[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
There is absolutely NO DOCUMENTED case of ANYONE dying from a pot overdose. NOT ONE. The drug doesn't act on the body in that way. If you continue to believe this than there really is no hope for you to ever comprhend the subject. Really.

Since when are we talking about Pot overdoses.... yours is the first mention of it!

That cut of a quote was regarding additive in pot!


And yes... there additive. Pure weed give you about as much of a high as pulling up to a gas station. It's not a very potent drug... that's why it's legal in some places.... because it's not at all potent.

Half of the high is purely an illusion... you think therefore you are. You want to feel it... thefore you do.


Just like how some cancer patients rebound when they are lied to by love ones... it makes them feel as if they are better.


It's very well known that there additives. Most of them prevent the mold as spiff mentioned.

Most things that can be added cost virtually nothing. It's not like they need to put a lot in to give you that extra buzz. 1 billionth of a "serving" of a hardcore drug would be more than ample.


It's smiliar to how most fast food places spray their salads with preservatives and other ingredients to keep it looking fresh ...

that's why in many places when you order dressing on the side... they either don't give it to you on the side (silly mistake) or they give you salad that looks very different from the others.



---------------------------------------------------
nvaughan3: You can post as many silly surveys as you want... you know as well as I do they aren't accurate.

Nearly[read: less than] 40% have tried marijuana

Spiff: Do you believe less than 40%? Or more than half smoke regularly?


That's a very biased survey... it's been discredited by conservatives an liberals.... Nobody actually believes what it states since it doesn't agree with anything else.

How can it be less than 40% have tried... yet so many smoke?

Those pro are aware that most do smoke it. Those anti know the numbers are low from people who do not want to come forward.

Those numbers are real BS. You might be the only person without an affiliation with the surveyers (I assume without afilliation) who takes that as legitimate.


------------------------------------------------------

Still nobody answers why paying more is better?... just that paying more is better. It's not like there will be price control.

Just like alcohol... legalization doesn't keep it out of reach... it brings it into reach, making it a common place, rather than something you need to get.

It's not like it's in accessable to those who want (and can handle it).


Back when prohabition was around, Alcohol was a taboo... the illlusive liquid... Then it became legal, and a commonplace...people then moved on to pot, the taboo...

If legalized, people will always move to the next step... that's society.

Just like during prohabition... It's completely accessible, and socially acceptable... it's just not recognized by the state (nor controlled really).

It's the same arguement with gun control... allow more people to have guns, so that everyone is more educated with how to handle a gun.... that cuts violence. Or does giving everyone a gun cause more harm then good? Perhaps just let people who can get their hands on one have one?

Ultimately the question is who benefits... and who loses?

For Smokers
Pro's
- Ability to smoke in designated "tea houses", and private residents in front of cops.

[bCon's[/b]
- Higher prices, (taxes and corporate profit, thanks to a free market)
- Force people "ahead of their time" to take it to the next level.
- Make more available in homes, thus more accessible to those who shouldn't be using (children).

For Conservatives
Pro's
- Ability to generate REVENUE from someone else's fun.
[bCon's[/b]
- Force people "ahead of their time" to take it to the next level.
- Make more available in homes, thus more accessible to those who shouldn't be using (children).
- Stoned Driving will take years before it's recognized as a problem... just like it took a few decades until Drunk Driving was actually taken seriously. (when what's her name was killed).

Responcibile adults can easily buy today with no issues... at least now children have to make some effort get some.... and risk being caught.

Nobody benefits from legalization. There are more con's than good... and even the good is pretty lame. If you really want to smoke in the streets, there are several airlines having $300 round trip tickets to Schiphol Internation Airport (Amsterdam for the culturally retarded).



Speaking of Amsterdam... a pefect example of how legalization really didn't workout the way they thought... Hard drugs are much more prevalent in holland than in the US. With good reason. Pot is the norm... those looking for something extra, need to take the next step.

The duch government claimed for years almost nobody tried pot in their surveys.... but it's now coming out from third parties that those survey's.. and from continually rising statistics from the government that it was really conservative's who didn't want to admit they lost, and liberals who didn't want the dirt to show... ends up by 8th grade, most have experienced something mroe potent (granted in europe, designer drugs are more available... which are typically safer when used correctly than anything here in the US.. Extacy is a pretty crappy designer drug as it gets dangerous pretty quickly if you keep going... others not here are much safer when taken over the period of a night).

Nobody tried it... yet sales have been pushing it to be one of the largest industries in the country.... which they will never say when that happens. Might make them look bad in the eyes of the conservatives...

Now look what they are doing to pot smokers... limiting them once again... slowly but surely.

If it were pure benefit... other countries would have adapted by now, and allowed it themselves... why would a government pass up billions of dollars? Conservatives want tobacco and alcohol outlawed as well... but they tolerate it for the income, and because there isn't as much of a negative for having such a policy for tobacco and alcohol.


Being arrested for pot (provided you aren't carrying a metric ton) just doesn't happen... they use it as a safety method when necessary... like the Dell kid speeding through a light, then cursing at the cop... it was an extra thing to book him on.

Nobody is going to get arrested for smoking recreationally in their own home. Provided they are resoncible (not doing anything dangerious like drive afterwards).

Spiff? How many times have you smoked? How many times have you been arrested for smoking?


It's like j-walking... a law created to deter abuse...not prevent use.

[Spliffdaddy]

I was arrested twice for possession. Once while smoking in my car in a parking lot. Once at a traffic stop.

A friend was arrested after an off-duty police officer smelled marijuana smoke coming out of his apartment window.

Oh yeah, they will arrest your ass in America for having pot.

PS, 'pure weed' varies widely in potency. I guarantee there is no need to add anything to 'good' pot in order to improve its effectiveness. I can't stress this enough: nothing is added to pot. Nothing. Get over it. In 15 years I have yet to find any 'laced' pot. This 'additive' crap started a few years back when school anti-drug programs had no answer to the fact that pot never killed anybody. Obviously, this is a glaring fault and needed to be 'fixed' - hence their suggestion that 'something' may be added to pot to make it dangerous. If there is no risk then there is no need to warn kids about it, ya know. Therefore they suggest "Pot is dangerous because dealers add harmful substances to it". WTF. No wonder kids don't believe what they're told about drugs.. Most of it is pure BS.

Smoke a joint. If you die from it you'll be famous for being the first person in the world to do so.

[nvaughan3]

oh boy, you are something else. Until you can show me FACTS instead of your unsubstantiated opinions you are WRONG. No amount of whining that the "numbers are wrong" matter when you cannot provide alternative statistics. Your claims of most marijuana being spiked is null and void unless you can back that up. And as to your claim that marijuana doesnt get you high unless its spiked....well that simply ludicrous.

peaking of Amsterdam... a pefect example of how legalization really didn't workout the way they thought... Hard drugs are much more prevalent in holland than in the US.

Explain why the hard drug use rate is the same in the netherlands as it is in the strictly prohibitionist france, or the rest of europe. Oh wait, you cant. Don't worry you mind about studies that show that in amsterdam marijuana has not shown to be a "Stepping stone". ( http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.cannabis.html )

Nobody is going to get arrested for smoking recreationally...

704,812 people were arrested in the year 2K according to the FBI UCR- more than the sum total of everyone arrested for all violent crimes. 88% of those charges were for posession only.

and because there isn't as much of a negative for having such a policy for tobacco and alcohol.

Estimated deaths each year:

Alcohol-related: 100,000
Tobacoo-related: 400,000
Marijuana-related: 0


Hell, even the DEA has said "In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume,"

http://www.crrh.org/cannabis/dea.html

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
OMFG

please show us some research/reports that backs up your wisdom...

oh and btw it's not legal here...

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:


please show us some research/reports that backs up your wisdom...

oh and btw it's not legal here...

good point that he seems not to know. its actually decriminalized.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Since when are we talking about Pot overdoses.... yours is the first mention of it!

That cut of a quote was regarding additive in pot!

Well, since NO ONE has ever died from smoking a joint then how could they have died from the so-called additives you insist are in them?

You're either just a troll or seriously dememted.

And to back up Spliffdaddy, there is no need to add anything to pot. Some of the best botanists in the last few generations have gone underground developing strains and potency because that is where the money is. Weed is much more potent than it was previously. Does anybody remember the dime bag? That was truly skanky.

[yakkiebah]

the only thing that could happen with a thc overdose is a panic attack, not very likely to happen when you smoke it but can when you eat it.

[DBursey]

Perhaps Macvillage is referring to additives such as petroleum jelly which is sometimes used to cut hashish. But pot? It's ridiculous to assert that bud is being sprayed or otherwise diluted in any way. As others have pointed out again and again, it's a plant; it's still in plant form. It would be immediately obvious to all but the most drug-addled mind if someone were dipping your buds in buckley's mixture or jack 'n' jill's cough syrup.

As for the potency; it's all natural. Tried any B.C. bud or Ontario-grown hydroponic lately? Wipes all traces of Kentucy Bluegrass from your memory.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Tried any B.C. bud or Ontario-grown hydroponic lately? Wipes all traces of Kentucy Bluegrass from your memory.

Someday, son, you'll be ready for some Humboldt County (CA) varietals. Until then, keep practicing.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Perhaps Macvillage is referring to additives such as petroleum jelly which is sometimes used to cut hashish. But pot? It's ridiculous to assert that bud is being sprayed or otherwise diluted in any way.

Who knows what that guy is rambling about? Read his posts. According to him EVERY pot smoker moves on to become addicted to hard drugs. Go figure.

Imagine my surprise at that news. I had NO IDEA I was hardcore drug addict. I'd still like him to explain how that can be since I don't actually ingest any hardcore drugs.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Who knows what that guy is rambling about? Read his posts. According to him EVERY pot smoker moves on to become addicted to hard drugs. Go figure.

Your the only person in this thread to date to suggest that.

My point was that legalization pushes people to go the next step.

Now Pot is the elusive thing that most people do... and they stop there.

When it's legal... people will push to the next illegal thing, and wait for that to become legal.

Pot is about as far as it can go... making it legal, opens up the gateway to dangerious drugs... to those who don't already touch them.


It's the same effect that prohibition and the speed limit.

Read the f***ing posts before you reply.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Your the only person in this thread to date to suggest that.

My point was that legalization pushes people to go the next step.

Now Pot is the elusive thing that most people do... and they stop there.

When it's legal... people will push to the next illegal thing, and wait for that to become legal.

Pot is about as far as it can go... making it legal, opens up the gateway to dangerious drugs... to those who don't already touch them.


It's the same effect that prohibition and the speed limit.

Read the f***ing posts before you reply.

Ha. You make it sound like humanity is at a corner intersection waiting for the WALK- DON'T WALK sign to flash before crossing the street. Instead, here it is a POT IS LEGAL-POT IS ILLEGAL sign And as soon as POT IS LEGAL flashes we all cross over to the hard drug side. Is that really how you think people act?

So, without the analogy, the only reason that the millions and MILLIONS of pot smokers haven't become hard drug users is because pot is illegal at the moment? As soon as it's legal, we'll all move on to the next illegal drug. And this is your proof that pot is a gateway drug?

OK gentlemen, he's all yours. I give up.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Ha. You make it sound like humanity is at a corner intersection waiting for the WALK- DON'T WALK sign to flash before crossing the street. Instead, here it is a POT IS LEGAL-POT IS ILLEGAL sign And as soon as POT IS LEGAL flashes we all cross over to the hard drug side. Is that really how you think people act?

So, without the analogy, the only reason that the millions and MILLIONS of pot smokers haven't become hard drug users is because pot is illegal at the moment? As soon as it's legal, we'll all move on to the next illegal drug. And this is your proof that pot is a gateway drug?

OK gentlemen, he's all yours. I give up.

Look at history... that's always what happened. In narcs, as well as the rest of life...

Alcohol used to be in a similar status as pot is today... everyone drank, just not in front of a cop.

Drinking became socailly acceptable after a few months of prohabition once people lightened up.

As soon as it became legal, Pot became mainstream. Drinking was totally OK... even driving under the influence was OK for quite some time... then that thankfully became somewhat of a socially unacceptable thing to do, once out of college.

Now people are already on the next thing... it's just not socially acceptable... you can't say it in public without getting stereotyped. As soon as it's legalized, give it a few years, and it will be socally acceptable.

Speed limit was the same thing. Not to long ago going 75 was considered speeding... now it's the flow of traffic... and that was only a few years ago here in NJ... despite the "double fine" (an imposed law, but I have yet to hear it implemented on anyone going below 90).

Everyone always takes things to the next step. That's human nature... pushing the limits.

How fast can I go? How far can I go? How much can I? How little can I?

We even made a best selling book marketing "world records" of people who really push the limit. And it's a hot selling book after all these years.

That's human nature.

It's evident in little kids on a set of swings.

To adults binge drinking.

[Logic]

Comparing cannabis with tobacco

Effects of nicotine and cannabinoids on the central nervous system

Cannabis and violent crime.

Mental health of teenagers who use cannabis

Psychiatric effects of cannabis

Cannabis abuse and serious suicide attempts

A community survey of adverse effects of cannabis use

The list goes on, but so does life. I must go to work now, but feel free to discuss and feel all-knowing, all wise...............

edited to add: Does cannabis use encourage other forms of illicit drug use?

Edit: Fixed urls

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Look at history... that's always what happened. In narcs, as well as the rest of life...

Alcohol used to be in a similar status as pot is today... everyone drank, just not in front of a cop.

Briefly. And it required a constitutional amendment to place it under that status. This should cause you to ask why we have no similar amendment for narcotics and barbiturates. (Hint, we do need such an amendment- but don't have one. Think on it.)

Drinking became socially acceptable after a few months of prohibition once people lightened up.

Actually, no. Demand and use was the same before as after. It just meant that people paid more for it, quality control was non-existent, and people died from getting poor product.

As soon as it became legal, Pot became mainstream. Drinking was totally OK... even driving under the influence was OK for quite some time... then that thankfully became somewhat of a socially unacceptable thing to do, once out of college.

Be careful with your use of past tense. Marijuana was always legal until the early 20th century. Demand for it before and after it's illegalization have remained proportionally the same.

Drinking while under the influence was ok, but if you injured someone while under the influence or destroyed property while under the influence, you would have been charged for that crime. The only thing different from then to now is that we tack on higher punishments for not using the substance (alcohol) responsibly, as a legislative means of social engineering responsibility into people.

(legislation should not be used for social engineering.)

Now people are already on the next thing... it's just not socially acceptable... you can't say it in public without getting stereotyped. As soon as it's legalized, give it a few years, and it will be socally acceptable.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are legal that people don't approve of. And that is how it should be. Soon enough if people don't approve of something, even if it's legal, you won't do it or talk about it in polite company. It isn't socially acceptable to go out in public falling-down-drunk, just to continue with your alcohol example.

Speed limit was the same thing. Not to long ago going 75 was considered speeding... now it's the flow of traffic... and that was only a few years ago here in NJ... despite the "double fine" (an imposed law, but I have yet to hear it implemented on anyone going below 90).

Actually, no. Speed limits originally didn't exist. Flow of traffic and don't run over pedestrians or horses was the law of the day. Then it was, state and cities set their own speed limits, which was good. Then in the twenties with the Federal Highway system, the Feds got into the act and started dictating speed limits and backing it up with the threat of pulling highway funds. After that, they threatened to yank funds if every state didn't adjust their drinking age from 18 to 21. This is a state's rights argument, actually- it makes no sense for the Feds to dictate 55mph in Montana or New Mexico, when there's nothing out there. Let that which governs locally govern best.

Everyone always takes things to the next step. That's human nature... pushing the limits.

How fast can I go? How far can I go? How much can I? How little can I?

And there's not a thing in the world wrong with that, unless you hurt someone else in the process.

We even made a best selling book marketing "world records" of people who really push the limit. And it's a hot selling book after all these years.

You don't know the history of that book.
The Guiness Book of World Records was originally published by Guiness Brewery as a means of settling bets made in the Pub. The original bet that prompted the book was over
what was the fastest flying game bird in Europe.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Logic:
blah...

a few links with no actual research data, most of them do not even contain more then one small paragraph of info. read the same stuff about alcohol on theses sites?

posting lots of links looks impressive especially when they all come from the same sites.

have you read the link nvaughan3 posted?

ps. they're not even on topic. they would if they show that making it legal, for instance, problems and usage would increase.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
[B]Actually, no. Speed limits originally didn't exist. Flow of traffic and don't run over pedestrians or horses was the law of the day. Then it was, state and cities set their own speed limits, which was good. Then in the twenties with the Federal Highway system, the Feds got into the act and started dictating speed limits and backing it up with the threat of pulling highway funds. After that, they threatened to yank funds if every state didn't adjust their drinking age from 18 to 21. This is a state's rights argument, actually- it makes no sense for the Feds to dictate 55mph in Montana or New Mexico, when there's nothing out there. Let that which governs locally govern best.

Accurate history... but I'm talking about the past 7 years in one state. It was only recently NJ tested the program... and with a complete failure... just bringing down the speed limit in areas, people ignored the signs completely... making them pointless. Besides, there wasn't a budget for replacing all the signs again stupid govenor.

And there's not a thing in the world wrong with that, unless you hurt someone else in the process.

That's totally correct.

But at what point is it becoming dangerous? Pot isn't bad... but coccane can have some nasty side effects on society. So can many others.

Guns just make holes, nukes just emit radion, head, and swallow air... chemical weapons just release chemicals. So why are we so bent on stopping them? What's wrong with just strapping a bomb around your chest and walking on the streets? As long as you don't use it... nobody gets hurt.

It's an interesting arugment...

The fact of the matter is Rape doesn't hurt either. It's the victims ignorance towards accepting the sexual act and reproduction .

The "as long as it doesn't hurt" arguement, is one of the most legit... yet silly arguments ever.

Nothing Causes harm... it's perception that derives harm. So unless you see harm... there is none.

I personally don't believe that "Civil Liberties" really exist for most people... IMHO is's a load of propeganda that the government create to make you feel good about yourself... but people seriously think they are losing something. It's their perception of loss that makes them upset.

[Logic]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
a few links with no actual research data, most of them do not even contain more then one small paragraph of info. read the same stuff about alcohol on theses sites?

posting lots of links looks impressive especially when they all come from the same sites.

have you read the link nvaughan3 posted?

ps. they're not even on topic. they would if they show that making it legal, for instance, problems and usage would increase.

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to dig up the original articles, and if I did some would think they were a tad too hard to read. The abstracts would do for most. They are not all from the same site, but found at PubMed which gathers articles from over the world and distributes them over the net.

Their are relevant to the discussion since they show what effects THC has. I could find many more, but unfortunatly I don't have the time nor will.

And how is one going to test the effects of legalising? Are you going to legalise it in one area and then see what goes wrong and what is good? Or would you be happy with a study that asked people if they would smoke more/start smoke cannabis if it was legalised?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Accurate history... but I'm talking about the past 7 years in one state. It was only recently NJ tested the program... and with a complete failure... just bringing down the speed limit in areas, people ignored the signs completely... making them pointless. Besides, there wasn't a budget for replacing all the signs again stupid govenor.



That's totally correct.

But at what point is it becoming dangerous? Pot isn't bad... but coccane can have some nasty side effects on society. So can many others.

Guns just make holes, nukes just emit radion, head, and swallow air... chemical weapons just release chemicals. So why are we so bent on stopping them? What's wrong with just strapping a bomb around your chest and walking on the streets? As long as you don't use it... nobody gets hurt.

It's an interesting arugment...

The fact of the matter is Rape doesn't hurt either. It's the victims ignorance towards accepting the sexual act and reproduction .

The "as long as it doesn't hurt" arguement, is one of the most legit... yet silly arguments ever.

Nothing Causes harm... it's perception that derives harm. So unless you see harm... there is none.

I personally don't believe that "Civil Liberties" really exist for most people... IMHO is's a load of propeganda that the government create to make you feel good about yourself... but people seriously think they are losing something. It's their perception of loss that makes them upset.

I can't believe you used rape as an example.

You're wrong when you say that Nothing causes harm. Assault that takes away someone's right and ability to reject a sex partner certainly does cause harm.

You're saying such is akin to saying, it's okay to stab you, because it causes no harm- the only harm is in your perception that you'd be bleeding to death. I hope you see how ludicrous an argument that is.

The government doesn't create "civil liberties." Period. The people have all rights, and the government exists because the people give it the authority to exist. The constitution doesn't define people's rights, it defines the limitation of government, by saying "Congress shall make no law..."

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I can't believe you used rape as an example.

You're wrong when you say that Nothing causes harm. Assault that takes away someone's right and ability to reject a sex partner certainly does cause harm.

<snip>

Notice the "" and the sarcasm in the entire statement.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Notice the "" and the sarcasm in the entire statement.

They didn't load when I originally read before replying.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm sorry but I don't have the time to dig up the original articles, and if I did some would think they were a tad too hard to read. The abstracts would do for most. They are not all from the same site, but found at PubMed which gathers articles from over the world and distributes them over the net.

Their are relevant to the discussion since they show what effects THC has. I could find many more, but unfortunatly I don't have the time nor will.

But what's the point? I don't think anyone here would deny that there are risks associated with smoking pot - if you searched the web, you could probably come up with studies on the risks associated with peanut butter.

I think it's important to view the research in toto and in context, as this book does: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

[Logic]

Originally posted by zigzag:
But what's the point? I don't think anyone here would deny that there are risks associated with smoking pot - if you searched the web, you could probably come up with studies on the risks associated with peanut butter.

I think it's important to view the research in toto and in context, as this book does: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Well, I tend to trust published articles rather than independent books when it comes to science.

But ok, what will be the benefits of legalising it? What arguments are so compelling that it should be obvious that legalisation is the answer to our troubles? And I'm not talking about medical use.

[thunderous_funker]

Unhappiness and low self-esteem are "gateways" to hard drugs, not pot.

As with most social problems, people confuse the symptoms for the causes.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well, I tend to trust published articles rather than independent books when it comes to science.

But ok, what will be the benefits of legalising it? What arguments are so compelling that it should be obvious that legalisation is the answer to our troubles? And I'm not talking about medical use.

The book collates all of the available research and examines it in a calm and unbiased manner (all authors have biases, of course, but this book has been universally praised for its relative objectivity). That's why I trust it more than a loose collection of published articles, which themselves can be subject to numerous biases.

The author spends a lot of time on the issue of causation. The study you cited in which they found 12 criminals who smoked pot neither surprises me nor tells me anything about causation.

The author doesn't claim that there are no risks, he just puts them in context, so they can be considered rationally rather than hysterically.

We all agree that there are risks, but that is only one part of the question. The other part of the question is whether our legal system deals with those risks in an appropriate manner. IMO, it doesn't. I know you mean well, but it might be difficult for you to see from a distance the corrupting influence of the so-called drug war in the U.S. It's extremely expensive, it ties up the court system, it causes otherwise harmless people to sit in prison, it causes artificial scarcities that increase rather than decrease crime rates, it supports rather than diminishes organized crime, it corrupts the criminal justice system (in more ways than one), among other things, all for a relatively benign substance that many people use anyway. The legal framework is way out of proportion to the risks, and IMO causes far more harm than good. We went through the same self-defeating process with the prohibition of alcohol, which is far more dangerous than pot.

I'm not sure if legalization or decriminalization would serve us better, but either choice would serve us far better than the current arrangement.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well, I tend to trust published articles rather than independent books when it comes to science.

yes, i have posted links to scientific articles in the past, and have you read the link nvaughan3 posted?

But ok, what will be the benefits of legalising it? What arguments are so compelling that it should be obvious that legalisation is the answer to our troubles? And I'm not talking about medical use.

crime, same with alcohol remember?

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by zigzag:
good stuff...

[Logic]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
yes, i have posted links to scientific articles in the past, and have you read the link nvaughan3 posted?



crime, same with alcohol remember?

I'm sorry but I'm tired so I haven't read those links. I'll do that tomorrow if I have time.

Basicly my problem with legalising THC is that by doing that we are sort of encouraging the use. We know it causes several diseases, we know it affects the mental stability, and we know that the cons outweigh the pros. I don't think that we should put people in jail for smoking a joint. At the same time I don't think it should be legal. I really don't care if people smoke, if they do it at home or somewhere not near me or my family. I wouldn't want my kids to smoke THC so I don't want it to be legal.

You mention crimes related to THC. That tells me that most/many who use THC substances are either addicted to something stronger and/or that mentally instable people(crooks) use this substance. So what will legalising this change. Smuggling of alcohol hasn't decreased since it becamse legal.

The thing is that my experience from my own use, from the time I worked at the rehab clinic and friends that have used tells me that we shouldn't legalise this.

I'm going to stop this ramble now since I don't think I make much sense. I'm to tired to say why I feel this way. Perhaps I'll come back tomorrow and try.

[nvaughan3]

...
Cannabis and violent crime
....

OK, I really hope you are reading what you are posting. That was the first link I clicked on, and the last, considering the quality of the "study". Let's examine what the abstract says.


Niveau G, Dang C.

Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland.

We present a series of 12 cases of violent crime, which were all committed under the influence of cannabis in Geneva, Switzerland, between 1996 and 2000.

Wow, such a wide-ranging study. TWELVE people! Gosh, that's enough to make a meaningful inference.

If a political poll purporting to be representative of a total population was taken using only 12 people, the margin of error would be 98%+.

The crimes were committed by eleven males and one female, with a mean age of 26 years, who were using only cannabis at the time they acted.

92% of the subjects were male. And how was it verified they only used marijuna?

Most of them were chronic users. Five subjects had a past psychiatric history. Five had a personality disorder.

Oh boy, that's a doozy. Fully 83% had mental problems. Need I say more when you are trying to link violent behavior to something in specific?

Only three had been sentenced in the past for violent acts. At the time of the aggression, all of them exhibited adverse and acute effects of cannabis.

Yes...and?

All of them were judged by the court to be partially or totally non-responsible. Three cases are presented in more detail. Our data suggests that cannabis could have a specific role in the development of violent behaviour patterns and that detection of its adverse effects should be systematic in criminal responsibility evaluation.

Wow, so only 25% of the subjects are actually profiled in detail. What's the margin of error now, 99.9%? Sounds like they need to learn the difference between correlation and causation.



Still waiting for macvillage.net to factually challenge anything I posted.

[Spliffdaddy]

There's little point in trying to argue about it. Trying to convince somebody that has used pot daily for over 15 years - that it's 'bad' for them is an exercise in futility.

Some of the brightest folks I've ever met smoke pot daily.

I'm inclined to believe that chronic marijuana use is more prevalent in folks with above average intelligence.

It sorta helps numb the world so you can exist as if you're not so intelligent - like commonfolk.

Either that or my brain is fried.

[Michael_Jackson]

Originally posted by MrNo:
Legalizing it would be a wise decision. I read somewhere (long time ago can't remember the source) that Holland had las pot heads percentage wise then UK or Germany ...

It should be noted that marijuana has not been legalised in Holland. It has been decriminalised.

[finboy]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Don't start with that gateway myth stuff. Common sense will tell you that is just a scare tactic.

No, it isn't. Having a pot "connection" almost automatically gets you a "connection" for harder drugs, if you want to go there. Again, it isn't about addiction, it's more about economics. Plus, I've known, personally, dozens of people (out of hundreds of users over the years) who "graduated" to harder things. Most didn't become addicted, but they still wanted to give things a try or have the occasional party.

Anybody who thinks they aren't linked just hasn't hung around with the "right" crowd. As a professional musician for most of my adult life, I got to see the "right" crowd just about every night of the week. I've known a few dealers in my time.

As for "additives" in pot, that's probably a load of crap, unless things have changed A LOT in a few years. Back in the old days we had to worry about pot laced with PCP (or sprayed with paraquat), but the potency of pot has gone WAY UP since back then. As is to be expected, pot growers at home and away, have learned how to use regularrr agriculture techniques to push the high. Good for them.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, it isn't. Having a pot "connection" almost automatically gets you a "connection" for harder drugs, if you want to go there. Again, it isn't about addiction, it's more about economics. Plus, I've known, personally, dozens of people (out of hundreds of users over the years) who "graduated" to harder things. Most didn't become addicted, but they still wanted to give things a try or have the occasional party.

Anybody who thinks they aren't linked just hasn't hung around with the "right" crowd. As a professional musician for most of my adult life, I got to see the "right" crowd just about every night of the week. I've known a few dealers in my time.

To state that it is a gateway to harder drugs is to say that it is about addiction. Otherwise it makes no sense to make the comparison. You might as well make the comparison to french fry eaters and heroin users. I'm sure most heroin users have had french fries at one point.

I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread.

Think about how many tens of millions (in the US alone) have tried or used MJ once or on a semi-regular basis. If even 1/2 of 1% of those moved on to harder addictive drugs we'd be dealing with addiction rates of epidemic proportion. That is just NOT the case.

I appreciate your experience but it is anecdotal. I've known hundreds who haven't moved on to harder drugs.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
If even 1/2 of 1% of those moved on to harder addictive drugs we'd be dealing with addiction rates of epidemic proportion. That is just NOT the case.

I know many who have.... Most I know who moved onto harder things were under 13 years old.

If you have the cash... you tend to do it.

People don't like talking about it, because it's not socally acceptable.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I know many who have.... Most I know who moved onto harder things were under 13 years old.

Anecdotal.

Let's see the numbers.

[things]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There's little point in trying to argue about it. Trying to convince somebody that has used pot daily for over 15 years - that it's 'bad' for them is an exercise in futility.

Some of the brightest folks I've ever met smoke pot daily.

I'm inclined to believe that chronic marijuana use is more prevalent in folks with above average intelligence.

It sorta helps numb the world so you can exist as if you're not so intelligent - like commonfolk.

Either that or my brain is fried.

Very True Spliff

[bracken]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There's little point in trying to argue about it. Trying to convince somebody that has used pot daily for over 15 years - that it's 'bad' for them is an exercise in futility.

Some of the brightest folks I've ever met smoke pot daily.

I'm inclined to believe that chronic marijuana use is more prevalent in folks with above average intelligence.

It sorta helps numb the world so you can exist as if you're not so intelligent - like commonfolk.

Just because one wants to numb their world doesn't necessarily mean that they're above average intelligence. It could mean that they're just a little on the softer side and are waiting for the day when they can get back to the womb.

[Spliffdaddy]

let me hit this bong a couple more times so I can better understand your point of view.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by bracken:
Just because one wants to numb their world doesn't necessarily mean that they're above average intelligence. It could mean that they're just a little on the softer side and are waiting for the day when they can get back to the womb.

no more drugs for you.

[MikeM33]

Originally posted by simonjames
The only problem I can see is newly created high unemployment in the groups of people who supply drugs - these groups and conservatives are the only people who vocally oppose legalisation.

Yeah, can you imagine them trying to claim unemployment benefits?

Claims agent: "Where did you work?"

"Streetcorners"

Claims agent: "How long were you employed?"

"15 years"

Claims agent: "What was your occupation?"

"Pot dealer"



If all they're doing is dealing then legally they're already unemployed.

MikeM

[faragbre967]

macvillage, I'm in high school right now and I can tell you that there are far more people that smoke pot than people who do coke. I haven't agreed with any of your arguements thus far, except one; people who have the money go on to harder drugs. I've seen this too many times for how old I am, and it's not pretty. A good friend of mine is a pretty bad coke addict, the kid doesn't sleep well without doing 1-2 lines before bed, that's shitty. The rest of your points, though, just don't seem like you have very much experience. I can tell you right now that it's way easier to get pot than hard drugs in high school. As for middle school, the only way kids got pot was pretty much through my friends and I, but there was no way to get hard drugs. I'm still all for legalization, and I don't think it would drive prices up at all. There will always be a company that sells the pot as cheap as possible, and they will always sell the most because people look for cheap highs.