That last comment proves what? Now you're just being an ass and just made me resort to your level of childish tactics. I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, in case you were wondering.
You're not convincing me of anything. His articles are about the medical issue. I want evidence of its benefits for recreational use. You site one source, The Economist. I asked for some examples that they give and they only thing you can tell me is to read the article. You can't even remember what they said??? Wow, thats convincing.
You have an opinion and so do I. We just don't agree and it looks like we're not going to. But you can go ahead and keep responding to my posts with the name calling. Its getting you really far.
Do you actually think you're going to change my mind with your responses? If it wasn't for thuhfreak I'd think all pro-pot activists are as ignorant as you. At least he can have a rational and mature conversation. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Screw the benefits. People have a right to live and to kill themselves however they choose as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Furthermore, the illegality of some drugs is hypocritical considering that other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and cheeseburgers are quite legal. Hey, want to know a benefit of legalizing pot? You free thousands of prisoners that did one of the drugs that the state doesn't endorse and you cripple an entire black market AND you can stop spending billions of dollars on a stupid war on drugs that will never end and never work. There, that is more than one benefit.
You're not convincing me of anything. His articles are about the medical issue. I want evidence of its benefits for recreational use. You site one source, The Economist. I asked for some examples that they give and they only thing you can tell me is to read the article. You can't even remember what they said??? Wow, thats convincing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be pointless for me to try to sum up all that info. If the only way you are willing to hear their points is to read my watered down version, then you never will have a true understanding.
I don't want to convince you. I just hope you research before forming an opinion. And once that opinion is formed, it is a good idea to continue to see what developments come about relating to it. If you don't, than you are blatantly ignoring things that make you question your stance.
I don't smoke pot. I don't care whether you or anyone else does or doesn't. What I do care about it all the harm that it's criminalization does. B4 you ask what that harm is, read back in this thread and do some external research. It is not my job to provide you with information you can just as easily find yourself.
The other thing that I care about more is whether people form their opinions with or without a background of information. If you haven't studied something, you shouldn't be forming an opinion on it. Recognize that you don't know, stay neutral and start learning.
You obviously have not studied both sides of the debate because you are asking me for fundamental information. Don't form your opinions because of what people say on a forum. The forum does not have the capacity to provide you with a full body of info regarding any of these subject, but instead points you to where you can find it. Once you read up, come back and discuss.
Marijuana's criminalization does a lot of harm to this country and the people in it. Whether you think drugs are "bad" is irrelevant. There are things I disagree with on moral and practical grounds that others need to be permitted to do. It is not up to you to decide for others, esspecially when your dicision is an ignorant of the real situation.
You obviously have not studied both sides of the debate because you are asking me for fundamental information. Don't form your opinions because of what people say on a forum. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is where you're wrong. I have studied both sides of the debate. You're just automatically assuming that since I don't agree with your opinion I obviously haven't heard all the arguements. Granted, I haven't heard the ones in the Economist. Well presumably, but its possible that others have brought up those same arguements before which is why I wanted you to site some specific examples from the article.
I never asked you for fundamental information. We're talking about people's opinions here.
No one knows for sure what would happen if Marijuana was legalized in the United States unless it is. Comparisons to other countries do not work because there are so many other factors that already contribute to those countries being different from the US.
Comparisons to other legal substances (tobacco, alcohol) don't work because the U.S. was in a different situation when they were introduced.
You can't compare prohibition of the 1920s to today's society. Its just a totally different state.
Nobody knew Tobacco was as bad as we know now. Since so many people are already hooked and Tobacco corporations employee huge amounts of people making it illegal today would be a catastrophe. The key to getting rid of it now is education. Why would we want to start a whole new epidemic with legalizing pot?
I think its nearly impossible to say "everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else". Almost everything affects other people in some way. Where do you draw the line?
<strong>I think its nearly impossible to say "everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else". Almost everything affects other people in some way. Where do you draw the line?</strong><hr></blockquote>
case by case. example: i masturbate; no one else gets affected. i drink (alcohol); no one else gets affected. i dont murder: because other(s) would be affected. i heard someone say once, and it was very interesting i think, "your right to punch the air ends where my face begins".
if people choose to but into my business, then they are affected (i suppose), but i don't invite them to do so. when i smoke, it doesn't harm anyone else. what i do to myself is by business and no one else's. i shouldn't be arrested or fined or punished for it (nor phear being arrested, fined or punished for it).
[quote]Nobody knew Tobacco was as bad as we know now. Since so many people are already hooked and Tobacco corporations employee huge amounts of people making it illegal today would be a catastrophe. The key to getting rid of it now is education. Why would we want to start a whole new epidemic with legalizing pot?<hr></blockquote>
as i've already pointed out, legalization will very likely not lead to an increase of use. obviously i can't know exactly how america will react to legalization, but scientists have studied the subject and come to the conclusion that legalization does not lead to increased use. hence, no new "epidemic".
[quote]Most importantly, "the laws against marijuana were put in place to protect: The People
<hr></blockquote>
That is completely absurd. The laws against marijuana were formulated purely to protect corporate interests. Also, there was a racist motive to outlaw marijuana. Read some history.
Here's some quotes from H. Anslinger, the first U.S. Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner 1930-1962, a corrupt and criminal bureaucrat who was the prime mover of the laws against marijuana, and who was on the payroll of Hearst and DuPont amongst others:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
Marijuana is taken by " ****** musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type..."
For the benefit of Willoughby and SPJ..here's a potted history of the hemp plant:
[quote]Fear And Loathing In Cannabis Country
"The Revolution You Can Wear"
In 1993, American academic and cultural critic, Brian Massumi edited a collection of essays entitled The Politics Of Everyday Fear. The purpose of this collection was to draw attention to the role played by fear under modern capitalism especially in America. Fear of the indiscriminate murder, fear of car crash, fear of failure, fear of fat, fear of uncleanliness, fear of ecological disaster. Whilst Massumi and others focussed particularly on what they term, ambient fear, the fear that lurks just out of sight and at the back of the mind, the following is a tale of latent fear - a fear that drove a plant to the status of public enemy number one, and a small select group of White, American males to fame and fortune. It is a story that shows just how important fear is to profit margins, and asks, have we matured, as a species, enough, to conquer this fear?
Is it too good to be true? A Revolution you can wear? An ecological saviour that does not require the sacrifice of our Western hedonism and consumer addiction?
Since the beginning of this century cannabis has been smoked by disenfranchised youth as a symbol of rebelliousness, funding a multimillion dollar illegal trade, but now we are beginning to discover the truth about cannabis, its history and its potential to "lead the charge out of the petrochemical age".
Cannabis is more commonly known to us as "marijuana", a term that is, in fact a Mexican slang term popularised by 1930s American newspaper magnate and wood pulp stakeholder, Randolph Hearst, as part of an elaborate scheme to separate the smoking of cannabis from the industry of producing fibre from the cannabis plant, better known as hemp fibre. Evidence suggests that Hearst played an integral part in a conspiracy to rid the world of its most popular and most versatile natural fibre.
Hearst had an ally and friend in Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau Of Narcotics 1930 to 1962, one of the original Untouchables, who, finding himself and others facing the possibility of unemployment at the end of alcohol Prohibition turned his, puritanical attention to another drug, in this case, the smoking of cannabis. Harry Anslinger may have had other reasons too. Towards the end of the 1930s the multinational pharmaceutical and petrochemical giant, DuPont was gearing up to release on an unsuspecting world its new wonder fibre - the synthetic, Nylon which was patented in 1935. DuPont had invested many millions of dollars into the research and development of Nylon and it was widely known that hemp fibre, from the cannabis plant, would be its main, natural, rival. Hemp production was declining, though, until in 1921, Scientific American announced the invention of a new harvesting machine, and in the late 30s, Popular Mechanics announced hemp now had the potential to be a "billion dollar crop" with the invention of a hemp "decorticator". Less than coincidentally, DuPont's banker, head of the Mellon Bank and the US Treasury, Andrew Mellon, had close family ties with Harry Anslinger who had married his niece, and with hemp poised to make a comeback it is almost certain that Mellon, Anslinger and Hearst conspired to crush the resurgence of this "billion dollar crop", Nylon's main rival. Utilising racism and xenophobia prevalent in American society, Hearst and Anslinger protected Mellon and DuPont's interests, spreading fear and lies revolving around the smoking of cannabis by "negroes, Mexicans and entertainers" through Hearst's vast newpaper network. It was only a matter of time until other newspaper chains and the media as a whole jumped on the bandwagon. Overnight the "billion dollar crop" became the "assassin of youth", a "demon drug" capable of inducing in the most passive, middle class White youth, deadly "reefer madness". In 1937 Anslinger persuaded the US Congress, so-called protector of liberty, to outlaw marijuana virtually destroying the hemp industry. Too much money was at stake for notions of truth or ethics - this was free market capitalism at its best, using racism as a successful marketing strategy. First was America, next was the world - global expansion, the key for any big business.
Propelled by a wave of hysteria begun for dubious reasons in the 1930s the United States has been waging a world war against hemp. Leading the charge was, not surprisingly, Harry Anslinger who reappears in our story this time as US representative on the UN Drug Committee. Anslinger attempted to initiate a series of UN Conventions to prohibit the growing of hemp worldwide. Fortunately these faced strong resistance from the hemp growing nations and were not passed, however US foreign aid has frequently been withheld from hemp growing nations on the grounds of hemp production. As drug war researcher, Paul Brancato says "historically drug wars have been used by imperial powers as smokescreens for foreign intervention. For the US this has taken the form of sending military aid to corrupt allies who use the weapons not against drug traffickers, with whom they are often in league, but to crush their internal political enemies". Ever since the ëre-naming' of hemp and cannabis as marijuana, an attack on marijuana has effectively meant a war on the Blacks, the Hispanics, the underclasses, within the United States, and a war on non-allied, read non-US dependent, developing world countries such as Bangladesh whose very name refers to the growing of hemp. Interestingly, in 1942, faced with a fibre shortage for the war effort, the US Government produced a short film called "Hemp For Victory", whose existence they strongly denied until taken to court in the 1980s. This film legitimised and encouraged the growing of hemp for a short period of time before, once again, hemp was condemned to the status of "demon weed" at the end of the war.
But the question remains, why was hemp so feared by Mellon, Anslinger and Hearst?
For thousands of years the cannabis sativa, cannabis indica and other strains of cannabis, provided people with a source of food, medicine, oil, and hemp fibre for textiles and paper making. Up until the 19th century the vast majority of the world's paper was produced from hemp, most famously the American Constitution was written on hemp-based paper, sails and rigging were made from hemp cloth without which Western colonialism would never have set sail. As a food and oil, the hemp seed was a major source of protein and of essential fatty acids. Cannabis extracts were used in medicine to treat menstrual cramps, epilepsy, migraine and as an analgesic and anti-spasmodic. Current, albeit limited, medical research suggests that cannabis may indeed be the only known drug that is helpful in slowing the wasting disease associated with HIV/AIDS. Popular Mechanics of 1938 states "Hemp is the standard fibre of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than five thousand textile products, ranging from rope to fine lace, and the woody ëhurds' remaining after the fibre has been removed contain more than 77% cellulose, and can be used to produce more than twenty-five thousand products ranging from dynamite to Cellophane". Indeed the fabric, canvas, has its roots, as the name suggests, in cannabis.
Having been effectively ignored, replaced, and smothered in a blanket of misinformation, Sydney doctor and hemp researcher, Dr Andrew Katalaris, gives an indication of where hemp stands now in 1994; "over five thousand different items have been made from the hemp plant but now we are focussing on maybe a dozen potential uses".
With the fibre yield standing at 30%, up from 15% in the 1940s the fibre extracted from the stem of the hemp plant can be used for fabrics ranging from coarse sail cloth to high quality linen for clothing. The "toe" can be woven into industrial strength fabrics, or combined with the "hurd" to make high quality writing paper. The "hurd", on its own, can be used as a non-allergenic and anti fungal animal bedding, or be processed into fuel or Cellophane. In France it has been mixed with lime and petrified to make a type of concrete called iso-chanvre, which is as strong as regular concrete but only at a sixth of the weight. In terms of solving the problem of wood pulping for paper, the waste after the fibre is removed, alone, will produce 6-8 tonnes of paper per hectare, as a totally renewable resource. Tasmanians Fritz and Patsy Harmsen have been exploring the potential for hemp as an alternative to wood pulp. Having campaigned against the Wesley Vale Pulp Mill and seen the devastation of widescale indiscriminate logging, not surprisingly denied by the logging industry who run a rhetoric of controlled logging, they have grown trial experimental crops under the close supervision of the Tasmanian government. At this stage they have garnered the support of Australian Newsprint Manufacturers to explore the potential for using hemp fibre as a reinforcer for newsprint and recycled paper, a role currently fulfilled by imported hardwoods. On a farm it would even be possible to power farm machinery upon alcohol fuel derived entirely from the waste of a hemp crop for true self-sufficient farming.
Cannabis is naturally resistant to many plant diseases and is not affected by a wide variety of insects thus reducing the need for herbicides and pesticides; as a source of fibre for paper making it can be grown and harvested in between three and six months compared to thirty or forty years for plantation wood; it produces twice as much yield per hectare than cotton and so halves the amount of water required for growing; and because most of its nitrogen content lies in the unharvested part of the plant, nitrogen remains in the soil if the waste is used as a self-fertiliser. Nitrogen run off from farm land is the primary cause of algal bloom which is destroying much of Australia's waterways. Hemp, as a source of cellulose, has the potential to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air around us. Dr Andrew Katalaris estimates that growing 1000-2000 hectares of hemp would reduce the amount of dioxins in the air by a massive 95000 tonnes - more efficient and swifter than any tree planting scheme. Unfortunately, though, most of the items once made from hemp are now made from petrochemicals. Instead of renewable annual fibre crops we have chopped down, logged, wood chipped, and pulped our old growth forests; instead of using hemp as a smother crop we have poisoned our land with all manner of pesticides and herbicides, much to the glee of the chemical companies, for whom land repair means more chemicals and, not coincidentally, more profits.
Currently hemp is legally grown in England, Hungary, Ukraine, Netherlands, and China. China and the Ukraine supply the vast majority of the world market for hemp but cannot keep pace with demand as Western nations begin to come to their senses. England legalised hemp production in 1993, most of Europe throughout the mid 80s, and Canada is on the verge of doing so. Although hemp production is legal in these countries, the most used varieties of the cannabis plant are the so-called low drug cultivars. Again, because of the anti-drug propaganda begun in the 1930s selective breeding has reduced the THC, or active drug, content to below 0.3% THC. However there is some evidence to suggest that the higher THC content strains are in fact more insect repellent. Fortunately, by using selective breeding procedures rather than genetic engineering, and through a degree of moral fortitude, none of the popular low drug cultivars have been patented . . . yet. Dr Katalaris suggests that this is largely due to the distinct lack of US research or US-influenced research in the field, however he fears that to hesitate on the development of a local Australian cultivar, would be to tempt fate. To highlight the strange situation in the US, Dr Katalaris gives the example of synthetic THC, manufactured by the large pharmaceutical companies for medical use, which is approved by the Federal Drug Agency (FDA) whilst hemp is classified as a "dangerous plant with no medical use".
So what stands in the way of reform in Australia?
In terms of drug policy Australia has always toed the line of ëone of our most powerful allies', the United States. Our politicians have, by and large, been fed a strict diet of hysterical US propaganda. NSW Upper House Democrat, Richard Jones speaks out, "we have a crop that can be grown organically, has high value especially with the current worldwide shortage, can be used for many purposes, and it has been ignored because of the drug issue . . . we have a ridiculous situation where you can import hemp legally into NSW and Australia but you cannot grow it here locally . . . we have Australian technology [which is used overseas] capable of processing hemp and to add value locally to the product [through local treatment and processing] which has not been done in the past with either Australian wool or cotton. These are exported to China and other countries for processing only to be imported back as finished product. The only thing that is hindering us are entrenched conservative attitudes".
Richard Jones is optimistic, "[hemp] is the material for the late 90s. Wearing hemp is a statement that you really care for the environment". Together with the Democrats some members of the National Party have expressed great interest in the development of a hemp industry as have the signatories to the Parliamentary Group For Drug Law Reform which currently comprises over 80 signed members across Australia. Lobbying has begun for cannabis with a content of less than 0.3% THC to be taken off the register. As Dr Katalaris, who is has been negotiating with limited success with the NSW Departments of Health, Agriculture and the Police, says "Let us have hemp and marijuana will fizzle as an issue . . . NSW will have a license shortly - by next year there will be no stopping us barring a fascist backlash".
However, the information war continues. A great deal of money has been invested in the industries that have replaced the age-old uses of hemp with high-tech, high-cost and high-environmental cost synthetics. "No one in the mainstream media, especially the print media, has run a story on fibre hemp" Dr Katalaris says wistfully. "Kerry Packer owns a lot of cotton ginning machinery" he adds, his voice tailing off.
Ironically there is to be found a thank you to the "Andrew F Mellon Foundation" at the end of the Preface to "The Politics Of Everyday Fear".<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?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I said before that it's not as simple as whether something is addictive or not. Please try not to gain the upper hand by using my logic against me. It really makes a fool of you.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
also, i'd like to bring up tobacco again. nicotene is an extremely addictive drug (around the same magnitude of heroin). it is legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is your point? I have said before that the only reason tobacco is legal is because of its role in the history of our nation and its firm establishment as the economy of several states. I would like to see tobacco outlawed as well.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're wrong. It affects everyone- though I don't have an article at hand to support my statement (haven't looked for one).
Look at health care costs. Do you know how much we have to pay as a result of smoker-related illnesses? I'm sure the number is many billions of dollars. Allowing the smoking of an even more potent drug would increase that already high number. That's the literal cost to society for allowing it. How does that NOT affect you? Do you not have health insurance? It wouldn't surprise me considering how much it costs....
Now, of course, the cost to society for not allowing it is what we pay to incarcerate drug users. I have said before that we should not do so and rehabilitate them instead. It will reduce costs and drug use.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you intentionally not listen to what I say, or are you just that dense? Let me refresh your short memory: (see below)
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>
Screw the benefits. People have a right to live and to kill themselves however they choose as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Furthermore, the illegality of some drugs is hypocritical considering that other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and cheeseburgers are quite legal. Hey, want to know a benefit of legalizing pot? You free thousands of prisoners that did one of the drugs that the state doesn't endorse and you cripple an entire black market AND you can stop spending billions of dollars on a stupid war on drugs that will never end and never work. There, that is more than one benefit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You people don't listen. Look at what you are saying... You'd rather give up than actually the fix the problem of drug addiction in America. We need to reform our drug laws to shift the penalty or use from incarceration to rehabilitation.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
heard someone say once, and it was very interesting i think, "your right to punch the air ends where my face begins"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. And that is definitely paraphrased!
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
That is completely absurd. The laws against marijuana were formulated purely to protect corporate interests. Also, there was a racist motive to outlaw marijuana. Read some history.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not "completely." The laws against marijuana do protect the people from ever rising health care costs. I agree, for the fourth or fifth time that they need to be revised to allow for the rehabilitation of drug users rather than incarceration.
case by case. example: i masturbate; no one else gets affected. i drink (alcohol); no one else gets affected. i dont murder: because other(s) would be affected. i heard someone say once, and it was very interesting i think, "your right to punch the air ends where my face begins".
if people choose to but into my business, then they are affected (i suppose), but i don't invite them to do so. when i smoke, it doesn't harm anyone else. what i do to myself is by business and no one else's. i shouldn't be arrested or fined or punished for it (nor phear being arrested, fined or punished for it).
<hr></blockquote>
Unfortunetly other people drink alcohol irresponsibly and thousands of lives a year are affected. The same holds true with Tobacco. Think of the thousands of people who are suffering heart and lung problems from second hand smoke. You sharing a joint with your friends and nobody leaving the house until you're not stoned is the equivalent of doing the same with alcohol, but how often does that happen? If people were responsible with Alcohol we wouldn't have alcoholics and drunk driving. I believe that the same situation would happen with marijuana.
[quote]
as i've already pointed out, legalization will very likely not lead to an increase of use. obviously i can't know exactly how america will react to legalization, but scientists have studied the subject and come to the conclusion that legalization does not lead to increased use. hence, no new "epidemic".
<hr></blockquote>
You should say "a group of scientists". Not scientists in general. I don't think there's enough data to make the assumption that legalization wouldn't lead to increased use. I just had this discussion with my co-workers and 9 out of 10 people said they'd smoke pot if it were legal. 6 of these people had never smoked it before. Yes, I know thats not scientific but I know quite a few more people that have said the samething and I think its valid. My belief is also that once marijuana is legalized it will lead to more dangerous drugs eventually being legal.
[quote]
That is completely absurd. The laws against marijuana were formulated purely to protect corporate interests. Also, there was a racist motive to outlaw marijuana. Read some history.
<hr></blockquote>
The reasons you suggest are not the reasons marijuana is illegal today. Just because people 60 years may have been racial motivated doesn't mean that still holds true today. I guess we shouldn't wear cotton today because slaves were used in the industry originally?
You also mention corporations. You don't think that if marijuana is legalized a few select corporations would gain control of it? How would you like it if Phillip Morris controlled the world's supply of Marijuana? I believe that this would happen just like it did with Tobacco. Corporations would definitely benefit from its legalization so that argument is a mute point.
[quote] I would like to see tobacco outlawed as well.<hr></blockquote>
That is ludicrous. What would happen then? Some 60 million people already hooked on nicotine, one of the most powerfully addictive drugs out there, all of a sudden needing to get their fix from street dealers, and creating a huge black market and another windfall for organized crime. It wouldn't stop people from smoking tobacco, and it wouldn't stop people from growing it. Putting a popular intoxicant outside of the law has never stopped its use, and always generates a whole new crop of socially destructive side-effects.
[But anti-tobacco laws would never be passed anyway. This is not so much because thousands would lose their jobs, but more because the corporations that sell and promote a product that kills 400000 Americans each year pay big $$$ to both both Republican and Democratic parties....and...anti-tobacco laws will *never* stop people from smoking it!!!!!]. Have the laws against marijuana ever prevented people from smoking it? Did the laws against drink, or heroin, or LSD stop it's use?
I trust you recall what happened the last time a popular (but addictive and potentially dangerous) substance, alcohol, was outlawed?
Don't ever believe that popular myth that these type of laws are passed for moral or ethical reasons, or for the wellbeing of the general public.
[quote]How would you like it if Phillip Morris controlled the world's supply of Marijuana? I
believe that this would happen just like it did with Tobacco.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Corporations would definitely benefit from its legalization so that argument is a mute point.<hr></blockquote>
If marijuana was legalized, it is *not* going to suddenly start a whole new craze of people suddenly thinking: "Oh it's now legal, therefore its OK". The number of potsmokers will remain pretty constant. In fact some kids may even drop it because the 'cool factor' disappears.
People who smoke pot are probably most unlikely to support the likes of Philip Morris et al. They would be more likely to grow their own (far cheaper) or rely on existing tried and trusted sources. The decriminalization of pot in Holland never caused tobacco companies to step in and sell 'marijuana products' there. I don't think that potsmokers are exactly enamored with the likes of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris anyway. I know several people whose drug of choice is pot, who represent a fair cross-section of the pot smoking population, and very few of would ever patronize those particular corporations for their supply, because it would be totally against their political sensibilities and cultural principles.
Pot production will probably remain an industry with many small time growers supplying a small circle of locals. It's hard to see a range of pre-packaged 'joints' manufactured according to government specifications taking off and becoming popular, specially since the quality would be far inferior to what potsmokers are used to, and there would be a large tax levy imposed on each pack.
The billions of settlement money could be used to ween people off nicotine. In the long run, outlawing it will end up reducing health care costs, and that is always a good thing. I realize how impractical the idea is because one of my favorite senators, Edwards of NC, embraces tobacco culture as his constituents.
Please try not to gain the upper hand by using my logic against me. It really makes a fool of you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
first off, thank you for making fun of me. always appreciated.
next up. you say that terminally ill patients shouldn't be allowed to do things that are otherwise considered illegal. are you aware of a drug called morphine? its highly addictive and detrimental to one's health. and only legal for people who really need it. is this wrong? should the empained just grit their teeth, and pull through it? drugs can be made partially legal. could you explain for me (without being offensive) how marijuana is different from that situation?
now, as for your argument that health care costs could go up. i think that is a very real possibility. and i agree, that you (as a nonsmoker) shouldn't have to cover the added cost to healthcare for marijuana users. thats a reasonable argument. but, i think that the increased money made from sale of marijuana, hemp and other forms of cannabis can help to recoup the costs. i think marijuana should be taxed just like cigs.
[quote]You people don't listen. Look at what you are saying... You'd rather give up than actually the fix the problem of drug addiction in America. We need to reform our drug laws to shift the penalty or use from incarceration to rehabilitation.<hr></blockquote>
marijuana is not physically addictive. marijuana addiction is therefore not a problem in America. just because someone enjoys recreation doesn't mean that something is wrong with them. even if that recreational activity is dangerous, it doesn't mean the person necessarily requires rehabilitation. if people are willing to accept the risks, and still partake in the activity maybe they dont want to be "rehabilitated".
[quote]You should say "a group of scientists". Not scientists in general. I don't think there's enough data to make the assumption that legalization wouldn't lead to increased use. I just had this discussion with my co-workers and 9 out of 10 people said they'd smoke pot if it were legal. 6 of these people had never smoked it before. Yes, I know thats not scientific but I know quite a few more people that have said the samething and I think its valid. My belief is also that once marijuana is legalized it will lead to more dangerous drugs eventually being legal.<hr></blockquote>
i said "scientists", which as you very likely know, means "more than one scientist". i didn't mean to imply that there was unanimous opinion on the subject. i haven't yet had the chance to tally every scientist alive. i doubt i could get them all to agree on anything.
it's ridiculous to try and make ur own statistics based on 10 coworkers. note the bolded part of what u said. i recognize that you have the right to believe whatever you want, but when i give you studies, and you refute them with 10 coworkers, you have to realize that your belief is less supported (at least by materials presented on this thread). my beliefs (on this subject) have been backed up by studies. i show u stats covering hundreds and thousands, u give me stats covering 10. come on. here's a quote from one of my sources earlier linked:
[quote]Another way to get an idea of the impact of decriminalization of marijuana on drug use is to ask non-users if they would become users of marijuana upon its decriminalization. As examples of this methodology, in surveys conducted by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse during 1972 and 1973, those responding that they did not use marijuana were asked if they would use marijuana if it were decriminalized. Only 3 and 4 percent of non-using adults, and 12 and 8 percent of non-using youths responded that they would try marijuana upon its decriminalization.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.lindesmith.org/library/thies2.html"; target="_blank">*relink*</a>
If marijuana was legalized, it is *not* going to suddenly start a whole new craze of people suddenly thinking: "Oh it's now legal, therefore its OK". The number of potsmokers will remain pretty constant. In fact some kids may even drop it because the 'cool factor' disappears.
<hr></blockquote>
You don't know that for sure. Besides, Tobacco is legal and plenty of kids still find it cool and try it and get hooked.
People are lazy. You think every pot smoker is going to grow their own weed? Please
If it became legal, corporations would get majorly involved (just like every other product on the marketplace) and the government would make SURE of it. Especially to make sure it was safe.
What your suggesting sounds like a black-market for marijuana once its legal. All of these "moral" individuals who are against big corporations would have to find another means to get their weed. Sounds like we might as well have left it illegal.
These studies from the 70s (almost 30 years ago) do not necessarily reflect today's teenagers views.
[quote]
A third approach to ascertaining the effect of decriminalization of marijuana upon drug use is to conduct a before- and-after study, or even a full-blown trend analysis of drug usage within a state that has decriminalized. Following Oregon's 1973 decriminalization of marijuana, a survey of marijuana use in that state was conducted annually, from 1974 to 1977. "Current use," defined as use within the past month, rose from 24 to 30 percent among 18-29 year olds. Thus, current use went up in Oregon during this period
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]
Likewise, in conjunction with California's and Maine's 1976 decriminalizations, surveys were taken of marijuana use within these states. California's Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse found that current users rose from 9 percent before decriminalization to 14 percent of the general population after decriminalization, and from 24 percent to 31 percent of the 18-29 year old population
Studies from the UCLA School of Medicine show that smoking one marijuana joint delivers five times more carbon monoxide and three times more tar to the lungs than does one tabacco cigarette. Every time one marijuana cigarette is smoked the effect of five tabacco cigarettes are felt by the lungs. The harmful effects of tar and carbon monoxide are greatly increased when the users hold the smoke in their lung to enhance marijuana's euphoric effects. Studies have also shown that marijuana smoke increases the appearance of precancerous lesions in the lungs . The rates of lung cancer in our country are already high enough. Making marijuana legal would only add to the problem.
Marijuana also has many adverse effects on the human mind. Studies have shown that the frequent use of marijuana inhibits the brain's release of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter, which is necessary for the transmission of impulses from one brain cell to another. These impulses are used by the nervous system to transmit messages. This lack of acetylcholine can seriously affect a persons short-term memory. The resulting short-term memory loss occurs for up to six weeks after the person has stopped smoking the drug .
More than thirty-one percent of high school seniors use marijuana today an increase of forty percent over the last four years. According to a study in the New York Times, from the mid eighties to the early nineties marijuana use among teens was down, but ever since 1992 the number of teens that use marijuana has been steadily increasing.
Marijuana is known to carry some extremely dangerous contaminants. Salmonella bacteria and aspegillus fungi can infest marijuana plants and can cause severe lung infections in smokers. According to Solomon Snyder, M.D., in one case the administration of antifungal medications did not help fight off an infection caused by asperillus. The infection later killed the marijuana smoker.
Users of marijuana are also endangering the lives of their unborn children. Studies in Canada show that babies born to potsmoking mothers have visual problems and may suffer exaggerated tremors. These conditions result from mental and developmental retardation.
References:
Garnier, Lindley and B.Z. Siegel and S.M. Siegel. "Mercury in Marijuana." BioScience. October 1988: 619-623.
McCarthy, Paul. "Pot peril: Heavy smokers risk mercury poisoning." American Health. December 1989: 16.
Oliwenstein, Lori. "The Perils of Pot." Discover. June 1988: 18.
Snyder, Solomon. Marijuana: Its Effect on Mind & Body. New York: Chealsea House Publishers, 1992.
first off, thank you for making fun of me. always appreciated.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did no such thing.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
next up. you say that terminally ill patients shouldn't be allowed to do things that are otherwise considered illegal. are you aware of a drug called morphine? its highly addictive and detrimental to one's health. and only legal for people who really need it. is this wrong? should the empained just grit their teeth, and pull through it? drugs can be made partially legal. could you explain for me (without being offensive) how marijuana is different from that situation?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're right. My argument was too simplistic. Quite simply, I don't know the answer to this.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
now, as for your argument that health care costs could go up. i think that is a very real possibility. and i agree, that you (as a nonsmoker) shouldn't have to cover the added cost to healthcare for marijuana users. thats a reasonable argument. but, i think that the increased money made from sale of marijuana, hemp and other forms of cannabis can help to recoup the costs. i think marijuana should be taxed just like cigs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure it can. Actually, I wish the tobacco tax per pack was even higher- ala NYC style or even higher than that.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
marijuana is not physically addictive. marijuana addiction is therefore not a problem in America. just because someone enjoys recreation doesn't mean that something is wrong with them. even if that recreational activity is dangerous, it doesn't mean the person necessarily requires rehabilitation. if people are willing to accept the risks, and still partake in the activity maybe they dont want to be "rehabilitated".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The end result of rehabilitation is the elimination of that person's drug use. The power of addiction contradicts that end result- even when a person wants to quit. Furthermore, no wants to go to jail either, but the legal system dictates that for drug use. Rehabilitation is a better way, and also a mandatory one.
Beyond the psychological effects that marijuana has, marijuana smokers are susceptible to the same health problems as tobacco smokers, such as bronchitis, emphysema and bronchial asthma. Other effects include dry-mouth, red eyes, impaired motor skills and impaired concentration.
<hr></blockquote>
In 2001, 17,448 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol.
Since smoking pot impares your motor skills, concentration and perception, I believe that "stoning and driving" would become a major problem if Marijuana was legalized. Instead of 17,000 alcohol related accidents, we'll have 34,000 alcohol and DRUG related auto accidents.
...and people are more worried about corporations making money off of it being illegal <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Comments
<strong>
That last comment proves what? Now you're just being an ass and just made me resort to your level of childish tactics. I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, in case you were wondering.
You're not convincing me of anything. His articles are about the medical issue. I want evidence of its benefits for recreational use. You site one source, The Economist. I asked for some examples that they give and they only thing you can tell me is to read the article. You can't even remember what they said??? Wow, thats convincing.
You have an opinion and so do I. We just don't agree and it looks like we're not going to. But you can go ahead and keep responding to my posts with the name calling. Its getting you really far.
Do you actually think you're going to change my mind with your responses? If it wasn't for thuhfreak I'd think all pro-pot activists are as ignorant as you. At least he can have a rational and mature conversation. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Screw the benefits. People have a right to live and to kill themselves however they choose as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Furthermore, the illegality of some drugs is hypocritical considering that other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and cheeseburgers are quite legal. Hey, want to know a benefit of legalizing pot? You free thousands of prisoners that did one of the drugs that the state doesn't endorse and you cripple an entire black market AND you can stop spending billions of dollars on a stupid war on drugs that will never end and never work. There, that is more than one benefit.
<strong>
You're not convincing me of anything. His articles are about the medical issue. I want evidence of its benefits for recreational use. You site one source, The Economist. I asked for some examples that they give and they only thing you can tell me is to read the article. You can't even remember what they said??? Wow, thats convincing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would be pointless for me to try to sum up all that info. If the only way you are willing to hear their points is to read my watered down version, then you never will have a true understanding.
I don't want to convince you. I just hope you research before forming an opinion. And once that opinion is formed, it is a good idea to continue to see what developments come about relating to it. If you don't, than you are blatantly ignoring things that make you question your stance.
I don't smoke pot. I don't care whether you or anyone else does or doesn't. What I do care about it all the harm that it's criminalization does. B4 you ask what that harm is, read back in this thread and do some external research. It is not my job to provide you with information you can just as easily find yourself.
The other thing that I care about more is whether people form their opinions with or without a background of information. If you haven't studied something, you shouldn't be forming an opinion on it. Recognize that you don't know, stay neutral and start learning.
You obviously have not studied both sides of the debate because you are asking me for fundamental information. Don't form your opinions because of what people say on a forum. The forum does not have the capacity to provide you with a full body of info regarding any of these subject, but instead points you to where you can find it. Once you read up, come back and discuss.
Marijuana's criminalization does a lot of harm to this country and the people in it. Whether you think drugs are "bad" is irrelevant. There are things I disagree with on moral and practical grounds that others need to be permitted to do. It is not up to you to decide for others, esspecially when your dicision is an ignorant of the real situation.
<strong>
You obviously have not studied both sides of the debate because you are asking me for fundamental information. Don't form your opinions because of what people say on a forum. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is where you're wrong. I have studied both sides of the debate. You're just automatically assuming that since I don't agree with your opinion I obviously haven't heard all the arguements. Granted, I haven't heard the ones in the Economist. Well presumably, but its possible that others have brought up those same arguements before which is why I wanted you to site some specific examples from the article.
I never asked you for fundamental information. We're talking about people's opinions here.
No one knows for sure what would happen if Marijuana was legalized in the United States unless it is. Comparisons to other countries do not work because there are so many other factors that already contribute to those countries being different from the US.
Comparisons to other legal substances (tobacco, alcohol) don't work because the U.S. was in a different situation when they were introduced.
You can't compare prohibition of the 1920s to today's society. Its just a totally different state.
Nobody knew Tobacco was as bad as we know now. Since so many people are already hooked and Tobacco corporations employee huge amounts of people making it illegal today would be a catastrophe. The key to getting rid of it now is education. Why would we want to start a whole new epidemic with legalizing pot?
I think its nearly impossible to say "everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else". Almost everything affects other people in some way. Where do you draw the line?
<strong>I think its nearly impossible to say "everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else". Almost everything affects other people in some way. Where do you draw the line?</strong><hr></blockquote>
case by case. example: i masturbate; no one else gets affected. i drink (alcohol); no one else gets affected. i dont murder: because other(s) would be affected. i heard someone say once, and it was very interesting i think, "your right to punch the air ends where my face begins".
if people choose to but into my business, then they are affected (i suppose), but i don't invite them to do so. when i smoke, it doesn't harm anyone else. what i do to myself is by business and no one else's. i shouldn't be arrested or fined or punished for it (nor phear being arrested, fined or punished for it).
[quote]Nobody knew Tobacco was as bad as we know now. Since so many people are already hooked and Tobacco corporations employee huge amounts of people making it illegal today would be a catastrophe. The key to getting rid of it now is education. Why would we want to start a whole new epidemic with legalizing pot?<hr></blockquote>
as i've already pointed out, legalization will very likely not lead to an increase of use. obviously i can't know exactly how america will react to legalization, but scientists have studied the subject and come to the conclusion that legalization does not lead to increased use. hence, no new "epidemic".
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: thuh Freak ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
That is completely absurd. The laws against marijuana were formulated purely to protect corporate interests. Also, there was a racist motive to outlaw marijuana. Read some history.
Here's some quotes from H. Anslinger, the first U.S. Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner 1930-1962, a corrupt and criminal bureaucrat who was the prime mover of the laws against marijuana, and who was on the payroll of Hearst and DuPont amongst others:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
Marijuana is taken by " ****** musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type..."
..................................................
For the benefit of Willoughby and SPJ..here's a potted history of the hemp plant:
[quote]Fear And Loathing In Cannabis Country
"The Revolution You Can Wear"
In 1993, American academic and cultural critic, Brian Massumi edited a collection of essays entitled The Politics Of Everyday Fear. The purpose of this collection was to draw attention to the role played by fear under modern capitalism especially in America. Fear of the indiscriminate murder, fear of car crash, fear of failure, fear of fat, fear of uncleanliness, fear of ecological disaster. Whilst Massumi and others focussed particularly on what they term, ambient fear, the fear that lurks just out of sight and at the back of the mind, the following is a tale of latent fear - a fear that drove a plant to the status of public enemy number one, and a small select group of White, American males to fame and fortune. It is a story that shows just how important fear is to profit margins, and asks, have we matured, as a species, enough, to conquer this fear?
Is it too good to be true? A Revolution you can wear? An ecological saviour that does not require the sacrifice of our Western hedonism and consumer addiction?
Since the beginning of this century cannabis has been smoked by disenfranchised youth as a symbol of rebelliousness, funding a multimillion dollar illegal trade, but now we are beginning to discover the truth about cannabis, its history and its potential to "lead the charge out of the petrochemical age".
Cannabis is more commonly known to us as "marijuana", a term that is, in fact a Mexican slang term popularised by 1930s American newspaper magnate and wood pulp stakeholder, Randolph Hearst, as part of an elaborate scheme to separate the smoking of cannabis from the industry of producing fibre from the cannabis plant, better known as hemp fibre. Evidence suggests that Hearst played an integral part in a conspiracy to rid the world of its most popular and most versatile natural fibre.
Hearst had an ally and friend in Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau Of Narcotics 1930 to 1962, one of the original Untouchables, who, finding himself and others facing the possibility of unemployment at the end of alcohol Prohibition turned his, puritanical attention to another drug, in this case, the smoking of cannabis. Harry Anslinger may have had other reasons too. Towards the end of the 1930s the multinational pharmaceutical and petrochemical giant, DuPont was gearing up to release on an unsuspecting world its new wonder fibre - the synthetic, Nylon which was patented in 1935. DuPont had invested many millions of dollars into the research and development of Nylon and it was widely known that hemp fibre, from the cannabis plant, would be its main, natural, rival. Hemp production was declining, though, until in 1921, Scientific American announced the invention of a new harvesting machine, and in the late 30s, Popular Mechanics announced hemp now had the potential to be a "billion dollar crop" with the invention of a hemp "decorticator". Less than coincidentally, DuPont's banker, head of the Mellon Bank and the US Treasury, Andrew Mellon, had close family ties with Harry Anslinger who had married his niece, and with hemp poised to make a comeback it is almost certain that Mellon, Anslinger and Hearst conspired to crush the resurgence of this "billion dollar crop", Nylon's main rival. Utilising racism and xenophobia prevalent in American society, Hearst and Anslinger protected Mellon and DuPont's interests, spreading fear and lies revolving around the smoking of cannabis by "negroes, Mexicans and entertainers" through Hearst's vast newpaper network. It was only a matter of time until other newspaper chains and the media as a whole jumped on the bandwagon. Overnight the "billion dollar crop" became the "assassin of youth", a "demon drug" capable of inducing in the most passive, middle class White youth, deadly "reefer madness". In 1937 Anslinger persuaded the US Congress, so-called protector of liberty, to outlaw marijuana virtually destroying the hemp industry. Too much money was at stake for notions of truth or ethics - this was free market capitalism at its best, using racism as a successful marketing strategy. First was America, next was the world - global expansion, the key for any big business.
Propelled by a wave of hysteria begun for dubious reasons in the 1930s the United States has been waging a world war against hemp. Leading the charge was, not surprisingly, Harry Anslinger who reappears in our story this time as US representative on the UN Drug Committee. Anslinger attempted to initiate a series of UN Conventions to prohibit the growing of hemp worldwide. Fortunately these faced strong resistance from the hemp growing nations and were not passed, however US foreign aid has frequently been withheld from hemp growing nations on the grounds of hemp production. As drug war researcher, Paul Brancato says "historically drug wars have been used by imperial powers as smokescreens for foreign intervention. For the US this has taken the form of sending military aid to corrupt allies who use the weapons not against drug traffickers, with whom they are often in league, but to crush their internal political enemies". Ever since the ëre-naming' of hemp and cannabis as marijuana, an attack on marijuana has effectively meant a war on the Blacks, the Hispanics, the underclasses, within the United States, and a war on non-allied, read non-US dependent, developing world countries such as Bangladesh whose very name refers to the growing of hemp. Interestingly, in 1942, faced with a fibre shortage for the war effort, the US Government produced a short film called "Hemp For Victory", whose existence they strongly denied until taken to court in the 1980s. This film legitimised and encouraged the growing of hemp for a short period of time before, once again, hemp was condemned to the status of "demon weed" at the end of the war.
But the question remains, why was hemp so feared by Mellon, Anslinger and Hearst?
For thousands of years the cannabis sativa, cannabis indica and other strains of cannabis, provided people with a source of food, medicine, oil, and hemp fibre for textiles and paper making. Up until the 19th century the vast majority of the world's paper was produced from hemp, most famously the American Constitution was written on hemp-based paper, sails and rigging were made from hemp cloth without which Western colonialism would never have set sail. As a food and oil, the hemp seed was a major source of protein and of essential fatty acids. Cannabis extracts were used in medicine to treat menstrual cramps, epilepsy, migraine and as an analgesic and anti-spasmodic. Current, albeit limited, medical research suggests that cannabis may indeed be the only known drug that is helpful in slowing the wasting disease associated with HIV/AIDS. Popular Mechanics of 1938 states "Hemp is the standard fibre of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than five thousand textile products, ranging from rope to fine lace, and the woody ëhurds' remaining after the fibre has been removed contain more than 77% cellulose, and can be used to produce more than twenty-five thousand products ranging from dynamite to Cellophane". Indeed the fabric, canvas, has its roots, as the name suggests, in cannabis.
Having been effectively ignored, replaced, and smothered in a blanket of misinformation, Sydney doctor and hemp researcher, Dr Andrew Katalaris, gives an indication of where hemp stands now in 1994; "over five thousand different items have been made from the hemp plant but now we are focussing on maybe a dozen potential uses".
With the fibre yield standing at 30%, up from 15% in the 1940s the fibre extracted from the stem of the hemp plant can be used for fabrics ranging from coarse sail cloth to high quality linen for clothing. The "toe" can be woven into industrial strength fabrics, or combined with the "hurd" to make high quality writing paper. The "hurd", on its own, can be used as a non-allergenic and anti fungal animal bedding, or be processed into fuel or Cellophane. In France it has been mixed with lime and petrified to make a type of concrete called iso-chanvre, which is as strong as regular concrete but only at a sixth of the weight. In terms of solving the problem of wood pulping for paper, the waste after the fibre is removed, alone, will produce 6-8 tonnes of paper per hectare, as a totally renewable resource. Tasmanians Fritz and Patsy Harmsen have been exploring the potential for hemp as an alternative to wood pulp. Having campaigned against the Wesley Vale Pulp Mill and seen the devastation of widescale indiscriminate logging, not surprisingly denied by the logging industry who run a rhetoric of controlled logging, they have grown trial experimental crops under the close supervision of the Tasmanian government. At this stage they have garnered the support of Australian Newsprint Manufacturers to explore the potential for using hemp fibre as a reinforcer for newsprint and recycled paper, a role currently fulfilled by imported hardwoods. On a farm it would even be possible to power farm machinery upon alcohol fuel derived entirely from the waste of a hemp crop for true self-sufficient farming.
Cannabis is naturally resistant to many plant diseases and is not affected by a wide variety of insects thus reducing the need for herbicides and pesticides; as a source of fibre for paper making it can be grown and harvested in between three and six months compared to thirty or forty years for plantation wood; it produces twice as much yield per hectare than cotton and so halves the amount of water required for growing; and because most of its nitrogen content lies in the unharvested part of the plant, nitrogen remains in the soil if the waste is used as a self-fertiliser. Nitrogen run off from farm land is the primary cause of algal bloom which is destroying much of Australia's waterways. Hemp, as a source of cellulose, has the potential to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air around us. Dr Andrew Katalaris estimates that growing 1000-2000 hectares of hemp would reduce the amount of dioxins in the air by a massive 95000 tonnes - more efficient and swifter than any tree planting scheme. Unfortunately, though, most of the items once made from hemp are now made from petrochemicals. Instead of renewable annual fibre crops we have chopped down, logged, wood chipped, and pulped our old growth forests; instead of using hemp as a smother crop we have poisoned our land with all manner of pesticides and herbicides, much to the glee of the chemical companies, for whom land repair means more chemicals and, not coincidentally, more profits.
Currently hemp is legally grown in England, Hungary, Ukraine, Netherlands, and China. China and the Ukraine supply the vast majority of the world market for hemp but cannot keep pace with demand as Western nations begin to come to their senses. England legalised hemp production in 1993, most of Europe throughout the mid 80s, and Canada is on the verge of doing so. Although hemp production is legal in these countries, the most used varieties of the cannabis plant are the so-called low drug cultivars. Again, because of the anti-drug propaganda begun in the 1930s selective breeding has reduced the THC, or active drug, content to below 0.3% THC. However there is some evidence to suggest that the higher THC content strains are in fact more insect repellent. Fortunately, by using selective breeding procedures rather than genetic engineering, and through a degree of moral fortitude, none of the popular low drug cultivars have been patented . . . yet. Dr Katalaris suggests that this is largely due to the distinct lack of US research or US-influenced research in the field, however he fears that to hesitate on the development of a local Australian cultivar, would be to tempt fate. To highlight the strange situation in the US, Dr Katalaris gives the example of synthetic THC, manufactured by the large pharmaceutical companies for medical use, which is approved by the Federal Drug Agency (FDA) whilst hemp is classified as a "dangerous plant with no medical use".
So what stands in the way of reform in Australia?
In terms of drug policy Australia has always toed the line of ëone of our most powerful allies', the United States. Our politicians have, by and large, been fed a strict diet of hysterical US propaganda. NSW Upper House Democrat, Richard Jones speaks out, "we have a crop that can be grown organically, has high value especially with the current worldwide shortage, can be used for many purposes, and it has been ignored because of the drug issue . . . we have a ridiculous situation where you can import hemp legally into NSW and Australia but you cannot grow it here locally . . . we have Australian technology [which is used overseas] capable of processing hemp and to add value locally to the product [through local treatment and processing] which has not been done in the past with either Australian wool or cotton. These are exported to China and other countries for processing only to be imported back as finished product. The only thing that is hindering us are entrenched conservative attitudes".
Richard Jones is optimistic, "[hemp] is the material for the late 90s. Wearing hemp is a statement that you really care for the environment". Together with the Democrats some members of the National Party have expressed great interest in the development of a hemp industry as have the signatories to the Parliamentary Group For Drug Law Reform which currently comprises over 80 signed members across Australia. Lobbying has begun for cannabis with a content of less than 0.3% THC to be taken off the register. As Dr Katalaris, who is has been negotiating with limited success with the NSW Departments of Health, Agriculture and the Police, says "Let us have hemp and marijuana will fizzle as an issue . . . NSW will have a license shortly - by next year there will be no stopping us barring a fascist backlash".
However, the information war continues. A great deal of money has been invested in the industries that have replaced the age-old uses of hemp with high-tech, high-cost and high-environmental cost synthetics. "No one in the mainstream media, especially the print media, has run a story on fibre hemp" Dr Katalaris says wistfully. "Kerry Packer owns a lot of cotton ginning machinery" he adds, his voice tailing off.
Ironically there is to be found a thank you to the "Andrew F Mellon Foundation" at the end of the Preface to "The Politics Of Everyday Fear".<hr></blockquote>
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
'scuse me...
just passing
through...
<strong>
acetominophen (the active ingredient in codeine, and tylenol) is an addictive drug. it is also legal. shouldn't (by your logic) government outlaw it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I said before that it's not as simple as whether something is addictive or not. Please try not to gain the upper hand by using my logic against me. It really makes a fool of you.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
also, i'd like to bring up tobacco again. nicotene is an extremely addictive drug (around the same magnitude of heroin). it is legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is your point? I have said before that the only reason tobacco is legal is because of its role in the history of our nation and its firm establishment as the economy of several states. I would like to see tobacco outlawed as well.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're wrong. It affects everyone- though I don't have an article at hand to support my statement (haven't looked for one).
Look at health care costs. Do you know how much we have to pay as a result of smoker-related illnesses? I'm sure the number is many billions of dollars. Allowing the smoking of an even more potent drug would increase that already high number. That's the literal cost to society for allowing it. How does that NOT affect you? Do you not have health insurance? It wouldn't surprise me considering how much it costs....
Now, of course, the cost to society for not allowing it is what we pay to incarcerate drug users. I have said before that we should not do so and rehabilitate them instead. It will reduce costs and drug use.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you intentionally not listen to what I say, or are you just that dense? Let me refresh your short memory: (see below)
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>
Screw the benefits. People have a right to live and to kill themselves however they choose as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Furthermore, the illegality of some drugs is hypocritical considering that other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and cheeseburgers are quite legal. Hey, want to know a benefit of legalizing pot? You free thousands of prisoners that did one of the drugs that the state doesn't endorse and you cripple an entire black market AND you can stop spending billions of dollars on a stupid war on drugs that will never end and never work. There, that is more than one benefit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You people don't listen. Look at what you are saying... You'd rather give up than actually the fix the problem of drug addiction in America. We need to reform our drug laws to shift the penalty or use from incarceration to rehabilitation.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
heard someone say once, and it was very interesting i think, "your right to punch the air ends where my face begins"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. And that is definitely paraphrased!
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
That is completely absurd. The laws against marijuana were formulated purely to protect corporate interests. Also, there was a racist motive to outlaw marijuana. Read some history.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not "completely." The laws against marijuana do protect the people from ever rising health care costs. I agree, for the fourth or fifth time that they need to be revised to allow for the rehabilitation of drug users rather than incarceration.
case by case. example: i masturbate; no one else gets affected. i drink (alcohol); no one else gets affected. i dont murder: because other(s) would be affected. i heard someone say once, and it was very interesting i think, "your right to punch the air ends where my face begins".
if people choose to but into my business, then they are affected (i suppose), but i don't invite them to do so. when i smoke, it doesn't harm anyone else. what i do to myself is by business and no one else's. i shouldn't be arrested or fined or punished for it (nor phear being arrested, fined or punished for it).
<hr></blockquote>
Unfortunetly other people drink alcohol irresponsibly and thousands of lives a year are affected. The same holds true with Tobacco. Think of the thousands of people who are suffering heart and lung problems from second hand smoke. You sharing a joint with your friends and nobody leaving the house until you're not stoned is the equivalent of doing the same with alcohol, but how often does that happen? If people were responsible with Alcohol we wouldn't have alcoholics and drunk driving. I believe that the same situation would happen with marijuana.
[quote]
as i've already pointed out, legalization will very likely not lead to an increase of use. obviously i can't know exactly how america will react to legalization, but scientists have studied the subject and come to the conclusion that legalization does not lead to increased use. hence, no new "epidemic".
<hr></blockquote>
You should say "a group of scientists". Not scientists in general. I don't think there's enough data to make the assumption that legalization wouldn't lead to increased use. I just had this discussion with my co-workers and 9 out of 10 people said they'd smoke pot if it were legal. 6 of these people had never smoked it before. Yes, I know thats not scientific but I know quite a few more people that have said the samething and I think its valid. My belief is also that once marijuana is legalized it will lead to more dangerous drugs eventually being legal.
[quote]
That is completely absurd. The laws against marijuana were formulated purely to protect corporate interests. Also, there was a racist motive to outlaw marijuana. Read some history.
<hr></blockquote>
The reasons you suggest are not the reasons marijuana is illegal today. Just because people 60 years may have been racial motivated doesn't mean that still holds true today. I guess we shouldn't wear cotton today because slaves were used in the industry originally?
You also mention corporations. You don't think that if marijuana is legalized a few select corporations would gain control of it? How would you like it if Phillip Morris controlled the world's supply of Marijuana? I believe that this would happen just like it did with Tobacco. Corporations would definitely benefit from its legalization so that argument is a mute point.
<strong>
Corporations would definitely benefit from its legalization so that argument is a mute point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ditto.
That is ludicrous. What would happen then? Some 60 million people already hooked on nicotine, one of the most powerfully addictive drugs out there, all of a sudden needing to get their fix from street dealers, and creating a huge black market and another windfall for organized crime. It wouldn't stop people from smoking tobacco, and it wouldn't stop people from growing it. Putting a popular intoxicant outside of the law has never stopped its use, and always generates a whole new crop of socially destructive side-effects.
[But anti-tobacco laws would never be passed anyway. This is not so much because thousands would lose their jobs, but more because the corporations that sell and promote a product that kills 400000 Americans each year pay big $$$ to both both Republican and Democratic parties....and...anti-tobacco laws will *never* stop people from smoking it!!!!!]. Have the laws against marijuana ever prevented people from smoking it? Did the laws against drink, or heroin, or LSD stop it's use?
I trust you recall what happened the last time a popular (but addictive and potentially dangerous) substance, alcohol, was outlawed?
Don't ever believe that popular myth that these type of laws are passed for moral or ethical reasons, or for the wellbeing of the general public.
believe that this would happen just like it did with Tobacco.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Corporations would definitely benefit from its legalization so that argument is a mute point.<hr></blockquote>
If marijuana was legalized, it is *not* going to suddenly start a whole new craze of people suddenly thinking: "Oh it's now legal, therefore its OK". The number of potsmokers will remain pretty constant. In fact some kids may even drop it because the 'cool factor' disappears.
People who smoke pot are probably most unlikely to support the likes of Philip Morris et al. They would be more likely to grow their own (far cheaper) or rely on existing tried and trusted sources. The decriminalization of pot in Holland never caused tobacco companies to step in and sell 'marijuana products' there. I don't think that potsmokers are exactly enamored with the likes of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris anyway. I know several people whose drug of choice is pot, who represent a fair cross-section of the pot smoking population, and very few of would ever patronize those particular corporations for their supply, because it would be totally against their political sensibilities and cultural principles.
Pot production will probably remain an industry with many small time growers supplying a small circle of locals. It's hard to see a range of pre-packaged 'joints' manufactured according to government specifications taking off and becoming popular, specially since the quality would be far inferior to what potsmokers are used to, and there would be a large tax levy imposed on each pack.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
Please try not to gain the upper hand by using my logic against me. It really makes a fool of you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
first off, thank you for making fun of me. always appreciated.
next up. you say that terminally ill patients shouldn't be allowed to do things that are otherwise considered illegal. are you aware of a drug called morphine? its highly addictive and detrimental to one's health. and only legal for people who really need it. is this wrong? should the empained just grit their teeth, and pull through it? drugs can be made partially legal. could you explain for me (without being offensive) how marijuana is different from that situation?
now, as for your argument that health care costs could go up. i think that is a very real possibility. and i agree, that you (as a nonsmoker) shouldn't have to cover the added cost to healthcare for marijuana users. thats a reasonable argument. but, i think that the increased money made from sale of marijuana, hemp and other forms of cannabis can help to recoup the costs. i think marijuana should be taxed just like cigs.
[quote]You people don't listen. Look at what you are saying... You'd rather give up than actually the fix the problem of drug addiction in America. We need to reform our drug laws to shift the penalty or use from incarceration to rehabilitation.<hr></blockquote>
marijuana is not physically addictive. marijuana addiction is therefore not a problem in America. just because someone enjoys recreation doesn't mean that something is wrong with them. even if that recreational activity is dangerous, it doesn't mean the person necessarily requires rehabilitation. if people are willing to accept the risks, and still partake in the activity maybe they dont want to be "rehabilitated".
[quote]You should say "a group of scientists". Not scientists in general. I don't think there's enough data to make the assumption that legalization wouldn't lead to increased use. I just had this discussion with my co-workers and 9 out of 10 people said they'd smoke pot if it were legal. 6 of these people had never smoked it before. Yes, I know thats not scientific but I know quite a few more people that have said the samething and I think its valid. My belief is also that once marijuana is legalized it will lead to more dangerous drugs eventually being legal.<hr></blockquote>
i said "scientists", which as you very likely know, means "more than one scientist". i didn't mean to imply that there was unanimous opinion on the subject. i haven't yet had the chance to tally every scientist alive. i doubt i could get them all to agree on anything.
it's ridiculous to try and make ur own statistics based on 10 coworkers. note the bolded part of what u said. i recognize that you have the right to believe whatever you want, but when i give you studies, and you refute them with 10 coworkers, you have to realize that your belief is less supported (at least by materials presented on this thread). my beliefs (on this subject) have been backed up by studies. i show u stats covering hundreds and thousands, u give me stats covering 10. come on. here's a quote from one of my sources earlier linked:
[quote]Another way to get an idea of the impact of decriminalization of marijuana on drug use is to ask non-users if they would become users of marijuana upon its decriminalization. As examples of this methodology, in surveys conducted by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse during 1972 and 1973, those responding that they did not use marijuana were asked if they would use marijuana if it were decriminalized. Only 3 and 4 percent of non-using adults, and 12 and 8 percent of non-using youths responded that they would try marijuana upon its decriminalization.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.lindesmith.org/library/thies2.html"; target="_blank">*relink*</a>
If marijuana was legalized, it is *not* going to suddenly start a whole new craze of people suddenly thinking: "Oh it's now legal, therefore its OK". The number of potsmokers will remain pretty constant. In fact some kids may even drop it because the 'cool factor' disappears.
<hr></blockquote>
You don't know that for sure. Besides, Tobacco is legal and plenty of kids still find it cool and try it and get hooked.
People are lazy. You think every pot smoker is going to grow their own weed? Please
If it became legal, corporations would get majorly involved (just like every other product on the marketplace) and the government would make SURE of it. Especially to make sure it was safe.
What your suggesting sounds like a black-market for marijuana once its legal. All of these "moral" individuals who are against big corporations would have to find another means to get their weed. Sounds like we might as well have left it illegal.
<strong> <a href="http://www.lindesmith.org/library/thies2.html"; target="_blank">*relink*</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
These studies from the 70s (almost 30 years ago) do not necessarily reflect today's teenagers views.
[quote]
A third approach to ascertaining the effect of decriminalization of marijuana upon drug use is to conduct a before- and-after study, or even a full-blown trend analysis of drug usage within a state that has decriminalized. Following Oregon's 1973 decriminalization of marijuana, a survey of marijuana use in that state was conducted annually, from 1974 to 1977. "Current use," defined as use within the past month, rose from 24 to 30 percent among 18-29 year olds. Thus, current use went up in Oregon during this period
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]
Likewise, in conjunction with California's and Maine's 1976 decriminalizations, surveys were taken of marijuana use within these states. California's Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse found that current users rose from 9 percent before decriminalization to 14 percent of the general population after decriminalization, and from 24 percent to 31 percent of the 18-29 year old population
<hr></blockquote>
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[quote]
Studies from the UCLA School of Medicine show that smoking one marijuana joint delivers five times more carbon monoxide and three times more tar to the lungs than does one tabacco cigarette. Every time one marijuana cigarette is smoked the effect of five tabacco cigarettes are felt by the lungs. The harmful effects of tar and carbon monoxide are greatly increased when the users hold the smoke in their lung to enhance marijuana's euphoric effects. Studies have also shown that marijuana smoke increases the appearance of precancerous lesions in the lungs . The rates of lung cancer in our country are already high enough. Making marijuana legal would only add to the problem.
Marijuana also has many adverse effects on the human mind. Studies have shown that the frequent use of marijuana inhibits the brain's release of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter, which is necessary for the transmission of impulses from one brain cell to another. These impulses are used by the nervous system to transmit messages. This lack of acetylcholine can seriously affect a persons short-term memory. The resulting short-term memory loss occurs for up to six weeks after the person has stopped smoking the drug .
More than thirty-one percent of high school seniors use marijuana today an increase of forty percent over the last four years. According to a study in the New York Times, from the mid eighties to the early nineties marijuana use among teens was down, but ever since 1992 the number of teens that use marijuana has been steadily increasing.
Marijuana is known to carry some extremely dangerous contaminants. Salmonella bacteria and aspegillus fungi can infest marijuana plants and can cause severe lung infections in smokers. According to Solomon Snyder, M.D., in one case the administration of antifungal medications did not help fight off an infection caused by asperillus. The infection later killed the marijuana smoker.
Users of marijuana are also endangering the lives of their unborn children. Studies in Canada show that babies born to potsmoking mothers have visual problems and may suffer exaggerated tremors. These conditions result from mental and developmental retardation.
References:
Garnier, Lindley and B.Z. Siegel and S.M. Siegel. "Mercury in Marijuana." BioScience. October 1988: 619-623.
McCarthy, Paul. "Pot peril: Heavy smokers risk mercury poisoning." American Health. December 1989: 16.
Oliwenstein, Lori. "The Perils of Pot." Discover. June 1988: 18.
Snyder, Solomon. Marijuana: Its Effect on Mind & Body. New York: Chealsea House Publishers, 1992.
Schwatz, Richard. "Marijuana Mangles Memory." Science News. 18 november 1989: 332.
Wren, Christopher. "Marijuana Use by Youths Continues to Rise." New York Times. 20 February 1996. A:11.
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Some things to chew on:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did you get that from? Looks mighty copyrighted
<strong>
first off, thank you for making fun of me. always appreciated.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did no such thing.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
next up. you say that terminally ill patients shouldn't be allowed to do things that are otherwise considered illegal. are you aware of a drug called morphine? its highly addictive and detrimental to one's health. and only legal for people who really need it. is this wrong? should the empained just grit their teeth, and pull through it? drugs can be made partially legal. could you explain for me (without being offensive) how marijuana is different from that situation?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're right. My argument was too simplistic. Quite simply, I don't know the answer to this.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
now, as for your argument that health care costs could go up. i think that is a very real possibility. and i agree, that you (as a nonsmoker) shouldn't have to cover the added cost to healthcare for marijuana users. thats a reasonable argument. but, i think that the increased money made from sale of marijuana, hemp and other forms of cannabis can help to recoup the costs. i think marijuana should be taxed just like cigs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure it can. Actually, I wish the tobacco tax per pack was even higher- ala NYC style or even higher than that.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
marijuana is not physically addictive. marijuana addiction is therefore not a problem in America. just because someone enjoys recreation doesn't mean that something is wrong with them. even if that recreational activity is dangerous, it doesn't mean the person necessarily requires rehabilitation. if people are willing to accept the risks, and still partake in the activity maybe they dont want to be "rehabilitated".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The end result of rehabilitation is the elimination of that person's drug use. The power of addiction contradicts that end result- even when a person wants to quit. Furthermore, no wants to go to jail either, but the legal system dictates that for drug use. Rehabilitation is a better way, and also a mandatory one.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>
Where did you get that from? Looks mighty copyrighted
Your point being what? Its all valid.
Marijuana Withdraw:
<a href="http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,258335,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,258335,00.html</a>;
How Marijuana Works:
<a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/marijuana4.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/marijuana4.htm</a>;
The most interesting part of that page:
[quote]
Physiological Effects:
Problems with memory and learning
Distorted perception
Difficulty with thinking and problem solving
Loss of coordination
Increased heart rate
Anxiety, paranoia and panic attacks
< snip >
Beyond the psychological effects that marijuana has, marijuana smokers are susceptible to the same health problems as tobacco smokers, such as bronchitis, emphysema and bronchial asthma. Other effects include dry-mouth, red eyes, impaired motor skills and impaired concentration.
<hr></blockquote>
In 2001, 17,448 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol.
Since smoking pot impares your motor skills, concentration and perception, I believe that "stoning and driving" would become a major problem if Marijuana was legalized. Instead of 17,000 alcohol related accidents, we'll have 34,000 alcohol and DRUG related auto accidents.
...and people are more worried about corporations making money off of it being illegal <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />