And you're talking about risk management. Do we deny marijuana to tens of millions of people who get great pleasure out of it, because a handful of people have bad experiences? There are six and a half billion people on this planet. There's hardly anything you can name that a handful of people haven't had a bad experience with. We don't outlaw all of it. That's the way our mothers would run the world.
Considering the negative effects of alcohol abuse in the UK, combined with the way it is subliminaly advertised through soap opera's and other programs aimed at teens or families....I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be legalised......:shrug:
Indeed. The persecution of marijuana users has caused a shift toward other drugs. Since marijuana is arguably the most benign of all psychoactive drugs--its only rival for that title being caffeine, which is a nightmare for me personally--all of the other drugs people are using instead of marijuana are worse for them. The most common substitute is alcohol. Considering the profound disruption of judgment that characterizes alcohol intoxication, it's one of the worst drugs to push at young people. And alcohol use among teenagers has skyrocketed in the U.S. since the liquor and pharmaceutical industries got the government to get tough on their competion. Drunk driving accidents are now the leading cause of death for teenagers. Thank the War on Drugs for that. Stoned teenagers are paranoid and drive like old ladies.
The problem with weed is the long term mental effects. These effects are serious. Another thing is that the effects of THC lingers in the body so it is hard to tell if your perspective is what would be normal (for you) without it or is your perspective altered because of it. On the other hand if someone drank a glass of red wine every day it is beneficial, there is no denying this. The problem comes with abuse so you would be punishing the people who have a beer or a glass of wine because some people will always abuse substances but smoking weed does have a severe negative effect on the user especially over the long term. I agree that it is easier to deal with a person who is high from weed than a person who is drunk but it is also easier to tell when a person is intoxicated from alcohol. Another thing about weed is that after a few years the user does not get stoned in the way that they used to but the chemical THC still effect the brain. Many people will look for that high they once got because the first time you smoke good weed it gets you blasted so there is the very real prospect that since the weed no longer does the trick they will smoke hash or opium or maybe even snort some heroin. Now your in a whole new league because in a few months time you cannot function without a dime of dope every morning. Afa driving i am not sure if long term smokers suffer from blackouts but it would not surprise me. I would not put my kid in a car with someone who just smoked some strong weed. Also in the U.S the penalties for possessing a small amount is a fine, something like $125 but i am not sure of all the laws. It's a crap shoot and another perspective.
I would say that the biggest effect from weed that takes a very long time to wear off is it has the ability to give a person "permanent munchies" for a long time after a marijuana binge. (can increase the metabolism greatly) Still, alcohol beats it on the dangerous scale. I've nearly died several times with alcohol. The only thing that makes a weed smoker paranoid is the fear of it's illegality. Once an experienced smoker realizes that alcohol is indeed more dangerous, sneakiness to smoke it in only safe conditions generally eliminates the paranoia of being fined by tickets. Sadly enough, around here, you can be charged a totalitarian 1000$ for having just a small amount of the plant. The most harmful part about marijuana is the fact that it must be smoked. If it were legal: A: Dealers wouldn't put extra chemicals in it (or even pubic hairs as I have witnessed several times) B: It would be purchased for much cheaper and EATEN rather than smoked. (since it takes a great deal more to effect a person who eats it) There are few things more gratifying than smoking marijuana only once in a while, and then playing some piano or synthesizer. Some people can drive with marijuana, and others, cannot. Perhaps this is more the reason to stop buying gasoline and ride a bike to stop supporting big petroleum?
But I'd argue that severe negative effect comes with abuse, just as it does with alcohol. I doubt very much that a joint a week will have severe long term effects to your mental health, but a joint a day probably will. Most of the studies that found these severe mental effects were experimenting with doses much, much higher than the average user would face. We're talking 2 or 3 joints a day every day for several months. At that level of abuse you're bound to run into problems.
Err...no it's not. Granted if you have AIDS you can get Marinol, but try and smoke a joint on Schwarzenegger's front lawn. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Drugs, of the recreational kind, have been a part of the music and arts in general scene for like, ever. The push by the US to outlaw recreational use was initially aimed squarely at African-American musicians in those cities they gathered in. The black jazz scene was once considered a major threat to the pure, white-only social system; musicians who were into jazz, even non-blacks, were pilloried, their culture made out to be evil devil-worship , they were demonised; their music labeled with various negative labels like "coon-music", etc. Even white musicians would parody jazz music - remember the "Black&White minstrels"? Golliwogs even? Fat lot of good it did them - jazz had and still does have a major influence, not just on American music either. Jazz and drugs like marijuana, cocaine, opium, are inextricable. Mind you, there are the Amy Winehouse types to worry about, as influences on young, easily-influenced types. Presumably Lord Byron, Shelley & co, being European, were more acceptable drug users than black jazz musos.
That only played a small part, along with Mexican immigrants bringing the drug into the US. The biggest factor was the threat hemp posed to the new paper and textiles industry.
oh yeah I also meant to state my opinion. I don't smoke weed. I have a few times in my life but I'm living the life of no drinking and no smoking these days... just because I found a boyfriend that doesn't do any of that and I don't need any of it to pass my time now. I have nothing against the drug, I was just one of those users that was all "ugh take the real world OUT OF MY SIGHT!" I will tell you that if we're talking about being fair to everyone, I would have to have my wishes honored as well. If you are a responsible smoker of the drug, or a functioning drug user (capable of GREAT artistic works or completing a job normally impossible because of pain/depression/whatever else it alleviates in a healthy way) you should be allowed the courtesy of use without harassment from our country's finest. A general legalization it is not on the list of my highest priorities because I personally know three instances in which I felt weed possession should absoLUTELY not have been allowed. These three instances have convinced me (after seeing the general population of America's spoiled little brats that take life for granted) that in the wrong hands (and I'm sure you know, this country has a lot of wrong little hands in the pleasure-seeking cookie jars) a selfish and stupid way to please yourself. Instance 1: Best friend of mine (after becoming a "pot head")=completely fucking stupid. Her continual use of weed led to incoherent story telling and a lack of good judgement. A once beautiful mind that sparked really creative ways of living her life now sits in an apartment with ONE FRIEND and smokes weed. COOL. Instance 2: Co-worker told me the only way she could get through the stress of being a pregnant 19 year old mother, was smoking weed (while the fetus was growing in her little tummy). She told me this while waving her Christian beliefs in front of my face as well. It calmed her down, so she jeopardized the baby's health with her drug use. BRAVO. Instance 3: Some very close friends of mine have a terrible past with the drug. They were all stoned and on the way to a friend's house to pick up a bong and the person driving hit and smashed open this guy's skull that had decided to cross the street. They all claimed it had nothing to do with them being high, and of course being a friend, I could not imply otherwise. UM, HOLY SHIT. Yes I realize those three examples do not (by ANY MEANS) represent the entire cannabis smoking/THC needing community. But these few very important (to me) examples make me confident in saying that legalization is absolutely not the answer, but some sort of "get out of jail free" card is necessary for those who can responsibly use it. As for self sustainable living, the many hemp uses such as clothing and all that, I am totally for. But this government and big business has a pretty tight hold on everyone's ballsacs so if we can come up with a way to knock over that horse of an ENTIRELY different fucking color, I am totally in.
I dont mind pot smokers at all so i dont want it to seem as though i am attacking them in any way. Simply discussing things to gain insight. I think that most established governments do a lot of research. Afterall they hire the best scientists so the reasons are more involved than targeting a group of people or the textile industry stroy. Which in and of itself makes no sense anyway.
You're right, and they did commission a lot of scientists to study it. It's just that they decided completely against what those scientists recommended. First with the Marijuana Tax Act, even though studies commissioned by the government reported that hemp would be a lot more efficient and envrionmentally friendly to make paper and textiles with. Then later Nixon created another high profile commission to study marijuana and its effects on society (the Shafer Commission), that commission came back with the result that it should be decriminalized. Nixon did exactly the opposite and declared 'all out war' on drugs. And I don't want it to seem like I'm saying marijuana doesn't have a bad side. Also just discussing things Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The only reason marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes is that it has impurities that dealers put in to make it weigh more. So what this actually means is illegal-marijuana is dangerous, merely because you can't grow it yourself.
it may have been already mentioned. the alcohol companies spend a fair amount of money lobbying against marijuana legislation changes. all see if i can find....
stay away from that mexi dirt weed crap. grow your own and you cant be blamed for squat other than breaking the law. seriously.
the first marijuana laws in the us were in the early 20th century. marijuana smoking, specifically smoking, was outlawed in utah. it was against their Mormon religion. the first drug laws in the us were in the city of san francisco, smoking opium was outlawed. again, specifically smoking, this was in the 1860s. it was to discriminate against the Chinese population. the Chinese were having sex with our drugged wives..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ive read that cocaine was first outlawed in some southern states to discriminate against blacks. ads were run saying things like "outlaw cocaine or a cocaine crazed negroes will rape your white daughters". kind of sick eh. minimum wage in the us was started for the same reason. ohio democrat, senator i think, said "niggers will be stealing a white mans job if we don't pass this law". in other words the minimum wage was created to prevent blacks from getting jobs. the thought was that no one would be willing to pay a black man that much. no offense but that is the jist of the language used. its rather harsh, i know. it was some democrat congressman by the name of harrison that found away around the republican views of federalism. the republicans were very much against creating laws for states. but, harrison was able to pass the harrison tax act, using themes such as "coke crazy negroes", "dirty mexican marijuana smokers" and "chinese seducers". instead of passing federal legislation outlawing the use of these drugs, he used taxation. he said if you didnt have a tax stamp you couldn't do it. the tax stamp was expensive and they only made a few of them. they could make arrests for federal tax evasion. not to be confused with the marijuana tax stamp which came out apx. 15 years later. and blah blah blah US history Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
