or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › What's up with marijuana still being illegal in the US?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's up with marijuana still being illegal in the US? - Page 2

post #41 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>How about we make murder legal too? I mean, tons of people do it anyway despite it being illegal. I think if someone kills your wife, you should be able to hunt them down and cut their throat.

Where does it end?</strong><hr></blockquote>

This world is a scary place.. I shudder to think about such atrocities, like someone killing someone I love, and I can't say what I would feel if that happened.. But it would probably be best for society as a whole to leave that kind of issue to the police.. Vigilante justice is a bad idea.. But I think there are times to draw the line.. Some things we do for society, and sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do.. Let's hope none of us are faced with anything like that.
purple monkey dishwasher!
Reply
purple monkey dishwasher!
Reply
post #42 of 219
i always heard that one joint was the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes, so i believe lung cancer would be a big problem
post #43 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

Which drugs are 'bad', and which ones are 'good'? And why?

If your definition of "bad" is linked to individual and public health risks, or death rates from use/abuse then the "worst ones" (alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs) are legal!

What are you trying to say here?</strong><hr></blockquote>

DRUGS
ARE
BAD.

Obviously I'm not talking about prescription drugs- which have actual benefits. People can abuse anything- from Marijuana, and Jack Daniels to Prozac, Whiteout, and McDonald's fast food. The difference is that the latter ones have legitimate benefits while the former ones do not. (With the exception of red wines, which actually do more good than harm when consumed in moderation)

I certainly do not buy the argument that a cancer patient on his deathbed should be allowed to do things otherwise considered illegal. I mean why not legalize murder for terminally ill patients? HELL! They're going to die anyway! The reason that we do not do so is because murder, like pot-smoking, is wrong.

Compassionless? No.
Principled? Yes.

DRUGS ARE BAD. You pot-smokers will ruin the country.
post #44 of 219
Most of my favorites come from my friend's doctor anyway. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

"Doctor... I think I can't pay attention anymore, and I'm sad, and I can't sleep at night, and I get mad easily, and I see spots when I stare at the sun........."

(edit: grammar mistake, I was probably on drugs or something)

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: iBrowse ]</p>
post #45 of 219
ShawnPattyJoyce: You sir, are ignorant. Please think about the things that society and your local DARE program tell you before swallowing them and branding them true.
post #46 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

DRUGS
ARE
BAD.

Obviously I'm not talking about prescription drugs- which have actual benefits. People can abuse anything- from Marijuana, and Jack Daniels to Prozac, Whiteout, and McDonald's fast food. The difference is that the latter ones have legitimate benefits while the former ones do not. (With the exception of red wines, which actually do more good than harm when consumed in moderation)

I certainly do not buy the argument that a cancer patient on his deathbed should be allowed to do things otherwise considered illegal. I mean why not legalize murder for terminally ill patients? HELL! They're going to die anyway! The reason that we do not do so is because murder, like pot-smoking, is wrong.

Compassionless? No.
Principled? Yes.

DRUGS ARE BAD. You pot-smokers will ruin the country.</strong><hr></blockquote>

oh, so YOU drink red wine...? shame on you.
why don't you smoke some pot then ? it actually does more good than harm when consumed in moderation as well. and it's even less harmfull than alcohol.
post #47 of 219
Uh, how about some of the more pervasive & addictive drugs out there like...

caffeine & sugar!!!
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #48 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:
<strong>i always heard that one joint was the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes, so i believe lung cancer would be a big problem</strong><hr></blockquote>

actually, the generally held misconception is that 1 joint equals ~16 cigarattes. BUT, here's an excerpt from <a href="http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#3" target="_blank">norml.org</a>.

[quote]Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.<hr></blockquote>
post #49 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Obviously I'm not talking about prescription drugs- which have actual benefits. People can abuse anything- from Marijuana, and Jack Daniels to Prozac, Whiteout, and McDonald's fast food. The difference is that the latter ones have legitimate benefits while the former ones do not. (With the exception of red wines, which actually do more good than harm when consumed in moderation)</strong><hr></blockquote>

what "legitimate benefits" does tobacco have? it is a legal drug, obviously (to you) that means it has legitimate benefits.

marijuana has been proven to help alleviate the pains of asthma. it also reduces the amount of nausea a patient can feel when on chemotherapy. it also has been proven to help glaucoma. marijuana has legitimate medical uses.
post #50 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>

marijuana has been proven to help alleviate the pains of asthma. it also reduces the amount of nausea a patient can feel when on chemotherapy. it also has been proven to help glaucoma. marijuana has legitimate medical uses.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where has this been proven? Show me the facts. Show me REAL MEDICAL studies and not some stoner's website.

I bet heroin reduces nausea too. Crack alleviates boredom, so lets make both of those drugs legal too.
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #51 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>

Where has this been proven? Show me the facts. Show me REAL MEDICAL studies and not some stoner's website.

I bet heroin reduces nausea too. Crack alleviates boredom, so lets make both of those drugs legal too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

would you believe in the <a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/" target="_blank">national academy of science, institute of medicine</a>? what about the <a href="http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a014.html?2032" target="_blank">new england journal of medicine</a>? i'm going to look up some more now, whilst you read these.

(by the way, i think all recreational drugs should be made legal, including crack and heroin. this thread is about marij tho.)

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: thuh Freak ]</p>
post #52 of 219
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science.html" target="_blank">here's another one</a>
post #53 of 219
<a href="http://www.ucsf.edu/pressrel/2000/07/071302.html" target="_blank">*more*</a>
post #54 of 219
Let me quote something from your last article

"The slightly better decline experienced by those using marijuana or dronabinol is intriguing, but not statistically significant. The
good news is that there is no statistical difference between the three groups."

Read this again:
"not statistically significant".

If it was legalized to the point where a person could go to a clinic and smoke a joint in a room alone with a doctor's prescription, or take a THC pill would that be enough for you???

Of course not.

Pot smoker's hide behind the "legalize it for medical purposes" veil. They just don't want to get in trouble for smoking it anymore.

If there was a way to treat all these terminally ill patients and it wasn't through marijuana would you be happy.

of course not! You just want to smoke it yourself, you damn hippy. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #55 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Let me quote something from your last article

"The slightly better decline experienced by those using marijuana or dronabinol is intriguing, but not statistically significant. The
good news is that there is no statistical difference between the three groups."

Read this again:
"not statistically significant".

If it was legalized to the point where a person could go to a clinic and smoke a joint in a room alone with a doctor's prescription, or take a THC pill would that be enough for you???

Of course not.

Pot smoker's hide behind the "legalize it for medical purposes" veil. They just don't want to get in trouble for smoking it anymore.

If there was a way to treat all these terminally ill patients and it wasn't through marijuana would you be happy.

of course not! You just want to smoke it yourself, you damn hippy. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

i'm in favor of medical marijuana because i know that it is the most probable first step towards total legalization of marijuana. yes, i would like all pot to be legal, not just for ther sick. but you asked for medical links and i provided those. marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. even if it doesn't do everything, it can help some people, and they shouldn't that opportunity. i think it should also be legalized for recreational purposes (like tobacco, alcohol [and firearms]). i am capable of smoking it (and/or eating it) responsibly, and i think i should be afforded that opportunity (without johnny lawman bangin at my door). i don't think the only way sick people cna get better is with marijuana. if there is a cure for the terminally ill i'm all for it. finally, i dont take offense by being called a hippy (tho i was borne well after the sixties).
post #56 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>

i am capable of smoking it (and/or eating it) responsibly, and i think i should be afforded that opportunity (without johnny lawman bangin at my door). i don't think the only way sick people cna get better is with marijuana. if there is a cure for the terminally ill i'm all for it. finally, i dont take offense by being called a hippy (tho i was borne well after the sixties).</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sure you're capable of smoking it responsibly. No, seriously, I am. Its the other 95% of the a-holes out there I'm worried about.

I kinda like things the way they are. I'm sure you don't, but I do. You're smoking it now, you're happy when you're smoking it and I don't see it. It doesn't really affect me. You do it in your house and you don't do it in public. So you'd probably not taking the chance and smoking it in your car or whatever.

I just think that you'd be doing it a lot more if it were legal. I also really feel that a lot more people would try it if it were legal and that would lead to a slew of new problems including people trying other drugs when mary-jane just doesn't do it for them anymore. That is my main reason for wanting it kept illegal.

Oh, I wasn't trying to offend you with the hippy remark, I was just trying to make light of the situation before we started throwing things at each other
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #57 of 219
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>
of course not! You just want to smoke it yourself, you damn hippy. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I, for one, don't want to smoke and you are still completely ignorant (as in you ignored the links he posted).


And "hippies" are only a tiny pin-tip of the people in America or the rest of the world that smoke marijuana. The vast majority are regular folks with a wide range of interests
post #58 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>
I'm sure you're capable of smoking it responsibly. No, seriously, I am. Its the other 95% of the a-holes out there I'm worried about.

I kinda like things the way they are. I'm sure you don't, but I do. You're smoking it now, you're happy when you're smoking it and I don't see it. It doesn't really affect me. You do it in your house and you don't do it in public. So you'd probably not taking the chance and smoking it in your car or whatever.

I just think that you'd be doing it a lot more if it were legal. I also really feel that a lot more people would try it if it were legal and that would lead to a slew of new problems including people trying other drugs when mary-jane just doesn't do it for them anymore. That is my main reason for wanting it kept illegal.

Oh, I wasn't trying to offend you with the hippy remark, I was just trying to make light of the situation before we started throwing things at each other </strong><hr></blockquote>

by the by, i dont just smoke in my house. i also smoke on the roof of my apartment building, my friends' apartments (and roofs), in shady areas of public parks, and on certain streets and sidewalks of nyc. all the time with fear of the man on my back tho. i dont drive (yet, haven't gotten around to taking that test); and i am aware of the effects of marij on my reactions and am not foolish enough to attempt to even try it in a driving situation. BUT, i'd like to say, marij doesn't severely hinder a person's ability to drive.

several studies have been done to show that legalization of (recreational) marijuana does not increase the amount of users, or the amount they smoke. <a href="http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyRpt2.htm" target="_blank">*link*</a> <a href="http://www.lindesmith.org/library/thies2.html" target="_blank">*link2*</a> <a href="http://www.cannabislegal.de/studien/nsw/b58.htm" target="_blank">*link no3*</a>


here's a quote from one of the links i provided earlier: [quote]In contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/" target="_blank">*linkage*</a> So legalization may actually lead to reduced use of harder drugs.

and, there have been reports that i've read (tho i can't remember whether it was on the net or in paper, so sorry no link) that chronic [meaning repeated, not the drug] mj use actually reduce dependance on the drug. to the end where, less drug is required for the same effect (opposite of the known effects of cocaine and heroin, which require larger doeses with increased use).
post #59 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>

Well, I, for one, don't want to smoke and you are still completely ignorant (as in you ignored the links he posted).


And "hippies" are only a tiny pin-tip of the people in America or the rest of the world that smoke marijuana. The vast majority are regular folks with a wide range of interests</strong><hr></blockquote>

Read my last post. I clearly stated that the hippie remark was a joke.

So I'm ignorant for having an opinion that doesn't agree with yours?

I didn't ignore his links, I even quoted one!! What forum are you reading??

I also stated that my main concern was that it would lead to people using the drug more frequently, more people trying the drug and more people trying other drugs because of it being legal a "gateway" drug as they say.

To which he just replied with another article.

I'd like to respond to that by saying we don't know for sure what the effects on society would be if we legalized MJ. The example in that article is more conjecture than a real scientific study.

I'm all for a "form" of THC, in pills, by prescription only, for people who really need it. Thats if the positive effects outweight the negatives.

But I do not think that MJ itself, in smokeable form should ever be legalized and especially not for recreational purposes.
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #60 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>
I also stated that my main concern was that it would lead to people using the drug more frequently, more people trying the drug and more people trying other drugs because of it being legal a "gateway" drug as they say.

To which he just replied with another article.

I'd like to respond to that by saying we don't know for sure what the effects on society would be if we legalized MJ. The example in that article is more conjecture than a real scientific study.

I'm all for a "form" of THC, in pills, by prescription only, for people who really need it. Thats if the positive effects outweight the negatives.

But I do not think that MJ itself, in smokeable form should ever be legalized and especially not for recreational purposes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

the gateway theory is based on backwards thinking. the majority of harder drug users do also use marijuana. but, they are a very small population within the population of marijuana smokers. the likelihood of a marijuana user to do harder drugs is very small. the majority of pot smokers never try harder drugs.

we do know how legalization affected the good people of amsterdam. the fact that its still legal should attest to its legalization not having adverse affects. but, i can also quote some dutch studies, if you'd like.
[quote]The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong.<hr></blockquote>
R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128
unfortunately i couldn't find an online version of that publication, except that quote.

i think responsible people should be given the opportunity to smoke or eat marijuana whenever they want. they shouldn't be hounded by the police. i shouldn't have to worry about cops. i should be allowed to smoke on the street with impunity, like tobacco smokers, or at least in bars (like alcohol drinkers).

free pot.
post #61 of 219
Thread Starter 
Edit=forget it, willy.

thuhfreek has given you more than enough to chew on. It amazes me that you are still trying to argue with someone citing such reputable sources.

Do some research. If you have trouble with the journals above, here's something from earlier in the thread that might also help:
The July 28th, 2001 Economist devoted much of an issue to it. Many articles from all angles about the aspects, from personal and medical, to international and business. Go to your local library and check it out, or you can buy it online @ the <a href="http://www.economist.com/" target="_blank">Economist homepage</a>.

.

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #62 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>Edit=forget it, willy.

thuhfreek has given you more than enough to chew on. It amazes me that you are still trying to argue with someone citing such reputable sources.

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Non of the sources give me a reason for it to be legalized for recreational use. Which accoring to thuhfreak, is why he really wants it legalized.
He even admits that medicinal legalization is the first set towards recreational lealization which is his goal.

I believe that is the goal of 90% of the people hiding behind medicinal legalization.

What are the benefits of it being legalized for recreational use? None. Zip. Zilch.

Get off the young liberal "its cool to want legalization of marijuana" bandwagon.
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #63 of 219
Thread Starter 
Hey, genius. I did just give you the economist citation (twice!) where you can read why it should be legalized. They go into all of the angles.

So before you start with this "zip! zilch!" childish posting, why not actually research?
post #64 of 219
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #65 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>Hey, genius. I did just give you the economist citation (twice!) where you can read why it should be legalized. They go into all of the angles.

So before you start with this "zip! zilch!" childish posting, why not actually research?</strong><hr></blockquote>

All of the angles? You're sure about that? So I won't be wasting my time reading how it will "help the economy" . I've heard that crap before.

None of my postings have been childish. You're just getting upset because I don't agree with anything you've had to say.

If you're so sure about what the economist has to say, why don't you give us a couple quotes? Give me the jist of it at least. Or were the arguments not strong enough that you can't even remember them?

"Hey genius" - who's being childish? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #66 of 219
Thread Starter 
willy,

this sort of thing (from your links post) has already been discussed on page 1 of this thread. Please read my post discussing this.


And if the argument about which ones are more reliable, go to your local library and ask the librarian. Thuhfreek's citations come from the most reliable journals in the industry.

In terms of legalization, please do some real, non-web research, like thuhfreek did. Ever since <a href="http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/July01/0428.html" target="_blank">this incident</a>, you are in a bad situation getting medical info on the web.

Thuhfreek's citations are very reputable and show that he has done legitimate research.


.

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #67 of 219
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:


All of the angles? You're sure about that? So I won't be wasting my time reading how it will "help the economy" . I've heard that crap before.
<hr></blockquote>

You don't read much, do you? You don't even know what the economist is <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #68 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Non of the sources give me a reason for it to be legalized for recreational use. Which accoring to thuhfreak, is why he really wants it legalized.
He even admits that medicinal legalization is the first set towards recreational lealization which is his goal.

I believe that is the goal of 90% of the people hiding behind medicinal legalization.

What are the benefits of it being legalized for recreational use? None. Zip. Zilch.

Get off the young liberal "its cool to want legalization of marijuana" bandwagon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

what benefits does tobacco have for being made available recreationally? tobacco has no legitimate uses outside of recreation. none zip zilch. but the companies who produce it ("Big Tobacco") are some of the largest corporations in the country (and world). one day, our marijuana can be sold at that scale, and the country will be more prosperous for it.

but, regardless of the recreational issue, marijuana has medical benefits. therefore it should be made legal medicinally, everywhere.
post #69 of 219
BTW....I am no supporter of the recreational use of drugs, be they legal, illegal or whatever, and my personal choice is to avoid them (cigs, alcohol and illegals). People usually behave like jerks and assholes when drunk, or stoned, or in withdrawal, or whatever terminology people care to use to describe their intoxicated or addicted state.

It is the choice of the individual if he/she wishes to indulge. Leave big intrusive government out of this! People should be responsible for their actions, and if they get hooked on heroin or get a heart attack from using ecstacy, or get lung cancer from smoking tobacco or cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, then that should be their look out. The health information is out there and widely available.

In court, ignorance of the law is no defense. So should it be regarding the health risks of all intoxicating substances. I am not in favor of the government nannying us all and criminalizing people regarding what chemical junk they decide to shove into their systems, when the facts of drugs are wellknown.

I resent wholeheartedly the government using my tazpayer $$$ to keep hundreds of thousands of mostly young and naive people locked up, mixing with gangbangers and hardened violent criminals, learning the tools of the criminal trade in the Universities of Crime, aka the penal system.


Some interesting reading re. the wat of drugs:

<a href="http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia.html" target="_blank">http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia.html</a>

and, extracted from a linked site:

In Rethinking Drug Prohibition Peter Webster also points out that there are multiple factors sustaining the Drug War:

1.It's a useful tool for politicians seeking to whip up the electorate.

2.It profits the prison industry and even the weapons industry.

3.Legalization would threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

4.Legalization would threaten the profits of the tobacco and alcohol industries.

5.Users of marijuana and psychedelics are less enamored of material consumption, so legalization would threaten the profits of those promoting consumerism.

6.Drug prohibition facilitates control of the population.

7.Enforcement agencies (police, DEA, customs, etc.) profit greatly from the civil asset forfeiture laws.

8.The illegality and high prices for heroin and cocaine allows the CIA to obtain secret funding for its activities.

9.The Drug War has lead to draconian "money laundering" laws, which are a way for the U.S. to pry into the details of everyone's financial transactions.

10.The Drug War provides an excuse for invasions of South and Central American countries.

11.Following the demise of the Red Threat another scapegoat is needed, and "drugs" (and drug users) are it.

12.The Drug War provides a distraction from the failure of the U.S. government to solve the real problems facing U.S. society (poverty, unemployment, poor health and educational systems, etc.).

13.The Drug War is a tool of racism, providing an excuse to disenfranchise the black population.

14.The DEA is a major bureaucracy and lives from the Drug War, so it's in the interests of the DEA to keep the "drug menace" on the front burner.

15.Puritanism is a major component of the American psyche, and the advocates of drug prohibition appeal to this. (my emphasis)

16.For the U.S. govt. to reverse its stance on drug prohibition would mean admitting it was wrong, which it will never do.

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #70 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>

You don't read much, do you? You don't even know what the economist is <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".

Once again you've proven your intelligence level with your comments. Way to fight for your cause. You'll never convince anyone of anything buy acting like an a-hole



[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Willoughby ]</p>
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #71 of 219
[quote]I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".<hr></blockquote>

On the same grounds, "pro-prohibition" sites should never be judged as valid, scientific, or unbiased material.

Just look at the totally corrupt procedure and method by whish marijuana was made illegal in the first place: not a single medically or scientifically qualified person was involved in this medical/health decision. The laws against marijuana were put in place to protect corporate profits, the principle beneficiaries being the lumber, cotton, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

Those folk bleating against marijuana using a public health stance, or 'saving America's young' are either missing the point or do not *want* to understand.
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #72 of 219
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>

I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe we are reading different forums.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

I thought I was pretty clear about research meaning @ a library. Or did you miss my above post?

When did the national academy of science, institute of medicine; the new england j of med, the u of cali, the government of connecticut, the national academy or the economist become pro-pot web sites? Who knew that the government of Connecticut was set up just to legalize marijuana? And what's with all that extra non-marijuana stuff in NEJM, one of the (if not the) most respected medical journals in the world, seeing as though you consider it a "pro-pot website?"
post #73 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>


I thought I was pretty clear about research meaning @ a library. Or did you miss my above post?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You were saying that thuhfreak did his research well but I'm saying he just got all those links from pro-pot websites. They did the research, not him.

Your only basis for recreational legalization of pot is from The Economist.

I seem to recall you saying they wrote about "all angles". Does that mean they also argued reasons for it to stay illegal? If not, what were some of the reasons for recreational use? Also, how did they come to these conclusions? Scientific studies?

I'm not proposing any of these questions in a sarcastic matter. I'm just curious and I don't have the time to go to the library to pick up the issue.
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #74 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by digitalandres:
<strong>ShawnPattyJoyce: You sir, are ignorant. Please think about the things that society and your local DARE program tell you before swallowing them and branding them true.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's baseless rhetoric.

[quote]Originally posted by zero:
<strong>

oh, so YOU drink red wine...? shame on you.
why don't you smoke some pot then ? it actually does more good than harm when consumed in moderation as well. and it's even less harmfull than alcohol.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's baseless garbage. And I'm 18 which is far too young to be drinking wine in this country.

[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>Uh, how about some of the more pervasive & addictive drugs out there like...

caffeine & sugar!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

They are both fine when consumed in moderation. Marijuana can harm you whether you smoke one joint or one hundred-thousand joints.

[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>

what "legitimate benefits" does tobacco have? it is a legal drug, obviously (to you) that means it has legitimate benefits.

marijuana has been proven to help alleviate the pains of asthma. it also reduces the amount of nausea a patient can feel when on chemotherapy. it also has been proven to help glaucoma. marijuana has legitimate medical uses.</strong><hr></blockquote>

None, sir. Never did I say tobacco products have legitimate benefits. Yes, marijuana alleviates pain while causing cancer in the same breath (pardon my pun).

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
It is the choice of the individual if he/she wishes to indulge. Leave big intrusive government out of this! People should be responsible for their actions, and if they get hooked on heroin or get a heart attack from using ecstacy, or get lung cancer from smoking tobacco or cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, then that should be their look out. The health information is out there and widely available.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, we are a compassionate society, not one that allows the use and abuse of purely cancer-causing drugs. This is why someone cannot rob your grandma, rape, or murder her.

Drugs are addictive. We protect individuals from addiction through outlawing them.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I resent wholeheartedly the government using my tazpayer $$$ to keep hundreds of thousands of mostly young and naive people locked up, mixing with gangbangers and hardened violent criminals, learning the tools of the criminal trade in the Universities of Crime, aka the penal system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is exactly the problem. So instead of fixing it, you decide "the hell with it." We must not incarcerate drug users, only those responsible for the selling and trafficking of drugs. The solution lies in rehabilitating those addicted to drugs rather than incarcerating them.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The laws against marijuana were put in place to protect corporate profits, the principle beneficiaries being the lumber, cotton, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Most importantly, "the laws against marijuana were put in place to protect: The People

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #75 of 219
From an Economic Standpoint

If marijuana was legalized, it would create quite a windfall for the government. A whole new revenue stream could be created by taxing the sale of the product. Not to mention all the money that would be saved by the police, DEA, judicial, and prision system that is currently spent on penalizing people who smoke pot. Maybe, some of this new money could be spent on the rehabilitation of people who have hard core addictions (heroine, speed, crack, etc.). Or how about spending some of the money on Homeland security. I would much rather have more police looking out for terrorists than have the police busting the stoner down the street from me.
When you browse with Internet Explorer, you're surfing with Gates.
Reply
When you browse with Internet Explorer, you're surfing with Gates.
Reply
post #76 of 219
Your economic qualification stands out. Yes, that's true purely from an economic standpoint. But why not legalize murder? I'm sure the bounty-hunter industry needs a boost, and the government could surely profit from taxes collected on that.

Obviously, I do not want a society like that.
post #77 of 219
Uh, pot CANNOT hurt you if you smoke one joint...

Sugar & caffeine are ADDICTIVE substances, and are available to every single person in America, from babies to the elderly...

I am not going to go into citing references, because you (ShaunJoyceWhatever) are not going to listen anyway...

But, while I would NOt advocate anyone under the age of 21 smoking reefer, I feel it is an okay thing for adults to do...

I put an age limit on it, since kids need to finish their physical/mental development, and finish school, before they become burners...

And folks are FAR less likely to get in fights, become raving maniacs or any of the other behaviour exhibited by those who are drunk & disorderly, while high.

When was the last time anyone has seen somebody who was high get beligerent, due to the influence of the drug being used?!?

Just one ex-hippies perspective...!

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #78 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>Uh, pot CANNOT hurt you if you smoke one joint...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Find me a medical study that proves that.

[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>
Sugar & caffeine are ADDICTIVE substances, and are available to every single person in America, from babies to the elderly...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I see what you mean, but I think it's more complicated than that.

[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>
I am not going to go into citing references, because you (ShaunJoyceWhatever) are not going to listen anyway...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I find it horribly disrespectful of you to intentionally misspell and mock my name. As far as your claim of me "not listening," I find that baseless. I specifically replied to what several posters, including you, had to say. Subsequently disagreeing does not remove it from the fact that I listened.

[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #79 of 219
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Your economic qualification stands out. Yes, that's true purely from an economic standpoint. But why not legalize murder? I'm sure the bounty-hunter industry needs a boost, and the government could surely profit from taxes collected on that.

Obviously, I do not want a society like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

smoking pot has little or no effect on anyone else (except the dealer who i buy it from, who gains a couple of extra benjamins every so often). if i smoke, it doesn't affect you or anyone else. murder has a direct and obvious effect on others. marijuana, taken responsibly, can be used for recreation, and not hurt anybody. that's why it should be distinguished, i think. i think people should be allowed to do anything they wish to themselves, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>None, sir. Never did I say tobacco products have legitimate benefits. Yes, marijuana alleviates pain while causing cancer in the same breath (pardon my pun).</strong><hr></blockquote>

so, would you agree that it should be legalized for medicinal purposes? Perhaps only for the terminally ill, so the supposed cancer causing agents won't affect them.

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Drugs are addictive. We protect individuals from addiction through outlawing them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

acetominophen (the active ingredient in codeine, and tylenol) is an addictive drug. it is also legal. shouldn't (by your logic) government outlaw it? also, i'd like to bring up tobacco again. nicotene is an extremely addictive drug (around the same magnitude of heroin). it is legal.
post #80 of 219
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:


You were saying that thuhfreak did his research well but I'm saying he just got all those links from pro-pot websites. They did the research, not him.
<hr></blockquote>

I know what you are saying. Go back and see what they are. "British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128" No link, because it's a real citation. And most of his references were, probably found on paper, since the journals are large print journals, and only recently have any online content. Did you just drink all though college, or did you just not go?

The reason I'm so adamant about this is because he's probably the first person I've seen on AI giving such reputable sources, yet silly people like you want to argue against the points in them. Think about it: some guy with an uninformed opinion on a web forum arguing with the most respected reasearch publications in the country.

[quote]
Your only basis for recreational legalization of pot is from The Economist.

I seem to recall you saying they wrote about "all angles". Does that mean they also argued reasons for it to stay illegal? If not, what were some of the reasons for recreational use? Also, how did they come to these conclusions? Scientific studies?
<hr></blockquote>

That's not my only basis, it's just the best contemporary summary. And you are going to have a damn hard time calling it "liberal." I said it's a good place to start, because you can read it and reasearch using thier references.

Yes they do give the pro arguments, but show how they are ultimately flawed.

For the rest, you are just going to have to read. You can purchase it online @ <a href="http://www.economist.com" target="_blank">www.economist.com</a>


.

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › What's up with marijuana still being illegal in the US?