Do you really think that the states of Oregon, Maine, Ohio, New York, Nebraska, California, North Carolina, Colorado, Minnesota, and Mississippi are that different from the rest of the country. I can understand that certain regions of the country are more liberal than others. Some areas tend to certain political affiliations. But, those ten states span from coast to coast, north south, and central America. (These states supplied the statistics that Connecticutt used in its study in 1997.)
<hr></blockquote>
I understand what you're saying. But my only point about that study is that the stigma still exists. Sure pot use won't increase in those studies, because it still has that stigma surrounding it and technically it is still illegal.
Making it 100% legal in all 50 states, while not immediately, will eventually lift the stigma. It will eventually be totally normal to light a blunt in a bar with your buddies.
When that happens, some people will become more irresponsible with its use. Just like alcohol.
[quote]
Many factors play into how responsible a person is. I know a kid who smokes infrequently and maintains a job, a chick and life better than another kid I know who drinks, doesn't have a job or a girlfriend. The drugs they use, while it affects them while intoxicated, doesn't really play into their life off the drug. And, while on the drug of choice, they act very similarly. The present mayor of New York is a responsible person; he has smoked pot. Generalities are always wrong.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think I'm making a generality. Plenty of responsible people drink alcohol but for all of them there's the idiots that drink and drive. I think I'm placing marijuana and alcohol on the exact same level. Once its legalized it would become just as socially exceptable and just as socially abused. I'm not worried about all pot smokers, just the ones that are going to kill innocent people because of their misuse.
<strong>I understand what you're saying. But my only point about that study is that the stigma still exists. Sure pot use won't increase in those studies, because it still has that stigma surrounding it and technically it is still illegal.
Making it 100% legal in all 50 states, while not immediately, will eventually lift the stigma. It will eventually be totally normal to light a blunt in a bar with your buddies.
When that happens, some people will become more irresponsible with its use. Just like alcohol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
okay, in the long term, legalization may change the general feeling toward marijuana. (i still don't think it will happen, but its a possibility.) but there are millions of people who can use marijuana responsibly. these people should be allowed that opportunity. i don't think i should be punished for someone else's abuse of my drug of choice. alcohol is legal; people drink it responsibly. marijuana should be legal; people should be allowed to use it legally. the laws should be tailored to make sure that people who act unruly, or out of control or something, should be punished; not everyone. pot users shouldn't drive while high, like drinkers shouldn't. they shouldn't operate heavy machinery, and they shouldn't go to work until they've come down. But, if I wanted to get a buzz and just chill, i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to do that.
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>I don't think I'm making a generality. Plenty of responsible people drink alcohol but for all of them there's the idiots that drink and drive. I think I'm placing marijuana and alcohol on the exact same level. Once its legalized it would become just as socially exceptable and just as socially abused. I'm not worried about all pot smokers, just the ones that are going to kill innocent people because of their misuse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I misinterpretted what you said then. It seemed to me before that you were saying that all marijuana users are less responsible than drinkers. I think that while high, drinkers and pot smokers are about as (ir)responsible; though in driving situations, pot isn't as detrimental to one's perception. and while not intoxicated, their responsibility is completely unassociated with the drug.
Who says it shouldn't be used? Scott was just saying the lobbyists shouldn't hide behind that front. They should just come out and say, yeah, we want to get high. You can't stop us anyway, just legalize it already. There's nothing wrong with pot, except the stupid medical marijuana excuse.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, you're right. I should have asked "why shouldn't lobbyists hide behind that front" like you have clarified. But my original implications still stand, though much clearer now. Why is it a front? If it's an excuse then some faulty reasoning for medicinal marijuana use must exist and can therefore be used to defeat the notion.
<strong>Oh, you're right. I should have asked "why shouldn't lobbyists hide behind that front" like you have clarified. But my original implications still stand, though much clearer now. Why is it a front? If it's an excuse then some faulty reasoning for medicinal marijuana use must exist and can therefore be used to defeat the notion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
it's not a front. recreational and medicinal marijuana are both being sought for legalization across the nation. medicinal marijuana has legitimate uses. NORML (a large marijuana lobbying group) is trying to have legislation added to allow it. They are also trying to legalize recreational marijuana.
it's not a front. recreational and medicinal marijuana are both being sought for legalization across the nation. medicinal marijuana has legitimate uses. NORML (a large marijuana lobbying group) is trying to have legislation added to allow it. They are also trying to legalize recreational marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aww c'mon. It is a front. You can already get the medicinal bits in marijuana OTC at a pharmacy. The more people decide to hide behind medicinal marijuana the less likely it'll be legalized on a federal level.
1) If you legalize recreational marijuana (wtf kind of term is that) you pretty much automatically legalize medicinal marijuana.
2) It's a dishonest. The vast majority of people who want and get medicinal marijuana really want it just to get high.
Lose the dishonesty and I guarantee it'll speed up legislation.
in switzerland there are laws against marijuana - but they are not allways in effect.
sometimes its illegal to privatly smoke sometimes not - depends on: the mood of the local police chief, the weather, the situation.
as long as there are no (smart) laws based on real information (i'm not meaning this 40-year mis-information capagne) there is no chance to realy get a grip on this.
btw: i read a lot about drug-addicts here. are we still talking about marijuana?
as long as people still think marijuana is a "drug" that you can compare with alcohol, cocane, heroine etc (due to the "40-year mis-information-campagne") there is no meaning in talking about it.
some posts in this thread are realy funny.
get yourself informed!
and i don't mean info from some "pot-smokers-website" and i don't mean info from some "one joint and your addicted-website"
and willy? don't get agressive like that. you should smoke a spliff once in a while.
and willy? don't get agressive like that. you should smoke a spliff once in a while.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aggressive?
Honestly I think I'm one of the most calm posters in this thread. I don't think I flipped out or got aggressive on anyone. Sorry if anybody took my posts that way.
<strong>Aww c'mon. It is a front. You can already get the medicinal bits in marijuana OTC at a pharmacy. The more people decide to hide behind medicinal marijuana the less likely it'll be legalized on a federal level.
1) If you legalize recreational marijuana (wtf kind of term is that) you pretty much automatically legalize medicinal marijuana.
2) It's a dishonest. The vast majority of people who want and get medicinal marijuana really want it just to get high.
Lose the dishonesty and I guarantee it'll speed up legislation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
where the fvck can i get mary j over the counter (thats what you meant by OTC, right?)? certainly not in nyc/ny-state. i would definitely consider moving there to such a place. i thot in states where medicinal marijuana is legal (which isn't everywhere, only like 10 states) you had to have a prescription.
1) yea, once recreational (i read that term somewhere on NORML's site i think) marijuana is legalized then medicinal will be cake; but getting recreational legalized isn't easy. they've been trying for 30 years.
2) NORML states several times in their literature that they are infavor of recreational marijuana. They are not hiding that; hence no dishonesty. But, getting medicinal marijuana legalized is part of the strategy toward that goal. and, it might be true that many people infavor of medicinal marij just want to get hi, but their doctor's aren't going to just prescribe it. and, regardless of the fun and pleasure of marijuana, it has legitimate medical benefits. its the only known cure for glaucoma. it reduces nausea in patients on chemotherapy. it helps people with asthma. it has legitimate medical uses.
but of course, all recreational drugs should be legalized, including marijuana.
but of course, all recreational drugs should be legalized, including marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To what extent do you even care about the degradation of society such an aim would surely produce? Read <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nas/markets.htm"; target="_blank">An Analysis of Marijuana Policy</a>. It's an old but balanced article discussing the advantages and disadvantes of that period's marijuana policy.
<strong>To what extent do you even care about the degradation of society such an aim would surely produce? Read <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nas/markets.htm"; target="_blank">An Analysis of Marijuana Policy</a>. It's an old but balanced article discussing the advantages and disadvantes of that period's marijuana policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think society will be better when its a free society. people should be educated and instructed on moderate use. people who use excessively should seek and get help. i should be allowed to do my pot, plus a little coke every so often. or occassionally trip on shrooms or 'cid.
but, back to the pot discussion. i skimmed through the article. it seems to be in favor of regulation. they stated that prohibition is costly and doesn't seem to be effective. They go on to say that, if marijuana is legalized, society will likely use "informal rituals and sanctions" to encourage only moderate use of recreational drugs. they say that government should use commercials to educate people on safe use. the article also says that while a drug is illegal, governmental education programs are not believed due to the past "exaggerations and distortions of the effects of some mind-altering drugs." So, if its legalized, they say moderation should be encouraged thru society and public education. but, until it is the government is wasting money and losing credibility. how, exactly, was this article supposed to be used against the pot legalization?
I did not submit that link for you to carelessly rip away the pro-pot portions of the article and shove them back in my face. You have quoted the article. I suggest you go back and also quote the disadvantages presented.
<strong>I did not submit that link for you to carelessly rip away the pro-pot portions of the article and shove them back in my face. You have quoted the article. I suggest you go back and also quote the disadvantages presented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
here's a quote, which is i guess half anti-pot. but honestly, the more i look at the article, the more it seems to be in favor of regulation (which, to me, is pro pot). [quote]The advantages of a policy of regulation include the disappearance of most illegal market activity, the savings in economic and social costs of law enforcement directed against illegal supply systems, better controls over the quality and safety of the product, and, possibly, increased credibility for warnings about risks. The major disadvantages are a consequence of increased marijuana use--increases in harm to physical health and to individual development and behavior.<hr></blockquote>
honestly, the article seems very pro-pot to me. maybe i'm just reading it with a bias. this wasn't the only quote that mentioned some of the potential detriments of legalization, but most of those i saw were surrounded by pro-pot sentiment.
where the fvck can i get mary j over the counter (thats what you meant by OTC, right?)? certainly not in nyc/ny-state. i would definitely consider moving there to such a place. i thot in states where medicinal marijuana is legal (which isn't everywhere, only like 10 states) you had to have a prescription.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm pretty sure several pharmaceutical companies have a product with non-trivial amounts of THC, the active chemical in marijuana.
Comments
Do you really think that the states of Oregon, Maine, Ohio, New York, Nebraska, California, North Carolina, Colorado, Minnesota, and Mississippi are that different from the rest of the country. I can understand that certain regions of the country are more liberal than others. Some areas tend to certain political affiliations. But, those ten states span from coast to coast, north south, and central America. (These states supplied the statistics that Connecticutt used in its study in 1997.)
<hr></blockquote>
I understand what you're saying. But my only point about that study is that the stigma still exists. Sure pot use won't increase in those studies, because it still has that stigma surrounding it and technically it is still illegal.
Making it 100% legal in all 50 states, while not immediately, will eventually lift the stigma. It will eventually be totally normal to light a blunt in a bar with your buddies.
When that happens, some people will become more irresponsible with its use. Just like alcohol.
[quote]
Many factors play into how responsible a person is. I know a kid who smokes infrequently and maintains a job, a chick and life better than another kid I know who drinks, doesn't have a job or a girlfriend. The drugs they use, while it affects them while intoxicated, doesn't really play into their life off the drug. And, while on the drug of choice, they act very similarly. The present mayor of New York is a responsible person; he has smoked pot. Generalities are always wrong.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think I'm making a generality. Plenty of responsible people drink alcohol but for all of them there's the idiots that drink and drive. I think I'm placing marijuana and alcohol on the exact same level. Once its legalized it would become just as socially exceptable and just as socially abused. I'm not worried about all pot smokers, just the ones that are going to kill innocent people because of their misuse.
<strong>I understand what you're saying. But my only point about that study is that the stigma still exists. Sure pot use won't increase in those studies, because it still has that stigma surrounding it and technically it is still illegal.
Making it 100% legal in all 50 states, while not immediately, will eventually lift the stigma. It will eventually be totally normal to light a blunt in a bar with your buddies.
When that happens, some people will become more irresponsible with its use. Just like alcohol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
okay, in the long term, legalization may change the general feeling toward marijuana. (i still don't think it will happen, but its a possibility.) but there are millions of people who can use marijuana responsibly. these people should be allowed that opportunity. i don't think i should be punished for someone else's abuse of my drug of choice. alcohol is legal; people drink it responsibly. marijuana should be legal; people should be allowed to use it legally. the laws should be tailored to make sure that people who act unruly, or out of control or something, should be punished; not everyone. pot users shouldn't drive while high, like drinkers shouldn't. they shouldn't operate heavy machinery, and they shouldn't go to work until they've come down. But, if I wanted to get a buzz and just chill, i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to do that.
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>I don't think I'm making a generality. Plenty of responsible people drink alcohol but for all of them there's the idiots that drink and drive. I think I'm placing marijuana and alcohol on the exact same level. Once its legalized it would become just as socially exceptable and just as socially abused. I'm not worried about all pot smokers, just the ones that are going to kill innocent people because of their misuse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I misinterpretted what you said then. It seemed to me before that you were saying that all marijuana users are less responsible than drinkers. I think that while high, drinkers and pot smokers are about as (ir)responsible; though in driving situations, pot isn't as detrimental to one's perception. and while not intoxicated, their responsibility is completely unassociated with the drug.
<strong>
Who says it shouldn't be used? Scott was just saying the lobbyists shouldn't hide behind that front. They should just come out and say, yeah, we want to get high. You can't stop us anyway, just legalize it already. There's nothing wrong with pot, except the stupid medical marijuana excuse.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, you're right. I should have asked "why shouldn't lobbyists hide behind that front" like you have clarified. But my original implications still stand, though much clearer now. Why is it a front? If it's an excuse then some faulty reasoning for medicinal marijuana use must exist and can therefore be used to defeat the notion.
<strong>Oh, you're right. I should have asked "why shouldn't lobbyists hide behind that front" like you have clarified. But my original implications still stand, though much clearer now. Why is it a front? If it's an excuse then some faulty reasoning for medicinal marijuana use must exist and can therefore be used to defeat the notion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
it's not a front. recreational and medicinal marijuana are both being sought for legalization across the nation. medicinal marijuana has legitimate uses. NORML (a large marijuana lobbying group) is trying to have legislation added to allow it. They are also trying to legalize recreational marijuana.
<strong>
it's not a front. recreational and medicinal marijuana are both being sought for legalization across the nation. medicinal marijuana has legitimate uses. NORML (a large marijuana lobbying group) is trying to have legislation added to allow it. They are also trying to legalize recreational marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aww c'mon. It is a front. You can already get the medicinal bits in marijuana OTC at a pharmacy. The more people decide to hide behind medicinal marijuana the less likely it'll be legalized on a federal level.
1) If you legalize recreational marijuana (wtf kind of term is that) you pretty much automatically legalize medicinal marijuana.
2) It's a dishonest. The vast majority of people who want and get medicinal marijuana really want it just to get high.
Lose the dishonesty and I guarantee it'll speed up legislation.
it's time to rethink the hole thing.
in switzerland there are laws against marijuana - but they are not allways in effect.
sometimes its illegal to privatly smoke sometimes not - depends on: the mood of the local police chief, the weather, the situation.
as long as there are no (smart) laws based on real information (i'm not meaning this 40-year mis-information capagne) there is no chance to realy get a grip on this.
btw: i read a lot about drug-addicts here. are we still talking about marijuana?
some posts in this thread are realy funny.
get yourself informed!
and i don't mean info from some "pot-smokers-website" and i don't mean info from some "one joint and your addicted-website"
and willy? don't get agressive like that. you should smoke a spliff once in a while.
<strong>
and willy? don't get agressive like that. you should smoke a spliff once in a while.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aggressive?
Honestly I think I'm one of the most calm posters in this thread. I don't think I flipped out or got aggressive on anyone. Sorry if anybody took my posts that way.
Originally posted by peve:
<strong>5{nally posted by Willoughby:
[qb](...) I don't think I flipped out or got aggressive on anyone. (...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
you didn't "flip out" but you do tend to get a little excited. :-)[/QB]
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
How can you tell that by reading a post? Maybe if I TYPED LIKE THIS!!!!!!
<strong>
<strong>Aww c'mon. It is a front. You can already get the medicinal bits in marijuana OTC at a pharmacy. The more people decide to hide behind medicinal marijuana the less likely it'll be legalized on a federal level.
1) If you legalize recreational marijuana (wtf kind of term is that) you pretty much automatically legalize medicinal marijuana.
2) It's a dishonest. The vast majority of people who want and get medicinal marijuana really want it just to get high.
Lose the dishonesty and I guarantee it'll speed up legislation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
where the fvck can i get mary j over the counter (thats what you meant by OTC, right?)? certainly not in nyc/ny-state. i would definitely consider moving there to such a place. i thot in states where medicinal marijuana is legal (which isn't everywhere, only like 10 states) you had to have a prescription.
1) yea, once recreational (i read that term somewhere on NORML's site i think) marijuana is legalized then medicinal will be cake; but getting recreational legalized isn't easy. they've been trying for 30 years.
2) NORML states several times in their literature that they are infavor of recreational marijuana. They are not hiding that; hence no dishonesty. But, getting medicinal marijuana legalized is part of the strategy toward that goal. and, it might be true that many people infavor of medicinal marij just want to get hi, but their doctor's aren't going to just prescribe it. and, regardless of the fun and pleasure of marijuana, it has legitimate medical benefits. its the only known cure for glaucoma. it reduces nausea in patients on chemotherapy. it helps people with asthma. it has legitimate medical uses.
but of course, all recreational drugs should be legalized, including marijuana.
<strong>
but of course, all recreational drugs should be legalized, including marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To what extent do you even care about the degradation of society such an aim would surely produce? Read <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nas/markets.htm"; target="_blank">An Analysis of Marijuana Policy</a>. It's an old but balanced article discussing the advantages and disadvantes of that period's marijuana policy.
<strong>To what extent do you even care about the degradation of society such an aim would surely produce? Read <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nas/markets.htm"; target="_blank">An Analysis of Marijuana Policy</a>. It's an old but balanced article discussing the advantages and disadvantes of that period's marijuana policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think society will be better when its a free society. people should be educated and instructed on moderate use. people who use excessively should seek and get help. i should be allowed to do my pot, plus a little coke every so often. or occassionally trip on shrooms or 'cid.
but, back to the pot discussion. i skimmed through the article. it seems to be in favor of regulation. they stated that prohibition is costly and doesn't seem to be effective. They go on to say that, if marijuana is legalized, society will likely use "informal rituals and sanctions" to encourage only moderate use of recreational drugs. they say that government should use commercials to educate people on safe use. the article also says that while a drug is illegal, governmental education programs are not believed due to the past "exaggerations and distortions of the effects of some mind-altering drugs." So, if its legalized, they say moderation should be encouraged thru society and public education. but, until it is the government is wasting money and losing credibility. how, exactly, was this article supposed to be used against the pot legalization?
<strong>I did not submit that link for you to carelessly rip away the pro-pot portions of the article and shove them back in my face. You have quoted the article. I suggest you go back and also quote the disadvantages presented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
here's a quote, which is i guess half anti-pot. but honestly, the more i look at the article, the more it seems to be in favor of regulation (which, to me, is pro pot). [quote]The advantages of a policy of regulation include the disappearance of most illegal market activity, the savings in economic and social costs of law enforcement directed against illegal supply systems, better controls over the quality and safety of the product, and, possibly, increased credibility for warnings about risks. The major disadvantages are a consequence of increased marijuana use--increases in harm to physical health and to individual development and behavior.<hr></blockquote>
honestly, the article seems very pro-pot to me. maybe i'm just reading it with a bias. this wasn't the only quote that mentioned some of the potential detriments of legalization, but most of those i saw were surrounded by pro-pot sentiment.
<strong>(...)the degradation of society such an aim would surely produce</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol!
i think the world would be a better place with a little marie jane once in a while.
<strong>
lol!
i think the world would be a better place with a little marie jane once in a while.</strong><hr></blockquote>
puff puff give.
<strong>
where the fvck can i get mary j over the counter (thats what you meant by OTC, right?)? certainly not in nyc/ny-state. i would definitely consider moving there to such a place. i thot in states where medicinal marijuana is legal (which isn't everywhere, only like 10 states) you had to have a prescription.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm pretty sure several pharmaceutical companies have a product with non-trivial amounts of THC, the active chemical in marijuana.