Legalizing Marijuana: Why Should It Be Done...

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, it should be legalized. Both in Canada and the US- but specially the US. However there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.

First of all, there is more then one kind of "weed". Here is some info about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis

These are the three species:
Cannabis indica
Cannabis ruderalis
Cannabis sativa

Of the three, the indica species is the softest. It just gives you a "buzz". It is much less addictive then alcohol and it makes you much less impared. It is also less powerful then any painkiller- including "Tylenol 3".

Cannabis ruderalis and Cannabis sativa, in the other hand, are way more addictive and impairing. Those are the ones that should be left illegal. The brazilian version is the sativa species- which causes us many problems.

Cannabis indica has also medicinal properties. It can be used as a naturopathic remedy to treat pain and depression. If legalized, it can be used in place of painkillers and depression medicines that has bad side effects. The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't like that much. It would certainly not be in their best interests....

Anyways... currently, Cannabis indica can be "laced" with "dust" which is very problematic- it makes it worse then the other two. It could also be "laced" with "rock". "Dust" and "rock" are much greater problems then "weed". The resources that are used to prevent the trafficking of weed could be much better used preventing dust and rock. Meth, in particular, is a huge problem in the US, because it is so easy to make...

So... in short... it is better to legalize the good kind of marijuana and put the resources to getting rid of meth (which can, btw, kill someone in the first try!).


...
We can also talk about the implications of illegal traficking of weed...

 

[S.A.M.]

If the whole point of smoking weed is to get high, will people be satisfied by the "buzz" of the indica species ?

 

[The Devil Inside]

it should be legalized because i am moving back to america this summer.
thats why.

 

[RubiksMaster]

For the most part, I agree that it should be legalized. But...

If we legalized only one kind, it would be way too hard to regulate and restrict the other kinds. It's not like there is a huge difference in what they look like (at least not that I'm aware of).

Here's what I'm not understanding about your argument. You say

It is also less powerful then any painkiller- including "Tylenol 3".

Doesn't Tylenol 3 contain codeine? Codeine is a very powerful opioid painkiller. To say that cannabis is less powerful isn't saying much. There are countless analgesics that are less powerful than opioids.

If legalized, it can be used in place of painkillers and depression medicines that has bad side effects.

It wouldn't be used in place of painkillers, rather it would be used as a painkiller. And that's not to say that cannabis is without side effects. It does cause bad reactions in some people. It's not hard nowadays to find a suitable substitute painkiller if the patient experiences bad side effects to regualar drugs.

So... in short... it is better to legalize the good kind of marijuana and put the resources to getting rid of meth (which can, btw, kill someone in the first try!).

I agree that resources should be shifted away from less-harmful drugs, and put to fighting worse drugs like meth.

 

[tablariddim]

There's far too much misinformation regarding weed. Indica is the original untampered with strain and if you have tried Thai, Nigerian, Colombian, Nepalese etc Indica You will know that all that the Sativa's try to do is to emulate the cream of those original strains, which are just as powerful if not a lot more powerful than the best of the Sativa's. Sativa merely means, cultivated.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If the whole point of smoking weed is to get high, will people be satisfied by the "buzz" of the indica species ?

They can still take T3 or cold medication, if they want to get more "buzzed"...

 

[lixluke]

If you legalize MJ, why not just legalize all drugs?
Is it even ethical to tell a person what they can or cannot consume?
What the hell is the point of legalizing MJ if you do not legalize everything?

 

[S.A.M.]

They can still take T3 or cold medication, if they want to get more "buzzed"...

If that was all it would take why are they still campaingning to legalize MH?

Why not just go overboard with T3 or cold medication?

 

[TruthSeeker]

If we legalized only one kind, it would be way too hard to regulate and restrict the other kinds. It's not like there is a huge difference in what they look like (at least not that I'm aware of).

I guess there could be licenses and they can only be sold in certain businesses. That should make it easier to regulate...

Even if we don't know how to implement it, we at least know the best alternative...

Here's what I'm not understanding about your argument. You say Doesn't Tylenol 3 contain codeine? Codeine is a very powerful opioid painkiller. To say that cannabis is less powerful isn't saying much. There are countless analgesics that are less powerful than opioids.

Yes. My point was to create a boundary between what is acceptable and what is not. Beyond 1 pill of T3 is not acceptable. MJ is below that.

It wouldn't be used in place of painkillers, rather it would be used as a painkiller. And that's not to say that cannabis is without side effects. It does cause bad reactions in some people. It's not hard nowadays to find a suitable substitute painkiller if the patient experiences bad side effects to regualar drugs.

Natural sources usually have less side effects- and less serious, as well...

 

[baumgarten]

If you legalize MJ, why not just legalize all drugs?
Is it even ethical to tell a person what they can or cannot consume?
What the hell is the point of legalizing MJ if you do not legalize everything?

People generally don't want crack on the streets, and they don't want the crime that comes with it. Even if it was legal, addicts would still be mugging innocent people so they could afford their fix. Marijuana doesn't generally cause this sort of problem. Alcohol is likely responsible for far more violent and criminal behavior.

As for telling people what they can consume, I think the safety of many overrides the luxury of a few. Nobody's being told they can't eat, they're being told that if they eat this stuff, they're going to jail because it presents an unwarranted hazard to everyone else.

 

[TruthSeeker]

There's far too much misinformation regarding weed. Indica is the original untampered with strain and if you have tried Thai, Nigerian, Colombian, Nepalese etc Indica You will know that all that the Sativa's try to do is to emulate the cream of those original strains, which are just as powerful if not a lot more powerful than the best of the Sativa's. Sativa merely means, cultivated.

Where I come from, sativa is the only one. In fact, I thought sativa was in fact the only one. It is quite problematic where I come from...

 

[TruthSeeker]

People generally don't want crack on the streets, and they don't want the crime that comes with it. Even if it was legal, addicts would still be mugging innocent people so they could afford their fix. Marijuana doesn't generally cause this sort of problem. Alcohol is likely responsible for far more violent and criminal behavior.

As for telling people what they can consume, I think the safety of many overrides the luxury of a few. Nobody's being told they can't eat, they're being told that if they eat this stuff, they're going to jail because it presents an unwarranted hazard to everyone else.

Well said.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If that was all it would take why are they still campaingning to legalize MH?

Why not just go overboard with T3 or cold medication?

People prefer MJ because it is more natural and just enough. T3 and cold medication is usually too much. I tried almost all those things when I broke my elbow in half. MJ did very little to me- I got too much tolerance for some weird reason. T3 works well with me, and oxycodon (the other painkiller I tried) goes a little bit overboard...

EDIT: In Canada, you need a prescription to legally get oxycodon, btw. Me and my wife really enjoyed those times... oxycodon has a nice side effect...

 

[spidergoat]

There's no reason to discriminate between strains, and you would limit the very common hybrids which accentuate various desireable properties. A cop would need extensive training in botany or DNA analysis to determine what they were looking at. If pot were legal, the current underground growing would just come out of the closet. Genetic manipulation of this plant has exploded in recent years, making it healthier to smoke, since it there is a higher ratio of resin to plant material. There are orange and blueberry, even bubblegum and citrus flavors, all natural. Some grow small and bushy some tall and treelike, some bud quickly, others produce foot long colas.

It is much less addictive then alcohol

You mean it is non-addictive, and alcohol is a dangerous addictive drug.

Cannabis indica can be "laced" with "dust" which is very problematic

You don't know what you're talking about. Anything can be laced with anything, but pot usually isn't, unless you buy dimebags on the street.

It could also be "laced" with "rock".

I doubt it, if you had crack, you would sell crack.

 

[tablariddim]

Where I come from, sativa is the only one. In fact, I thought sativa was in fact the only one. It is quite problematic where I come from...

So there is in fact no credence to your suggestion that Indica is 'softer' and could therefore be legalised.

If MJ were to be legalised, then blends could certainly be created that were indeed softer than some of the killer weeds available, but could still provide incremental levels of desirable 'buzz' according to the needs and purpose of the imbiber. Thing is, would you be happy knowing that your bus driver, your children's teacher, your accountant, your surgeon etc is even slightly stoned, albeit legally?

 

[leopold]

Thing is, would you be happy knowing that your bus driver, your children's teacher, your accountant, your surgeon etc is even slightly stoned, albeit legally?

this can be said of almost any drug.

 

[q0101]

People generally don't want crack on the streets, and they don't want the crime that comes with it. Even if it was legal, addicts would still be mugging innocent people so they could afford their fix. Marijuana doesn't generally cause this sort of problem. Alcohol is likely responsible for far more violent and criminal behavior.

As for telling people what they can consume, I think the safety of many overrides the luxury of a few. Nobody's being told they can't eat, they're being told that if they eat this stuff, they're going to jail because it presents an unwarranted hazard to everyone else.

What about the people that choose to be responsible drug users?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56143

 

[baumgarten]

If responsible drug users were more common, then perhaps the drugs they used would have a stronger case for legalization.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

People generally don't want crack on the streets, and they don't want the crime that comes with it. Even if it was legal, addicts would still be mugging innocent people so they could afford their fix. Marijuana doesn't generally cause this sort of problem. Alcohol is likely responsible for far more violent and criminal behavior.

As for telling people what they can consume, I think the safety of many overrides the luxury of a few. Nobody's being told they can't eat, they're being told that if they eat this stuff, they're going to jail because it presents an unwarranted hazard to everyone else.

What is this, the third time someone has started a thread on this topic in the past week? And government propaganda is still being presented as though it's truth? Once again, people:

The reason addicts mug people to afford their fix is that the damn government has outlawed a popular product with the invariable result: It moves to the black market. The cost of running a black market business is higher, which raises prices. But more importantly, since the risk of running a black market business is higher, the only people who are willing to engage in that business are gangsters who will happily charge as high a price as they can possibly get away with, and since there's no oversight or regulation that price is pretty high. There was no "drug-related crime" to speak of when cocaine and opiates were legal up until about seventy years ago because the prices charged by pharmacists and shopkeepers were affordable.

As for the worn-out cliche, "the safety of the many"... This is just another side effect of drug prohibition, not of drug use itself. Virtually all "drug-related violence" is street violence perpetrated by gangsters. As you say, alcohol--and caffeine, which you don't mention and which we pander to our children--have a far more dismal history of inspiring violence than all but the most bizarre classes of recreational drugs such as PCP.

Next time search the forum before you start posting and read the threads that have already beaten your topic to death.

 

[baumgarten]

What is this, the third time someone has started a thread on this topic in the past week? And government propaganda is still being presented as though it's truth? Once again, people:

The reason addicts mug people to afford their fix is that the damn government has outlawed a popular product with the invariable result: It moves to the black market. The cost of running a black market business is higher, which raises prices. But more importantly, since the risk of running a black market business is higher, the only people who are willing to engage in that business are gangsters who will happily charge as high a price as they can possibly get away with, and since there's no oversight or regulation that price is pretty high. There was no "drug-related crime" to speak of when cocaine and opiates were legal up until about seventy years ago because the prices charged by pharmacists and shopkeepers were affordable.

As for the worn-out cliche, "the safety of the many"... This is just another side effect of drug prohibition, not of drug use itself. Virtually all "drug-related violence" is street violence perpetrated by gangsters. As you say, alcohol--and caffeine, which you don't mention and which we pander to our children--have a far more dismal history of inspiring violence than all but the most bizarre classes of recreational drugs such as PCP.

Next time search the forum before you start posting and read the threads that have already beaten your topic to death.

Don't forget that gangs that control turf have the advantage of artificially inflating drug prices, since they force out any competition. In the United States, we have similar problems with legal pharmaceutical products. How do we ensure prices stay low enough that addicts don't have to mug other people to pay for them?