The legal drug, alcohol, is a violence dis-inhibitor. People get more violent when they drink. The illegal drug, marijuana, is a violence inhibitor. As Bill Maher put it, we've all heard about someone who got drunk and beat up his wife. We never hear about someone who got stoned and beat up his wife. Got stoned and FORGOT to beat up his wife, maybe...

There are NO other uses for tobacco. Tobacco is grown soley for people to smoke. There are lots of other uses for marijuana. The very existence of hemp clothing supports this. I've also heard that, during WWII, the government legalized the production of hemp for parachutes. During colonial times, a lot of people signed contracts to farm land in the Colonies. The contracts routinely included a clause demanding a certain percentage of land be devoted to growing cannabis. The farmer wasn't allowed over here without agreeing to grow pot. Yet, pot is illegal and tobacco isn't.

I've heard the arguments. You can't argue against pot for health reasons because of tobacco. If pot is kept illegal because it causes lung cancer, then tobacco should be declared illegal for the same reason. You can't argue against pot for its intoxicating effects because of the second paragraph above. And the argument that pot is a "gateway drug" -- meaning people always move on to "harder" drugs after smoking pot -- is simply ridiculous. If someone wants to shoot heroin, they're going to, regardless of how much pot they smoke. In my own personal experience, a vast minority of pot smokers moved on to harder drugs, and those almost always ended up being LSD and psilocybin (sp?).

Caffiene is more physically addictive than pot. So is nicotine. So is alcohol. THC is, in fact, NOT physically addictive. Smoking pot can be PSYCHOLOGICALLY addictive, but then so can anything else if you do it to excess. How many Jerry Springer-type shows have you seen about "sex addicts" or even "food addicts"? Are we to outlaw sex because some people can't control themselves?

Our government classifies marijuana in the same category as heroin! It gives cannabis the same lack of intrinsic value it gives to crack cocaine and X. Does anyone see the absurdity here?

If you want more proof, look at the Netherlands (Holland). "Hash bars" are all over Amsterdam, and the country hasn't come to a crashing halt. Even in California, pot has been legalized "with a doctor's prescription." So now you can find establishments where you walk up to a counter, a doctor writes you a prescription for pot, and you take it into the next room where you buy and smoke it. The best part about California's law is that is is technically invalid because it contradicts Federal standards about drug classification and control. But, so far, the Feds haven't cracked down on any pot smokers in Cali.

The next question is probably, "Do you, Seedy, smoke pot?" Well, technically that's none of your business. It shouldn't matter whether I do smoke, have smoked, or will smoke. Does someone need to be a cigarette smoker to argue about the carcinogenic properties of tobacco? But I also know human nature, and the close-minded reactionary viewpoints that seem to surround any argument about legalizing drugs demands than I come clean. So I will say this: (1) I have a steady, 40-hour per week job doing pre-press for a sizeable print shop; the job demands a high degree of mental acuity, memory, judgement, and experience; I have been regularly rewarded by several different employers for my excellent job performance; (2) I smoke pot, but the frequency and volume of my activity will remain none of your business; (3) I have suffered various health, both physical and mental, effects from my activities, but none of them have become severe enough to warrant a radical change in my behavior; they are on a par with high blood pressure from eating too many fast-food hamburgers for too long.

I believe strongly in personal responsibility. I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't harm anyone else in the process. Smoking pot, shooting smack, snorting coke, smoking crack, etc., only harms the user, if anyone. Harm to others comes into the scene as a result of the illegality of a drug. A user, usually an addict, resorts to crime to support the addiction because Mob-set prices are so high. If you could buy joints at Circle K, or cocaine at 7-11, for $5 or $10, you (probably) wouldn't see nearly the level of drug-related crime you see today. Plus, the government can regulate the substances, eliminating the toxic chemicals introduced by sloppy production methods, and purchases can be taxed. Can you imagine the influx of money into the Federal coffers just from the taxation of marijuana? Say goodbye to income taxes!

"Son have you been Smokin' Dope?"
*Stiffled Giggles*
"Alright Son I need a hair and urine sample, and I'll need you to stay here while I run to my squad car and run a couple tests..."

I won't pretend I don't smoke MJ every once in a while, but I realise how much is too much and when to stop. There are no such things as good habits and I try to refrain from having them.

I fail to see why it's a crime to destroy your own body... I mean if you want to fuck yourself up on heiroin, crack whatever, that's your problem.

"How can we justify locking people up for commiting actions that have no demostrable repercussions to anyone else? If someone's actions comprimise the rights or will of anothe individual, then fine, punish them. But if someone's actions don't affect anyone other than the person commiting the actions , then what business is it of the state's ? I'm specifically refering to drug use. I don't use drugs, and I think that drugs can be a terribly destructive and dangerous, but I don't see how the state can arrest an adult for doing something to their own body. An individuals body is not the jurisdiction of the state. Although we may find suicide, drug use, abortion, self-mutilation, etc, abhorrent, we cannot as an enlightened society make criminals of people that want to do these things to themselves, so long as their actions do not comprimise our rights. Beacause we find something distasteful is not justification enough for us to deem it criminal" - Moby "Moby, Play"

------------------
~Weirdo~
|Home Page|My Geek Code|Post Disclaimer|Bill of Rights

Geneva is a canton where consumption is tolerated and I have consumed, though not lately. If taken out of the workplace, I do not see any problem, the problem I see is if consumed during work hours. Cannabis relaxes most people, so can we say 'do not operate heavy machinery' here. Then again, there is alcohol.

I see the way the French treat the problem (six months minimum in prison for smoking a joint ) and do not agree that this is the proper way.
Once again we come down to education, people have to be aware that cannabis could cause accidents under certain situations (just like alcohol).

I am waiting in anticipation for the first 'coffee bars' to open here.

Lady Ava

I read in a NORML (National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws) book that the only real obstacle to legalization is a "dosage related response."

With alcohol, there is a specific level that must be present in the bloodstream in order to be declared "intoxicated." In most US states, that level is 0.10%. If you take a breathalyzer or blood test and you have 0.10% or greater blood alcohol content, you can be arrested for intoxication, driving while intoxicated, etc.

The problem, as I remember it, is that cannabis contains three chemicals, including THC, that affect the "high." These three chemicals vary proportionately depending upon various factors affecting the plant. It is apparently very difficult to produce a sample of cannabis that has a uniform chemical profile, i.e. that the levels of all three chemicals are consistent throughout. This is why no one has been able to declare that X amount of THC (or whatever) in the bloodstream equals intoxication.

BTW, the author of the article I read did his doctoral thesis in Criminal Law on this subject. In fact, he developed a dorm-fridge-size greenhouse in an effort to produce a "uniform chemical profile" sample. These greenhouses were sold through a full-color ad in magazines, including National Lampoon (I remember seeing these ads when I was in college). They portrayed a lingerie-clad model bending over this funky glass cabinet bursting with tomato plants. The ad copy referred to "number of budding sites" and "internodal length," which belied its true purpose.

What really pisses me off is how all of CA's drug laws are an adjunct to the US's 'War on Drugs' (a war which is arguably both less successful and less justified than the one in Viet Nam, not to mention how obviously similar the Gov't propaganda is in both situations). Due to the US's bullying we were not, and are still not, free to make our own laws on the subject. Witness the hysteria within the US Gov't when Allan Rock suggested studying the possible medicinal uses. What it comes down to is, the laws are a joke. In some provences they get only token enforcement. I really wouldn't be surprised if CA goes for legalization within the next 10 years.

Second of all, I am not commenting on anyone's views of this topic. Just commenting on my own.

I have a very hard time with issues like this. On the one hand, I don't think anybody should be doing any drugs. I have friends who do, and they know I don't approve, and we get along fine, so don't get defensive. There are studies (Can't remember where I saw them, sorry.) that show that the brain damage from marijuana induced highs have a more lasting effect than once thought. Not only that, but an addiction to anything is wrong. Marijuana, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, porn.

On the other hand, I am extremly libertarian in my views. I don't think the government should regulate anything. Its a free country after all. But on the other hand, if the government didn't regulate anything, then people could run rampant and get away with a lot more things. But on the other hand, it would still be wrong if someone's freedoms got in the way of someone else enjoying their constitutonal rights.

Basically, I'm undecided. And I have run out of hands.

------------------
Normal people scare me.
AIM: Eponine4982

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eponine:
Not only that, but an addiction to anything is wrong. Marijuana, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, porn.

---

I've thought about this for a couple of days and I feel my thoughts are organized enough to put fingers to keyboard. I agree with you on the first two paragraphs. Both are a matter of record. If I recall correctly it was the cotton lobyists who helped make canabis illegal because they feared the competition.

As far as making tobacco illegal, where do I sign up for that petition, the air outside the building I work in is unbreathable with all the students smoking. It's enough to make one vomit. I agree that people are going to do what they want if they are determined despite laws to the contrary, and if they want to do a harder drug they will.

Caffine may be more addictive than pot, but it's effects are not, as far as we know, damaging to the human brain. Pot on the other hand has shown to have long term effects that are detremental to the brain. I don't watch Jerry Springer so I can't comment on his show.

The government of the United States like any other government is good at one thing, grabbing as much power and control over the population as it can. Looking at it that way if doing something absurd increases their control and power, the government will be absurd.

The real problem with making certain drugs illegal (i.e. pot, cocaine) and keeping others legal (i.e. alcohal, tobacco) is that you can't legislate morality. By that I mean a law can not be made that will change a persons' point of view if he believes the opposite.

The major thing I have against your argument is that you want a drug that you illegally use, that you knowingly suffer physically and mentally from its' effects to be made legal. Are you sure you are not affected mentally more than you think you are.

I guess I am addicted somewhatto caffinne, but caffinne doesn't impair my perceptions. And I try to do without it as much as possible as I work evening shifts, that makes it difficult sometimes. I also have a glass of wine, maybe once every two weeks. I will probably have kidney stones later in life from the caffinne. I don't drink enough wine for the effects to be long lasting though so I am ok there.

The problem with personal responsibility where drugs such as alcohal, marijuana, coke, etc. are concerned is that they impair the perceptions of the people who use them and they think they are in control and responsible when they are not.

As far as taxing marijuana to remove income tax, no it would not happen. The main purpose of the income tax is for control and fear, not to raise money. The reason this is because if money were the main reason, they could get a lot more money with a simpler system and they know it. The complexity is what makes people fear them.

------------------
CrawGator

Your just jealous because the voices only talk to me

vehicles : they crash all the time.
skiing & snowboarding : broken legs and twisted ankles.
farming : an unsafe profession, lots of accidents happen around all that machinery.
electric power : a person could be electrocuted at any point from production to delivery to the consumer, including the consumer themselves.
coffee : too much caffeine raises your heartrate.
sugar : children get overstimulated and run around the house, potentially running into the furniture.
spaceflight : launches are dangerous, as are satellites falling on our heads.
music : has mood altering capabilities.
eggs : (actually, I have lost track. Did the last study say they were good for you again, or bad?)

I could go on, but I think I have gone too far already. The point I am trying to make, is that a lot of the things we do, or ingest can be potentially harmful to us. Banning something simply because it is potentially harmful is a red herring.

Quote from Eponine: "Before I say anything, you have to realize that you are talking to the girl who won't take Tylenol for cramps. I just don't like putting any drugs, legal or not, into my system."

You aren't alone, Eponine! I feel the same way. Although I would probably take a drug if a competant doctor prescribed it to me for an illness, and if I get a bad headache sometimes I give in and take a pain killer, but I won't use any kind of drug otherwise. I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't do drugs. Since I licked my caffeine addiction, I don't even drink coffee, tea, or soda pop anymore. I've been wanting to eliminate even processed sugar, but the number of foodstuffs that contain it, and the difficulty there is in getting all natural foods where I live, has made that last one hard to do. I do use honey for a sweetener instead of syrup or sugar, and that helps a lot. Caffeine may not affect your perception in obvious ways, but I can tell you that my ability to program and to understand programs has increased amazingly since I eliminated caffeine, and my physical endurance has improved drastically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrawGator:
If I recall correctly it was the cotton lobyists who helped make canabis illegal because they feared the competition.

---

------------------
CrawGator

Your just jealous because the voices only talk to me

Many years ago (circa 1980, +- 5 years), Car and Driver did two tests on toxicant effects on driving. IIRC, they had the volunteers take varying amounts of stuff and measured course times on a slalom course. Points off for trashing cones. For booze (beer, I think), they measured blook alcohol content (with the help of a friendly police department), while they went by the joint/time method for dope.

With respect to alcohol, they discovered that the then-common rule of 0.1% blooc alcohol content was too loose. Dunno if it's cause and effect, but 0.08% is largely the law of the land.

Curiously, they found that with marijuana, the effects were harder to predict. Some drivers did OK, while others found looking at the leaves on trees more interesting than driving properly. Roughly quoting from memory, "you can drive all right while high, but you don't really feel you need to".

I'd rather not be on the same road with someone intoxicated with anything. Most recently, some woman put two Cal. DOT workers in the hospital, one losing his leg, because she was DUI. Haven't heard the toxicant of choice.

Legalize it? I dunno, but I can't work up enthusiasm for the toke-and-drive scene.

Fearless Frank says: Smoking dope and drinking beer is like pissing in the wind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supaboy:
I already see too many people who drive poorly without the help of any intoxicants.

---

------------------
CrawGator

Your just jealous because the voices only talk to me

It's sort of a mixed blessing. The busses are run by the power company, which doesn't really want to run them. They buy used vehicles instead of new to spend as little as possible on mass transit.

I have a car I suspect would not pass a strict emissions test. On the one hand, I don't have to worry about passing any test here. On the other grasping appendage, I haven't got a non-affilitated emissions testing place to go to tell me where I should be looking to fix it. The oil change shops offer to sell me chemicals and services to "make my car run like new" but I have no quantifiable data to take back to prove that it did or didn't work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Chump:
OK, here is the way I heard the story in history class in High School about why pot is illegal. During WWI...

---

Growing Hemp for Victory

My libertarian student group at Berkeley showed this film for a fund-raiser. This is one of the funniest damn movies I have seen in my entire life, and watching it with 300 Berkeley students made it even more delicious. Highlights include:

• A farmer walking past acres of eight foot tall plants.
  
• Another farmer driving a big-ass thresher down a field for the harvest.
  
• A gung-ho announcer intoning: "In 1942, total hemp production in the United States was 25,000 acres. Our goal for 1943: THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES!"
  
• Rope is made out of the stalks. After stripping the leaves off the stalks, what do the farmers do with the leaves? Same thing they do with a lot of agricultural waste: burn it. There's footage of a very happy farmhand shoveling bushels of leaves onto a bonfire.