[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.
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)
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.
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.
<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>
<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.
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.
"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>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).
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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).
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>.
Comments
<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.
"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>
<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.
caffeine & sugar!!!
<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>
<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.
<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.
<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>
"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>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).
<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
<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
<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
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).
<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.
<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.
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>