# Legalize Marijuana?



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

Would you vote yes, or no? Why?
(Please discuss in an objective and calm manner)

And please don't vote without at least weighing the pros and cons for yourself.



Spoiler



(I hid my vote and rant in a spoiler for obvious reasons.)

I, personally, would vote yes. For me, there are a plethora of reasons, but in my mind, only one matters: People absolutely deserve imprisonment nor any punishment at all for their personal choice to use marijuana. Also, to hell with medical use and decriminalization, that's just stupid.

This next part is just my "fanboy rant":

Also, I know people are going to say, "So if marijuana is legal, why not heroin, or meth? Hmmm?" To people who think that, well, how often do you think people die from trying heroin or meth just once? And have you read the side affects for half of the prescription drugs that the FDA approves? Seriously, you can't develop a physical dependence off of it, and I'd be impressed if you could actually get anything resembling a hangover. Its nearly impossible unless you drink alcohol, too.

And there are the people who say "Why release a drug that's dangerous and addictive? Alcohol is already a problem!" You say that as if marijuana is controlled so well by the DEA! (It isn't by any figment of the imagination, in case you didn't know.) And also, marijuana isn't going to get any more popular than it is now just because the government won't punish you, but the people who want to grow their own weed or use marijuana for recreational purposes won't have to fear years in prison.

And one more for the road:


Spoiler


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

You forgot to mention that it's NOT addictive.


----------



## teller (Apr 14, 2011)

Bottom line: Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? By what authority? What gives anyone the right to dictate what you put in your body? And if the mafia created by prohibition in the 20's didn't convince you, then enjoy the gang warfare we see today, created by prohibition. Mexico is in ruins because of the War on Drugs. And for what result after 30 years?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2011)

Save money on drug enforcement, cut down on gang activity, increase safety (drug is more regulated -> less likely to have dangerous additives), keep millions of nonviolent "criminals" out of prison, get extra money from taxes, etc. And all that for the price of... oh wait, no, pot *doesn't* cause lots of extra deaths from car accidents and overdoses. Looking at it logically I really don't see a lot of downsides to legalization.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

riffz said:


> You forgot to mention that it's NOT addictive.



Well, I know you can't get a physical dependence, and when people say addiction, they think of skinny, twitching, heroin-withdrawn people suffering in an alley. I think it's possible to be addicted to marijuana, but to a very small degree, and it would be possible to stop with little or no withdrawal symptoms. So I guess you could say it's not addictive



teller said:


> Bottom line: Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? By what authority? What gives anyone the right to dictate what you put in your body? And if the mafia created by prohibition in the 20's didn't convince you, then enjoy the gang warfare we see today, created by prohibition. Mexico is in ruins because of the War on Drugs. And for what result after 30 years?


 
Very true, I think that legalization could destroy much of the border's drug violence, but only if Canada, Mexico, and the US legalized. That would be the most effective approach to ending the drug war: Take away one of the cartel's biggest cash crops, and turning back into the economy.


----------



## MagicYio (Apr 14, 2011)

I live in Holland. Problem?


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

MagicYio said:


> I live in Holland. Problem?



Nah, brah. *o*


----------



## Shortey (Apr 14, 2011)

riffz said:


> You forgot to mention that it's NOT addictive.


 
Everything is addictive. Marijuana is just not as addictive as other drugs.


----------



## Dene (Apr 14, 2011)

riffz said:


> You forgot to mention that it's NOT addictive.


 
Yes it is.


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

Shortey said:


> Everything is addictive. Marijuana is just not as addictive as other drugs.


 
No, that's not a fair comparison. Marijuana has not been shown to be chemically addictive like substances such as heroin and cocaine.

You can technically be addicted to anything, but not in the same way.



Dene said:


> Yes it is.


 
Mmm... no. As I said above, people can become addicted to anything. But if marijuana is truly addictive then why does every person I know have no problem going without it for months after smoking it daily for weeks on end? (I, for instance, smoke weed very regularly while at university and go without it for months at a time when I'm living at home while on co-op.)


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> Yes it is.


 
Well, if it is "addictive," it's not a physical dependence like what many people think of when they encounter the word "addictive."

Regardless, I want to know why you really don't think it should be legal, because if you think it should be illegal for addiction alone, then chocolate should be illegal too.


----------



## Dene (Apr 14, 2011)

Who said anything about physical dependence? It doesn't take a physical dependence on gambling to ruin not only one person's life, but their whole family's life.

EDIT: obviously addiction has nothing to do with why I think it should be illegal. I don't care if a moron goes and gets themself addicted to anything. It's the harm that the people do to others around them, but more importantly to society in general. I work with a guy who smokes weed casually, he's a relatively smart guy, but his performance in all domains of his life have suffered dramatically since he started smoking weed. While the effects are not the same with everyone, you are only encouraging it by legalising it. People that would otherwise contribute well to society will start bumming off and becoming a burden.


----------



## cuberkid10 (Apr 14, 2011)

Legalize it. The government shouldnt be throwing drug users in jail. They should be using that money to do other things. Plus, just becuase it's legal doesnt mean you should do it.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> People that would otherwise contribute well to society will start bumming off and becoming a burden.


 
Who are you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to do this?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm for decriminalization. It's till officially illegal, but we're allowed to. Which means (except for maybe the places you can sell weed) the govs can't regulate it, which includes taxing it into oblivion which they would probably do if it were simply legal.

But since I don't have that choice, LEGALIZE IT!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 14, 2011)

Legalize marijuana, heroin, ecstacy, lsd, and every other drug out there. The government has created the drug problem in this country through this ridiculous war on drugs. Mexico is hurting because of it. Prohibition never works, and always increases violent crime. End the drug war, legalize freedom.


----------



## Escher (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm all for the legalisation (or at least decriminalisation) of Marijuana, and like Ethan said, everything else. They've had it* since 2001 in Portugal and I don't see them imploding under the strain of millions of heroin addicts, it takes a quick google search to see that overall drug use (and HIV rates) have actually declined since the introduction of the policy.

*It being deciminalisation of possession for a small number of doses


----------



## Bapao (Apr 14, 2011)

You can get addicted to the tobacco in a joint, not the weed... 

*Yawns and lights up his spliff legally*...


----------



## Nestor (Apr 14, 2011)

Based on *direct* experience alone, I would say that that legalizing marijuana poses no harm compared to other legal drugs already available. 



Spoiler



*Marijuana, illegal:* I used to smoke marijuana daily for about a year. One day I decided to stop so I could focus on finishing college, since it was starting to get an impact on my grades. I received my first bad grade report, made up my mind, stopped smoking right there and ever since I've only smoked occasionally (every 5-7 months, just a little puff). About 1/5th of my friends smoke pot, so far I haven't seen any downsides to their use except when they "overdose" and act somehow stupidly funny.

*Tobacco, legal:* I started smoking tobacco around the same time I did pot, I've been trying to quit for over 10 years with lame success as I keep falling as soon as long overnights with extensive work put pressure on me. I've had a number of health issues all smoke related ranging to skin diseases to gum /throat irritation and bleeding. About 1/5th of my friends also smoke tobacco, and although the young ones have shown no apparent illness from the habit (besides yellow teeth), older ones are having lung problems and a couple have died from lung and throat cancer.

*Alcohol, legal:* besides hang overs, a few intoxications that required hospitalization and one uncle who died of liver collapsed due to his alcoholism I haven't seen any other form of illness related to alcohol personally. On the other hand, car accidents and other alcohol related accidents? Around 20 people I've known have died due from these and several more have been injured, one had to cut shot her athletic career as she had her legs nearly amputated and just *yesterday* another one got fatally ran over by a drunk driver. I've been hit about 8 times by drunk idiots and in 3 of those accidents I was idle at a freaking red light, rammed from the rear. Lucky for me none of these accidents have been serious, but they do hurt my wallet (although one gave me neck pain for several days). I don't even want to estimate the amount of property damage I've seen over the years. Every single friend I have drinks alcohol to some degree, I haven't met the first full abstinent.

*Coffee, legal:* I don't drink coffee as much, but many people I know do so daily. Seem pretty harmless and beside from blood pressure issues on older people and yellow teeth, I've seen no side effecs directly to its use.



Besides my direct experience, when taking also into account all the existing arguments in favor and opposing its legalization, the balance shifts considerably further towards legalization.


----------



## Gunnar (Apr 14, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Legalize marijuana, heroin, ecstacy, lsd, and every other drug out there. The government has created the drug problem in this country through this ridiculous war on drugs. Mexico is hurting because of it. Prohibition never works, and always increases violent crime. End the drug war, legalize freedom.



I agree.

The ammount of deaths, destroyed lifes, unjust imprisonments etc. that governments all over the world are responsible for is one of the biggest scandals in the world today.

All for the purpose of fighting "bad moral/health", it seems. Most of the crimes connected to drugs are created by making it illegal.

In Sweden people can get, and do get, up to 10 years in prison for smuggling drugs, while you can get less for attempted murder. There's no sense to that.

I don't use any drugs except alcohol myself, and that in moderate ammounts, so this isn't a personal issue for me.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Apr 14, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY


----------



## amostay2004 (Apr 14, 2011)

In Malaysia and Singapore they hang you for smuggling drugs


----------



## spitcuba (Apr 14, 2011)

NEVER legalize marijuana!!!


----------



## Bapao (Apr 14, 2011)

spitcuba said:


> NEVER legalize marijuana!!!


 
Why?


----------



## Nestor (Apr 14, 2011)

spitcuba said:


> NEVER legalize marijuana!!!


 
Reasons?


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 14, 2011)

I used to be fairly well in the legalize marijuana camp. I like all of the societal arguments how we could tax the sale of it, get people out of jail for what essentially amounts to a misdemeanor level crime, etc. etc.

However, I am coming out of a living situation where a, now former, roommate of mine smoked weed quite regularly. In the process of living here I have discovered what I've heard lots of people say that "weed affects people differently." For me, even just breathing in the second hand smoke from others smoking in the same house gives me crippling depression. I'm not talking like I feel sad today, I mean more like my life is completely worthless and I just want to die and let it all be over with. I kept a journal for a time to write down when my roommate and/or his friends smoked and when I felt these depression symptoms. I found that every time I breathed in a significant amount of second hand smoke, that 3-4 days later I would get these symptoms. I never got the symptoms on their own so to speak, meaning at a time when my roommate had not smoked some time previous to the symptoms. I'm no scientist, but I found this to be fairly strong correlation that my symptoms are caused by the weed smoke.

So, in short, weed affects people differently. I am a relatively intelligent adult who could figure out what was causing these very negative symptoms for me. That means that I can choose to leave the apartment when my roommate lights up, or since it's my apartment too I can tell him not to smoke in the living room or common areas because it affects me like it does.

What would a small child do growing up in a weed smoking household? Yes, I agree that not all children would feel the same effects that I do. Weed affects people differently. But if even a small percentage of children would feel symptoms of depression similar to what I feel when breathing in second hand weed smoke, and the worst part is that they might not know why, then I think it should not be legalized. To be clear, I think it should be illegal to smoke weed inside your own home when you have children, but since this would be nearly impossible to enforce, I feel that weed not being legalized would be necessary to achieve the goal that it not be smoked in a home with a family living there.

The physiological effects of alcohol are contained to the drinker. If a person drinks heavily, only they get drunk. Yes there are other societal effects of heavily drinking parents on their families, but the kids in the family do not get drunk or feel intoxicated whenever the parents drink. If weed were legal, and the parents smoked in the house, then the kids of the family would experience symptoms from the second hand smoke.

inb4 "secondhand weed smoke doesn't affect you"

For those who say that second hand weed smoke doesn't affect you, I beg to differ. It affects me quite strongly, and in a very negative way. So yes, it might not affect you, but there are people like me who it does affect quite strongly.

I could see potentially de-criminalizing marijuana several levels, perhaps making it a misdemeanor or something to that effect. However, the problem of children potentially growing up breathing the second hand smoke until they move out on their own really bothers me now. It bothers me enough that I actually don't think marijuana should be legalized anymore. Yes I know that there is perhaps only a small portion of the population that would be affected negatively like this, but being in that portion of people I don't think marijuana should be smoked in the home around others. This conclusion would tend to mean that I lean more toward not legalizing it, since I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where marijuana is legal, and yet it is not smoked in the home in families with children.

inb4people tear this post apart to refute my stance on this issue


----------



## Bapao (Apr 14, 2011)

I've never heard of anybody feeling suicidal from weed. Paranoid okay...
I smoke and have a child. I only smoke in the late evenings when he has gone to bed though. I generally consume drugs at set times be it alc, nicotine or weed & co. I've never understood the people that wake up in the morning and grab a bottle or a joint first thing...


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> Who said anything about physical dependence? It doesn't take a physical dependence on gambling to ruin not only one person's life, but their whole family's life.


I agree that psychological dependence can really ruin lives, but considering that it can occur for pretty much anything enjoyable (sex, food, shopping, even things like internet use), it would be hilariously inconsistent to say that marijuana should be illegal because this is a risk.



cmhardw said:


> However, I am coming out of a living situation where a, now former, roommate of mine smoked weed quite regularly. [...] For me, even just breathing in the second hand smoke from others smoking in the same house gives me crippling depression.


I don't think this problem should be dealt with by making the root cause illegal. There are plenty of things out there that can really hurt one's quality of life (such as: loud music in the early morning, barking dogs, someone near you holding parties, stalking, etc.) and the solution isn't to reflexively punish all people who do them, because being arrested can be as life-wrecking as any of these things, with the added problem that it stays with you for life. As with anything like this, the best way to go about it remains the same: try to fix the problem yourself or try to get them to stop diplomatically, and then if they refuse, you can either leave or get the law/police to make them stop. The thing is, having something be illegal creates a knee-jerk response: a few of the people who get arrested will be a nuisance to their community, sure, but many of them will be perfectly normal people who haven't hurt anyone. And the law doesn't care which one someone is.


----------



## ErikJ (Apr 14, 2011)

the war on drugs is not winnable and is therefore a waste of tax payer money. people will find a way to do drugs no matter how many laws and money you throw at them. the prohibition era is a perfect example. legalize it. 

btw, I do not smoke. 

my views on lowering the drinking age are similar but I'm not going to hijack a thread to go into it.


----------



## TheManInBlack (Apr 14, 2011)

Marijuana should stay illegal, The next thing we need is more potheads in this country (United States). This drug effects the brain after continued use, over a period of time. Im not saying alcohol doesn't (and I'm against alcohol as well). But id rather have a dying liver than a dying brain. 
Also cubers did you know that long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction, i.e., compulsive drug-seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities, Such as speed solving a puzzle. Yeah, no 10 second times if you have been solving and smoking a while. Some of my buddies tell me its better than smoking a cigarette. Smoking pure cannabis is more harmful to lungs than tobacco. But did you know a study by the British Lung Foundation found that just three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes. Thats right. 
I have no respect for potheads, they are criminals. The same goes for alcoholics, and such. 

Potheads and smokers will respond to me sayings like 
"It growz fromz ze gwound, Iz Healthys fo meh! HurHurHuuuuuuuur" 

But would you smoke deadly night shade, Think about it. (If you can)

Anyone who smokes pot and has a family are a disgrace. Think about your child and what you are exposing them to. Would you like them to smoke, really. I remember i had a friend(age 9) and he started smoking pot! all because his dad did it and such. Would you like to know where the dad is. (JAIL! where that twat belongs) Now that same kid is addicted and is having a lot of problems, he appears slower and less smart from the effects marijuana. because stupid twats like the father thought it was healthy to smoke in front of his infant.


----------



## blah (Apr 14, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> ...


I read the whole thing. I'm actually genuinely interested in your situation. Are you sure it isn't just some sort of placebo effect? I don't want to go into any deep sort of argument until you've considered such a possibility.



TheManInBlack said:


> ...


You're clearly eleven years old. Save your comments and stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## ben1996123 (Apr 14, 2011)

No.


----------



## Shortey (Apr 14, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> No.


 
Please explain.


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Marijuana should stay illegal, The next thing we need is more potheads in this country (United States). This drug effects the brain after continued use, over a period of time.


 
I stopped reading here.


@ Chris: I don't believe that legalizing marijuana necessarily means ANYONE of any age can smoke it. I would never expose a child to second hand smoke, and I think if it were legalized the minimum age should be at least 16/17 or so.

I did find it strange that you seem to indicate that weed affects other people more than alcohol. How many people have died in car crashes while high? How many people have beaten their spouses in a high fit of anger? It's much more common to see someone drink themselves to depression than smoke themselves there.

As for your personal experience with the drug, I've never heard of something like that before. Seems to be a rare reaction and you should stay away from it. Having said that, tons of people do not cope well with even a small amount of alcohol in their system, but I would never say we should make alcohol illegal for that reason.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Marijuana should stay illegal, The next thing we need is more potheads in this country (United States). This drug effects the brain after continued use, over a period of time. Im not saying alcohol doesn't (and I'm against alcohol as well). But id rather have a dying liver than a dying brain.
> Also cubers did you know that long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction, i.e., compulsive drug-seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities, Such as speed solving a puzzle. Yeah, no 10 second times if you have been solving and smoking a while. Some of my buddies tell me its better than smoking a cigarette. Smoking pure cannabis is more harmful to lungs than tobacco. But did you know a study by the British Lung Foundation found that just three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes. Thats right.
> I have no respect for potheads, they are criminals. The same goes for alcoholics, and such.
> 
> ...


 
I just facepalmed so hard I think I broke my nose

Check abovetheignorance.org
Literally ALL info you posted except for the things which are your "personal (as in the same as every person who wants to keep pot illegal without actually doing research on the subject)" opinion have been proven wrong at least 10 years ago, most of them even longer.


----------



## deadalnix (Apr 14, 2011)

I think europe have a very good laboratory to see the effects of legalizing pots at differents degree.

You have Netherland, where it mostly legal, spain or belgium, where it's illegal, but tolerated for little quatities, and France, where it's strongly illegal.

It leads to an opposition between police and popupalation in france which is really anoying. Actually, when you have policemen around, you fell worried, not secure. Weed is one of the reasons of this situation. The fact is that you never solve any problem by criminalizing half of the population. How, I didn't mention that. France is the country in europe where people smoke the more weed. Effectiveness of the prohibittion : ZERO. It's also very anoying for others county. Just spent a week end in Amsterdam, you'll see bunch of french people completely high.

I have lived in several countries in europe and can assure you that you win nothing by criminilizing marijuana.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 14, 2011)

riffz said:


> I did find it strange that you seem to indicate that weed affects other people more than alcohol. How many people have died in car crashes while high? How many people have beaten their spouses in a high fit of anger? It's much more common to see someone drink themselves to depression than smoke themselves there.


 He already addressed this. He said that it's about how second hand smoke can affect someone like children, but you can't get second hand drunk.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Marijuana should stay illegal, The next thing we need is more potheads in this country (United States).


Computers should be illegal, the last thing we need are more internet addicts wasting time in front of a computer screen 24/7. Fatty food should be illegal, the last thing we need are more fatasses in this country. Rubik's cubes should be illegal, the last thing we need in this country is a bunch of losers solving the same pointless plastic puzzle over and over again.




> This drug effects the brain after continued use, over a period of time. Im not saying alcohol doesn't (and I'm against alcohol as well). But id rather have a dying liver than a dying brain.


Are you against all alcohol use? Are you against someone having a glass of wine with their dinner?
Plus, long-term alcohol abuse screws with the brain, as well as the liver. Besides, who are you to decide who should be allowed to damage what part of their body? In any case, if you're against alcohol, I guess you haven't heard of the Prohibition. Didn't work out too well.



> Also cubers did you know that long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction, i.e., compulsive drug-seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities, Such as speed solving a puzzle.


I believe that marijuana is fundamentally different from other drugs such as coke and heroin in that it doesn't produce physical addictions. People might really like to get high, but they don't depend on it chemically the way they might some other drugs. 



> Yeah, no 10 second times if you have been solving and smoking a while.


Apart from this being patently false (I'm sure there are some fast pothead cubers out there), your point is also not true at all. Marijuana doesn't have to interfere so much with someone's life / job / hobbies. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the person. Kind of like alcohol. Or cubing.



> Some of my buddies tell me its better than smoking a cigarette. Smoking pure cannabis is more harmful to lungs than tobacco. But did you know a study by the British Lung Foundation found that just three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes. Thats right.


That's dubious. There have been other studies linking marijuana with a decreased likelihood of lung cancer. Either way, my reaction is: so what. Are you going to outlaw someone smoking 20 cigarettes?



> I have no respect for potheads, they are criminals. The same goes for alcoholics, and such.


Well, I suppose potheads are criminals in the technical sense, so I guess that that's legit, to some extent. But I have a feeling your deep-seated hatred for pot smokers goes further than them just breaking the law. You have some weird misconception that pot smokers are doing something morally wrong, that they're all worthless pieces of garbage who do nothing but smoke pot and waste society's resources... 
On a separate note, alcoholics are not criminals, in any sense of the word. They're just unfortunate people with a problem. Maybe have some empathy?



> Potheads and smokers will respond to me sayings like
> "It growz fromz ze gwound, Iz Healthys fo meh! HurHurHuuuuuuuur"


This is so true. /sarcasm

Remember what I said about you having weird stereotypes / generalized visions of pot smokers in your head? This would be a good example. At this point, you've crossed the line from ignorant to malicious. 



> But would you smoke deadly night shade, Think about it. (If you can)


Has anyone ever told you that you're brilliant at making comparisons?



> Anyone who smokes pot and has a family are a disgrace. Think about your child and what you are exposing them to. Would you like them to smoke, really. I remember i had a friend(age 9) and he started smoking pot! all because his dad did it and such. Would you like to know where the dad is. (JAIL! where that twat belongs) Now that same kid is addicted and is having a lot of problems, he appears slower and less smart from the effects marijuana. because stupid twats like the father thought it was healthy to smoke in front of his infant.


Yes, it is an unfortunate fact of life that substance abusers often pass on their habits to their children. A strictly enforced minimum age would go a long way to prevent the situation you're describing. 
By the way, you have no idea whether the pot is at all responsible for him appearing "slower and less smart". 

tl;dr You're rather ignorant.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I don't think this problem should be dealt with by making the root cause illegal. There are plenty of things out there that can really hurt one's quality of life (such as: loud music in the early morning, barking dogs, someone near you holding parties, stalking, etc.) ... if they refuse, you can either leave or get the law/police to make them stop.



How is the law going to stop them if it's not illegal?


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

Bryan said:


> How is the law going to stop them if it's not illegal?


 
The law can't even begin to control marijuana!


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Apr 14, 2011)

We have a huge problem with drugs in Mexico. And it is not only marijuana, but also cocaine, etc. This problem has evolved in the last years, turning every day more violent than the last. The problem with these drug cartels is that their money an power has extended and corrupted the authorities. Recently a sum of 380 BILLION dollars was discovered to be laundred in a foreign bank. An this money came from only ONE cartel. 
I think a way to stop this source of illegal income is by legalizing not only marihuana but other drugs also. This way addicts could be treated both physically and mentally. These people are ill, and they need help. Drugs have ever existed, and will always do. Why not to take advantage of this kind of market and legalize it? This way the government could regulate the sell and consume of these products and receive taxes for it. 
There will always be problems to solve, but I think that the drug problem has gotten out of control (at least here in Mexico, and maybe soon in the USA).Let's stop overreacting and demonizing drug consume. Why accept tobacco and alcohol and not marihuana?. In the end it all comes to a personal decision to consume or not to consume drugs.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> ...



I feel like this whole "depression" affect holds some validity, but I have never heard of a reaction like this. However, I don't think this depression is from a contact high, because to obtain one, you would have to be put in an extremely smoky room. Most of the smoke was probably plant matter, with very little THC still left, so in short, it could just be how smoke in general affects your brain, and not necessarily marijuana smoke. Pot does affect everyone differently, but that usually refers to the high you get from smoking it. I'm sure if you smoked it, you may get the same depression affects from your past experiences, or you may not. I just find this reaction extremely odd, and I don't think it's a very prevalent phenomenon (I've never heard of anything like it!).


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> He already addressed this. He said that it's about how second hand smoke can affect someone like children, but you can't get second hand drunk.


 
Yes, I realize what he was saying. I was demonstrating some of the ways in which alcohol does cause more harm to others than marijuana.

Even so, I think someone who smoked marijuana daily (not around children) would be a much better parent than one who drinks. Think about it from the perspective of a child: Assuming your parent either drank OR smoked after you went to bed. You get up late at night because you can't sleep. Would you prefer to make your way downstairs to see your father/mother passed out on a couch, and have them stumble around disoriented when you awake them? Or would you rather come downstairs and see your father/mother microwaving their 3rd bowl of popcorn while maintaining their ability to take care of you?


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 14, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> What would a small child do growing up in a weed smoking household? Yes, I agree that not all children would feel the same effects that I do. Weed affects people differently. But if even a small percentage of children would feel symptoms of depression similar to what I feel when breathing in second hand weed smoke, and the worst part is that they might not know why, then I think it should not be legalized. To be clear, I think it should be illegal to smoke weed inside your own home when you have children, but since this would be nearly impossible to enforce, I feel that weed not being legalized would be necessary to achieve the goal that it not be smoked in a home with a family living there.


 
There are already laws in place for negligence and child abuse that could be expanded to cover this kind of thing. The kind of person who is negligent enough to smoke in front of their kids is not the kind of person who is going to be put off by marijuana being illegal. Many children are injured/killed in car accidents while their parents are driving, should we make cars illegal? Perhaps a bit of a hyperbole, but the point is that a lot of things are going to have collateral damage. Prohibition is not going to prevent it any more than legalization is going to cause it.

Now going back to your experience, firstly I will say that yes, inhaling secondhand smoke does give the effects to some extent. What would are defining as a "significant amount" of secondhand smoke? As in, how much was your roommate smoking/how hazy was the air etc. It seems strange that the symptoms would arise 3-4 days later, when typically the effects start within 30 minutes and abate within a few hours. Someone with an active lifestyle who is not a regular smoker can pass a drug test just 5 days after smoking a joint(it has left their brain long before that), so I doubt that what you were feeling was a direct effect of the THC. The only thing I can think of is that it is either a placebo effect, or the delayed effects of your body's processes removing the THC. Also the symptoms you are describing are so far from the common effects of marijuana that I feel obligated to ask if you are certain your roommate was only smoking marijuana.

And in my opinion, the sociological/psychological effects of having an unstable, angry, abusive alcoholic parent are far worse than those that may arise from secondhand marijuana smoke.



TheManInBlack said:


> Yeah, no 10 second times if you have been solving and smoking a while.


 
Totally false. Along with everything else you said.


----------



## TheManInBlack (Apr 14, 2011)

*Prove Me Wrong*

There are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value.

Marijuana is an unstable mixture of more than 425 chemicals that convert to thousands when smoked. Many of these chemicals are toxic, psychoactive chemicals which are largely unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths.

The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana include, but are not limited to the following: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggresiveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system.

The Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Public Health Service have rejected smoking crude marijuana as a medicine. Medical marijuana has been promoted for "compassionate use" to assist people with cancer, AIDS and glaucoma. Scientific studies show the opposite is true; marijuana is damaging to individuals with these illnesses. In fact, people suffering with AIDS and glaucoma are being used unfairly by groups whose real agenda is to legalize marijuana.

AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.

Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than in tobacco.

Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma.

Marijuana is currently up to 25 times more potent than it was in the 1960's, making the drug even more addictive.

Americans take their medicine in pills, solutions, sprays, shots, drops, creams, and sometimes in suppositories, but never by smoking. No medicine prescribed for us today is smoked.

The main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC (Tetra Hydrocannibinol), is already legally available in pharmaceutical capsule form by prescription from medical doctors. This drug, Marinol, is less often prescribed because of the potential adverse effects, and there are more effective new medicines currently available.

While a biomedical or casual relationship between marijuana and the use of hard drugs has not been established, the statistical association is quite convincing. 12 to 17 year-olds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not. 60% of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use cocaine. These correlations are many times higher than the initial relationships found between smoking and lung cancer.

Major medical and health organizations, as well as the vast majority of nationally recognized expert medical doctors, scientists and researchers, have concluded that smoking marijuana is not a safe and effective medicine. These organizations include: the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, National Sclerosis Association, the American Glaucoma Association, American Academy of Opthalmology, National Eye Institute, and the National Cancer Institute.

In 1994, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug: highly addictive with no medical usefulness. The court noted that the pro-marijuana physicians had relied on non-scientific evidence.

Political Issues: The California and Arizona Ballot Initiatives.

California's Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, states: "Section 11357 (criminal penalties), relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358 (criminal penalties), relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possess or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."

Arizona's Proposition 200, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996, states: "We must toughen Arizona's laws against violent criminals on drugs. Any person who commits a violent crime while under the influence of illegal drugs should serve 100% of his or her sentence with absolutely no early release." The proposition then goes on to say doctors may be permitted "to prescribe Schedule I controlled substances to treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously ill and terminally ill patients."

Both of these ballot initiatives passed, with 56% support for Prop. 215 and 65% support for Prop. 200.

The language in these ballot initiatives for California and Arizona are so loosely worded that they basically legalize marijuana for everyone, sick or well, adult or child. Physicians will be able to legally dispense marijuana for migraines, depression or any other ailments.

Legalizing marijuana through the political process bypasses the safeguards established by the Food and Drug Administration to protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs. Every other prescribed drug must be tested according to scientifically rigorous protocols to ensure that it is safe and effective before it can be sold.

The California ballot initiative will make marijuana available without a written prescription, bypassing all established medical guidelines for dispensing drugs. The Arizona ballot initiative will legalize all Schedule I drugs for medical use. Schedule I drugs are drugs that have a high potential for abuse and have no currently accepted medical use in treatment. Examples of Schedule I drugs are marijuana, LSD and heroin. Under Arizona's proposition all of these drugs would be essentially legalized for any so-called medical use.

Both of these laws allow for the possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes, however, buying and selling marijuana will remain illegal.

These ballot initiatives were passed through a major disinformation campaign financed by wealthy individuals from outside these states. The billionaire financier George Soros gave over half a million dollars to support these initiatives. Other significant contributors include George Zimmer, president and CEO of the Men's Warehouse clothing store chain, Peter Lewis of The Progressive Corporation Insurance company in Ohio, and John Sperling, CEO of the Apollo Group, a Phoenix holding company for numerous educational institutions.

The true agenda for Prop. 215 and 200 is revealed when you examine the backers of these initiatives. The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Drug Policy Foundation and the Cannabis Buyers Club in San Francisco have spearheaded the passage of the propositions. The radical legalization agenda of these groups leaves little doubt about their broader goal to legalize marijuana and other drugs. As reported in High Times magazine, the director of NORML expressly stated that the medical use of marijuana is an interal part of the strategy to legalize marijuana. A former director of NORML told an Emory University audience that NORML would be using the issue of medicinal marijuana as a red herring to give marijuana a good name.

Social and Cultural Issues:
The medical marijuana movement and its million dollar media campaign have helped contribute to the changing attitude among our youth that marijuana use is harmless. This softening in anti-drug attitudes among teens has led to a 140% increase in marijuana use among high school seniors from 94'-95'.
The pro-legalization organizations behind these ballot initiatives deny that there is a drug problem among our youth. As much as they seek to focus on people suffering with illnesses, we must keep the debate properly centered on the safety of our kids. In a time where drug use among kids has increased 78% in the last four years, this country cannot afford to undermine drug prevention efforts with these pro marijuana ballot initiatives.

The strategy to link marijuana with current legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco is used regularly by the pro-legalization groups. The response to this argument is to state that current use among teens is 50% for alcohol, 34% for tobacco and 19% for marijuana. If we want to see marijuana use among youth equal to alcohol and tobacco, then we should go ahead and legalize marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana would add a third drug that combines some of the most serious risks of alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana offers both the intoxicating effects of alcohol and the long-term lung damage of tobacco.

Tobacco companies similarly advertised cigarettes as medicinal until the Federal Trad Commision put a stop to it in 1955. Medicinal marijuana is the "Joe Camel" of the promarijuana lobby, since it is children, the first time users, who are most impressed by these erroneous health claims.

I'm sure that this will get alot of you all heated up but let's try and keep this on an intelligent level please. 

Now convince me i'm wrong!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 14, 2011)

luisgepeto said:


> We have a huge problem with drugs in Mexico. And it is not only marijuana, but also cocaine, etc. This problem has evolved in the last years, turning every day more violent than the last. The problem with these drug cartels is that their money an power has extended and corrupted the authorities. Recently a sum of 380 BILLION dollars was discovered to be laundred in a foreign bank. An this money came from only ONE cartel.
> I think a way to stop this source of illegal income is by legalizing not only marihuana but other drugs also. This way addicts could be treated both physically and mentally. These people are ill, and they need help. Drugs have ever existed, and will always do. Why not to take advantage of this kind of market and legalize it? This way the government could regulate the sell and consume of these products and receive taxes for it.
> There will always be problems to solve, but I think that the drug problem has gotten out of control (at least here in Mexico, and maybe soon in the USA).Let's stop overreacting and demonizing drug consume. Why accept tobacco and alcohol and not marihuana?. In the end it all comes to a personal decision to consume or not to consume drugs.


 
I would like to extend a sincere apology for what my country's policies have done to your country. I feel terrible for the situation the Mexican people have been put in. I sincerely hope that this is at least a point of debate in the coming elections.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> There are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana#Recent_studies


----------



## TheManInBlack (Apr 14, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana#Recent_studies



Wikipedia? You have to be kidding me, please give a more reliable source.


----------



## Shortey (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Wikipedia? You have to be kidding me, please give a more reliable source.


 
Seriously, how old are you?


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Wikipedia? You have to be kidding me, please give a more reliable source.


 
You should give a more reliable source than *NOTHING*, as you have not cited a single one of your claims so far. You say there are over 10000 studies, shouldn't be too hard to link to one.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Wikipedia? You have to be kidding me, please give a more reliable source.


 
Count the number of sources cited in your tl;dr-tastic "facts". I found 0.


----------



## Rob2109 (Apr 14, 2011)

I voted no. I have a number of friends that have smoked it from their teens and now 15 years later are still smoking it. On the whole they are more withdrawn and prefer to sit indoors doing that rather than out socialising.


----------



## TheManInBlack (Apr 14, 2011)

Shortey said:


> Seriously, how old are you?



Seriously? The question is, How old are you. wikipedia is not a "Source" it is a collection of details written from a person who knows a bit about that subject. A "source" is the main thing, The "Original" content. Not a rehash of the original author. 

Oh and Btw why don't you contribute to the thread instead of asking for an age. I may have copied and pasted, but I agree with avery word I pasted.


----------



## Shortey (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Seriously? The question is, How old are you. wikipedia is not a "Source" it is a collection of details written from a person who knows a bit about that subject. A "source" is the main thing, The "Original" content. Not a rehash of the original author.
> 
> Oh and Btw why don't you contribute to the thread instead of asking for an age. I may have copied and pasted, but I agree with avery word I pasted.


 
I was just wondering. Calm down...

Please link to your sources. 

EDIT:

I might aswell state my point of view on this topic.

Of course it should be legalized. It doesn't matter wheter it hurts you or not. Why should the government care about what you put in your body? I'm also for legalizing every other drug there is on the market.

Legalizing hard drugs like morphin and heroin will reduce the chances of drug users getting HIV. If I recall correctly, there is dispensaries in Norway where you can get clean shots, which is great imo.
People who say that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is totally correct, but then cigarettes and alcohol is also a gateway to drugs.
The study which shows that marijuana kills brain cells are totally wrong. The scientists that found this out are totally retards. They gave monkeys over 30 joints a day sufficating them. And suffication=reduction of brain cells.

To TheManInBlack;
Alcohol doesn't just affect your liver, it kills your brain cells. And you say that you would rather suffer from a dying liver instead of a dying brain. If I were to choose between dying from a dying liver or a dying brain, I would totally go for the brain. Your death will be slow and painful with lots of surgeries if you have a dying liver, and I would think that if your brain was dying you wouldn't suffer a lot.

Sources: The Union.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> wikipedia is not a "Source" it is a collection of details written from a person who knows a bit about that subject. A "source" is the main thing, The "Original" content. Not a rehash of the original author.


 
omg what are all these crazy links at the bottom of the page could they be sources oh my god yes they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana#References


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Seriously? The question is, How old are you. wikipedia is not a "Source" it is a collection of details written from a person who knows a bit about that subject. A "source" is the main thing, The "Original" content. Not a rehash of the original author.
> 
> Oh and Btw why don't you contribute to the thread instead of asking for an age. I may have copied and pasted, but I agree with avery word I pasted.


 
Copying and pasting an insanely long list of disputable facts is not "contributing." Also, I guarantee that you're just some 12 year old who thinks he knows everything, but barely has a grasp on what marijuana actually is.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

Rob2109 said:


> I voted no. I have a number of friends that have smoked it from their teens and now 15 years later are still smoking it. On the whole they are more withdrawn and prefer to sit indoors doing that rather than out socialising.


 
So, you think that they should be in jail? That they should go to prison for years because they make their own choices?! Willingness to socialize isn't related to marijuana at all.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2011)

Bryan said:


> How is the law going to stop them if it's not illegal?


I think you're allowed to sue someone or try to get a restraining order if they are being extremely disruptive and refuse to stop. But hey, I could be wrong!



luisgepeto said:


> We have a huge problem with drugs in Mexico. And it is not only marijuana, but also cocaine, etc. This problem has evolved in the last years, turning every day more violent than the last. The problem with these drug cartels is that their money an power has extended and corrupted the authorities. Recently a sum of 380 BILLION dollars was discovered to be laundred in a foreign bank. An this money came from only ONE cartel.


The economist video linked earlier made a really good point about that - because these drugs are illegal, it takes a lot of money to be able to sell them on a large scale without being sent to jail immediately, so only the big drug cartels can afford to be at the top of the distribution chain. If all drugs were treated like other legal commodities, and addicts were treated instead of imprisoned, I think this problem would almost completely go away.


PS: Why hasn't the troll been perma-banned yet? Serious question, I'm really wondering about this. I don't see anyone enjoying responding to him.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2011)

> Now convince me i'm wrong!


Gladly.



TheManInBlack said:


> There are over *10,000* scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value.


10,000? Cool. 
I'll deal with the second part of this in a second.



> Marijuana is an unstable mixture of more than 425 chemicals that convert to thousands when smoked. Many of these chemicals are toxic, psychoactive chemicals which are *largely unstudied* and appear in uncontrolled strengths.


Interesting. What happened to those 10,000 studies?



> The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana include, but are not limited to the following: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggresiveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system.


Says who? Either way, is there a reason why we shouldn't be able to do what we wish with our own bodies, for better or for worse?



> The Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Public Health Service have rejected smoking crude marijuana as a medicine. Medical marijuana has been promoted for "compassionate use" to assist people with cancer, AIDS and glaucoma. Scientific studies show the opposite is true; marijuana is damaging to individuals with these illnesses. In fact, people suffering with AIDS and glaucoma are being used unfairly by groups whose *real agenda is to legalize marijuana.*


As opposed to their "fake" agenda of... legalizing marijuana?




> AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.
> 
> Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than in tobacco.
> 
> Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma.


If I'm correct, then very few people think that marijuana can truly "cure" diseases. The point is that with patients who have such conditions as terminal cancer, marijuana may help ease their pain more effectively than other conventional pain medications. I detect a strawman argument here.



> Marijuana is currently up to 25 times more potent than it was in the 1960's, making the drug even more addictive.


Addictive how? Most agree that marijuana doesn't create physical dependence. 



> Americans take their medicine in pills, solutions, sprays, shots, drops, creams, and sometimes in suppositories, but never by smoking. No medicine prescribed for us today is smoked.


Cool. Relevance?



> While a biomedical or casual relationship between marijuana and the use of hard drugs has not been established, the statistical association is quite convincing. 12 to 17 year-olds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not. 60% of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use cocaine.


This makes sense, and doesn't necessarily point to anything bad about pot itself. The type of person who seeks out pot just so happens to be the type of person who also seeks out coke- is that really altogether surprising? More importantly, does this have anything to do with pot itself?



> These correlations are many times higher than the initial relationships found between smoking and lung cancer.


Does that mean we should ignore the whole "marijuana damages your health" rant?



> Major medical and health organizations, as well as the vast majority of nationally recognized expert medical doctors, scientists and researchers, have concluded that smoking marijuana is not a safe and effective medicine. These organizations include: the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, National Sclerosis Association, the American Glaucoma Association, American Academy of Opthalmology, National Eye Institute, and the National Cancer Institute.


Terminal cancer patients care very little for safety. They care about spending their last days / weeks / months pain-free.



> In 1994, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug: highly addictive with no medical usefulness. The court noted that the pro-marijuana physicians had relied on non-scientific evidence.


Yes, I suppose that well-reasoned philosophical appeals to the expansion of personal liberty are "non-scientific".



> The California ballot initiative will make marijuana available without a written prescription, bypassing all established medical guidelines for dispensing drugs. The Arizona ballot initiative will legalize all Schedule I drugs for medical use. Schedule I drugs are drugs that have a high potential for abuse and have no currently accepted medical use in treatment. Examples of Schedule I drugs are marijuana, LSD and heroin. Under Arizona's proposition all of these drugs would be essentially legalized for any so-called medical use.


The problem being?



> These ballot initiatives were passed through a major disinformation campaign financed by wealthy individuals from outside these states. The billionaire financier George Soros gave over half a million dollars to support these initiatives. Other significant contributors include George Zimmer, president and CEO of the Men's Warehouse clothing store chain, Peter Lewis of The Progressive Corporation Insurance company in Ohio, and John Sperling, CEO of the Apollo Group, a Phoenix holding company for numerous educational institutions.


I don't know much about these particular ballot initiatives... but this, this, and this are all Prop 19 advertisements, and contain zero misinformation.



> The true agenda for Prop. 215 and 200 is revealed when you examine the backers of these initiatives. The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Drug Policy Foundation and the Cannabis Buyers Club in San Francisco have spearheaded the passage of the propositions. *The radical legalization agenda of these groups leaves little doubt about their broader goal to legalize marijuana and other drugs*. As reported in High Times magazine, the director of NORML expressly stated that the medical use of marijuana is an interal part of the strategy to legalize marijuana. A former director of NORML told an Emory University audience that NORML would be using the issue of medicinal marijuana as a red herring to give marijuana a good name.


Yes, this seems rather obvious. Problem?




> If we want to see marijuana use among youth equal to alcohol and tobacco, then we should go ahead and legalize marijuana.


Legalizing marijuana means that the government can more easily control it with minimum ages, taxes, etc. I suspect that the number of pot smokers under 18 would decrease with its legalization, rather than increase.



> Legalizing marijuana would add a third drug that combines some of the most serious risks of alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana offers both the intoxicating effects of alcohol and the long-term lung damage of tobacco.


Several things wrong with this. You're allowing people to smoke tobacco and drink beer anyway, so your appeal to personal health is rather nonsensical. Plus, there's no reason why people should be barred from hurting themselves anyway.
On a separate note, the only reason why people should care about the "intoxicating" effects of alcohol and pot are the potential dangers someone poses to others while they're intoxicated, especially while they're driving. No one is stupid enough to suggest legalizing marijuana without introducing legislation that would prevent someone from driving high. 
And, the link between pot and lung cancer is dubious. 



> Tobacco companies similarly advertised cigarettes as medicinal until the Federal Trad Commision put a stop to it in 1955. Medicinal marijuana is the "Joe Camel" of the promarijuana lobby, since it is children, the first time users, who are most impressed by these erroneous health claims.


This, like everything else relating to health, is basically irrelevant to what we're talking about. The subject of the thread and the wider discussion generally speaking is recreational use. Its lack of positive health affects (disregarding the obvious comfort it might lend to terminally ill patients) and potentially adverse health effects aren't important unless you're suggesting that the government should keep pot illegal solely on the basis of its health concerns. Big brother much?

Also, I'm almost positive that you copied this from an article you found online. I don't know where you got it, but I suggest you credit your source, rather than mindlessly copy and pasting. 

Apart from the intellectual dishonesty, you also chose the wrong article to rip off. Whoever wrote what you posted seems to have been writing against medicinal marijuana, not recreational. Try again.



> I'm sure that this will get alot of you all heated up but let's try and keep this on an intelligent level please.


Sir, yes sir.

Edit: Okay epically ninja'd on a couple of these points. They still stand though.


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

Rob2109 said:


> I voted no. I have a number of friends that have smoked it from their teens and now 15 years later are still smoking it. On the whole they are more withdrawn and prefer to sit indoors doing that rather than out socialising.


 
Correlation does not imply causation. Even so, who are you to tell them what to enjoy? Sounds like they're perfectly harmless.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

TheMainInBlack's argument:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=marijuana+should+not+be+legal+because&l=1

LOOK AT THE *FIRST GODDAMNED LINK*!!!! AHAAAAAAA!
Nice argument, but I'm afraid a 10 second Google search doesn't replace intelligence nor does it replace logic.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Apr 14, 2011)

omg 4/20 coming up


----------



## Dene (Apr 14, 2011)

Shortey said:


> it should be legalized. It doesn't matter wheter it hurts you or not. Why should the government care about what you put in your body? I'm also for legalizing every other drug there is on the market.


 
Because of the effects that it can have on third parties.



Kirjava said:


> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to do this?



Actually, I have absolutely no problem with people bumming off as long as they are officially outcasted from society and are forced to fend for themselves.



UnAbusador said:


> Every single friend I have drinks alcohol to some degree, I haven't met the first full abstinent.


 
Here I am



qqwref said:


> I agree that psychological dependence can really ruin lives, but considering that it can occur for pretty much anything enjoyable (sex, food, shopping, even things like internet use), it would be hilariously inconsistent to say that marijuana should be illegal because this is a risk.


 
Indeed it would be hilariously inconsistent. Luckily no one has yet suggested that.


And a general comment to people that are essentially saying "but what about the negative consequences of alcohol... it's way worse than weed?" Well I'm pretty sure you can all anticipate my response to that.


----------



## Speedsolver (Apr 14, 2011)

You should not:

Once legalized, the amount of weed addicts will increase, which is not good, since it will ruin more lives and families. Of course, those that consume weed and are in good social status won’t agree with this because it hasn’t really affected their lives. Some persons may become addicted, some may not. Most of you guys who are weed users aren’t I believe.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 14, 2011)

once legalized we don't get more users. compare new York and Amsterdam


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

Speedsolver said:


> You should not:
> 
> Once legalized, the amount of weed addicts will increase, which is not good, since it will ruin more lives and families.


 
Funny how almost every real world example contradicts this assertion.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> Actually, I have absolutely no problem with people bumming off as long as they are officially outcasted from society and are forced to fend for themselves.



That's the most ****ed up view I've ever heard! I smoke weed pretty often, should I be vaporized, just pushed off the face of the Earth? Weed isn't NEARLY as bad as you make it out to be! Many people are lazy and drag on society, but if they smoke weed they should be "officially outcasted." And have fun trying to enforce that, too! I'm only 15 and I could get weed at the snap of my fingers, so obviously the law doesn't work at preventing use.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

waffle=ijm said:


> omg 4/20 coming up


 
I wish my spring break in school covered it, but I'll have to be sober on 4/20. Damn school! Can't wait for my first real super-green-day. XD


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2011)

Dene, correct me if I'm wrong, but your arguments seem to stem from two major points: that pot users tend to be unproductive (precisely because of pot), and that they can negatively affect those around them.

To the first point: surely you don't think that all pot users are useless to society? I'd agree that a higher percentage of them are in comparison to the average population, but what if that's the result of other factors? For instance, pot users by definition subvert the law as things stand now, because pot is illegal in the United States (is it also in New Zealand? I assume so). The pot-user demographic is therefore limited to people comfortable with breaking the law. This is largely the problem with the whole "gateway drug" argument as well. People who use pot might be likely to use other drugs, but it wasn't necessarily the pot that made them that way. People who use pot might be more likely to be useless bums, but it wasn't necessarily the pot that made them that way. Legalizing pot wouldn't, therefore, necessarily worsen the problem.

To your second point: I think that the sad reality is that irrespective of whatever restrictions governments place on drugs like pot, they'll still be used. Just look at alcohol. Yes, I gather from your post that you believe that alcohol should be illegalized as well, but as I'm sure you know this has been attempted in the past and it failed. Rather epically. Why? Because people will do whatever they need to buy alcohol, or pot, regardless of the law.

The problem is that when it's illegal, the government can't regulate it. Can't establish minimum ages, driving laws, etc. The problematic affects of pot on "third parties" is, I suspect, due in large part to the inability of government to intervene because they've illegalized it.


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 14, 2011)

LEGALIZE!!!

People that dont smoke are pretty ignorant 
I hear people say all the time

"im never gonna smoke weed I dont wanna lose my brain cells"
"I dont wanna get addicted and become a pothead" 
"I dont wanna die from doing weed"
and stuff like that 
A while back they did a test where they Hotboxed 3 monkeys(for those non smokers out there it means your in a small place for example a car and smoke in it and keep the windows up so all the smoke stays in) anyway they did the study and they didn' any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year
As for is being addictive thats bullsh*t. There is no nicotin in it unlike tobacco which is addictive. its like saying you can get addicted to alcohol or even eating a bag of chips You can't get addicted to "Marijuana" itself because of the absence of nicotine. People get addicted you the way it makes you feel.

As for dying from inhaling cannabis ....again bullsh*t the only way you can prob die from marijuana is smoking more than your body weight which I never heard of anyone even coming close to smoking that amount.
People are to ingnorant to realize that MORE people die from smoking tobacco products than smoking Marijuana


----------



## gundamslicer (Apr 14, 2011)

Wouldn't legalizing it cause more car accidents and stupid things to happen?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 14, 2011)

gundamslicer said:


> Wouldn't legalizing it cause more car accidents and stupid things to happen?


 
Yes exactly because the people who would want to legalise it would be too stoned and not realise that they made it legal to smoke and drive too HAHA THE FOOLS.


----------



## gundamslicer (Apr 14, 2011)

Ya but it causes hallucinations


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 14, 2011)

gundamslicer said:


> Wouldn't legalizing it cause more car accidents and stupid things to happen?



I hope you not serious. Marijuana does not impair you vision


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> Actually, I have absolutely no problem with people bumming off as long as they are officially outcasted from society and are forced to fend for themselves.


 
Totally agree with you. Being lazy should be illegal.


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 14, 2011)

gundamslicer said:


> Ya but it causes hallucinations



are you guys for real right now? cause it dosn't cause people to hallucinations


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 14, 2011)

Anonymous said:


> As much as I appreciate your satire, do you think maybe the spam should be... reduced?
> I know it's not actually spam, but you could present your parodies in a less spammy form.


 
I agree


----------



## Escher (Apr 14, 2011)

Joemamma556 said:


> are you guys for real right now? cause it dosn't cause people to hallucinations


 
AK47 causes people to hallucinate. Trust me.


----------



## deadalnix (Apr 14, 2011)

Speedsolver said:


> Once legalized, the amount of weed addicts will increase, which is not good, since it will ruin more lives and families.


 
Please, seriously, rely on FACTS instead of saying ********.

Few posts ago, I was explaining that in europe, France is one of the contries with the most repressive law against marijuana, and also the one where people smokes the most. Your sentence may actually soinds correct on a first inspection, but actually isn't realted to any real life fact.


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 14, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> Please, seriously, rely on FACTS instead of saying ********.
> 
> Few posts ago, I was explaining that in europe, France is one of the contries with the most repressive law against marijuana, and also the one where people smokes the most. Your sentence may actually soinds correct on a first inspection, but actually isn't realted to any real life fact.


 
Most of these facts are from the Ignorance of the movie Reefer madness


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 14, 2011)

xFear of Napalm said:


> That's the most ****ed up view I've ever heard! I smoke weed pretty often, should I be vaporized, just pushed off the face of the Earth? Weed isn't NEARLY as bad as you make it out to be! Many people are lazy and drag on society, but if they smoke weed they should be "officially outcasted." And have fun trying to enforce that, too! I'm only 15 and I could get weed at the snap of my fingers, so obviously the law doesn't work at preventing use.


 
You must be high right now, because you completely missed what he was saying.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> You must be high right now, because you completely missed what he was saying.


 
What exactly is he saying? You tell me, because I'm obviously missing the point...

And no, I'm not high.


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

gundamslicer said:


> Ya but it causes hallucinations


 
Mmm no.


----------



## deadalnix (Apr 14, 2011)

Joemamma556 said:


> Most of these facts are from the Ignorance of the movie Reefer madness


 
I don't know your film, but lived in many european contry and know what's the real habbits of populations. Lots of documents can show the same, as an exemple : http://www.drugwatch.org/Cannabis statistics Europe.htm


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 14, 2011)

xFear of Napalm said:


> What exactly is he saying? You tell me, because I'm obviously missing the point...
> 
> And no, I'm not high.


 He said he wants lazy people who bum off others, to be outcasted.
You instantly took that as "People who smoke pot should be outcasted!"


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 14, 2011)

right but dene also thinks that people that smoke pot are lazy people who bum off others...


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> He said he wants lazy people who bum off others, to be outcasted.
> You instantly took that as "People who smoke pot should be outcasted!"


 
Well, the debate is about marijuana, and he is referring to marijuana use. 

Originally Posted by Kirjava: "Who are you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to do this?"

("this" meaning marijuana)

He said: "Actually, I have absolutely no problem with people bumming off as long as they are officially outcasted from society and are forced to fend for themselves."

("bumming off" used to rhetorically refer to marijuana)

I think I understood him just fine.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 14, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> right but dene also thinks that people that smoke pot are lazy people who bum off others...


 That doesn't mean that he wants all pot smokers to be outcasted. He specifically wants lazy people to be outcasted. If pot causes you to become lazy bum, than you should be outcasted, not because of the pot, but because you became a lazy bum.






xFear of Napalm said:


> Well, the debate is about marijuana, and he is referring to marijuana use.
> 
> Originally Posted by Kirjava: "Who are you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to do this?"
> 
> ("this" meaning marijuana)


No, I don't believe he meant marijuana by saying "this." I think he meant what he quoted, "start bumming off and becoming a burden."








> He said: "Actually, I have absolutely no problem with people bumming off as long as they are officially outcasted from society and are forced to fend for themselves."
> 
> ("bumming off" used to rhetorically refer to marijuana)


 No. Bumming off is usually used to mean literally people who are bumming off.
Did you really just substitute the words "bumming off" with "marijuana users?"





But, I could be completely wrong about what Kir and Dene meant.


----------



## maggot (Apr 14, 2011)

i dont really care about studies, i care about my own personal experience. someone quoted from wiki about [insert random statistic] smoking weed => hard drug use. 

what i'd like to say about this is not so much the strength of the validity of the statistic. think about teenagers. a lot of the things that they are accomplishing in their lives (highschool, development of social interactions including relationships) are very important, amongst many other things. the decisions for not smoking weed for teens imho are just as important for abstinence (or at least safe sex, but safe sex is just imho a gateway drug to unsafe sex). not that i was so smart to stay away from these things, and yet i am fine now, but this is not the case for everyone.

for cigarettes, 18 is the law to purchase cigarettes, but how many people have picked up this bad habit in their teens? the fact is that it is not illegal to smoke, they're not even illegal to purchase, only illegal for the sale of cigarettes or 3rd party purchase of cigarettes. if a minor decides to purchase cigarettes, it is the suppliers responsibility to enforce laws. sometimes this isnt followed (mom and pops corner shops). also, the same thing with liquor. with any kind of legalization of weed, this just makes it more available.

i believe that weed is a gateway drug in a much more dangerous way from alcohol. for many people, weed is more tolerable. for most, it makes them feel silly, sleepy, horny, hungry. and it doesnt have any kind of specific required taste. and it doesnt have a high chance for bad situations (getting sick from being too drunk, blacking out, doing dangerous things like driving, aggression issues, for women being taken advantage of) some hard drugs have a low tolerance and there are some out there that dont and are very dangerous. also, if tried once with no kind of adverse effect, what is stopping them from trying again? the good thing about alcohol is that typically when a teen has a bad experience, they QUICKLY learn to stay within reasonable limits. same thing would most likely happen with hard drugs, but there is chemical dependence issues. so, while i think weed is fairly harmless physically; psychologically and socially it can be very detrimental to a child who doesnt really understand right from wrong and they let curiosity get the best of them. 

i am not sure about my stand on decriminalization. i think i side a little with kirjava's statement about amsterdam. i believe that with easy access (regardless of any kind of regulations) that people would abuse weed more and other drugs would become an issue amongst everyone (heavy concern for teens) i dont care about what other countries statistics are or studies, it will happen. a lot of these studies look at hard drug abuse as a whole, not the specific target of age groups. im sure if you look at the studies, the overall hard drug use might have went down, but im sure the teen age group and young adult age group would show different results. the curiosity in teens might go down, but it will still be there, only the accessibility will be higher. thats all. . 

dont say that there isnt such thing as weed abuse or that weed abuse doesnt have adverse effects on society. if you think that, you are stupid. yes, STUPID. there are people who are addicted psychologically to the effects of weed usage and they smoke weed everyday. im assuming (with a huge insight) that a good percentage of these people are not productive to society, hell, i probably pay their government assistance checks in my taxes (not another welfare debate, as i have a specific stand on this topic as well) with increased access would just promote adverse societal effects (amsterdam) i think weed usage in its basic form, IN MODERATION, in a socially positive environment (much like social alcohol consumption in moderation) is ACCEPTABLE, but legalized, no. i dont have a problem with weed, but i cant say legalize it with all of the negative things that come from it. i also have kids and i could not imagine having my children growing up in a household in which smoking weed was acceptable.


----------



## ianography (Apr 14, 2011)

I voted yes because people are going to use it no matter what, and not legalizing it is stupid.


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 14, 2011)

maggot said:


> the decisions for not smoking weed for teens imho are just as important for abstinence (or at least safe sex, but safe sex is just imho a gateway drug to unsafe sex).


 
i stopped reading here. lol


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

You do realize the the gateway effect of marijuana is almost entirely due to its prohibition in the first place, right? If it was legal then people wouldn't be going into alleys and buying it from the same people that sell heroin.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

maggot said:


> i think i side a little with kirjava's statement about amsterdam.



You do know what sarcasm is, and who kirjava is, right? (You definitely don't.)



maggot said:


> i think weed usage in its basic form, IN MODERATION, in a socially positive environment (much like social alcohol consumption in moderation) is ACCEPTABLE, but legalized, no.



So, It's morally acceptable, but it's still okay to give people prison sentences for having it? Is that what you're saying? (I assume so, seeing how you did say it.)


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> But, I could be completely wrong about what Kir and Dene meant.


 
Well, you are.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 14, 2011)

xFear of Napalm said:


> Well, you are.


 How can you be so arrogant?


----------



## aronpm (Apr 14, 2011)

Joemamma556 said:


> People that dont smoke are pretty ignorant


 
ಠ_ಠ


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

Wow. I didn't expect anyone to actually take Kirjava's trolling seriously. Pretty pathetic lol.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2011)

riffz said:


> You do realize the the gateway effect of marijuana is almost entirely due to its prohibition in the first place, right? If it was legal then people wouldn't be going into alleys and buying it from the same people that sell heroin.


As Milton Friedman was saying - pot is relatively big/bulky, so it's easier to get caught. I'm sure a lot of people figure that, if they're going to be breaking the law anyway, they might as well make themselves harder to catch by trying one of the more potent and dangerous ones (which provide more intense highs, too).

I gotta say, though, the entire "gateway drug" theory rests on a pretty shaky premise. Caffeine is a drug too, and how many coffee/tea drinkers do you know who decided to start using meth or heroin because of how much they liked the caffeine? It makes more sense to assume that certain people want a certain level/strength of high and will try different drugs until they find one that's strong enough, than to assume that a small amount of pleasure will make people want to go for extreme and deadly thrills.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 14, 2011)

riffz said:


> Wow. I didn't expect anyone to actually take Kirjava's trolling seriously. Pretty pathetic lol.


 
I did, that's why I deleted all of it.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 14, 2011)

maggot said:


> i dont really care about studies



It is for this reason why I won't even bother tearing apart everything you posted. If you don't care to look at evidence provided by people who spend an extremely large amount of their time trying to find answers, then why should I even bother.

I will, however, say a bit about this:



maggot said:


> the decisions for not smoking weed for teens imho are just as important for abstinence (or at least safe sex, but safe sex is just imho a gateway drug to unsafe sex)



Haha wait what? Alright first of all, being forced upon to be abstinent by either society or religion or parents or whatever is not good. At all. This merely forces those who wish to partake in such activities to do so in secrecy. Secrecy often means those partaking could have a lack of knowledge and resources to have safe sex. Now abstinence is the "gateway drug" to unsafe sex. With proper knowledge and resources, safe sex is not even close to being a "gateway" to unsafe sex. Why a 16 year old has to explain this to someone who has kids is beyond me, but it is done.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (Apr 14, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> If you don't care to look at evidence provided by people who spend an extremely large amount of their time trying to find answers, then why should I even bother.


 
No one here actually spent time to really research their answers. And also, studies are usually inconsistent compared to the experiences of the masses of people who smoke marijuana.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Apr 14, 2011)

Smoking da heeeeeeeerb


----------



## Systemdertoten (Apr 14, 2011)

Honduras, just like Mexico, is torn apart by conflicts by drug traffic groups, so I voted Yes.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 14, 2011)

To me, outside sources that affect your judgement should generally be avoided. Whether marijuana is one of these things or not, I haven't been convinced. Not having done a whole lot of research into the issue, most what I've heard is fairly conflicting, keeping me from making a stance on the personal effects of using marijuana.

Now, from a legal and economic viewpoint, it makes a lot of sense to legalize marijuana. Along with all the other reasons previously mentioned in this thread, it's already too late to stop people from using marijuana, so it's just a waste of effort and money to try.


----------



## maggot (Apr 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> i stopped reading here. lol


what i mean by this, it is important for kids not to get involved with these kind of things, to not continue reading is ignorant in its own sense. it shows that you only agree with your own opinion. and it also shows you shouldnt have such a pro-weed stand, because you have the mentality of a child. 



riffz said:


> You do realize the the gateway effect of marijuana is almost entirely due to its prohibition in the first place, right? If it was legal then people wouldn't be going into alleys and buying it from the same people that sell heroin.


yeah, right. so i guess peer pressure and the actual feeling of being high has nothing to do with it being a gateway drug? or that because its illegal and i have to buy from a drug dealer that its more of a gateway? what about 'dealers' that ONLY sell pot? im sure you know a few of those... i know i do. 



xFear of Napalm said:


> You do know what sarcasm is, and who kirjava is, right? (You definitely don't.)
> 
> 
> So, It's morally acceptable, but it's still okay to give people prison sentences for having it? Is that what you're saying? (I assume so, seeing how you did say it.)


i sure do know who kirjava is. and i know what sarcasm is. but his statement has a sarcastic flaw. and actually xFear of Napalm gives the answer himself. studies are usually inconsistent compared to the experiences of the the masses of people who smoke marijuana. so, where the us (in comparison to GDP) spends considerably less in welfare provisions than the netherlands. so, while you might not see them on the street, you see it in the budget. 


sure its morally acceptable to me personally. if someone decides to do it, its their own perogative. i used to smoke weed too, so this is the angle im coming from. but when i think of my kids, i dont think its right for them. im a cool dad, so hopefully when that time comes, im not going to stop them, and hopefully i have equipped them with the right decision making skills not to go any further than that. im not going to be the parent who smokes around my children to show them that it is acceptable. 



riffz said:


> Wow. I didn't expect anyone to actually take Kirjava's trolling seriously. Pretty pathetic lol.


well, i did take it seriously. people think amsterdam is all roses because of their drug numbers and crime numbers. they also have a rising demand for drug addiction rehab support (government funded), and rising amounts of police investigation for hard and soft drugs. how much is going unenforced? and who pays for enforcement? taxpayers. and not to mention again, the welfare. i wonder why? because they have a bunch of disabled people? haha yeah right. 



PatrickJameson said:


> It is for this reason why I won't even bother tearing apart everything you posted. If you don't care to look at evidence provided by people who spend an extremely large amount of their time trying to find answers, then why should I even bother.
> 
> I will, however, say a bit about this:
> 
> ...


 
where did i say that we should force abstinence? i feel it is important for kids to refrain from sex, but making the decision on their own. i would never force my child into secrecy for anything. also, the reason why i dont CARE to look at studies is because you're opinions have summed them up for me to an exaggerated extent. just because weed might be ok with medical studies, social studies, it doesnt really face the reality of what it actually is. i hardly see how it would benefit society, other than giving more time for government officials to attack REAL issues, having less people in prison (although decriminalization could help it), and money from taxes (although all that will probably be spent on enforcement, welfare, and government assisted rehab)


----------



## qqwref (Apr 15, 2011)

maggot said:


> you have the mentality of a child.


Let's see if we can do this without insulting each other, mm? And it's certainly reasonable to ignore the rest of a post when you think that reading any further would only be a waste of time.



maggot said:


> when i think of my kids, i dont think its right for them. im a cool dad, so hopefully when that time comes, im not going to stop them, and hopefully i have equipped them with the right decision making skills not to go any further than that. im not going to be the parent who smokes around my children to show them that it is acceptable.


Nobody is suggesting young children should be doing pot, so I'm not sure why you posted this. I think most people see there being an age limit, like there is with smoking and drinking.



maggot said:


> i feel it is important for kids to refrain from sex


(assuming you mean "kids" as "between puberty and 18 or so" here) Why? It's well known that many problems are caused by lack of understanding of sex (and to really understand the issues some part of sex education needs to be, ahem, hands-on). Like almost anything else, sex can be done responsibly and safely; I don't see the point of asking people to forego even that, especially when beginning to be interested in that sort of thing is a natural and well nigh universal part of human development.



maggot said:


> i hardly see how it would benefit society, other than giving more time for government officials to attack REAL issues, having less people in prison (although decriminalization could help it), and money from taxes (although all that will probably be spent on enforcement, welfare, and government assisted rehab)


Those are all worthwhile causes - certainly more benefits than you get out of a typical piece of big-impact legislation. PS: we already spend a ton of money on pot enforcement, and as far as I know there is no need for a marijuana rehab program, since it's not physically addictive.


----------



## caseyd (Apr 15, 2011)

so many people say its not addictive, and it should be legalized, but cigarrettes are legal and VERY addictive, so why are they allowed anyway?


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 15, 2011)

because people like them and buy them and pay 2$ tax on them per pack.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Apr 15, 2011)

I'd rather be exposed to marijuana smoke than tobacco smoke. I think if tobacco products are legal, then marijuana should be. It seems to me like tobacco is more dangerous than marijuana. Even if marijuana isn't legal, people won't follow the rules anyway. Just for example, there are signs all over the city here saying that there's no smoking within 9 meters (Yes, they are city bylaws). People smoke directly in front of those signs, and I have to walk right through the smoke to get inside. My mom does too, and she's quite allergic to tobacco smoke.


----------



## crashdummy001 (Apr 15, 2011)

If someone overuses marijuana or other drugs and needs immediate medical care, but they have no money (spent it on the drugs), should they eat into taxpayers' tax money to get medical treatment? This is not a victimless crime!


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 15, 2011)

in america you don't get free healthcare. You get a bill and debt.


----------



## maggot (Apr 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Let's see if we can do this without insulting each other, mm? And it's certainly reasonable to ignore the rest of a post when you think that reading any further would only be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> Nobody is suggesting young children should be doing pot, so I'm not sure why you posted this. I think most people see there being an age limit, like there is with smoking and drinking.
> ...


 
ok, to rpotts i apologize. but only because i'd screw a dog and hes LOL. 

i didnt suggest you think my kids should or shouldnt smoke pot. im saying, as a parent, i dont want my kids to smoke pot, hopefully. but even with the age limit on cigarettes and liquor, we still have plenty of drinking and smoking kids. and they typically go to these before weed, only because they are so available. 

if they're going to have sex, yeah hopefully they are educated.. but that doesnt mean that we dont make poor decisions without fully understanding the consequences. . so, presume my daughter is educated about sex, but maybe at the time the guy doesnt like the condom mid dance and she gets knocked up. well, they dont fully understand what the responsibility means. . and i think they should refrain until they can handle that responsibility to the fullest. 

marijuana rehab program: no such thing. but for some reason amsterdam is having ever increasing demands for rehab programs, their enforcement is spending ever increasing time investigating drug cases (hard and soft), and for some reason they dish out more welfare (more disabled people in need? i wonder. .) and dont ask me to show reference. just look it up. for enforcement, yes, the percentage is higher because of lower other crime, but they still spend heavy $$$ on regulation.

edit: in america, in the near future, if you are jobless, you will still have medical coverage.


----------



## Kian (Apr 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> in america you don't get free healthcare. You get a bill and debt.


 
explain to me how taxing you and borrowing more money to fund socialized medicine is different from that.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 15, 2011)

maggot said:


> where did i say that we should force abstinence? i feel it is important for kids to refrain from sex, but making the decision on their own. i would never force my child into secrecy for anything.



Meh, I feel the feeling that teens should refrain from having sex is cause for many to do stuff in secrecy. I say sex it up, but know what you're doing. People should openly provide knowledge and resources without society saying you shouldn't.



maggot said:


> also, the reason why i dont CARE to look at studies is because you're opinions have summed them up for me to an exaggerated extent. just because weed might be ok with medical studies, social studies, it doesnt really face the reality of what it actually is. i hardly see how it would benefit society, other than giving more time for government officials to attack REAL issues, having less people in prison (although decriminalization could help it), and money from taxes (although all that will probably be spent on enforcement, welfare, and government assisted rehab)



To continue what qq said in response to this: I hardly see how hard covers on books benefit society. Let's make it illegal.


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 15, 2011)

maggot said:


> ok, to rpotts i apologize. but only because i'd screw a dog and hes LOL.



lol i don't deserve an apology, you have your opinion and i don't think you were rude. thanks anyway



> i didnt suggest you think my kids should or shouldnt smoke pot. im saying, as a parent, i dont want my kids to smoke pot, hopefully. but even with the age limit on cigarettes and liquor, we still have plenty of drinking and smoking kids. and they typically go to these before weed, only because they are so available.



i started smoking weed 5 years before i drank (other than sips at dinner) and 7 years before i started smoking cigarettes. Weed is far more readily available to youth because you can go to a dealer and get illegal drugs regardless of your age or mental state. I couldn't get cigarettes or liquor on my own, but i could get weed and mushrooms and other drugs because they are illegal.



> edit: in america, in the near future, if you are jobless, you will still have medical coverage.


only because you will be forced to buy medical coverage whether you want it or can afford it.



Kian said:


> explain to me how taxing you and borrowing more money to fund socialized medicine is different from that.



I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. Taxing and borrowing money to fund social healthcare is different than getting a bill from a private hospital. You have a choice on where to get medical care, you don't have a choice about getting taxed.


----------



## maggot (Apr 15, 2011)

the first thing i did was smoke a cigarette. because my friends mom smoked and he took cigarettes from her. then i drank. because my parents had sake and beer in the fridge. i think these methods are even easier than getting weed from a dealer, especially at a young age. also, there was always the older cousin/brother/friend to buy cigarettes/liquor for me. its easy to be a teen and parents are having a party or whatever and you can have beer, or maybe you take a 'soda' from the 'adult cooler' on 'accident'. its easy to do things in secrecy, but for me, just behind my parents back was fine enough.


----------



## Dene (Apr 15, 2011)

Lol people arguing over what I said.



xFear of Napalm said:


> That's the most ****ed up view I've ever heard! I smoke weed pretty often, should I be vaporized, just pushed off the face of the Earth? Weed isn't NEARLY as bad as you make it out to be! Many people are lazy and drag on society, but if they smoke weed they should be "officially outcasted." And have fun trying to enforce that, too! I'm only 15 and I could get weed at the snap of my fingers, so obviously the law doesn't work at preventing use.



This is what Dene said and meant: people that are bumming off should be officially outcasted from society. The connection to the topic of marijuana is obviously that people who are smoking weed tend to contribute more to the population of those that are bumming off.

And you miss the point I am trying to make when you mention that you can get weed easily. Anyone can, and why not? It's just a plant. But please take it elsewhere. I think the Netherlands is a good example of this, assuming my impression of the country is accurate. It appears to me that most of the druggies etc. are in Amsterdam. At least, this is what is conveyed in the popular media. Regardless of the accuracy of this, it would still be a good example of what I would like to see. Basically, people that want to be involved in drugs/alcohol etc. and just lazy people in general (non-contributors) can go and live in a place set aside by the owner of the land (the government, basically) where they can do whatever they want. If they choose to live there then they do not get the privileges provided by living in that country etc. Then we'll see how well they flourish.

Now obviously this would not stop people from sneaking alcohol or drugs or whatever into their own homes, but at least this would be hidden from the rest of us that don't want to be involved. As long as one is contributing positively I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home. But as soon as a druggy starts becoming a lazy bum or an alcoholic starts beating their family, they have to go. 

Fair enough?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Save money on drug enforcement, cut down on gang activity, increase safety (drug is more regulated -> less likely to have dangerous additives), keep millions of nonviolent "criminals" out of prison, get extra money from taxes, etc. And all that for the price of... oh wait, no, pot *doesn't* cause lots of extra deaths from car accidents and overdoses. Looking at it logically I really don't see a lot of downsides to legalization.


 These are essentially my thoughts.
"Yes."


----------



## blade740 (Apr 15, 2011)

Ah, is it that time of year again? 

I voted yes. Cannabis has been proven to be safer than other legal drugs, like tobacco and alcohol. It's also a hell of a lot safer than the vast majority of pharmaceuticals, both prescription and over-the-counter. Even Aspirin kills thousands each year, while there hasn't been a single death attributed to cannabis overdose. As a matter of fact, it's basically impossible to overdose on cannabis, as you'd have to smoke a ridiculous amount in a short period of time (the numbers change every time I hear it, but let's just say it's measured in pounds/minutes). 

The "gateway effect" is speculation at best. Cannabis is one of the "softest" illegal drugs, and so it makes sense that anyone who does harder drugs started there. Prohibition means that most cannabis users know an illegal drug dealer, so other drugs are much more available than if cannabis were to be legalized. Plus, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those drug users tried alcohol first, but nobody's calling that a "gateway drug".

Recent scientific studies have shown that those who smoke cannabis but NOT tobacco actually have LOWER rates of lung cancer than those who smoke neither! In fact, there have even been studies where cannabinoids significantly shrunk tumors and extended the lifespan of mice. This page lists several scientific studies, if you don't believe me.

@Chris: 
Your story is very interesting to me. I've never heard of this effect, although it sounds like you've been fairly scientific with your analysis. I agree that children should not be exposed to secondhand smoke, as with tobacco. 

At the end of the day, the prohibition of cannabis causes MUCH more harm than good. With nonviolent, victimless offenders being imprisoned by the thousands, and deadly drug wars in many Latin American countries, I see no valid reason to continue. Cannabis is less harmful than thousands of legal substances, and helps millions throughout the world, both medically and recreationally.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> you don't have a choice about getting taxed.


 
Um, America was founded on the idea that you should have a say in how you get taxed.


----------



## ScarletFlax (Apr 15, 2011)

Hello.. I'm new to this site, and I stumbled upon this topic and decided to add my 2 cents.

One way to look at it is by comparing it to salvia. In the United States, salvia is not a banned substance, but marijuana is. Both can be potentially dangerous, and plenty of people have had adverse effects from their use (health effects, doing something wreckless while high, etc.)

The way I see it.. marijuana can remain illegal, in which case tons of people will continue to use it anyway. If it is made legal, slightly more people will use it, but not by much. Its dangers and adverse effects will still be present despite legalization.

Personally, I do not, and have never used it, and have no desire to in the future. I am relatively indifferent on its legalization because I do not think that it will appreciably change society for better or worse.


----------



## Adrian (Apr 15, 2011)

ScarletFlax said:


> Hello.. I'm new to this site, and I stumbled upon this topic and decided to add my 2 cents.
> 
> One way to look at it is by comparing it to salvia. In the United States, salvia is not a banned substance, but marijuana is. Both can be potentially dangerous, and plenty of people have had adverse effects from their use (health effects, doing something wreckless while high, etc.)
> 
> ...


 
It will improve society. Look at portugal's drug decriminalization. Drug related crimes have dropped and the age at which the age of kids exposed to drugs has risen from a low age \to higher ages.

I don't know if someone has pointed this out in this thread (havent read anything) but decriminalizing marijuana exposes people less to hard drugs because they are not getting marijuana from somewhere where other hard drugs are dealt with.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 15, 2011)

TheManInBlack said:


> Marijuana should stay illegal, The next thing we need is more potheads in this country (United States). This drug effects the brain after continued use, over a period of time. Im not saying alcohol doesn't (and I'm against alcohol as well). But id rather have a dying liver than a dying brain.
> Also cubers did you know that long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction, i.e., compulsive drug-seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities, Such as speed solving a puzzle. Yeah, no 10 second times if you have been solving and smoking a while. Some of my buddies tell me its better than smoking a cigarette. Smoking pure cannabis is more harmful to lungs than tobacco. But did you know a study by the British Lung Foundation found that just three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes. Thats right.
> I have no respect for potheads, they are criminals. The same goes for alcoholics, and such.
> 
> ...


 
You are just full of ********, what are your personal experiences? Ah, you read about it somewhere, I see 

Ever heard of Hearst?

He was the one who planted that crap into your head.


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 15, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Um, America was founded on the idea that you should have a say in how you get taxed.


you don't have a say in whether you get taxed.



ScarletFlax said:


> One way to look at it is by comparing it to salvia. In the United States,* salvia is not a banned substance*, but marijuana is. Both can be potentially dangerous, and plenty of people have had adverse effects from their use (health effects, *doing something wreckless while high*, etc.)


salvia is banned in the following states - 
Delaware Florida Hawaii Illinois Kansas Kentucky Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota Virginia
source
source

people act more recklessly under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## Speedsolver (Apr 15, 2011)

d4m4s74 said:


> once legalized we don't get more users. compare new York and Amsterdam



You sure? Then, why have they been banning coffee shops in Netherlands?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 15, 2011)

crashdummy001 said:


> If someone overuses marijuana or other drugs and needs immediate medical care, but they have no money (spent it on the drugs), should they eat into taxpayers' tax money to get medical treatment? This is not a victimless crime!


 
You can't overdose on marijuana. It isn't possible.


----------



## Bapao (Apr 15, 2011)

> assuming my impression of the country is accurate. It appears to me that most of the druggies etc. are in Amsterdam



Don't big cities generally have a higher concentration of drug users in comparison? 
But no, Amsterdam is not the cesspit where they send people that smoke weed. Weed is consumed all over Holland. You should come visit some time, especially Amsterdam. You would definitely go home with a more positive picture.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> you don't have a say in whether you get taxed.


 
Man, I've had two PMs from people basically saying I was an idiot for thinking you could choose not to pay taxes. I said, and I quote, "America was founded on the idea that you should have a say in *how* you get taxed". i.e. People can have a say in how much tax money goes to where and are able to make sure, to a certain extent, that you are not being taxed too much and that the tax money is going to the right places. Taxing is an essential part to a healthy society. To think otherwise would be pretty insane.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 15, 2011)

Speedsolver said:


> You sure? Then, why have they been banning coffee shops in Netherlands?



because our leaders are idiots


----------



## EVH (Apr 15, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> You can't overdose on marijuana. It isn't possible.


 
You can, too much of anything can harm and possibly kill you.


----------



## Shortey (Apr 15, 2011)

EVH said:


> You can, too much of anything can harm and possibly kill you.


 
Please give us a link to something that proves this is true.


----------



## flan (Apr 15, 2011)

From watching documentaries over the years I have noticed 2 health related things keep popping up (weather they are true or not).

1) teenagers smoking it reduces memory.
2) It can make psychosis more likely even in later life. 

It is because of these reasons that I actually think it should be legalized, so they can be controlled. Better education to young teenagers on packs saying perhaps to wait at least till the brain has stopped developing, 16 at least (this would also make adults more wary of giving it to there kids), and controlled strength. If people know the THC content to within, say, 2%, then they can potentially be more careful about how they smoke. Ie weak blunts with no tobacco so they don't get addicted.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Apr 15, 2011)

I feel like this thread is a huge repeat of the Proposition 19 thread.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 15, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> I feel like this thread is a huge repeat of the Proposition 19 thread.


 
Look at Similar Threads just below. Same **** different thread.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 15, 2011)

PatrickJameson said:


> Um, America was founded on the idea that you should have a say in how you get taxed.


 
Right, so America elected a president and a congress that were in favor of taxing us for healthcare. We are being taxed how we, as a collective, chose.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Apr 15, 2011)

You can overdose on marijuana. If you smoke the whole weed supply in the netherlands within an hour...


----------



## deadalnix (Apr 15, 2011)

Speedsolver said:


> You sure? Then, why have they been banning coffee shops in Netherlands?


 
Easy, because they troubble, not from dutch people, but from people from france or germany that come to netherland to get high and drugs traffic to these contries. In other words, the problem caused by prohibition in some countries is invading netherland.


----------



## riffz (Apr 15, 2011)

maggot said:


> yeah, right. so i guess peer pressure and the actual feeling of being high has nothing to do with it being a gateway drug? or that because its illegal and i have to buy from a drug dealer that its more of a gateway? what about 'dealers' that ONLY sell pot? im sure you know a few of those... i know i do.


 
Seeing as the vast majority of pot smokers I know have no interest in taking heavier, addictive drugs, my experiences would dictate so. And of course I know dealers who only sell pot. That is, of course, irrelevant.



crashdummy001 said:


> *If someone overuses marijuana* or other drugs and needs immediate medical care, but they have no money (spent it on the drugs), should they eat into taxpayers' tax money to get medical treatment? This is not a victimless crime!


 
Yea, that doesn't happen man.


----------



## EVH (Apr 15, 2011)

Shortey said:


> Please give us a link to something that proves this is true.



I should have said too much of anything *consumed* can kill you. 

Paracelsus once said "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison."

Two Examples:
Water

Banana/Potassium


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 15, 2011)

I agree you can overdose on water as it has happened. I agree you can overdose on Potassium and many over common vitamins in extreme quantities. Now link to an article where someone overdoses on Marijuana or it's chemical component THC.


----------



## Shortey (Apr 15, 2011)

So I'm gonna try to overdose on weed soon. Who is with me?


----------



## riffz (Apr 15, 2011)

Shortey said:


> So I'm gonna try to overdose on weed soon. Who is with me?


 
I've tried many times. So far no luck.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 15, 2011)

Shortey said:


> So I'm gonna try to overdose on weed soon. Who is with me?


 
I imagine many people are going to be trying this Wednesday.


----------



## Escher (Apr 15, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> I imagine many people are going to be trying this Wednesday.


 
+420 this post.

EDIT:



riffz said:


> I dare anyone to try smoking at this rate without passing out in under an hour.



Vid coming soon.


----------



## riffz (Apr 15, 2011)

I can't remember where I read it but you'd have to take approximately 40,000 times what you would normally smoke to intoxicate you.

For fun, let's do some math. Let's assume that it takes me just one bowl to get me pleasantly high.

So according to this figure I would have to smoke 40,000 bowls to reach a fatal dose of THC.

Let's assume that I can continually, without stopping for a break, empty the ashes out of my pipe, pack a new bowl, and smoke the entire thing all in just 60 seconds (an absurdly high rate of consumption). Then it would take me 40,000 minutes, or 11.11 hours to consume a fatal dose. This, of course, also ignores the fact that the effects of weed do not last for even close to that long.

So, to summarize:

Assuming that you are a frequent smoker, you would have to smoke a bowl every 60 seconds for 11.11 hours without taking a single break to have a fatal overdose. I dare anyone to try smoking at this rate without passing out in under an hour.


----------



## Feryll (Apr 15, 2011)

There are the people one on side who have their advantages from having it banned and thus spread propaganda to get you to fear it, and then there are those who want you to start puffing a joint so they can get it legalized; I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, no pun intended.


----------



## HelpCube (Apr 15, 2011)

hell no. I haven't seen one logical pro to doing this.

Get money from taxing it? Great idea, just like how messed up taxing cigarettes has gotten, where its making smokers poorer instead of getting them off of it. 

Government can't control what we put in our body? You go find that in the constitution. A couple of months ago they were trying (not sure if it got passed or not) to ban McDonalds Kids Meals in San Francisco. And plus a billion other drugs are illegal. Wanna make those legal too?

It's not addictive. So what?????? It's absolutely terrible for you, and sometimes the government has to make decisions for you. Not often, but when it comes to stuff like this, they most certaintly do.

Stopping drug violence? O come on... maybe a little bit, but they're just gonna keep bringing in other drugs. We are constantly getting more extreme. It's like how mountain dew turned into red bull, which turned into monster, which eventually became four loko. Why start this with drugs??

Saving money on drug enforcement. The government really only enforces it when they are looking for large dealers, and plus, I'd rather cut 6th grade spanish than making dangerous drugs legal.

If you want to try me with something else, feel free


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 15, 2011)

riffz said:


> So according to this figure I would have to smoke 40,000 bowls to reach a fatal dose of THC.
> 
> Let's assume that I can continually, without stopping for a break, empty the ashes out of my pipe, pack a new bowl, and *smoke the entire thing all in just 60 seconds* (an absurdly high rate of consumption). Then it would take me 40,000 minutes, or 11.11 hours to consume a fatal dose. This, of course, also ignores the fact that the effects of weed do not last for even close to that long.
> 
> ...


 
Guys grab you timers and grab you bowls.We are gonna make a new sport Speedsmoking


----------



## Joemamma556 (Apr 15, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> hell no. I haven't seen one logical pro to doing this.
> 
> Get money from taxing it? Great idea, just like how messed up taxing cigarettes has gotten, where its making smokers poorer instead of getting them off of it.
> 
> ...



The only Health risk it can cause is the smoke going into your lungs same thing with Tobacco and thats legal and tobacco is worse for you


----------



## riffz (Apr 15, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> *And plus a billion other drugs are illegal. Wanna make those legal too?*



No.



HelpCube said:


> It's not addictive. So what?????? *It's absolutely terrible for you*, and sometimes the government has to make decisions for you. Not often, but when it comes to stuff like this, they most certaintly do.



You have failed to demonstrate this.



HelpCube said:


> Stopping drug violence? O come on... maybe a little bit, but they're just gonna keep bringing in other drugs. We are constantly getting more extreme. It's like how mountain dew turned into red bull, which turned into monster, which eventually became four loko. Why start this with drugs??



This is not a fair comparison. Most of the logical arguments for legalizing marijuana simply do not carry over to heavier and more addictive drugs.



HelpCube said:


> Saving money on drug enforcement. *The government really only enforces it when they are looking for large dealers*, and plus, I'd rather cut 6th grade spanish than making dangerous drugs legal.



Incorrect. Also, you're completely disregarding other expenses, such as the money spent to keep completely harmless marijuana smokers behind bars.



HelpCube said:


> If you want to try me with something else, feel free



No, I've had quite enough of your silliness.


----------



## Systemdertoten (Apr 15, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> hell no. I haven't seen one logical pro to doing this.
> 
> Get money from taxing it? Great idea, just like how messed up taxing cigarettes has gotten, where its making smokers poorer instead of getting them off of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 15, 2011)

Read the bill of rights some time

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


----------



## PatrickJameson (Apr 15, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> hell no. I haven't seen one logical pro to doing this.
> 
> Get money from taxing it? Great idea, just like how messed up taxing cigarettes has gotten, where its making smokers poorer instead of getting them off of it.



New York provides a "quitline" and free nicotine patches to many. Not sure about other places. Regardless, higher taxes on cigarettes is just another reason for people to quit.



HelpCube said:


> And plus a billion other drugs are illegal. Wanna make those legal too?



If people want them to be legal and the drugs are shown to not cause any serious damage, sure, why not?



HelpCube said:


> Stopping drug violence? O come on... maybe a little bit, but they're just gonna keep bringing in other drugs. We are constantly getting more extreme.



Just a little? Portugal is doing pretty well.



HelpCube said:


> Saving money on drug enforcement. The government really only enforces it when they are looking for large dealers, and plus, I'd rather cut 6th grade spanish than making dangerous drugs legal.



According to NORML, there are a LOT of arrests for marijuana use. That's lots of money.


I won't post about the health stuffs since I'm sure people have already covered it in this thread a dozen times over.


----------



## EVH (Apr 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> I agree you can overdose on water as it has happened. I agree you can overdose on Potassium and many over common vitamins in extreme quantities. Now link to an article where someone overdoses on Marijuana or it's chemical component THC.


 
There has never been a recorded overdose; however I never said that it had happened, did I? Though right now it is extremely unlikely, the potency of Marijuana has increased 52.4% and more than likely will continue at a similar rate. Overdoses on Marijuana will happen in the future.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs21/21137/marijuana.htm


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 15, 2011)

lol
*clicks on link*
*ctrl+f "Overdose"*
*0 of 0 results*

lol


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 15, 2011)

High potency marijuana is actually healthier, because you don't need to breathe as much smoke to get the same high. More THC and less carbon.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 15, 2011)

EVH said:


> Overdoses on Marijuana will happen in the future.


 
100% Definite.


----------



## riffz (Apr 15, 2011)

EVH said:


> Though right now it is extremely unlikely, the potency of Marijuana has increased 52.4% and more than likely will continue at a similar rate. Overdoses on Marijuana will happen in the future.


 
I'm glad you're so confident that marijuana's potency will increase by over 10000% in the future.


----------



## Louis McDonald (Apr 16, 2011)

The THC Chemical is physically addictive. Not chemically addictive. 

It's addictive.


----------



## blade740 (Apr 16, 2011)

Louis McDonald said:


> The THC Chemical is physically addictive. Not chemically addictive.
> 
> It's addictive.



No, it's psychologically addictive (like cubing and television).

Physical and chemical addiction mean the same thing.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Apr 16, 2011)

I request a urine test 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI0nhzH_6dg


----------



## riffz (Apr 16, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> I request a urine test
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI0nhzH_6dg


 
You make absolutely no sense.


----------

