.
I 100% agree about it causing mental problems being a greater concern than any physical ones.
unfortunately I have experience with that as a family member developed psychosis from smoking too much. (a very disturbing event I can tell you)
however this family member was smoking that so called "super skunk" the chemically enhanced stuff.
now if the stuff was regulated, only natural stuff would be available (I assume)
of course with every drug if you abuse it you will become messed up.

Uszi:

Your position is now simply too extreme, man. Do you support banning alcohol? Should we also ban double bacon cheeseburgers and soda pop? Should the only legal sweetener by Splenda? I mean, if you start with narcotics, and then use that logic to jump to cigarettes, where does it stop? How do you logically stop yourself from sliding down that slippery slope?

In my opinion, the role of government is prevent people from infringing upon the rights of others, and not preventing me from using nicotine and alcohol responsibly to unwind or as social lubricants.

If I am made aware about the dangers of smoking or drinking or eating fatty, sugary foods with adequate education, and I decide that I like the way it feels more than I like preventing potential long term health consequences, am I not entitled to make that decision for myself?

Actually the only difference between a narcotic and cigarettes is that cigarettes don't cause any kind of impairment. It's both heavily addictive and very bad for the health and since the smoke spreads it will cause collateral damage. You can ban smoking in whatever location you want but you'll never be able to prevent people to smoke inside houses with other people inside.

Should we ban everything which is very (the reason why add the "very" is because everything can be bad for certain things and i thus want to emphasize that we're talking about things which have negative effects which heavily outweigh the beneficial effects) bad for the health? Well, ideally, yes. Practically, no. However we can start with the most dangerous and easy to ban things such as drugs and who knows someday cigarettes.

Uszi:

evilneko:

Personally, I'm for legalization. I say treat it like alcohol: have a higher age limit for it than cigarettes, and apply the same DUI laws as with alcohol.

I love me some Concordance :D

I agree with most of what you say here, but I've always thought that one of the more credible arguments against full legalization of marijuana had to do with being able to detect stuff like DUI and such. Those sorts of logistic things, I think, are enough to keep us from legalizing marijuana fully.

I mean, right now, the tests for Marijuana usage are things like urinalysis, testing hair samples, perspiration, etc, which is going to be hard for an officer to collect on the scene. Then, he's going to have to wait for a lab to analyze it. Then, it will give no information about just how intoxicated the person was at the time. And, it might take up to 90 days for THC to clear the persons system depending on their usage history and stuff.

So how do we know if someone is driving under the influence of THC? Because they look like it? Do we really want cops making that kind of judgement calls, or people getting arrested on the basis of such judgment calls?

Erm, field sobriety tests? What the fuck do you think happens currently? The Police have to deal with people driving under the influence of various drug's already, what makes you think that legalization would make any difference whatsoever?

That's probably the most illogical argument i've ever heard. You're assuming that since cannabis is currently illegal that driving under the influence of it never happens so it's not an issue already. You do know people are still smoking weed despite it's illegality, right?

That's the big joke of it, people assuming that legality makes any difference to whether people are smoking it. Newsflash: Anyone who wants to smoke weed, IS ALREADY DOING IT. Anyone whose stupid enough to drive stoned, IS ALREADY DOING IT.

carlsberg export:

Lilani:

carlsberg export:

hey no problem I guess I could of been a bit more clear.
I 100% agree about it causing mental problems being a greater concern than any physical ones.
unfortunately I have experience with that as a family member developed psychosis from smoking too much. (a very disturbing event I can tell you)
however this family member was smoking that so called "super skunk" the chemically enhanced stuff.
now if the stuff was regulated, only natural stuff would be available (I assume)
of course with every drug if you abuse it you will become messed up.

Ah yes, "skunk", the politicians favorite slice of bullshit to reach for whenever the subject of weed comes out. I'm going to assume you don't know what these chemicals are, because no fucker else does, even the people growing the skunk don't have a fucking clue what these supposed chemicals they're supposedly using to enhance their plant actually are.

If you're referring to "chemically enhanced" herbs like damiana or lotus leaf that have been sprayed with synthetic cannabinoids, that's an argument in favour of legalisation, get rid of all the fucking research chemicals coming out to exploit the gap in the market caused by criminalization. (don't get me wrong, anyone using this shit can probably get weed already, but they might use synth noids because they're cheap as fuck and don't show up on drug tests).

If you're just referring to strong weed, it ain't chemically enhanced, it's just grown under conditions to maximise cannabinoid/THC.

This is why discussing drugs with most people is pointless, most people just don't have a clue and will happily throw in misinformation in their points without a seconds thought. If you're going to debate anything at all, at least try to be somewhat factually accurate please. It's like going into a politics thread and saying "well i think we should vote Romney because i don't agree with Obama's what-ji-ma-call-its and who's-its". No one can know possibly wtf you're talking about, making your point pretty much meaningless.

Shpongled:
I mean, right now, the tests for Marijuana usage are things like urinalysis, testing hair samples, perspiration, etc,

Most common is urine testing, but there are now saliva tests.

Both come in an 'instant' test kit variety, but still require a further test when a positive result is detected.

A breath test for alcohol costs ~US$0.40, a multi drug urine test kit is ~US$8, while saliva test for multi drugs is ~US$40

That is, the currently high cost is why there is not yet wholesale 'drug driving' testing (and generally only if the officer suspects other drug use).

Shpongled:
And, it might take up to 90 days for THC to clear the persons system depending on their usage history and stuff.

Pills and powders are generally 2-5 days.

Pot is 5-7 days for a single use, up to 4 weeks for chronic users.

These numbers depend on many factors, dosage, metabolism, build, etc.

Shpongled:
but they might use synth noids because they're cheap as fuck and don't show up on drug tests).

Synthetic can be found in tests, just not the standard 'instant' kits.

Synthetic urine test kits cost ~US$50, which is why these tests are not common yet.

[One company I worked for randomly phoned your desk and got you to come down to be tested, there was a 1/10 you also got tested for synthetic pot.
Most only require a clean test 2-4 weeks before going on site and while onsite test randomly and after any incident.]

How about no?

Still a drug, addictive or not.
Tobacco is a lot worse though, they should've banned that before it became its own industry.

Bubba Jones:

Realitycrash:
Repeat after me: Will never happen.
I can't imagine any state in the US legalizing marijuana successfully.

And as for the basic arguments: Yes, alcohol is more dangerous, but blah blah do we really need another legal, dangerous substance?
"Blah blah freedom to chose blah blah" - No, fuck Freedom. Freedom is not necessarily a good thing. There's plenty of reasons for curtailing freedoms.

The cannabis plant also known as marijuana,weed,pot whatever you want to call it is good for you. In 1937 cannabis was made illegle through lies caused by greed. the US goverment pattented the plant in 2006 as a neuroprotectant and antioxident. Marijuana protects your entire body from age related illnesses, it is a protective medicine. IT is inpossible to die from marijuana. The FDA reports 0 deaths from it ever. OUR goverment has lied to us about this plant for over 75 years now. Just reaserch how marijuana became illegle. Marijuana is one of the healthiest plants you can put in your body. Spend some time and actually reaserch the plant.

o god i had to laugh at this. i mean im all for a minimum of decriminalization marijuana preferably legal with heavy regulation but to actually think weed has never actually killed someone is laughable. one of the risks from weed, and the reason i will probably never use it is because it can cause drug induced psychosis and is a known trigger for psychosis, something that due to my medical history i do have a predisposition to. now personally i think this is not a reason to make it illegal, after all people with bad kidneys shouldnt drink alcohol and if we banned everything someone had a bad reaction to we wouldnt be able to eat anything.

arbane:

generals3:

GunsmithKitten:

Me and my hobby of brewing toxins out of honey for people to drink thank you for continuing the cultural hippocrisy that makes me a celebrated wine maker, and a pot grower a filthy criminal who deserves prison time even though we both grow poisons.

What is it you brew out of honey?

Probably mead.

Beat me to it.

carlsberg export:

Lilani:

carlsberg export:

hey no problem I guess I could of been a bit more clear.
I 100% agree about it causing mental problems being a greater concern than any physical ones.
unfortunately I have experience with that as a family member developed psychosis from smoking too much. (a very disturbing event I can tell you)
however this family member was smoking that so called "super skunk" the chemically enhanced stuff.
now if the stuff was regulated, only natural stuff would be available (I assume)
of course with every drug if you abuse it you will become messed up.

Ah yes, "skunk", the politicians favorite slice of bullshit to reach for whenever the subject of weed comes out. I'm going to assume you don't know what these chemicals are, because no fucker else does, even the people growing the skunk don't have a fucking clue what these supposed chemicals they're supposedly using to enhance their plant actually are.

If you're referring to "chemically enhanced" herbs like damiana or lotus leaf that have been sprayed with synthetic cannabinoids, that's an argument in favour of legalisation, get rid of all the fucking research chemicals coming out to exploit the gap in the market caused by criminalization. (don't get me wrong, anyone using this shit can probably get weed already, but they might use synth noids because they're cheap as fuck and don't show up on drug tests).

If you're just referring to strong weed, it ain't chemically enhanced, it's just grown under conditions to maximise cannabinoid/THC.

This is why discussing drugs with most people is pointless, most people just don't have a clue and will happily throw in misinformation in their points without a seconds thought. If you're going to debate anything at all, at least try to be somewhat factually accurate please. It's like going into a politics thread and saying "well i think we should vote Romney because i don't agree with Obama's what-ji-ma-call-its and who's-its". No one can know possibly wtf you're talking about, making your point pretty much meaningless.

I wouldn't say my point is meaningless as I'm talking from personal experience which I feel is valid. 
however I will openly admit that I'm no expert on the ins and outs of this stuff. like when I have a beer I'm not interested  in how it was made etc only it fulfils it's purpose.

in my defence everyone I knew at the time who was also a regular user of this stuff called it "super skunk" so that's what I know it as. I want to be clear that everyone referred to "skunk" and "super skunk" as different things.

anyway I did mean "chemically enhanced" as in the THC chemical being enhanced as opposed to actual chemicals being used.

I'm sorry If it came across as the other way but everyone calls it that. 
it does sound very misleading I admit.

Vegosiux:
Well, hate to nitpick here, but we'd have to define "interconnected" then. Phones? Internet? Direct mind-to-mind talk interface?

That one should be obvious.

Vegosiux:
And even if we say "internet", that has been around for long enough for some time, and quite enough for a generation to grow up from where they start being aware they're an independent person and even having a use for internet interconnectedness to at least legal age.

Well not really. The internet exploded only after 2000. We also have no long term study on the effects of complete interconectivity on newer generations.

Vegosiux:
Wait, you're accusing me of having just made the entire thing up even after I stated where it was coming from? If you say "For all I know, yes", I suppose I'll just have to roll my eyes furiously and menacingly at you. In any case, was an example and not an argument to begin with, and I'm not going to push it any further.

You didn't provide any example. You claimed that newer generations are worse than older ones without having any evidence to back it up. People are always biased when it comes to stuff like this.

PercyBoleyn:

Well not really. The internet exploded only after 2000. We also have no long term study on the effects of complete interconectivity on newer generations.

Shifting the goalposts.

You didn't provide any example. You claimed that newer generations are worse than older ones without having any evidence to back it up. People are always biased when it comes to stuff like this.

How about you read what I actually wrote instead of being confrontational simply for the sake of being confrontational?

Come on, do you expect me to seriously believe you actually have any vested interest in leading serious discussion after having witnessed your style of "discussion" around here? You've been around for a while, I've formed an opinion, and frankly told, if I can help it, I avoid talking directly to you because you're simply not a good discussion partner. You don't talk to people, you talk at people.

Vegosiux:
Shifting the goalposts.

I haven't shifted any goalposts. That's just you projecting.

Vegosiux:
How about you read what I actually wrote instead of being confrontational simply for the sake of being confrontational?

I did read what you wrote and it's complete and utter crap.

Vegosiux:
Come on, do you expect me to seriously believe you actually have any vested interest in leading serious discussion after having witnessed your style of "discussion" around here?

So ad hominems then?

Vegosiux:
You've been around for a while, I've formed an opinion, and frankly told, if I can help it, I avoid talking directly to you because you're simply not a good discussion partner. You don't talk to people, you talk at people.

I called you on your bullshit. If you can't deal with that then don't.

PercyBoleyn:

Vegosiux:
Shifting the goalposts.

I haven't shifted any goalposts. That's just you projecting.

Going from having "a generation grow up completely interconnected" to "having long-term studies"? Oh, how silly of me, failing to see that those are completely the same, nay, identical thing.

Nope, shifted nothing at all, obviously.

Vegosiux:

I did read what you wrote and it's complete and utter crap.

What it is is anecdotal evidence, which, as I remember, I noted before I actually went on with it so you knew what to expect. Yes, anecdotal evidence is useless in an academic discussion - which I noted in advance I wasn't going to be having.

But, here's the catch: the mistake you're making is assuming that the use of anecdotal evidence immediately invalidates any statement it applies to if it's the only thing spoken for the statement. Your mistake is to immediately assume the opposite, while you might not have any reason/source to support that claim, either.

Another mistake is assuming claims that weren't made...for example I never said newer generation were "worse".

So ad hominems then?

Nope. I am genuinely questioning you whether or not you expect me to believe you intend to have a serious discussion after having witnessed your style around here. And since it's you I'm asking, yes, well, I have to kind of direct the question at you personally, don't I? But hey, if you regularly accuse people of being "ad hominem" when they question your motives based on their past experience with you, fine, don't let me tell you how to live your life.

Still, again. Do you expect me to believe your intention here is to lead a serious discussion afther having witnessed your behavior in R&P debates, or do you not expect that?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

I called you on your bullshit. If you can't deal with that then don't.

Oh I'm dealing with what you're doing just fine. I just don't think you're doing what you're saying you are and letting you know about that.

Vegosiux:
Going from having "a generation grow up completely interconnected" to "having long-term studies"? Oh, how silly of me, failing to see that those are completely the same, nay, identical thing.

You claimed that newer generations are worse than older ones and listed the internet, or rather "technological advancements", as a reason. I pointed out that we do not have any long term studies on the effects of 24/7 interconnectivity. How as I shifting the goalpost again?

Vegosiux:
What it is is anecdotal evidence, which, as I remember, I noted before I actually went on with it so you knew what to expect. Yes, anecdotal evidence is useless in an academic discussion - which I noted in advance I wasn't going to be having.

Anectodal evidence is useles in everything. If you're not interested in a discusion then what are you interested in?

Vegosiux:
But, here's the catch: the mistake you're making is assuming that the use of anecdotal evidence immediately invalidates any statement it applies to if it's the only thing spoken for the statement.

But I never said your claim is invalid, I pointed out that you have no evidence to support it.

Vegosiux:
Your mistake is to immediately assume the opposite, while you might not have any reason/source to support that claim, either.

If you can claim something without evidence then I can dismiss it without evidence. If you want to have a serious discusion then at the very least provide something more to support your assertions than "random person told me so".

Vegosiux:
Nope. I am genuinely questioning you whether or not you expect me to believe you intend to have a serious discussion after having witnessed your style around here.

You expect me to take you seriously when the only thing you've done up until now is spout bullshit?

Vegosiux:
And since it's you I'm asking, yes, well, I have to kind of direct the question at you personally, don't I? But hey, if you regularly accuse people of being "ad hominem" when they question your motives based on their past experience with you, fine, don't let me tell you how to live your life.

So accusing you of using ad hominems is accusing everyone of using ad hominems? Interesting.

Vegosiux:
Still, again. Do you expect me to believe your intention here is to lead a serious discussion afther having witnessed your behavior in R&P debates, or do you not expect that?

My behaviour?

Vegosiux:
Oh I'm dealing with what you're doing just fine.

Well I don't think you are. Maybe you should calm down first?

Vegosiux:
Oh I'm dealing with what you're doing just fine.

And what am I doing apart from pointing out that you've got no leg to stand on?

...frankly I never really cared about weed and I never will. It just seems so...trivial.

reonhato:

Bubba Jones:

Realitycrash:
Repeat after me: Will never happen.
I can't imagine any state in the US legalizing marijuana successfully.

And as for the basic arguments: Yes, alcohol is more dangerous, but blah blah do we really need another legal, dangerous substance?
"Blah blah freedom to chose blah blah" - No, fuck Freedom. Freedom is not necessarily a good thing. There's plenty of reasons for curtailing freedoms.

The cannabis plant also known as marijuana,weed,pot whatever you want to call it is good for you. In 1937 cannabis was made illegle through lies caused by greed. the US goverment pattented the plant in 2006 as a neuroprotectant and antioxident. Marijuana protects your entire body from age related illnesses, it is a protective medicine. IT is inpossible to die from marijuana. The FDA reports 0 deaths from it ever. OUR goverment has lied to us about this plant for over 75 years now. Just reaserch how marijuana became illegle. Marijuana is one of the healthiest plants you can put in your body. Spend some time and actually reaserch the plant.

o god i had to laugh at this. i mean im all for a minimum of decriminalization marijuana preferably legal with heavy regulation but to actually think weed has never actually killed someone is laughable. one of the risks from weed, and the reason i will probably never use it is because it can cause drug induced psychosis and is a known trigger for psychosis, something that due to my medical history i do have a predisposition to. now personally i think this is not a reason to make it illegal, after all people with bad kidneys shouldnt drink alcohol and if we banned everything someone had a bad reaction to we wouldnt be able to eat anything.

Just because it can make you crazy doesn't make it toxic.

That's what everyone means when they say "it doesn't kill anyone." Barring people that are allergic, your body has no risk from you getting high, aside from a slightly increased heartrate (and thus a slightly higher chance of heart attack). You can't overdose on marijuana.

Alcohol, on the other hand, can kill you incredibly easily. Between nine and forty times the amount of alcohol it takes to get drunk will kill the average person. It would take thousands of times the amount of THC to get high to kill someone, and that's just talking theoretically, since there is no practical way to get that much THC into someone's bloodstream.

Getting high and then jumping off a cliff doesn't count as 'marijuana killing someone' anymore than getting drunk and jumping off a cliff counts as alcohol killing someone. That is, it doesn't.

I find it interesting that one of the pro-pot arguments is "but our jails are getting clogged!"

True. So instead of making it legal, how about we keep it illegal, and just fine people for it instead? Not only do we have the bonus of keeping marijuana out of the public sphere, you also have the added revenue stream.

(Also you can kiss my ass for your pretentious poll options.)

scotth266:
I find it interesting that one of the pro-pot arguments is "but our jails are getting clogged!"

True. So instead of making it legal, how about we keep it illegal, and just fine people for it instead? Not only do we have the bonus of keeping marijuana out of the public sphere, you also have the added revenue stream.

How does this differ from 'make it legal, but tax the bejesus out of it', except for keeping the SMART smugglers in business?

arbane:

How does this differ from 'make it legal, but tax the bejesus out of it', except for keeping the SMART smugglers in business?

It's actually doable politically outside of California oh wait.

Some people don't feel like making marijuana legal and having societal attitudes relax towards it. Toking up is far from my list of Top Bad Things in this world, but that doesn't mean that I think people should just be able to go out and buy it legally.

(I have to admit a small personal bias in the matter as well: I'm allergic to cigarette smoke so walking through clouds of it as I go to class makes me pissed - I don't want to have to deal with the same thing, only the guys outside ask me how I manage to radiate so much.)

PercyBoleyn:

You claimed that newer generations are worse than older ones and listed the internet, or rather "technological advancements", as a reason.

I did not. How about you read what I wrote again and quit making stuff up. The posts are still there, go look back. And unless you can find and quote a part that says what you said it says, then what you're saying is, to use your own words, complete and utter bullcrap.

And guess what? You won't be able to find anything like that, because I never said anything like that. I said; and let me quote my posts:

A) The general opinion of teachers I talked to seems to be that the current generations seem less disciplined

Vegosiux:

Along the lines of talking to teachers who have been in the profession for a few decades. The general consensus seems to be that for a while now, the level of discipline in class has been dropping, and that children are left to their own devices more than they used to be. Note, I'm talking about "around here".

Care to point out where I said anyone was worse? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You pulled that right out of your ass.

B) With the advancement of technology (and shifts in economy), it's not a stretch to assume that way kids are brought up will change.

Vegosiux:

Still, it's not even a leap of logic to assume that the technological progress in the last few decades is going to change the way kids are brought up, for one. To say nothing of the shifts in the economy.

Care to point out where I said anything about reasons for anyone being "worse"? Oh, that's right, [b]I didn't[/i]. You pulled that right out of your ass?

Case in point: You've been caught making shit up to suit you on two accounts.

Will you answer my question, or will you keep spouting, to use your words, your complete and utter bullcrap?

Vegosiux:
Do you expect me to believe your intention here is to lead a serious discussion afther having witnessed your behavior in R&P debates, or do you not expect that?

Also, what do I think you're doing? Playing the tough guy. Watch out, we have a badass and all that.

chadachada123:

reonhato:

Bubba Jones:

The cannabis plant also known as marijuana,weed,pot whatever you want to call it is good for you. In 1937 cannabis was made illegle through lies caused by greed. the US goverment pattented the plant in 2006 as a neuroprotectant and antioxident. Marijuana protects your entire body from age related illnesses, it is a protective medicine. IT is inpossible to die from marijuana. The FDA reports 0 deaths from it ever. OUR goverment has lied to us about this plant for over 75 years now. Just reaserch how marijuana became illegle. Marijuana is one of the healthiest plants you can put in your body. Spend some time and actually reaserch the plant.

o god i had to laugh at this. i mean im all for a minimum of decriminalization marijuana preferably legal with heavy regulation but to actually think weed has never actually killed someone is laughable. one of the risks from weed, and the reason i will probably never use it is because it can cause drug induced psychosis and is a known trigger for psychosis, something that due to my medical history i do have a predisposition to. now personally i think this is not a reason to make it illegal, after all people with bad kidneys shouldnt drink alcohol and if we banned everything someone had a bad reaction to we wouldnt be able to eat anything.

Just because it can make you crazy doesn't make it toxic.

That's what everyone means when they say "it doesn't kill anyone." Barring people that are allergic, your body has no risk from you getting high, aside from a slightly increased heartrate (and thus a slightly higher chance of heart attack). You can't overdose on marijuana.

Alcohol, on the other hand, can kill you incredibly easily. Between nine and forty times the amount of alcohol it takes to get drunk will kill the average person. It would take thousands of times the amount of THC to get high to kill someone, and that's just talking theoretically, since there is no practical way to get that much THC into someone's bloodstream.

Getting high and then jumping off a cliff doesn't count as 'marijuana killing someone' anymore than getting drunk and jumping off a cliff counts as alcohol killing someone. That is, it doesn't.

the you cant overdose is a myth, you can its just incredibly difficult to do so by smoking it.

there is a difference between being drunk, being high and psychosis. if somebody who is high jumps of a cliff then the drugs are a factor but not the cause, being high doesnt make you jump off cliffs it just makes you do stupid shit. on the other hand if someone with psychosis jumps off a cliff then the reason for doing so is the psychosis and it is caused by the drug.

again i am not against legalizing it, life is dangerous, some things in life have risks and the risks associated with marijuana are relatively small compared to the damage making it illegal does.

Lilani:
As for the topic at hand, I say maybe Oregon might successfully legalize it because they are known for being very liberal, but they may have the same problem California's prop 19 had, which is explained by this graph:

image

The people who most strongly want pot to be legalized are typically not the kind to go out and vote.

Sort of, 'Portland' Oregon is known for being very liberal. The rest of the state is actually quite conservative. It's why gay marraige didn't become legal, and it will probably be the reason that this ballot doesn't pass. To be stereotypical along with you; too many people will be searching for cheetos when they should be at the polls.

It is currently legal for medical purposes, but the "regulations"... well... imagine letting alcoholics run liqour stores; that's about what the system in Oregon amounts to.

I'm still personally torn on the issue. I don't give two shits what people choose to do with their own lives, but I feel it reflects poorly on our specie when we fight so hard to defend our need to escape from reality through temporary mend bending substances.

Vegosiux:
I did not. How about you read what I wrote again and quit making stuff up. The posts are still there, go look back. And unless you can find and quote a part that says what you said it says, then what you're saying is, to use your own words, complete and utter bullcrap.

It's you who's making stuff up unfortunately. Maybe you're not feeling well today.

Vegosiux:
And guess what? You won't be able to find anything like that, because I never said anything like that. I said; and let me quote my posts

And what could possibly be interpreted from "newer generations are less disciplined" other than that newer generations fail to live up to the standards of the older ones, aka they're "worse".

Vegosiux:
So, now that you've been caught making shit up to suit you on two accounts, will you answer my question, or will you keep spouting, to use your words, your complete and utter bullcrap?

So now you're not only going back on what you said but resort to using ad hominems yet again. How civil of you.

Reality is the governement has put out all kinds of bullshit propaganda in order to get people to believe these lies..... the question is who benefits the most from keeping cannabis illegal? 1) Big Pharma 2) Prison system 3) Drug testing business 4) Alcohol companies also companies like lumber mills will get screwed cause hemp is much better for creating paper as it is easier to grow and contains a larger amount of necessary proponents than trees which take forever to grow. Not to mention the vast majority of other products that can be made from hemp. One major reason marijuana was made illegal was because during the war the hippy movement was greatly opposed to Nixon and the war and what better way to get them off his lawn and protesting then to make there recreational activities illegal ( makes logical sense right)Makes you wonder why Cannabis was classified as being more harmful than cocaine. Not to mention it has prejudice and racist backbone as we can see in the local prison systems. (marijuana apparently caused white women to have sexual relations with black men) The majority of drug arrests for the "War on Drugs" is black and latins. Not to mention..... CIA has been known for supplying drugs to the U.S. population..... I have seen video footage of individuals within law enforcement who have stood up and stated these facts to politicioans in the past. Who is to say they are not still doing this in a more "legal" way through Big Pharma? Big Pharma and beer companies pay big money to keep cannbis off the streets.... Anhesier Bush in my state of Ohio they pay for the helicopters trying to find the cannabis fields this year. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-17/news/30056817_1_marijuana-legalization-california-budget-prop They put money against prop 19 ... I wonder why? Beer corporations know people will prefer a natural drug over their crap drug.

And do not give me some crap about how cannabis is illegal because it is bad for you... it is bullshit. Do a simple search of medical entities that have recognized cannabis as being beneficial in regards to health..... and even if you want to use the old... smoking is bad for you crap.... you do not need to use cannabis in a smoking fashion... you can cook with it and you can use vaporizers and topical solutions. Sigh..... educate yourself and stop buying in to everything the governement says.... 40 years ago they would tell you if you smoke pot you would go crazy and die. Well guess what I been smoking off and on for 20 years and I am finishing my Masters in Business Administration with a focus in International Business... currently holding a 3.6 GPA. I live in Brazil.... have a dream girlfriend brazillian beauty and a wonderful life ahead of me and yes that will include cannabis. Point is Cannabis DOES NOT ruin your life ..... lack of education does and the government does a much better job at ruining your life with the Spreading of lies.... seperating families.... basically controlling individuals any way they can in order to fill their pockets with money. Fact.... cannabis use will continue to increase..... Fact.... nothing the governement can do about it .... You are welcome to continue to believe the lies the government spews but it is much more difficult for them to keep people in the dark with the vast amount of access we have through the internet for information.... oh I am sure they will want to regulate that as well... control is the word of the day...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IueIgHiwtfg and if you want to actually be intelligent on the subject.... you can watch this. If you do not know the history then you are just a mindless robot spewing garbage. One last thing... the government shoudl NEVER be able to tell us what we can and can not put into our own bodies.... unless the government ownes your body.... I personally will tell them to F*** off

PercyBoleyn:

It's you who's making stuff up unfortunately. Maybe you're not feeling well today.

I call this stage "putting fingers in one's ears and going LALALALALALA!". Seriously. Refusing to reply to what I said, just repeating yourself like a broken record.

And what could possibly be interpreted from "newer generations are less disciplined" other than that newer generations fail to live up to the standards of the older ones, aka they're "worse".

Many things. Crunchy things. Tasty things covered in nougat.

You're a smart boy. How about you give it some thought.

So now you're not only going back on what you said but resort to using ad hominems yet again. How civil of you.

One, I'm not going back on anything - see my last post.

Two, you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar - that's a fact, as I pointed out in my last post. Squirm, flail and play the victim all you like, you're only fooling yourself. You've shot yourself in the foot, don't presume you can sue me for the damages.

I'm going to ask it again: Do you expect me to believe you're here to have a serious discussion; even after I witnessed your behavior on these forums?

A simple yes or no will do.

Oh, whatever, forget it, prance around all you like. Just throw those tissues somewhere they won't make things awkward.

Instead of replying to a lot of different post ill make one. marijuana is good for you period. before you post negative replies reaserch the plant. Why would you want to post something on what you have been told,without doing some reaserch on the the subject first.
back on topic,new poll for Washington shows 57% yes :)

Bubba Jones:
Instead of replying to a lot of different post ill make one. marijuana is good for you period. before you post negative replies reaserch the plant. Why would you want to post something on what you have been told,without doing some reaserch on the the subject first.
back on topic,new poll for Washington shows 57% yes :)

Hmm. I know 0 doctors or Medicine student who'd agree with you, i did however hear that theory from pot heads. Guess why i won't believe you? And no, not everything you read on the net is true. You can find the most ridiculous claims on the net. It goes from "pot is good for ya" to "Evolution is a lie, creationism is scientifically proven!".

http://cannabis.hawaiinewsdaily.com/2012/09/05/colorados-marijuana-initiative-amendment-64-still-leading-in-polls/ looking good in Colorado as well... would be much better to have multiple states pass legalization at once ... would be more overwhelming for the feds.

Bubba Jones:
Instead of replying to a lot of different post ill make one. marijuana is good for you period. before you post negative replies reaserch the plant. Why would you want to post something on what you have been told,without doing some reaserch on the the subject first.
back on topic,new poll for Washington shows 57% yes :)

No drug has ONLY beneficial properties for you. For example, long-term use of Marijuana can lead to developing Anxiety, Psychosis and and depression
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539839/
http://www.bmj.com//content/325/7374/1195.1?variant=full-text&maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Patton&author2=Coffey&title=Cannabis%20Cohort&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2000&tdate=3/31/2006&resourcetype=HWCIT

That said, keep in mind mate, Proposition 19 was also ahead in voter polls before failing in 2010. Polls are not an accurate representation on how certain things will go. Largely because most of the people partaking in the polls don't actually go and vote.

Vegosiux:
I call this stage "putting fingers in one's ears and going LALALALALALA!". Seriously. Refusing to reply to what I said, just repeating yourself like a broken record.

You're describing yourself word for word.

Vegosiux:
You're a smart boy. How about you give it some thought.

Funny, if it weren't for all of your fallacies and inane statements I'd have actually taken you seriously.

Vegosiux:
One, I'm not going back on anything - see my last post.

Yes you were. Interesting that you're denying it.

Vegosiux:
Two, you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar - that's a fact, as I pointed out in my last post. Squirm, flail and play the victim all you like, you're only fooling yourself. You've shot yourself in the foot, don't presume you can sue me for the damages.

Lying to yourself won't lead to anything good.

Vegosiux:
I'm going to ask it again: Do you expect me to believe you're here to have a serious discussion; even after I witnessed your behavior on these forums?

Same question.

maddawg IAJI:

Bubba Jones:
Instead of replying to a lot of different post ill make one. marijuana is good for you period. before you post negative replies reaserch the plant. Why would you want to post something on what you have been told,without doing some reaserch on the the subject first.
back on topic,new poll for Washington shows 57% yes :)

No drug has ONLY beneficial properties for you. For example, long-term use of Marijuana can lead to developing Anxiety, Psychosis and and depression
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539839/
http://www.bmj.com//content/325/7374/1195.1?variant=full-text&maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Patton&author2=Coffey&title=Cannabis%20Cohort&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2000&tdate=3/31/2006&resourcetype=HWCIT

That said, keep in mind mate, Proposition 19 was also ahead in voter polls before failing in 2010. Polls are not an accurate representation on how certain things will go. Largely because most of the people partaking in the polls don't actually go and vote.

exactly what i was saying, reaserch it. the above studies or crap, to much info out there that debunks them. All you have to do is take some time and really look in to it, but you want becouse your mind is closed to it and you dont care,and it doesnt matter, prohibition is falling apart come nov 6, i have known this for 4 years now. prohibitionist are a minority now. And im not here to argue with the minority,im just here to study the election.

The Washington poll is a 23 point lead of 524 likely voters taken from 700 registerd
voters. prop 19 best was 16 points.

Percy, my question to you remains unchanged. Until you answer it, I'm done with you; and since we both know you're not going to answer it, I think that's that.

You could prove me wrong on this one, of course...you love "proving people wrong" after all (as long as you don't actually have to do any work). Let's see what happens when two sources of pleasure conflict, which one you'll choose...

Bubba Jones:

exactly what i was saying, reaserch it. the above studies or crap, to much info out there that debunks them. All you have to do is take some time and really look in to it, but you want becouse your mind is closed to it and you dont care,and it doesnt matter, prohibition is falling apart come nov 6, i have known this for 4 years now. prohibitionist are a minority now. And im not here to argue with the minority,im just here to study the election.

The Washington poll is a 23 point lead of 524 likely voters taken from 700 registerd
voters. prop 19 best was 16 points.

Give me peer reviewed studies from trustworthy sources "debunking" what is commonly proven and accepted and we'll talk. Or maybe you can detail why those studies were crap. What did they do wrong? What's the point of studies if they get automatically rejected by people who don't want to accept the results.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked