My Views on Marijuana

1. cool

2. OH AHAH, OMG, you miss the point completely . Something is illegal, therefore it is justified to be so? The point we're trying to hammer through your thick skull is that just because something doesn't have a explicit material benefit to society doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal . You need to have proper grounds to make something illegal before you go about passing a bill that takes away peoples rights. Besides the obvious benefits of industrial hemp and government pot sales to the nation I mean you'd have to actually have a reason to ban it

3. You really, really strongly implied that people will smoke it more. " An individual who is too busy being stoned and neglecting his duties and obligations is not a socially accepted thing in any society." I feel that line strongly implies that it wouldn't be happening BEFORE legalization.

4. Since you have absolutely no fucking proof or life experience to support your statements I'm just gonna feel pretty safe in totally ignoring your offensive stereotypes.

5. Same thing as 2.

I'd like to point out that while being a pain killer pot also suppresses nausea and grows your appetite. It's pretty much perfect for people with serious health problems and improves their quality of life 100%. I met a guy at work once who had permanent nerve damage in his leg and his doctor perscribed him oxicotton for the rest of his LIFE. That was 20 year's ago and he's never taken a pill. By all accounts he should be dead if he did take those pills all these years.

It was made illegal so that they could segregate and condemn the pot smoking immigrant cultures (racism). Also because hemp products threatened the logging industry (corporate interest). After the initial propaganda it was easy to keep going and in the hippy strikes of vietnam it was easy to arrest all these people for marijuana use.

You're absoilutely correct, my wording was off. It treats them. So it isn't just a vice, it has very real medicinal value. But honestly that's a secondary, I just wanted to get high when I did that. Not feeling sick was just a pleasant surprise.
And if we keep up the medicinal marijuana debate, eventually somebody will bring up Marinol, which is synthetic THC medicine. And this person will say, we don't need to legalize pot because we have marinol!
To that I say No! Marinol is not good, and here is why.
Marinol is only perscriobed to cancer and AIDS patients.
Even if we expanded that, Marinol is actually bad for you. See, Marinol contains two main chemicals, a synthetic, but near identical delta-9 THC, the main psychoactive found within marijuana, and hydroxy-9 THC, a dangerous psychoactive found in negligible amounts in Marijuana that has been linked to negative affects on the mind such as psychosis. Or something. Now, any marijuana expert will tell you that, aside from adding a dangerous ingredient, Marinol is lacking an important ingredient. Cannbidiol, or CBD. Which is a chemical that is attributed to many of the positive medicinal effects of marijuana, and which counteracts the negative affects of Hydroxy-9 THC in natural marijuana.

And that is why only natural weed is good weed. Got ahead of myself, but whatever.

*sigh*
围成一个圈的绕圈
No, I don't have a proper translator.

You are probably going to reject it all anyways.

While, no, the research does not totally establish a conclusive connection between the use of marijuana and consistency in steryotypical the anti-social image propoganda out there [for which I humbly apologize for having said], it does show connections between them as well as consistency between the use of marijuana and lower preformance in school and lower wages later on in life.

And for your last, I would point out that exceptions are exceptions. It is one thing to legalize it for special cases and another to legalize it for everyone, the vast majority of which have no such debilitating illnesses.

And I reiterate: my belief that it should be illegal stems not from its lack of benefits so much as its negative affects. That the original grounds for having made it illegal were proven false does not illigitimize the myraid of other negative affects that have been shown.

Parhaps I did imply that I believed that legalization would bring more consumption. But that particular quote is not proof of it. I will review my posts to determine.

Form a circle around the ring? That's what you came up with? Any jack ass with google could have come up with that. I know for a fact that you are from America, give it up.

I don't really care about negative impacts on the user. Even if marijuana is bad for you, people ought to be allowed to make their own decisions. And correlation does not equal causation, unless you can prove that chemicals in marijuana lower your grades and wages, I'm just going to assume that slackers and failures are more likely to use than more successful people. Which is probably the case.

And again, it doesn't have to be medicine to be legal, I want to get high, and nobody has the right to tell me I can't.

You mean the incredibly vague negative effects in those links? I only read two of them but I mean "potential for nicotine " is a hilariously bad argument and the tar is well known, as long as you don't smoke excessively it doesn't really pose much of a threat to your health however (similar to an alcoholic and his liver). All the brain stuff I agree with. Really do. I know successful university level students who smoke pot and drink all the time though so I somehow doubt the consequences are very dire, as they themselves were unable to really say in the report using words like "sub-optimal".

The lower wages thing is interesting because how would they evaluate this? Ask you if you smoke pot in a nation where it is illegal? More likely they get people who have been busted for trafficking or possession and use those numbers. Do I need to point out why putting people in a group with repeat convicts might bring down their average pay grade? It's not much different then saying all black people are dumb because they on average do worse in American high school. There is so many factors contributing to that it's outrageous and the statement in of itself is a logical fallacy.

Its supposed to be 'around and around in a circle' or something akin to that. Translating is hard, especially when the languages evolved seperate from each other.
And you still hold no solid proof of anything.

Of course they don't. Not unless it affects them. Just like people have a right to own a gun right up until someone gets shot.
Laws tend to lean towards 'Your rights end where mine begin', as an associate of mine put it. If it is determined that you getting high has an unreasonably negative affect on another person, then you will face the penalties, like it or not.
And you can argue correlation does not equal causation, yes. Until the overwhelming evidence proves otherwise, as many an expert in the feild now believe.

So you smoke and you smoke and you smoke and one day you find an amount of tar that you dislike and you just stop? I really doubt that. Sweeping aside that there are probably problems with the sudden loss of regular extra doses of dopamine or other chemicals in the brain [which I cannot state for fact], I really don't think that you will be kicking a life-long habit really quickly.
I donno. 30K less than non-smokers is pretty big for the average person. I admit freely that the information isn't as conclusive as I would have hoped, but I maintain that they show that there is potencial for negative consquences. I am not willing to gamble away my life for some brief burst of pleasure. Though that is pretty hypocritical, I admit, given that there are a hundred and one things that are more productive that I can be doing right now instead of typing this [no, that is not a mark against, you but rather me].
Knowing university-level students that smoke is compelling evidence, but it falls short in this case because there are alot of factors that are left out. A short list:
1) Their grades
2) Other health factors
3) Dosage and frequency

I, in my own defense, will also say that I am not responsible for how the sources phrase or expound upon their facts. Personally, one of those drier, fact-heaped reports that I am more used to would have been preferable. They are usually more direct and to the point.

An interesting point. From my experience, these kind of tests/polls actually have legal-liability wavers for reporting on certain topics. That is to say, they are excluded from being obligated to report the individual who admits to use. I am not entirely sure how it works, but I know that the system exists. On the other hand, I would also point out that marijuana, while intensely disapproved of, is not actually held to the same standard that other drugs are. Many famous people have admitted to use and escaped without legal reprecussions. Take Obama for example. Phelps escaped felony legal charges if I am not mistaken, but he did lose public support from sponsers. More of a ligitmacy move on the side of the sponsors of course. Your point about social backlash is a ligitimate one in my opinion and serves to put the source to the question. On the other hand, you also shot yourself in the foot with the statement. The use of marijuana is still seen as bad by the public. You use the comparison of convicts, which is an apt analogy. The user would see a social backlash from use. It also brings up that the legalization would probably be both unpopular and have an immence social impact. It could shift the thinking of the public on matters of drugs. I don't currently have any sort of source to prove it, but I believe that it would actually backlash and move people towards a more sever anti-drug sentiment. While it is true that there are some questions of how they weeded out the information, I would still put forth that I believe them relatively reliable sources.

And how does this translate into me not being allowed to smoke pot regardless of how responsible I am as a user?

Sorry if this sounds a little non-sensical, I was just listening to this on a pretty loud setting.

In any case, it translates because, like it or not, your rights are actually alot more curbed than you think. For example, take Tinker v. De Moins. Basically, if your actions translate into something that can be dangerous for others, than you don't actually have a right to that. The idea that smoking marijuana is within your rights because you are responsible for your body is okay in my book up until somebody else is endangered. Your ability to smoke it is curbed for the same reason that people are not allowed to drive drunk. They may argue that they have the right to do with their body what they wish and the courts may agree with them on that, but the courts will not agree that they have the right to endanger others. The same idea applies to smoking marijuana. Should the courts find the evidence that smoking marijuana is dangerous to the individual, people around the individual, or the society as a whole, they will rule it illegal, the first being the primary basis for the original illegalization.

There are, of course, special cases. Morphine is usually outside of the public access, but individuals suffering from extreme pain are usually prescribed it. In that context, it is legal.
I know that someone is going to eventually bring it up so I may as well respond now: No, I don't know exactly why the medical community chose to use morphine, an extremely addictive substance, over something like, say, marijuana. From what I can infer, I believe that they probably saw the drawbacks as less than marijuana and believed that the benefits of marijuana did not outweigh the risks or believed that it was not worth pushing for medical legalization. Again, that is all speculation. I'll look into it later.

Wrong. They would limit it to a controlled environment, like they did with alcohol. So I ask you, if I am a responsible user then why can't enjoy the substance?
And enough with the R-word. I don't care about who has what "rights".

Morphine is a heavy duty pain killer, far better suited for helping a patient deal with pain. Marijuana is simply a stimulant. At best it functions as really good placebo in that it can help a patient deal with the stress of say.. chemotherapy.

True, 'will' is too presumptuous a word. 'Can' is a more apt word, but your idea that they will limit the environment has been used too.

True.

You've yet to reply to this yourself, I believe.

Anyway, you keep saying marijuana is "bad for society", but what standards do you use to measure that? Also, you keep on saying marijuana is illegal and looked down upon by society, without saying where specifically. Again, I direct you to the link I posted time after time.

A certain somebody with certain moderator powers with a certain ability to track IP addresses. Particularly yours to America.

1. I smoke and I smoke and I what? Are you making ridiculous assumptions again? Yup you definitely are. Not only is their large gaps in my marijuana use I haven't done any for the last 3 months because I'm CHEAP. Yeah reefer madness man I'm gettin all fiscally irresponsible about my "habit"! Are you somehow implying that potsmokers all smoke all the time? Or in great quantities ? Even in people who smoke every single day your unlikely to see any real negative effects except for their running distance. "Gamble away my life" LMFAO

2. All the evidence you've posted is pretty inconclusive, plus they used wording like 'may' half the time. You said "many experts in the field now believe" as if many experts in the field don't take my side. Spoiler, they do. A fuckload of cops are pro-legalization. You can't take the ones who are not and be like BAM they're all on my side.

3. Definitely the public is against it yes, and as soon as the boomers die that balance will swing FAST. Old ignorant people have the majority of our population over here..

This. If you actually buy into that whole "All day everyday!" nonsense then I'm willing to bet you've never actually met a pothead. Motherfuckers are conservative with their weed.

Idk man I think the only reason I don't smoke all day erry day is because I don't have a job or money. I'm also high right now.

I haven't seen that link before now. I think you may have put it up for somebody else.

In any case, can you guarentee that such will happen in the US? The situation in Portugal has untold numbers of variables that could change how the country will react. The cultures are different. The economies are different. The politics are different. Can you present to me an expert who will stake their career [for this is a career making or breaking idea] on the theory that what happened in another country is an accurate portrayal of what would happen in the US? Forbes is a relatively reliable news source, but I want to see a real report from an expert that guarentees that the affect of decriminalization would have the same affect in the US as it has in Portugal.

Who? Where? Provide proof.

1) That answer makes absolutely no sense. I was referring to your admission that tar is a part of marijuana consumption and that you stated that you would stop at the point that it came to cause unreasonable damage. I contended that I found that idea to be unlikely and the benefits not worth the trouble.

No, not all smokers are the same, but that does not mean that we should take the least common denominator and use that to determine what should be done. You may be able to stop, but we have to look at the whole picture. Can the vast majority of people just stop smoking when they have no real incentive to?

2) Provide proof of all those claims. The reports that I provided from MDs indicated that they did not support marijuana legalization. Show me where it says that police and doctors support legalization and provide for me proof that their belief in legalization is further than for medical purposes. If there is proof, provide it.
Also, where did I say 'all'? I said 'many'.
I don't think that I stated that nobody supported your side. If I did, I apologize, since that is obviously wrong. However, I have only come across reports that say that doctors support it for medical use.*

3) So that is your grand idea? That it was all just a product of the last generation and that they will all die off and you will be able to legalize it and all the negatives will be non-existent? Wow. That is all I have to say to that.

No, I don't. But I still recognize that there are things alot more productive that you can be doing when you are lying around stoned. A common assertion that I hear is that they will only do it after-hours at home. Ever try to engage a stoned person in a meaningful conversation? Imagine what it would be like for dependents like children when their parents get home and just get stoned. What about children who get home and get stoned? Ever seen a stoned person's homework? Probably not, because they probably didn't do it. And those are just short-term effects. Beyond that, it isn't really safe to do much anything else when you are under the influence of marijuana. It drastically slows your reaction times and impairs your judgement.

Even if they don't do it every day, gaps in judgement tend not to go smoothly in US society. Car crashes, violence, and other disreputable things have all occurred due to individuals being under the influence of one drug or another.

*NOTE: Just to be clear on a point: Though I disapprove of marijuana use and would prefer alternatives, I SUPPORT use of medical use of marijuana on the perscription of a certified professional [i.e. a doctor].
If I previously have confused you on this point, I apologize.
If I have previously stated that I was in opposition to any use of it including medical or directly against medical use, I was in error at the time and apologize for that.

I will provide examples of doctors and police officers that approve of marijuana legalization.
http://www.leap.cc/speaker-list/ this list is just of people who have volunteered to publicly speak from this organization.

http://www.ndsn.org/summer99/medmj3.html doctors push for legalization.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/16/californias-doctors-back-_n_1014510.html
http://www.medme.ca/en/index.html (this last one just demonstrates a nation's openness about the issue.)

Besides what you seem to think about governments main arguments against marijuana, what seems to come up in actual government debate is more that they see it as a gateway drug, which is a ridiculous argument as I have explained earlier. No one offered a rebuttal to that argument besides changing the subject.

My grand idea? Do you even realize every time you imply something it's a totally fabricated idea that nobody has suggested previously? Yeah I think it will be easier to push through congress once the old indoctrinated boomers die off how is this somehow my grand scheme LMFAO it's just how things are. "The negatives" are virtually all incredibly vague such as your bullshit tar claim that is immeasurable and pretty much cannot cause any damage heavier then alcohol could albeit in a different way.

Yes I have tried to engage a stoned person in a meningful conversation. Off the top of my head it I remember one about what would make a utopia and another about the composition of the different planet's atmosphere's and the technical difficulties of colonizing said planets. Just because your high doesn't mean your fucking stupid. Get your head out of your ass and go meet people. Try things, live your god damn life.

There's negatives to everything we ever do in our entire life. Should we sit around debating every nuance of our life? I mean since you obviously do this your probably a first in your class mathematician who run's marathons on his spare time in between making technological innovations in computing and nuclear physics. Letting people enjoy their life in peace is not so evil, especially when they are going to do it anyway and when they do they will waste our money and manpower doing so while creating a black market where they can be sold far worse things.

I've been working since I was 13, I will be going to college in September and I am not alone. Find something to be prejudice against us for other then the stupid lazy stoner bull shit . It feels like I have addressed this before ahh yes at least twice now.

Just straight up answer the question Imperial, from where do you hail?

And I recognize that there a lot more productive things than dicking around on the internet, but that doesn't stop none of us does it? Personally, I'm not a robot. I don't want to live a world where its all work and no play.

Funny. That's actually the only time you can get a meaningful conversation out of me. Otherwise I'm all grunts and nods.

It's actually pretty damn hard for a kid to pick up on that, I could never tell when my mom was high or not. Because she is a seasoned smoker. The crazy giggling "OH MAN" nonsense only happens for teenage girls who can't handle their shit.

I do mine. Not while high mind you. that would just be silly.

The closest thing to compare it to in the US would be the Prohibition, which turned out a disaster. Right now, I've heard several people claim their neighbourhood is filled with people addicted to hard drugs and all that, but I've personally never experienced anything like that. The people who had these problems lived in the US, where drugs are illegal, and I live in the Netherlands, where it's a bit more complicated, but there are always talks on changing the system (I think they wanted to implement a weed pass or something, but I'm not entirely sure what it'd do.).

It seems like people think legalisation of drugs means that you could just march into a super market and buy bags of coke or something, or at least it's the impression I get. While I fully support legalisation, I do think it needs a good system to check the quality of the goods, or that the government grows it itself, even.