SURVEY: Should Marijuana be legalized?

[JayBeeee]

Of course it should be legalised... with a huge appology for making it illegal in the first place and paying suitable compensation to ALL of those people who have suffered at the hands of the thugs enforcing that unjust law.

I've never recognised the unjust law in question, so it has never been a problem for me, but the majority feel that they have to obey any orders they are given by  the 'authorities', so for them I vote 'Yes' to complete legalisation.

I also strongly believe that marijuana should not be called a drug, if that puts it in the same bag as smack, crack, meth, speed and other drugs of that nature, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be legal as well.

It's everybody's right to do whatever they choose to their own bodies, and nobody's right to stop them. If they are aware of the possible consequences it's their their life, their risk, but above all, their freedom.

[nisakiman]

3 hours ago, NativeSon360 said:

Pardon my ignorance,  If Professor Robert Molimard states that Queen Elizabeth I was totally misguided, about her chiding Sir Walter Raleigh for importing the "scourge" of the tobacco smoking addiction to Britain, back in1590, then whatever Professor Molimard has to say on the topic, is (of course) the "undisputed" gospel truth. Thanks for the education update! Cheers!    

Since you seem to think that what you have read in 'The Daily Trash' is superior to Prof Molimard's assessment, perhaps a little further reading on your part is in order.

 

Quote

Definitions that reasonably include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such as salt, sugar, and watching television, to be considered addictive. Definitions that exclude the trivia also exclude nicotine.

Dale m Atrens Ph.D.

www.forces.org/evidence/download/nicotine_addiction.pdf

 

Quote

My name is Michael Bozarth. I am an Associate Professor of Psychology with the State University of New York at Buffalo. I am here today to express my views on drug addiction, its underlying biological basis, and the widely popularized notion that nicotine is an addictive substance. Although I have not previously expressed my position formally, I welcome this opportunity to "speak out" on a topic of serious concern for the scientific community--that topic concerns the hasty conclusions draw from an inadequate empirical database. I strongly believe the scientific community is responsible for presenting unadulterated 'facts' so the public and the government can make informed decisions. The lay public trusts scientists to adequately interpret their data and to remain unbiased by political or other pressures.

In this brief statement I will develop the argument that research has failed to substantiate the claim that nicotine is addictive. To the contrary, it is difficult to document even mildly rewarding effects from nicotine. Because of time limitations, I will restrict my presentation to a few key issues. The evidence presented here is exemplary of a much larger series of arguments that refute the main conclusions drawn from the 1988 Surgeon General's report. An exhaustive, point-by-point critique of that report is not possible with the limited time allowed for preparation. My main objective today is to broaden the debate by discussing key points that have not received adequate consideration.

Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260-4110

 

 

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport03.html

 

You can adopt your smug and sarcastic attitude all you like, but I'm afraid it still doesn't make you right, whatever you may think.

Trying to act superior in the face of facts just makes you appear foolish.

[retoohs]

19 hours ago, yogi100 said:

 

 

You never knew that nor did anyone else, you've copied that from the internet! Where did Shakespeare and his chums get their gear from?

 

I'm posting from personal experience and knowledge from what I've seen of the drug culture in London over the last 50 odd years. Like many of my generation I smoked Temple Bull, Gold Seal, Red Seal and Thai Sticks back in the 70s and 80s. It had no lasting effect on most of us but those few who fell by the wayside wound up on heroin and often died before their time was up.

 

Most of 'em were decent people but had addictive natures that drug addiction homed in on and eventually ruined their lives. As far as I know they're all dead now, taken before their time. It's said the arty farty mob all experimented with drugs in Victorian and Georgian times but but it was all comparatively new to the rest of us back in the 1960s.

 

The same could be said of those who got on Purple Hearts and Black Bombers in the 1960s. There was even an all night dispensing chemist at Picadilly Underground station in those days where addicts could get their heroin. The only such dispensary in the whole city and possibly the whole of the UK at the time.

 

"It was big in the clubs in the 20s until it was made illegal in 1928" What clubs! It's illegal now but is still in widespead use. Making it illegal would not have stopped folk from using it back then any more than it does now. Oscar Wilde was rumoured to have taken heroin for what good it might or might not have done him.

 

 

Don't presume to think you know what I know or don't know. It just reeks of ignorance and shows signs of low intelligence when you have to resort to criticizing me personally. End of conversation with you. Stay ignorant I don't give a toss

[ClutchClark]

8 minutes ago, JayBeeee said:

Of course it should be legalised... with a huge appology for making it illegal in the first place and paying suitable compensation to ALL of those people who have suffered at the hands of the thugs enforcing that unjust law.

I've never recognised the unjust law in question, so it has never been a problem for me, but the majority feel that they have to obey any orders they are given by  the 'authorities', so for them I vote 'Yes' to complete legalisation.

I also strongly believe that marijuana should not be called a drug, if that puts it in the same bag as smack, crack, meth, speed and other drugs of that nature, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be legal as well.

It's everybody's right to do whatever they choose to their own bodies, and nobody's right to stop them. If they are aware of the possible consequences it's their their life, their risk, but above all, their freedom.

 

You must be American.

 

Americans always expect compensation (aka free hand-oit).

 

 

[JayBeeee]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You must be American.

 

Americans always expect compensation (aka free hand-oit).

 

 

LOL! No, certainly not american and never have been.

I was once English though.

And compensation is due to anyone who has been wronged by others.

 

[fvw53]

On 8/28/2016 at 10:05 AM, robblok said:

Never did i Imagine that so many on this site were so liberal. I am shocked that only 2 voted against it. 

the reports on CNN by brain surgeon Dr Sanjay Gupta learned me that :

- overdosis marijuana does not exist

- the type used of medical purposes is really great stuff

[KhunAhoj]

On 8/28/2016 at 10:09 AM, z42 said:

In a word, no. I think some degree of decriminalization is needed though. However there needs to be some control applied to its usage and availability. Weed definitely does affect people differently, and when you have people driving and working under the influence I feel that isn't right.

It is a difficult one really. I see the merits in legalization, but also see the massive potential for some people to completely destroy themselves on it if such a move was made.

 

For medicinal purposes it is a no brainer that it should be allowed if doctors recommend it for use

 

Eeh, do you mean the doctors that have been telling us for decades that it's dangerous in all sorts of ways or the other ones?

[Inyourendo]

21 hours ago, Deepinthailand said:

I find it funny that so many say taking drugs is ok yet the same people are the first to jump up and down when a drunk driver kills someone. Dual standards I belive. Or do you really think drugs won't affect your judgment.!!!!!! Ps I drink tiger shitthater

 

I can testify that driving home stoned it takes 3 times as long. .... excluding any stops at 7/11's and maccas along the way. 

[ClutchClark]

4 hours ago, JayBeeee said:

LOL! No, certainly not american and never have been.

I was once English though.

And compensation is due to anyone who has been wronged by others.

 

 

Yes...I should have been able to recognize You were English by your excellent Grammar.

[boomerangutang]

z42 said:  It is a difficult one really. I see the merits in legalization, but also see the massive potential for some people to completely destroy themselves on it if such a move was made.

 

Have you ever met people who have "completely destroyed themselves"  on pot?   I haven't, and I've met thousands of pot smokers.  I've known pot smokers who may a get a bit hazy in the thinking dept. Yet I've never known a pot smoker to cause a traffic accident, or be overly aggressive, though some drive rather a bit slow.

 

In contrast: I've known alcohol drinkers who beat their wives, cause extremely harmful traffic incidents, and brawl.  Alcohol will mess a person up physically also, and drive up medical & insurance costs for everyone else.   I've never known pot smoking to cause any of those things.

 

I could go on and on about the dangers of eating sugar, or ingesting Pharma drugs, or MSG or cigs....., but something tells me you don't want to hear it.

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

Have you ever met people who have "completely destroyed themselves"  on pot?   I haven't, and I've met thousands of pot smokers.  I've known pot smokers who may a get a bit hazy in the thinking dept. Yet I've never known a pot smoker to cause a traffic accident, or be overly aggressive, though some drive rather a bit slow.

 

In contrast: I've known alcohol drinkers who beat their wives, cause extremely harmful traffic incidents, and brawl.  Alcohol will mess a person up physically also, and drive up medical & insurance costs for everyone else.   I've never known pot smoking to cause any of those things.

 

I could go on and on about the dangers of eating sugar, or ingesting Pharma drugs, or MSG or cigs....., but something tells me you don't want to hear it.

 

Yes I have seen indivuals completely destroyed by pot.

Yes I have seen traffic accidents resulting in fatalities by people stoned on pot.

 

MJ has a long and popular history in Colorado and I have served on the volunteer fire department in my community at various times over the years.

 

Your view is a common one but it is quite naive. Simply read up on how being under the influence of THC affects motor skills & reaction time and it should be obvious to you that it would result in impaired driving.

[car720]

2 hours ago, KhunAhoj said:

 

Eeh, do you mean the doctors that have been telling us for decades that it's dangerous in all sorts of ways or the other ones?

 

Yes, the same doctors that will tell you that cancer is incurable and that smoking has been proven to kill you.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.  

[NativeSon360]

6 hours ago, nisakiman said:

Since you seem to think that what you have read in 'The Daily Trash' is superior to Prof Molimard's assessment, perhaps a little further reading on your part is in order.

 

www.forces.org/evidence/download/nicotine_addiction.pdf

 

 

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport03.html

 

You can adopt your smug and sarcastic attitude all you like, but I'm afraid it still doesn't make you right, whatever you may think.

Trying to act superior in the face of facts just makes you appear foolish.

All that I know to be factual, is what I have personally experienced, and witnessed first-person, in 75 years of living. Thus, I have no need to quote (w/links) Professor "this" person ,or Doctor "that" person, as a means of validating my knowledge-base, especially to total strangers.

 

I have absolutely nothing to prove to  anyone, on any debate platform, sir! Obviously, you do have something to prove! Rest assured, you have definitely succeeded, on the TVF, 100% guaranteed! Are you happy now, huh?

 

Finally, you have the audacity to label someone "else" with having a ""smug and sarcastic attitude", eh? Take a long look @ yourself, while becoming self-un-constipated in the process, blokey!

 

Now,..............adios!

[JayBeeee]

I've done a fair amount of drinking in my time, mostly in my youth, and I hate what I bacame and what it did to me. I consider alcohol to be one of the most evil drugs in existsence. It causes horrible brain damage and, when mixed with an abundance of testosterone and little intellect, it's a killer and otherwise destroyer of lives, families and relationships; usually not only of the addict, but those of others around him or her.

I'm certainly a better person, more open minded, considerate, creative and free thinking since discovering ganja in my late teens. I'm not a blabbering, brain-dead basket case, as most in here who have had no experience of it seem to think I must be. I've been smoking ganja all my adult life and I'm highly unlikely to stop; though I do for long periods of time without the any craving or other side-effects. I'm certainly not going to ask anyone's permission or be told I'm 'allowed' to do whatever I choose to do with my own body and life.

But I think I've said all this already within the past week in another thread about the police speaking favourably about medicinal marijuana; or did I dream it?

[JayBeeee]

I've done a fair amount of drinking in my time, mostly in my youth, and I hate what I bacame and what it did to me. I consider alcohol to be one of the most evil drugs in existsence. It causes horrible brain damage and, when mixed with an abundance of testosterone and little intellect, it's a killer and otherwise destroyer of lives, families and relationships; usually not only of the addict, but those of others around him or her.

I'm certainly a better person, more open minded, considerate, creative and free thinking since discovering ganja in my late teens. I'm not a blabbering, brain-dead basket case, as most in here who have had no experience of it seem to think I must be. I've been smoking ganja all my adult life and I'm highly unlikely to stop; though I do for long periods of time without the any craving or other side-effects. I'm certainly not going to ask anyone's permission or be told I'm 'allowed' to do whatever I choose to do with my own body and life.

But I think I've said all this already within the past week in another thread about the police speaking favourably about medicinal marijuana; or did I dream it?

[NativeSon360]

2 minutes ago, JayBeeee said:

I've done a fair amount of drinking in my time, mostly in my youth, and I hate what I bacame and what it did to me. I consider alcohol to be one of the most evil drugs in existsence. It causes horrible brain damage and, when mixed with an abundance of testosterone and little intellect, it's a killer and otherwise destroyer of lives, families and relationships; usually not only of the addict, but those of others around him or her.

I'm certainly a better person, more open minded, considerate, creative and free thinking since discovering ganja in my late teens. I'm not a blabbering, brain-dead basket case, as most in here who have had no experience of it seem to think I must be. I've been smoking ganja all my adult life and I'm highly unlikely to stop; though I do for long periods of time without the any craving or other side-effects. I'm certainly not going to ask anyone's permission or be told I'm 'allowed' to do whatever I choose to do with my own body and life.

But I think I've said all this already within the past week in another thread about the police speaking favourably about medicinal marijuana; or did I dream it?

[JayBeeee]

6 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 Simply read up on how being under the influence of THC affects motor skills & reaction time and it should be obvious to you that it would result in impaired driving.

 

I can, and do, only speak from experience. I know that, on occasion, I have been too stoned to drive, which really only started when the hybrid skunks came along in the 80s; so, I can see how it's possible to cause traffic accidents by being stoned in those conditions. However, generally speaking, I find I'm far more considerate and attentive on the road, 'in tune' with the conditions, and far less prone to distraction, if I've been smoking.

I'm sure some here will be able to relate to one phenomenon I've experienced many times while driving home at night; the sudden alarm of not recognising where the hell I am, even on a route I've driven a thousand times before on a daily basis. While this used to cause considerable panic in the beginning, and I had to remind myself where I was coming from and where I was going to, I eventually learned to rationalise the problem with the knowledge that I was on the right road and I would recognise something around the next bend or two, which was invariably the case. But that certainly doesn't mean my driving skills, attention or responses were at all impared; I would say quite the opposite, I was so in tune with the road and driving, where it lead was of little consequence. There could also be a small measure of the short-term memory imparement that is associated with smoking ganja.

I've found that a major difference between being too stoned to drive and being too drunk, is that when I'm too stoned, I know it, and the last thing I want to do is drive a car. Being too drunk, on the other hand, ... well, nuff said!

But I do understand that some people want to be as stoned as possible and don't have much in the way of good judgement, and consequently can get into unfortunate situations. But I wouldn't agree with the blanket statement that THC impares driving skills.

Riding a motorbike on a long-distance summer journey (300 miles, London to Land's End, Cornwall), stopping occasionally for a single skinner, is an absolute pleasure which I would recommend to anyone with the slightest sense of freedom in their heart!

Er!... who am I writing this to?

 

[paulbj2]

On 28/08/2016 at 10:10 AM, yogi100 said:

Britain as well as other countries has seen it's standards drop and its society has been on a downward spiral ever since marijuana was introduced and has been more or less accepted. All drugs should be outlawed like they used to be when we lived in a world based on morals, decency and the possession of a work ethic. Much more severe sentencing should be introduced to discourage the use of any drugs.

 

We've always had drunken violence but not the lazy, shiftless behaviour exhibited by those that inhabit the dream world associated with marijuana. And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves.

 

Totally laughable comment. Ask any doctor who has worked in A+E or acute medicine what drug does the most damage in society and they won't answer cannabis, that's for sure! (S)he will say alcohol without the shadow of a doubt. Oddly enough I had this conversation with a member of my family who was until recently an acute medicine consultant in a large northern hospital in the UK. Guess what, the bulk his patients were suffering one effect or the other of that appalling drug, that social scourge, alcohol!

 

Yours is a typical comment from a kneejerk conservative. Countries like the Netherlands where cannabis has been effectively decriminalised if not completely legalised (yes, I have lived there) since the 1960s don't have any problem with it. It doesn't lead to any other, "harder"drugs (perhaps because the sale of cannabis is segregated from the sale of any other drugs), it doesn't lead to lack of motivation, it doesn't lead to violence, it doesn't lead to anti-social behaviour and driving whilst stoned whilst not desirable or advisable, is less dangerous than driving whilst drunk.

 

Portugal has completely decriminalised the possession of all intoxicant drugs and has seen a massive reduction in all aspects of social harm from formerly "illegal" drugs. Even the quasi-fascist political right wing in Portugal have publicly admitted they were totally wrong when they predicted massive social damage from decriminalisation and they have now gone on record as saying that if they came into government they would not reverse this policy.

 

Try using evidence to shape your opinions rather purveying right wing twaddle!  

[paulbj2]

On 28/08/2016 at 10:10 AM, yogi100 said:

Britain as well as other countries has seen it's standards drop and its society has been on a downward spiral ever since marijuana was introduced and has been more or less accepted. All drugs should be outlawed like they used to be when we lived in a world based on morals, decency and the possession of a work ethic. Much more severe sentencing should be introduced to discourage the use of any drugs.

 

We've always had drunken violence but not the lazy, shiftless behaviour exhibited by those that inhabit the dream world associated with marijuana. And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves.

 

Totally laughable comment. Ask any doctor who has worked in A+E or acute medicine what drug does the most damage in society and they won't answer cannabis, that's for sure! (S)he will say alcohol without the shadow of a doubt. Oddly enough I had this conversation with a member of my family who was until recently an acute medicine consultant in a large northern hospital in the UK. Guess what, the bulk his patients were suffering one effect or the other of that appalling drug, that social scourge, alcohol!

 

Yours is a typical comment from a kneejerk conservative. Countries like the Netherlands where cannabis has been effectively decriminalised if not completely legalised (yes, I have lived there) since the 1960s don't have any problem with it. It doesn't lead to any other, "harder"drugs (perhaps because the sale of cannabis is segregated from the sale of any other drugs), it doesn't lead to lack of motivation, it doesn't lead to violence, it doesn't lead to anti-social behaviour and driving whilst stoned whilst not desirable or advisable, is less dangerous than driving whilst drunk.

 

Portugal has completely decriminalised the possession of all intoxicant drugs and has seen a massive reduction in all aspects of social harm from formerly "illegal" drugs. Even the quasi-fascist political right wing in Portugal have publicly admitted they were totally wrong when they predicted massive social damage from decriminalisation and they have now gone on record as saying that if they came into government they would not reverse this policy.

 

Try using evidence to shape your opinions rather purveying right wing twaddle!  

[MockingJay]

All regular Marihuana user I know and/or ever have worked with were: 
1) Ineffective

2) Lots of talk, but no action

3) Unreliable

4) Slow (acting AND thinking)
5) Irresponsible

6) Always had an excuse for their own shortcomings, mostly others were to blame
7) Partial or complete disconnection from reality
8) Telling others what they "SHOULD" do, i.e. become vegetarian, vegan, etc. while themselves living an utterly unhealthy lifestyle (party all night sleep at work, drinking, Ganja, smoking, I don't need a helmet, etc.)
9) Complete overinflated self esteem (most were complete losers to be honest)
10) Changing jobs frequently, always someone else to be blamed for that
11) Unhappy and edgy whenever "sober"... (which basically means whenever they had to physically work)

Sure - legalize that stuff and make sure that the world tumbles even deeper into stupidity...

[yogi100]

2 hours ago, paulbj2 said:

 

Totally laughable comment. Ask any doctor who has worked in A+E or acute medicine what drug does the most damage in society and they won't answer cannabis, that's for sure! (S)he will say alcohol without the shadow of a doubt. Oddly enough I had this conversation with a member of my family who was until recently an acute medicine consultant in a large northern hospital in the UK. Guess what, the bulk his patients were suffering one effect or the other of that appalling drug, that social scourge, alcohol!

 

Yours is a typical comment from a kneejerk conservative. Countries like the Netherlands where cannabis has been effectively decriminalised if not completely legalised (yes, I have lived there) since the 1960s don't have any problem with it. It doesn't lead to any other, "harder"drugs (perhaps because the sale of cannabis is segregated from the sale of any other drugs), it doesn't lead to lack of motivation, it doesn't lead to violence, it doesn't lead to anti-social behaviour and driving whilst stoned whilst not desirable or advisable, is less dangerous than driving whilst drunk.

 

Portugal has completely decriminalised the possession of all intoxicant drugs and has seen a massive reduction in all aspects of social harm from formerly "illegal" drugs. Even the quasi-fascist political right wing in Portugal have publicly admitted they were totally wrong when they predicted massive social damage from decriminalisation and they have now gone on record as saying that if they came into government they would not reverse this policy.

 

Try using evidence to shape your opinions rather purveying right wing twaddle!  

 

Why be selective when quoting my post. What about the part where I say it's a gateway drug. Here are my actual words  "And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves."

 

Four of my boyhood pals are dead from drug overdoses and one had his life ruined till he turned it around. You'll never have heard of them so it's pointless telling you their names. they started off on puff. But I still know one of their brothers.

 

I could introduce you if you like then you can tell him yourself my comments are 'laughable' but be a bit diplomatic about it!

 

He still lives in the UK in Kent, If you want to meet him I'll see if I can arrange it. Ask him what he thinks of drugs, and the vermin who sold them to his brother. These five boys all started off with a bit of puff, went on to speed and coke then got on heroin.

 

I also knew two other individuals of a younger generation who were sons of my friends who have died from heroin  overdoses. I remember them regularly smoking puff till they wanted something with a bit more buzz.

 

I omitted mentioning the addicts' families. They are usually devastated. But some undoubtedly say 'Good riddance'. I did once hear a cousin say 'Thank <deleted> that thieving junkie bastard's gone' but  naturally it was said out of earshot of the parents

 

Some of your friends are dead from drugs as well but you'll deny it because doing so suits your argument. They'll also have started off with puff.

 

But bear in mind I'm not a doctor like your family member but I'm sure she will agree that most heroin addicts start off with puff. Which is what I said in my post and which you have chosen to ignore.

 

Two other pals of mine died of drink but not until they were older in their 50s and 60s. The booze they died of was purchased legally. Cannabis is illegal but I can guarantee I can obtain some within an hour in London. Police have just arrested over 100 people in London for drug possession but that's no problem! At this Notting Hill Drug Taking Jamboree four people were stabbed.

 

Many people die at a young age from drugs who in all likelihood started off on marijuana. You'll have heard of some of 'em.

 

Brian Jones (Rolling Stones)

Amy Winehouse

Elvis Presley

Whitney Houston

Marilyn Munroe

Michael Jackson

Prince

Phillip Seymour Hoffmann

Heath Ledger

 

These are off the top of my head. There's loads more of less well known ones on the internet. Now you tell me some who died of drink at similar young ages off the top of your head!

[yogi100]

4 hours ago, paulbj2 said:

 

Totally laughable comment. Ask any doctor who has worked in A+E or acute medicine what drug does the most damage in society and they won't answer cannabis, that's for sure! (S)he will say alcohol without the shadow of a doubt. Oddly enough I had this conversation with a member of my family who was until recently an acute medicine consultant in a large northern hospital in the UK. Guess what, the bulk his patients were suffering one effect or the other of that appalling drug, that social scourge, alcohol!

 

Yours is a typical comment from a kneejerk conservative. Countries like the Netherlands where cannabis has been effectively decriminalised if not completely legalised (yes, I have lived there) since the 1960s don't have any problem with it. It doesn't lead to any other, "harder"drugs (perhaps because the sale of cannabis is segregated from the sale of any other drugs), it doesn't lead to lack of motivation, it doesn't lead to violence, it doesn't lead to anti-social behaviour and driving whilst stoned whilst not desirable or advisable, is less dangerous than driving whilst drunk.

 

Portugal has completely decriminalised the possession of all intoxicant drugs and has seen a massive reduction in all aspects of social harm from formerly "illegal" drugs. Even the quasi-fascist political right wing in Portugal have publicly admitted they were totally wrong when they predicted massive social damage from decriminalisation and they have now gone on record as saying that if they came into government they would not reverse this policy.

 

Try using evidence to shape your opinions rather purveying right wing twaddle!  

 

I'm actually a socialist who invariably stands up for the British working man and the victims I've refered to in my previous post were young working class men who were friends of mine or the children of friends who lived on council housing estates in South East London.

 

Now you explain what's conservative or right wing about that!

 

[yogi100]

3 hours ago, MockingJay said:

All regular Marihuana user I know and/or ever have worked with were: 
1) Ineffective

2) Lots of talk, but no action

3) Unreliable

4) Slow (acting AND thinking)
5) Irresponsible

6) Always had an excuse for their own shortcomings, mostly others were to blame
7) Partial or complete disconnection from reality
8) Telling others what they "SHOULD" do, i.e. become vegetarian, vegan, etc. while themselves living an utterly unhealthy lifestyle (party all night sleep at work, drinking, Ganja, smoking, I don't need a helmet, etc.)
9) Complete overinflated self esteem (most were complete losers to be honest)
10) Changing jobs frequently, always someone else to be blamed for that
11) Unhappy and edgy whenever "sober"... (which basically means whenever they had to physically work)

Sure - legalize that stuff and make sure that the world tumbles even deeper into stupidity...

 

And usually had a reason for not doing something that needed doing rather than getting stuck in and doing it.

[jybkk]

4 hours ago, MockingJay said:

All regular Marihuana user I know and/or ever have worked with were: 
1) Ineffective

2) Lots of talk, but no action

3) Unreliable

4) Slow (acting AND thinking)
5) Irresponsible

6) Always had an excuse for their own shortcomings, mostly others were to blame
7) Partial or complete disconnection from reality
8) Telling others what they "SHOULD" do, i.e. become vegetarian, vegan, etc. while themselves living an utterly unhealthy lifestyle (party all night sleep at work, drinking, Ganja, smoking, I don't need a helmet, etc.)
9) Complete overinflated self esteem (most were complete losers to be honest)
10) Changing jobs frequently, always someone else to be blamed for that
11) Unhappy and edgy whenever "sober"... (which basically means whenever they had to physically work)

Sure - legalize that stuff and make sure that the world tumbles even deeper into stupidity...

 

Alright. A bit of logical fallacy 101:

 

• The plural of anecdotes is not data: whatever experiences you have, it's far from enough to build an opinion on a phenomenon that maters at society level. This is why we have science which does studies with thousands of data points, statistical analysis and correction for bias. And the immense majority of it agree that Cannabis is one of the least dangerous substance. Far below alcohol (in term of social impact) or nicotine (in terms of addiction)
• Correlation is not causation: You've seen many cannabis consumers who've been pretty irresponsible and lazy members of the society. Well, I believe you. I've seen many too. But how can you be sure that it's the drug that made them lazy, and not the their laziness that has pushed them towards that 'chill out' drug? I know lots of very productive members of society who are consumers (including people running serious businesses with hundreds of employees), would they miraculously be imprevious to these side effects?

I'm not a user of cannabis, however I've tried it in the past, and the effects are definitely milder than alcohol. It doesn't make you black out drunk like alcohol does, doesn't leave you with nausea or a throbbing headache on the next day, and neither does it bring you to some fantasy land with hallucinations. It's mostly a very efficient relaxant.

 

If it was such a danger to society, we'd have seen countries or states that have legalized it crumble down. As far as I know, Colorado and Netherlands are still doing fine. If not better.

 

Legalizing doesn't mean it should be a free for all drug fest. It should be controlled, probably the same way as alcohol is. Driving under the influence of cannabis or operating machinery should still be punishable by law. It shouldn't be sold to minors, and in my opinion, consumption should be limited to private homes or licensed establishments.

 

But further than that, the current level of demonization and prohibition is just counterproductive. It uses police and justice resources for nothing, contributes to the enrichment of drug dealers though black market (giving them resources to continue their surrounding criminal activities) and waste an opportunity for a better regulated and taxed market. The problem is that generations have been fed with these boogymen stories of reefer madness and zombified cannabis users while being told that alcohol is just fine.

 

Check this study published in the Lancet: http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf

The graph below which comes from this study shows that the impairment of mental functioning, the loss of tangibles and loss of relationships are all much lower for cannabis than for alcohol.

[JayBeeee]

So many standard responses from standard, brainwashed people with standard pesceptions and no experience of what they condemn!

Before you can comment on the effects of something, you have to experience it, otherwise you are simply exhibiting a lynch-mob mentality born of fear and ignorance of your target.

Get some experience, then come back and discuss it, with an open mind, not your balls!

[paulbj2]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

Why be selective when quoting my post. What about the part where I say it's a gateway drug. Here are my actual words  "And it DOES often lead the user on to harder drugs which often prove to be impossible to get off of and leads those who partake into a life of crime that inflicts misery upon the victims and themselves."

 

Four of my boyhood pals are dead from drug overdoses and one had his life ruined till he turned it around. You'll never have heard of them so it's pointless telling you their names. they started off on puff. But I still know one of their brothers.

 

I could introduce you if you like then you can tell him yourself my comments are 'laughable' but be a bit diplomatic about it!

 

He still lives in the UK in Kent, If you want to meet him I'll see if I can arrange it. Ask him what he thinks of drugs, and the vermin who sold them to his brother. These five boys all started off with a bit of puff, went on to speed and coke then got on heroin.

 

I also knew two other individuals of a younger generation who were sons of my friends who have died from heroin  overdoses. I remember them regularly smoking puff till they wanted something with a bit more buzz.

 

I omitted mentioning the addicts' families. They are usually devastated. But some undoubtedly say 'Good riddance'. I did once hear a cousin say 'Thank <deleted> that thieving junkie bastard's gone' but  naturally it was said out of earshot of the parents

 

Some of your friends are dead from drugs as well but you'll deny it because doing so suits your argument. They'll also have started off with puff.

 

But bear in mind I'm not a doctor like your family member but I'm sure she will agree that most heroin addicts start off with puff. Which is what I said in my post and which you have chosen to ignore.

 

Two other pals of mine died of drink but not until they were older in their 50s and 60s. The booze they died of was purchased legally. Cannabis is illegal but I can guarantee I can obtain some within an hour in London. Police have just arrested over 100 people in London for drug possession but that's no problem! At this Notting Hill Drug Taking Jamboree four people were stabbed.

 

Many people die at a young age from drugs who in all likelihood started off on marijuana. You'll have heard of some of 'em.

 

Brian Jones (Rolling Stones)

Amy Winehouse

Elvis Presley

Whitney Houston

Marilyn Munroe

Michael Jackson

Prince

Phillip Seymour Hoffmann

Heath Ledger

 

These are off the top of my head. There's loads more of less well known ones on the internet. Now you tell me some who died of drink at similar young ages off the top of your head!

Well let's see now, off the top of my head I can think of at least three friends of mine who have died of alcohol but the most recent one whose cremation I attended less than a year ago died of lung cancer, brought on by being a chain smoker.  I am having a hard time thinking of anyone that I know who died of illicit drugs. Get up to date, the largest cause of deaths by overdose in the US at least, is now prescription drugs not illegals at all. The introduction route to those has nothing whatever to do with cannabis; it has everything to do with GPs being pressured into prescribing extremely strong tranquillisers or painkillers. 

 

Sure many of us can cite personal experience of friends and acquaintances who have suffered due to drug addiction (I have friends who have walked that path but so far all have survived and thankfully all are off heroin) but let's look dispassionately at the facts. The results of decriminalisation in Portugal have been 100% positive in all the reports I have read (as I used to work for the EU, that is quite a few). The Netherlands where there are cannabis cafés on just about every street corner has one of the LOWEST rates of drug addiction in western Europe. Deaths due to so called legal highs that are cannabis "substitutes" are mounting in the UK where in the past they would have been smoking cannabis which never killed anyone directly. 

 

Amy Winehouse died of drink. Elvis Presley died of a heart attack; no trace of any illicit drugs were found in his system but he had taken a significant overdose of codeine although that was not implicated as a cause of death (he did have a massively enlarged heart and emphysema which is enough to kill anyone as overweight as he was at his death namely 159Kg or 350lbs for the unmetricated). Marilyn Monroe died of a barbiturate overdose although no one has offered up a convincing explanation how it got into her system but it wasn't by mouth, that much we know. Michael Jackson died of an overdose of Propofol , a prescription drug administered by a an incompetent and highly negligent doctor (my professional contact said that Propofol should only be administered under the supervision of an anaesthetist and only in a hospital setting as it can inhibit respiratory effort necessitating ventilation as was the case with MJ). Most of the people (not all) you cite in your list died of prescription medication; nothing illegal!

 

If you go down the "ban it if it kills or maims people" route then you would ban driving as, until recently, more people died on the roads in Britain every year than of illicit drugs! Sure there are personal horror stories but if you look at the bigger picture and ask the question what is the best way to reduce death and social damage from illicit drugs; what is the best way to prevent harm to our population, based on the evidence available, the answer is NOT "the war on drugs", it is not prosecution. Since the 1960s, as you rightly say, the use of cannabis (and all other illicit drugs) has expanded enormously. During the whole of that time, it has been unlawful. Has that acted as any kind of deterrent - clearly not!

 

The experiences in Portugal, in the Netherlands and in the states in the US where cannabis has been quasi-legalised all overwhelmingly point to a huge reduction in societal harm by legalising. That's the hard evidence; you don't like it - there's nothing I can do! The primary reason that governments resist legalisation or decriminalisation is that they fear the electoral impact or because they cling to "common sense" conclusions that fly in the face of the evidence or expert opinion (like the fiasco over Prof. Nott). 

 

 

[yogi100]

22 minutes ago, jybkk said:

 

Alright. A bit of logical fallacy 101:

 

• The plural of anecdotes is not data: whatever experiences you have, it's far from enough to build an opinion on a phenomenon that maters at society level. This is why we have science which does studies with thousands of data points, statistical analysis and correction for bias. And the immense majority of it agree that Cannabis is one of the least dangerous substance. Far below alcohol (in term of social impact) or nicotine (in terms of addiction)
• Correlation is not causation: You've seen many cannabis consumers who've been pretty irresponsible and lazy members of the society. Well, I believe you. I've seen many too. But how can you be sure that it's the drug that made them lazy, and not the their laziness that has pushed them towards that 'chill out' drug? I know lots of very productive members of society who are consumers (including people running serious businesses with hundreds of employees), would they miraculously be imprevious to these side effects?

I'm not a user of cannabis, however I've tried it in the past, and the effects are definitely milder than alcohol. It doesn't make you black out drunk like alcohol does, doesn't leave you with nausea or a throbbing headache on the next day, and neither does it bring you to some fantasy land with hallucinations. It's mostly a very efficient relaxant.

 

If it was such a danger to society, we'd have seen countries or states that have legalized it crumble down. As far as I know, Colorado and Netherlands are still doing fine. If not better.

 

Legalizing doesn't mean it should be a free for all drug fest. It should be controlled, probably the same way as alcohol is. Driving under the influence of cannabis or operating machinery should still be punishable by law. It shouldn't be sold to minors, and in my opinion, consumption should be limited to private homes or licensed establishments.

 

But further than that, the current level of demonization and prohibition is just counterproductive. It uses police and justice resources for nothing, contributes to the enrichment of drug dealers though black market (giving them resources to continue their surrounding criminal activities) and waste an opportunity for a better regulated and taxed market. The problem is that generations have been fed with these boogymen stories of reefer madness and zombified cannabis users while being told that alcohol is just fine.

 

Check this study published in the Lancet: http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf

The graph below which comes from this study shows that the impairment of mental functioning, the loss of tangibles and loss of relationships are all much lower for cannabis than for alcohol.

 

How about showing us a graph or chart that shows how many hard drug users like those on heroin, crack, meth and cocaine started off on marijuana?

[yogi100]

An alternative would be to make all drugs legal. The attraction that some especially the young find in experimenting with that which is prohibited would wane and eventually disappear.

 

The war on drugs has been lost anyway and the money saved on policing the issue would be astronomical. But many would suffer financially so it won't happen on a universal level.

 

Producers, growers, importers and dealers would be the most obvious losers along with the various officials they have in their pay. It's not in their interest for it to be legalised.

 

Social workers and those in the rehab institutions would be adversely affected. It's neither in their interest for it to be legalised.

 

Police, customs and prison officers would find a lot of their colleagues were no longer required. It's not in their interest for it to be legalised. The first thing PC Plod does when he pulls a car over is search it for drugs. They even provide their informants with drugs taken from other dealers.

 

The judiciary would also be largely redundant. Many politicians were lawyers, have friends who are lawyers and may one day have to return to lawyering. A large amount of crime these days is connected to the trade in drugs. It's definitely not in their interest for it to be legalised.

 

It's been said the drug industry is the biggest on the planet involving billions of dollars world wide. Those involved in the business often cut their teeth on the provision of marijuana, the most common of the leisure drugs.

 

None of these people want to see the end of the illicit drug trade, there's much too much money at risk. For all involved. It's the reason why Rodrigo Duterte of the PI is on the receiving end of so much flak from the world's politicians and their lackeys in the media.

[MockingJay]

2 hours ago, jybkk said:

 

Alright. A bit of logical fallacy 101:

 

• The plural of anecdotes is not data: whatever experiences you have, it's far from enough to build an opinion on a phenomenon that maters at society level. This is why we have science which does studies with thousands of data points, statistical analysis and correction for bias. And the immense majority of it agree that Cannabis is one of the least dangerous substance. Far below alcohol (in term of social impact) or nicotine (in terms of addiction)
• Correlation is not causation: You've seen many cannabis consumers who've been pretty irresponsible and lazy members of the society. Well, I believe you. I've seen many too. But how can you be sure that it's the drug that made them lazy, and not the their laziness that has pushed them towards that 'chill out' drug? I know lots of very productive members of society who are consumers (including people running serious businesses with hundreds of employees), would they miraculously be imprevious to these side effects?

I'm not a user of cannabis, however I've tried it in the past, and the effects are definitely milder than alcohol. It doesn't make you black out drunk like alcohol does, doesn't leave you with nausea or a throbbing headache on the next day, and neither does it bring you to some fantasy land with hallucinations. It's mostly a very efficient relaxant.

 

If it was such a danger to society, we'd have seen countries or states that have legalized it crumble down. As far as I know, Colorado and Netherlands are still doing fine. If not better.

 

Legalizing doesn't mean it should be a free for all drug fest. It should be controlled, probably the same way as alcohol is. Driving under the influence of cannabis or operating machinery should still be punishable by law. It shouldn't be sold to minors, and in my opinion, consumption should be limited to private homes or licensed establishments.

 

But further than that, the current level of demonization and prohibition is just counterproductive. It uses police and justice resources for nothing, contributes to the enrichment of drug dealers though black market (giving them resources to continue their surrounding criminal activities) and waste an opportunity for a better regulated and taxed market. The problem is that generations have been fed with these boogymen stories of reefer madness and zombified cannabis users while being told that alcohol is just fine.

 

Check this study published in the Lancet: http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf

The graph below which comes from this study shows that the impairment of mental functioning, the loss of tangibles and loss of relationships are all much lower for cannabis than for alcohol.

Nice chart, garnished with the so typical for Ganja users "But alcohol is far worse!" reasoning... Many Ganja users are on alcohol too, in addition! So it's a Double Whopper, so to say!

The topic was about Ganja being legalized or not. It's not a competition to find out which other drug (legal or not) is worse...

What I have listed is real life experience - and real life experience will beat any chart. Like the saying goes - never trust a statistic that you haven't fiddled up yourself!!!