Why is marijuana criminalized?

[Tyrion]

I'm looking at the effects of marijuana for purely research purposes, and I noticed that they're no worse than drinking alcohol.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

 

It's almost impossible to fatally overdose from, little physical addiction, and has good benefits if used properly. While I'm a bit cynical on its supposed thought enhancing effects, it seems to do a good job -talking from research, again- at relaxing your nerves. The only reason why I could see the government would want to ban it, is because of the GTA-syndrome: that every generation wants to find the root of all evil within society. I imagine, like rock and roll and video games, marijuana was singled out not because of it's actual, physical effects, but merely because of it's percieved harm on society.

 

Hell, this ban, like Prohibition before it, only seems to help those in the illegal black market. This is not an inheirently harmful drug, and while I suppose it could be considered a gateway drug, the amount of money spent on enforcing the ban and putting thousands of hemp users in prisons could be much better spent on educating people of the effects of drugs, wether marijuana or crystal meth. I saw a commercial a year or two ago- actually, it was right around September 11th- which showed drug users, physically and mentally warn out sticking needles in thier weakened veins. That's what we need to do on the "war on drugs," not blindly ban every drug and making children believe that's bad because we say so.

 

I've done the research, which granted seems to be alot less than what most teenagers would do, and it truly doesn't seem that harmful. Sure, I wouldn't use it until my mind's matured both because of it's effects on my developing mind and the fact I'm currently not mature enough to use it in moderation, but to those who are older and know the limits it would be much of more of a good recreational drug than alchohol.

 

Does anyone else have anything to say on cannabis? Opposing arguments are welcomed as always.

[edlib]

The raging cynic in me wants to say that it's illegal in this country because they have never figured out how to totally corner the market, as it is one of few drugs that it's fairly simple to produce and process yourself. Alcohol and tobacco are labor- and resource-intensive enough that the majority of people are not willing to take it upon themselves to try to do on thier own. But cannabis is a weed, and will grow almost anywhere with very little effort. Dry it out and seed it, and it's pretty much ready to go.

Unfortunately, it's hard to make any money off of that, so why not outlaw it, and force people to use the drugs that we can make money off of?

 

Also: I recently saw a program on the History Channel that said that a lot of our current drug laws in this country also stem from racism. This was the program: Hooked

Very interesting. Check it out if you ever get a chance.

[toms]

i THINK the current drug laws only really came into effect around the victorian era, when many things were cracked down on in a bit of a religious fervour. For most of history drugs of many types weren't considered any different or worse than alcohol.

 

Exactly why alcohol became accepted and drugs outlawed isn't something i'm entirely clear on. There are definate health risks associated with MJ, but they are no more serious than the health risks associated with loads of legal substances.

 

And looking out my window on a saturday night I have to say that if they magically swapped the status of alcohol and MJ in today's society the world would almost certainly be a better place.

[Mike Windu]

I completely agree with toms

[CapNColostomy]

I agree with edlib totally. And I was about to post a near mirror image to his response, but I thought maybe it might be best to see what everyone else said first.

 

If you could find a way for the government to make more money with it being legal than they make from it being illegal, you'd probably be able to buy the stuff at your local convenience store right now.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Exactly why alcohol became accepted and drugs outlawed isn't something i'm entirely clear on. There are definate health risks associated with MJ, but they are no more serious than the health risks associated with loads of legal substances.

 

Especially now when junk food is becoming more dangerous then most drugs...

[Kurgan]

From what I've read the long-term effects of SMOKING pot are just as unhealthy for you as smoking cigs. While granted cigs are more addicting, this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom that MJ is a safer recreational drug than alcohol or tobacco.

 

Now obviously cigarrette smoking and pot smoking are not equal in all ways, since smoking pot creates impairment, while smoking tobacco does not (ie: a person who is "high" may have problems driving a car safely, whereas somebody who's smoked a few cigs won't be so impaired).

 

Granted research on pot smoking would be more difficult in a place where it is illegal, thus the product might not be "pure" (leading to tainted results) and the sample smaller. I imagine if pot smoking were legal for example in the US like tobacco smoking is, then more people would do it simply because there wouldn't be the fear of arrest. More people would "try it."

 

Granted tobacco smoking has become more stigmatized in parts of the US where public smoking bans have been taking effect, etc. Smokers have to be in special areas or are limited to smoking at certain areas in restaurants (or even certain establishments period).

 

I don't smoke pot, but I've been around people who have in a few cases and let me tell you the stuff smells NASTY. It's like burning garbage. Very sour, nasty odor. I think cigarrettes smell nasty (very ashy smell). So that too is a negative for both of them, since obviously the smokers themselves don't notice/care, but people around them will.

 

I think pipe tobacco and cloves cigarrettes actually smell good, but obviously that has nothing to do with the fact that they are both still carcinogenic.

 

There's the issue of possible "brain damage" from long term use of pot. I realize people challenge that, but then people still challenge the effects of tobacco smoke as well. Now raw data will help of course...

 

Smoking pot obviously isn't as bad as smoking crack cocaine or whatnot, but that doesn't mean it's harmless either and one should throw all caution to the wind.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents. No recreational drug is entirely safe, there are always risk factors. I don't drink or smoke, I guess I can't stop people if they are dead set on destroying bodies or minds that way (it's sad of course) if they're not directly hurting me. Then again there is a cost to society in the form of health care costs, so I guess one has to care to some degree...

 

Drug use laws I think make sense in the issues of public health and impairment. Drinking is tolerated so long as you're not publically intoxicated and creating problems. Smoking is tolerated so long as you're not bothering people, etc. And obviously there's the issue of minors using them (parent's rights and the effects on young people who aren't properly informed about the risk factors and how to be responsible and make mature decisions).

 

Claiming medicinal effects for pot is one thing, but let's face it, by and large we're talking about a recreational drug. Alcohol also has medicinal effects, and tobacco was long claimed to have medicinal effects too. Heck, they used to proscribe cocaine for people.

 

Yes, junk food is bad for you, but again we have issues of moderation, vs. impairment, etc. I wouldn't advise eating a bag of potato chips if it's going to make you crash your car or if your loud crunching noises are disturbing people around you.

 

Anyway, I'm getting off topic...

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yes, junk food is bad for you, but again we have issues of moderation, vs. impairment, etc. I wouldn't advise eating a bag of potato chips if it's going to make you crash your car

 

I don't have statistics to back me up except one. 1/3 of the US population is obese. Surely, not 1/3 of the population crash their cars and get DUIs (at least I hope not). One is certainly a more serious problem then the other.

 

Granted research on pot smoking would be more difficult

 

This is something that raises questions for me. How can you conduct any research without being accused of possession? Surely your sample must smoke the pot, you might be accused of encouraging them and turn a scientific into a drug dealer.

A weird thing.

I guess the dutch will have to do it then.

[Kurgan]

Well I don't have the stats at hand either, but I've read that we have thousands of violent deaths every year from car accidents. We've also got all kinds of unsafe driving going on, which hurts everyone. Eating habits are harder to regulate than driving, and so is drug use, obviously. It's not a perfect analogy. I've heard people say of course many times "well if you want to ban pot you have to ban cigs & beer!" followed by "and you also have to ban fatty foods!" Etc.

 

While these are interesting issues, let's not forget what we're talking about here. We can compare them in some ways, but not in all ways.

 

Obesity kills slowly, as does drug abuse. Car crashes kill a lot quicker. So impairment is a more serious problem. It also thus affects others more directly than a person slowly destroying their own health (which still has societal effects of course).

 

 

Research can be done in many ways. I'm not the one doing the research, but I imagine if it wasn't done in a country where pot smoking was legal, it could be done via people who rehab or something. Or it could have been done anonymously (which of course could then raise suspicion that they cooked the numbers, etc). Like I said it would be more difficult. It's like the charges that Kinsey was a "child abuse supporter" because he did studies of the practices of child molesters without turning them in. While that's a valid question it hasn't stopped such studies from being conducted in the past. Sure there's ethics questions involved, but if we have the data, we have the data. Anyway, without actual numbers I'm just trying to be logic here based on what little I know of the topic(s).

[toms]

But its a balance of lots of low risks vs a few high risks. Fatty food is a lower risk, but affects far more people. Drug-driving is a high risk, but would affect far less people.

I think even with alcohol drink-driving is only a tiny proportion of the danger. With Marijuana it would be similar.

 

I think you would be very hard pressed to prove that statistically, MJ was any higher risk than cigarettes, fast food, alcohol or even skiing.

 

The risks with drugs like MJ can be split into two. The health risks of using it are one part, which we have mentioned.

The other risk is that associated with its criminalisation. That leads to a whole different area of crime, violence, exploitation and adiction which could be easily avoided.

 

Though i suppose its kind of contradictory for me to be arguing that the harm caused by MJ would be far less if it was legalised... while also arguing that the harm caused by legal drugs is far more. But that is how the situation appears to me. *confused*

[CapNColostomy]

It may not be true now, but I know for sure that there was a statistic floating around only a few years ago claming there had NEVER been ONE traffic related fatality that could be attributed to the smoking of marijauna. So impairment shouldn't be too big an issue.

[riceplant]

I only know one thing: People who smoke Marijuana don't smash up town centres at 11PM.

[El Sitherino]

The health risks with Marijuana are only there when smoked. Unlike tobacco products which are dangerous no matter the means of consumption.

 

 

I've said my feelings on this issue before. I believe if we had a regulation system in place similiar to alcohol. We'd have more responsible potsmokers than we would irresponsible. It would also surely drop violent crime rates, as it's getting more and more dangerous to get things with all the suspicion of cops. Dealers are more willing to kill you than get your money.

 

I've recently had my own share of run-ins with dealers just trying to help out some friends. They've really change in the past year alone.

I only know one thing: People who smoke Marijuana don't smash up town centres at 11PM.

Damn straight, we may think about it. But we're far too mellow to try anything. Honestly, I've never known a violent pothead. Hell most people don't even drive anymore since Easy Mac came out with bulk packs.

 

The fact of the matter is in most ways, pot is less dangerous than both tobacco products and alcohol. And I think if we were given a choice, I'd give up alcohol for pot. It's a much more pleasant drug.

[CapNColostomy]

And I think if we were given a choice, I'd give up alcohol for pot. It's a much more pleasant drug.

 

Now you're just talking jibber jabber. I'll hear no more of this nonsense from you.

[Kurgan]

Ok, thought experiment. Let's say in the US you wake up one morning and pot has been "legalized" in the same way as cigarrettes.

 

Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds and all the tobacco companies are now selling packs and cartons of reefer joints alongside their cigarettes.

 

You need to present your ID showing you're 18 or older when you buy them at a grocery store, gas station, etc. You can't advertise them on TV, but plenty of TV and movie makers insert their use into entertainment (which parent groups and politicians constantly complain about). Likewise in these same shows we always have characters coughing loudly and people saying "those things'll kill ya!" to offset audience complaints.

 

There are advertisments every so often on tv telling kids "not to smoke" many produced by the companies themselves (as part of a settlement).

 

The products can be bought but say they cost the same as cigs and have the same taxes on them to offset public health costs.

 

There's treatment programs for pot smokers just like tobacco smokers, and public smoking bans cover both drugs. So you can only smoke pot in the places you can smoke tobacco.

 

Now let's say the same number of people who smoke joints roughly jumps to the number of people who smoke cigs (for fairness sake). Let's say the availability is the same. Are nicotine levels in cigs regulated? Or was that just a proposed idea? If they are, you could say the levels of THC in joints could also be regulated.

 

With mainstream usage, the health effects on society as a whole can be better studied and published, just like tobacco smoking.

 

If you wish, you could throw in "chewable mj" to coincide with smokeless tobacco ("chaw") that you could buy.

 

What happens next? I think some are saying they believe that people would give up cigs in favor of smoking weed and that this would be better for society. Or are they just saying that because cigs are getting expensive, they don't know the health effects of pot and because of the novelty? I've heard people contrast tobacco with being "bad chemical ladden stuff" vs. pot being "natural, earthy, etc" almost like comparing organic food to "genetically modified food." There seems to be a sort of folk belief that pot is actually healthy. I'm treating it here like just another recreational drug, that is similar in some ways, but different than others to ones that are already legal.

 

Some say that the prohibition is political. That 'anybody can grow pot', but the big rich tobacco companies want a monopoly, etc etc and they know they can get you addicted and keep getting record profits until you die. Would the tobacco companies add nicotine to their packs of joints to get people hooked? Would they release scented joints that didn't smell like rotten garbage burning?

 

While I have no doubt many are saying that "de-criminalizing" MJ is "better" than prohibition, if it became "mainstreamed" like tobacco, what would happen?

 

Try to imagine and let's see what kinds of things we could expect.

 

I think mainstream decriminalization would increase usage. Would that inevitable "irresponsible use" offset the decriminalization idea (ie: do we have gangsters and cops shooting each other up over joint sales now, and would this stop if it were legalized?). Obviously you wouldn't be jailing people for having a joint in their car or getting pulled over smelling like pot, but would you have more or less people in jail for "public intoxication" associated with MJ use or other irresponsible use? Edit: Then again we already have "open container" laws for alcohol, so possibly "don't toke up and drive" laws might be in place too. Discuss.

[El Sitherino]

If you wish, you could throw in "chewable mj" to coincide with smokeless tobacco ("chaw") that you could buy.

 

Except that could kill you. As THC needs to be heated to react and work, otherwise it's kinda poisonous. Smokeless alternatives for pot are Vaporizers. If vaporizers are used commonly we'd have absolutley no negative sideeffects other than the wanted euphoria.

 

What happens next? I think some are saying they believe that people would give up cigs in favor of smoking weed and that this would be better for society.

As far as I can tell, noone in the history of time has ever said that. Ever.

 

Or are they just saying that because cigs are getting expensive, they don't know the health effects of pot and because of the novelty? I've heard people contrast tobacco with being "bad chemical ladden stuff" vs. pot being "natural, earthy, etc" almost like comparing organic food to "genetically modified food." There seems to be a sort of folk belief that pot is actually healthy.

(natural, unlaced)Pot is healthier than tobacco products. But you can still have problems with it if you smoke it. You're just not as likely to get cancer as a cigar(ette) smoker or chewer, because the chemicals they put in them carry cancer agents better than a non-laced bud.

 

Some say that the prohibition is political. That 'anybody can grow pot', but the big rich tobacco companies want a monopoly.

Well they and the lumber companies are the ones that originally got the law passed by lining the pockets of politicians and using racist propaganda to spread the stigma of marijuana saying, black people smoke it and will rape you to get more.

 

Would the tobacco companies add nicotine to their packs of joints to get people hooked?

I highly doubt anyone would allow that to happen.

 

While I have no doubt many are saying that "de-criminalizing" MJ is "better" than prohibition, if it became "mainstreamed" like tobacco, what would happen?

Not much, just take away the danger of having to get it on the streets. Some kids would probably stop doing it because it's no longer "rebellious".

 

Try to imagine and let's see what kinds of things we could expect.

K.

 

I think mainstream decriminalization would increase usage. Would that inevitable "irresponsible use" offset the decriminalization idea (ie: do we have gangsters and cops shooting each other up over joint sales now, and would this stop if it were legalized?).

It's already gone through it's fair share of crapslinging, but after legalization it'll still get crap for a while. Until people let go of their brainwashed ideas.

 

Obviously you wouldn't be jailing people for having a joint in their car or getting pulled over smelling like pot

Indeed.

 

 

but would you have more or less people in jail for "public intoxication" associated with MJ use

Usually not, since most people like to be close to food. Only the idiots go out doing stuff after getting blazed off their ass. Which is why if legalized we need to establish responsible use of the substance, just like any other drug.

 

other irresponsible use?

Well you're always going to have idiots, that's why it's best for people to not generalize or else everyone would be at eachother throats.

[Kurgan]

Except that could kill you. As THC needs to be heated to react and work, otherwise it's kinda poisonous. Smokeless alternatives for pot are Vaporizers. If vaporizers are used commonly we'd have absolutley no negative sideeffects other than the wanted euphoria.

 

I talked to a guy online who claimed he "ate" it whenever he could. He didn't go into specifics, and maybe he was giving misinformation, as you hear all kinds of stuff on the internet.

 

As far as I can tell, noone in the history of time has ever said that. Ever.

 

Again I've had private conversations with people online who've said that to me. I've seen people post on other forums saying stuff to the effect of "pot is better than tobacco" or "I gave up cigs in favor of joints." Now that isn't to say those people are right, only that I'm not making that up. Again, could be misinformation, but that's what I've heard.

 

(natural, unlaced)Pot is healthier than tobacco products. But you can still have problems with it if you smoke it. You're just not as likely to get cancer as a cigar(ette) smoker or chewer, because the chemicals they put in them carry cancer agents better than a non-laced bud.

 

I've also sort of assumed that "natural" tobacco (hand rolled cigarettes) are healthier than factory produced ones. Then again I think they tend to be unfiltered so you get more particals into your lungs if you inhale, but they have fewer additives and lower nicotine content. Sort of like how Cigars are less healthy but since people tend to smoke them less often and inhale less, they aren't as bad (then again Freud eventually died from cigar smoking, so it's not perfectly safe).

 

Well they and the lumber companies are the ones that originally got the law passed by lining the pockets of politicians and using racist propaganda to spread the stigma of marijuana saying, black people smoke it and will rape you to get more.

 

I'd heard the charge that cocaine was eventually tied in racist propaganda, but not MJ. Not an area I've studied much, I admit. During WW2 hemp farmers were subsidized weren't they? Or at least encouraged to grow the product for use in various things. Then again people don't smoke hemp...

 

I highly doubt anyone would allow that to happen.

 

Well it was a thought experiment. I figure they'd want to maximize profits, and addicted customers would be more loyal ones. If they could get away with it I'm sure they'd try.

 

It's already gone through it's fair share of crapslinging, but after legalization it'll still get crap for a while. Until people let go of their brainwashed ideas.

 

I doubt it would ever end really. Tobacco and alcohol are demonized plenty and they've been legal for generations. Some states have very restrictive laws against alcohol, some churches ban one or both for their congregations, and there's plenty of programs to help addicts and abusers (since they obviously exist).

 

My point about legalization increasing use would be, a lot of people are probably afraid to "try it" but are curious. Without the threat of being arrested or harassed by the cops for going to the 7-11 and picking up a pack to take home, more people would be inclined to "see what all the fuss was about." As long as its illegal, people have to be more clandestine, and while punishments in law don't deter anything 100%, they do stop enough people from trying it just because.

 

Usually not, since most people like to be close to food. Only the idiots go out doing stuff after getting blazed off their ass. Which is why if legalized we need to establish responsible use of the substance, just like any other drug.

 

There are "hookah bars" starting up in various parts of the country (exploiting a loophole with regard to tobacco use) so there could be special clubs devoted exclusively as places to sit around and smoke a joint or two, maybe have a drink. Such places already exist (I'm told) in parts of Europe where it's legal. Anyhow, let's say you have the smoking section in the restaurant and you can light up your joint there. Can you see that happening? If somebody was disruptive they'd be kicked out, just as if some drunk was disturbing the atmosphere or other customers. Some idiot wandering in traffic or causing a disturbance outside could be arrested. Obviously we deal with that now with drunks. Smokers aren't quite a problem, though there's smaller issues like litter and possible fire starting (in parks for example). Most of the time smoking is just an "annoyance" issue, like how I've seen places where the smoking section and the non-smoking section are so close together it really doesn't matter what section you are in, you're going to smell it.

 

Well you're always going to have idiots, that's why it's best for people to not generalize or else everyone would be at each other throats.

 

Agreed. Nowhever have I said "well only dirty hippies want to smoke pot" or some other such stereotype to promote my questioning of the logic behind it. Personally I think cig smoking is a public health hazard, and so I'm in favor of the public smoking bans. Obviously this still isn't stopping heavy smokers from quitting. They're already addicted and they'll keep on to get their fix. There's 1,001 programs devoted to quitting, some work for some people, some work for others. I have a few relatives that are slowly killing themselves from smoking tobacco. The libertarian view would say "well let them, it's their choice" but then the argument is that it's not just a "victimless crime" type of thing. As a society we have to shoulder the costs of all these folks who've made themselves victims to drug abuse.

 

But another issue I see is the public perception. It's a bit like low tar cigarrettes. If people see smoking pot as a "safe alternative" to smoking cigs, and smoke just as much (or more) out of a false sense of security, they won't realize they're damaging their health just as much long term.

 

Now the claim is often made that pot is not as addicting as the nicotine rich cigs that are legal (that seems logical enough). The claim I've also seen is that pot is not addictive AT ALL (I guess they mean it's only addictive in the sense that gambling or sex are addictive to the right kind of person). I don't know the latest studies on that question. If people were to smoke less, their health would theoretically be affected less, and public health too.

 

If people smoked "purer" pot, and the "oooh naughty" rebellious element was removed, perhaps the numbers would go down. I'd expect it to be a kind of bell shape. At first people would be reluctant but curious (as you said with the "brainwashing" bit.. people need time to adjust)... then people would try it to see what all the fuss was about since they can do so without fear of punishment. Then as people adjust to it it'll either become really popular and usage will increase or people will realize it's not that big a deal and level off. But if we have a mass exodus of people quitting tobacco to smoke pot, that won't do anything to cut levels of smoking related health risks (and public smoking bans will still seem logical due to the annoyance factor and possible secondhand risks).

 

Now if secondhand pot smoke is deemed "safe" (another question I don't know the answer to) public perception could be changed so that smoking pot could actually become more commonplace in public than tobacco. Public smoking bans are obviously based on the annoyance factor but also the perception of secondhand smoke risk. And of course behind it is the desire to limit smokers and hopefully use public pressure to get them to quit (effective or not that seems like a natural assumption). The thing is I would expect the annoyance factor for pot would be as high or higher than tobacco cigs. It smells nasty. This wouldn't bother other smokers, but to non-smokers it would be a huge turn off. So pot producers would be encouraged to create a scented version that wasn't so offensive (like the cloves cigarettes).

 

Now all through this I'm assuming we're talking about MJ cigs, the joints you think of. But what about other types of MJ ingestions like bongs, etc. That goes back to the Hookah bars being experimented with in various parts of the country/world. It's an interesting topic and I'm glad to see others don't see it as so black and white as it's sometimes been portrayed.

[El Sitherino]

Hookah's are more of a cultural smoke. The only real danger comes from charcoal hookahs these days, and I've never seen one in my life, usually water pipe hookahs are what I've seen.

 

Consumption of marijuana won't absolutely kill you, but it's not good for you nor does it get you high. Consuming say a dime will definitely make you sick and probably crap yourself for a few days. I'm guessing when they guy said he ate some, he meant he cooked it already and had it with something. There were a lot of things behind the banning of marijuana, a lot of the propoganda in Texas however was using blacks and mexicans to push for ban.

 

I'm not gonna BS and say pot is totally safe, it's not. Because it does alter your mind and people who are stupid will naturally do stupid things putting themselves in danger. Me, I just sit and watch movie then eat when the munchies hit because I know if I start walking around and doing stuff something will catch my eye and I'll do something stupid. There are risks that certain people will become addicted because they have addictive personalities.

Marijuana has no natural physically addicting chemicals, mostly people just get addicted to the feeling it gives. It's a mental rather than physical addiction like cigarettes and other tobacco products have. Addiction does happen, but not due to anything with pot itself but rather it's in the hands of the person.

 

We used to have smoke clubs, my friends and I, and what we did was we could all hang out smoke/vaporize/cook/etc. but we couldn't leave or do anything dangerous until after we'd gotten past the trip and into the munchies. We established rules that kept us from getting caught and kept us safe. If they made pot bars I'm certain they'd set up similiar rules.

 

If someone says they're going to give up cigs for pot, they obviously don't smoke cigs normally. They give two different forms of relief, they cannot work interchangably if you smoke cigarettes in a regular fashion. (ie. consistent use, no break periods)

Therefore going by that, the point kinda goes moot since they don't really count as cigarette smokers.

 

Natural tobacco does come with less chemicals than processed tobacco but still more than marijuana. The biggest problem people are facing with marijuana today is a lot of people are lacing their buds. It's getting harder to find pure buds. More people are doing hyrbids though, but again they're lacing. Which is why I'm really hoping they do legalize, because I'd rather not jump up to federal offense by growing my own plants just so I can have a bud I know is safe. I'd rather not take a hit and find out I just inhaled a bud laced with cocaine, and that it's an inferior quality haze. My other problem is violence is going up. Police crackdowns are infact making it worse. As I said earlier, dealers are now more willing to kill you on the spot over making a sale. If they suspect something isn't right, they will not hesitate to pull a gun.

 

Steroids and pills are becoming a huge sale now, and so anyone buying pot and not pills and 'roids are getting suspected by dealers a lot. It's becoming much more complicated than it was years ago. I miss the days when you could make a nice, safe connection at school and get the deal when you got home. These days, everyone is a suspect of the cops and the dealer. Becoming very unsafe.

 

And as I feel I've started going into a rant of how bad things are getting I'll wrap this up. Marijuana is no worse than recreational drugs that are legal, *and no worse than a lot of the loose prescription drugs.* *(when you don't count smoking that is)

[CapNColostomy]

I obviously can't speak for everybody, but I know when I smoke marijauna, nothing in the world is more delicious or satisfying than a cigarette, other than a beer AND a cigarette. So these people claiming they'll give up nicotine and booze are, in short, full of **** in my opinion.

[toms]

I think mainstream decriminalization would increase usage. Would that inevitable "irresponsible use" offset the decriminalization idea (ie: do we have gangsters and cops shooting each other up over joint sales now, and would this stop if it were legalized?).

 

I would think so.

I'd assume all many of the same laws that apply to alcohol and smoking would apply to MJ. In the same way you couldn't buy cigs underage, or smoke them in a restaurant you wouldn't be able to do the same with joints. In the same way that drink-driving is illegal and cracked down upon whilst drinking is legal I'd expect the same to happen to stoned-drivers.

 

IMHO the advantages of regulated, controlled, taxed Marijuana would far outweigh any minor problems a tiny percentage of the users might cause by doing stupid stuff. After all, you can never protect people from idiots, they will always find a way to be idiots.

 

I'd have thought that if it was put on the same footing as tobacco and alcohol then i'd suspect it would lead to some sort of reduction of the usage of both. Not because people would switch entirely, but because people would babalnce out their usage between them, and only have limited amounts of cash to spend.

Many people who get stoned might go out and drink, but i suspect they would drink less, and have less antisocial effects.

 

You would also have the advantage that far more knowledge and research could be carried out, things could be improved. Toxic elements could be reduced over time and positive lellments increased. Purity and strength monitored, etc.. Pretty soon someone would come up with a THC-beer or something.

 

As i understand it most health risks associated with it are if it is used by the young, or by certain individuals with latent psycotic tendancies. May of the young get it already, but at least if it was being sold in stores rather than street corners you might have a chance of stopping them getting it... or at the least you could stick health warnings on it.

 

And if you legalise it, but control it and give warnings then there is at least a chance people might listen to your advice (parents who stop smoking while pregnant etc..), whereas if you try the blanket "Marijuana is evil and dangerous" argument you loose all credibility once they try it (or use common sense) and realise it isn't. So then they won't listen to you when you try and tell them why certain uses are more Evil and Dangerous than others.

[TK-8252]

Ya know, fatty foods can lead you to crashing your car, when you have a big mac in your face reaching for a fry with your other hand, all while trying to drive twenty miles over the speed limit in traffic.

[The Saint]

It would also surely drop violent crime rates, as it's getting more and more dangerous to get things with all the suspicion of cops. Dealers are more willing to kill you than get your money.

 

 

Not true at all. It would drop the petty crime rate. But violent crimes wouldnt be affected at all. Dealers would go from selling the legal,which would drop the price of mj to something illegal and still expensive. In the midwest crystal meth is becoming popular. And this is a drug which you're seeing an increase in violent crimes attached to. Before meth it was crack cocaine, and the Crack Wars of the 80s which led to many urban centers to become warzones as drug dealers battled each other and police. Mj has never really been large in the whole violent crime area its been more a drug of un-offical recreation than anything else.

[El Sitherino]

No no, less people will be needing to have encounters with a dealer, leading to less hostility.

[The Saint]

Ah okay I get you. Yes I agree with that then. The dealers themselves though remain the problem....god that sounds cliche but never the less true.