Why should weed be illegal?
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
It helps finance the police departments.
haha true but we also waste time and money convicting people who use it.
bottom line not 1 person has a reasonable argument why it should be illegal
Kids could get it more easily and rot their brains.
don't forget the bloated fat cat lawyers and judges.
that is false.. there are 2 drugs that are at the top of the list i could point 2.. and id rather have a rotting brain than be dead
But we aren't talking about other drugs.
It causes accidents which kill people. Many times people are given drug tests to see if they are under the influence of pot and in many cases they are. Those who are "high" cause accidents in which other people die in. Isn't that a good enough reason to prevent the drug from being legalized besides being a gateway drug to much harder drugs as well.
very true you have yet to give a good reason to have the drug illegal.. it would rot adults brains to. the benifits outweigh the downsides
No, that's totally backwards. Legal drugs are among the most difficult for kids to get, because their production and distribution is both visible and tightly controlled. A major reason that so many youths use marijuana is that they are unable to obtain alcohol (their first choice), whereas illegal drugs like marijuana are very easy to obtain at any high school in the US. Legalizing marijuana would do more than almost anything to reduce marijuana use amongst teens and youths.
No, that's a good reason to make driving under the influence of drugs illegal. Unless you also want to make alcohol illegal?
That's pure horseshit. And, again, applies much mroe strongly to alcohol, tobacco, sugar and any number of other legal drugs.
it causes accidents? when can you show statistics on how many deaths a year are directly caused by the use of marijuana..
and again.. otherdrugs on the market "death due to overuse" are thousands of times higher. With that argument other drugs on the market should be illegal..
gateway drug? get real again other drugs are much bigger gateway drugs... in countries where marijuana is legal.. the number of kids using is lower the % of adaults are about equal and the % of thoes that use harder drugs is wayyy lower.. reason if its legal the people "selling" it arnt pushing more potent drugs but if they sold cocaine that would be better than marijuana apparently
agreed with both posts
I don't think it's all that easy, especially if their parents aren't users. You have to know someone, it costs a lot of money. Kids can get alcohol out of their parents liquor cabinet.
SilentLi89
Registered Senior Member
It should be illegal for all of the same reasons that alcohol should be illegal. MJ's consumption is no worse than alcohol's.
You think wrong. Neither myself nor anyone I knew in high school had much trouble getting marijuana on demand, and none of our parents smoked. Nor the parents of the people we'd get it from - mostly it was purchased on the street and resold at school. I'm given to believe that this situation is typical across the country. Here's a study from Columbia University establishing that it's easier for high schoolers to get weed than alcohol, cigarettes or prescription drugs:
http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/
Everyone in a modern US high school knows someone that can get weed. Certain naive types might not realize that they know such people, but the fact remains...
Not really. High grade stuff in quantity costs a bunch of money, but surely you're familiar with the phrase (and song) "I Got Five on it"? As in, a few people each chip in $5, and you get enough marijuana for everyone to get high. Alcohol costs at least as much.
Only in small quantities and intermittently, otherwise they'll be caught (at which point, the liquor cabinet gets emptied/locked). There were only a handful of people in my high school that could get alcohol in quantity (worked with sleazy types who'd buy for them), and so obtaining it was always a production - took multiple days of arrangements and meetings. And alcohol is difficult to hide and transport in any quantity.
Weed, on the other hand, was available on any given day. Pretty much on-demand, on campus. If you had $5 (or friends who didn't mind sharing), you could get high at any time.
I didn't know anyone in high school, but I could go over to the neighbor's and get beers out of their garage.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
That there are drugs that rot your brain more are not an argument against criminalizing marijuana, it's more off an argument for criminalizing those other drugs.
There are arguments for and against it. Certainly (notwithstanding some sources who refuse to accept that marijuana could have any adverse health effects), there is some evidence that it is bad for you (see, for example the National Institute of Health's assessment: http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/InfoFacts/Marijuana09.pdf). There is also ample evidence that it is not as bad as it has sometimes been made out to be.
Still, the main reason to keep it criminalized is just not liking the sort of people who flout the current law and use it anyway, especially those with a sense of entitlement. The main argument for legalization is the huge cost of enforcement, and in my mind that trumps everything else.
We can still throw the book at anyone who drives while high, fire anyone who turns up at work high, ostracize anyone who smokes around their children and generally deal with those sorts of special issues on a case by case basis, and save ourselves huge amounts of money.
The majority of people oppose cannabis consumption on the grounds that it harms your brain/causes mental issues, causes social decay, that is harms society, it is a gateway drug and is unhealthy. I disagree with the first 3 and feel the 4th point is negligible.
Use of Cannabis does not contribute to brain damage, memory loss, or stupidity THIS IS A LIE spread by Ronald Reagan in 1974 in the Heath/Tulane study. They pumped monkeys full of weed roughly 30 joints worth a day, after about 90 days they tended to die and were shown to have suffered from brain damage- THIS WAS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL ARGUMENTS THAT CANNABIS CAUSED BRAIN DAMAGE AND KILLED BRAIN CELLS. After 6 years of requests for how the study was conducted, they finally caved in; instead of pumping monkeys with 30 joints a day over 12 months, Heath and Tulane used a gas mask on the monkeys and pumpedthem with 63 columbian strength joints worth of weed in 5 minutes over 3 months WITHOUT ADDITIONAL OXYGEN - this suffocated the monkeys, and this is why they were observed to be losing brain cells - this is the study you are quoting when you say cannabis causes brain damage. It is scientifically unfounded
Studies since have shown no connection between cannabis and brain damage. 2005 Journal of Clinical Investigation ; Xia Zhang of Saskatchewan University actually showed that marijuana could stimulate brain cell growth.
In terms of health, Marijuana of course is not the perfect thing to be putting in your system, you're inhaling the smoke of plant matter after all. BUT IT POSES MINIMAL SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARDS
Cannabis doesn't cause lung cancer, brown lung or emphesyma ; no government is yet to provide one example of a case of Cancer caused by Cannabis use - as the 1999 study by the Medical Institute of USA shows. Dr Donald Tashkin of UCLA recently performed a study and concluded that MJ does not in any way contribute to lung cancer and "does not potentiate emphysyma in any way"
Don't even have to talk about deaths. Cannabis kills nobody. Caffeine kills more of us, as does DIY
Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard medical school has stated "the damage to health caused by moderate cannabis use is minimal, a poor diet would cause more medical problems." Dr. Perry Kendall, BC Provincial Health Officer has said "You have to smoke 15000 joints in 20 minutes to acquire a toxic level of THC in your body." I challenge anyone to do that
Also there is a common misconception that the potency has been increasing, and higher THC levels have contributed to more damaging effects. THIS IS NOT TRUE. No grade available in any country is significantly higher than any Columbian or British Columbian buds of the 20th century- and everyone turned out fine! it is pure ego to suggest that in the last 50 years of prohibition we have developed better strains and varieties than were cultivated in places like India for the past thousands of years.
Another argument is the addiction/gateway drug theory.. after all there are more kids in therapy and rehabilitation for cannabis addiction than any other substance. So it must be addictive. right? No. The reason for thsi figure is down to the policy of the DEA- if a kid gets caught smoking cannabis and it is filed as an offence, a first or second timer is offered a choice- face a minor criminal record and some kind of fine or punishment.. or go into therapy/rehabilitation. What would you choose? and this creates a figure the DEA can point to as evidence that the amount of kids in treatment shows that cannabis damages people and society. But it is a manufactured figure. Only 3% of people in cannabis treatment are there volunatarily.
Cannabis possesses no addictive element. People argue of its psychological addictiveness- anything can be psychologically addictive, and cannabis posseses no quality than any other form of medicine or drug doesnt have whic.h makes it more prone to causing psychological addiction. It is habituating, but can be discontinued.
Cannabis in itself is not a gateway drug it is not a stepping stone on to harder drugs. Again Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard medical school has stated "there is no inherent pharmacological or psychological property in cannabis that pushes one towards another drug... by such reasoning it could be argued that if alcohol is your drug of choice, you started on milk." The only actuality that can make cannabis a stepping stone drug is when the markets of hard drugs are blended together with the markets of soft drugs by Cannabis' prohibition which creates a intimacy in which people who go to score pot do end up being exposed to some ketamine or coke. The prohibition creates a black market which is the only cause of the 'stepping stone' event which OCCASSIONALLY OCCURS. A 2008 DEA study showed only 1/104 marijuana users used cocaine, and less than 1/104 used heroin or LSD. Which shows that ultimately, Marijuana consumption poses a minimal threat as a gateway drug. But the study was kept a bit quiet And Legalisation and regulation would prevent this small effect entirely.
And now we come to face the idea that marijuana use harms society. No it doesn't, it's prohibition does.
I think Sandy mentioned that it causes laziness and uselessness?
Steven Jobbs developed apple computers smoking pot
Ted Turner developed CNN smoking pot, still smokes a j every day
Almost every modern presedential candidate has admitted to using marijuana at some point in their lives
Cannabis does not cause idleness, many are in fact motivated by it.
Second, even if you do stick to your guns that cannabis is detrimental to society, ok. But does prohibition protect society from it? NO. There are over 50 million regular users in the USA, and more who don't admit it, supply is as high as ever as is demand. So what does prohibition actually do? It provides money for organised criminals ; In British Colombia, Canada alone, its estimated that the illegal marijuana trade brings in $7 billion per year. Prohibiton also allows our children to access the drug at will, Prohibition creates an unregulated market, where one cant regulate who can buy pot. People who say we need to protect our kids from weed should want it legalised, because then you can enforce an age limit, at the minute any 11 year old can score some weed if you know someone scummy enough. We should not leave the dealers to decide what age is appropriate for a kid to buy weed. Ask any 16 year old what's easier to get, booze or weed. They'll say weed. If you try to prohibit something that's in demand, it is folly.
To decide whether marijuana should be prohibited or not, you should just look at the effect that prohibition compared to regulation had on alcohol. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to massive organised crime, Al Capone and the like, led to a general disregard for the law and a general disregard for police activity. Alcohol poisoning increased by 600% during the prohibition years. People were shooting each other over booze. Similarly, the prohibition of marijuana strengthens organised crime, and funds their activities- weed is now worth more oz per oz than gold, it creates an artificially inflated price for the product which makes people prepared to fight and murder over it. The Frasier Institute called cannabis prohibition a "gift of revenue to organised crime." When you have organised criminals supporting prohibition, you have to scratch your head and wonder who this prohibition is really benefitting. Legalising cannabis would undermine this violent and criminal trade and redirect the benefits of cannabis back into official hands - it's been estimated that taxing cannabis consumption in the US at similar levels to tobacco or alcohol would raise between $10-14 billion a year.
Nay sayers may say 'What about all the crime and voilence associated with marijuana?' Stoned people are not violent, and they definitely aren't up for holding robberies or raping someone, we're chilled, we wanna watch a black and white film and eat some fucking pizza.
Norm Stamper, police chief of Seattle 1994-2000 ; "While I saw ample evidence of violence caused by alcohol I saw the absence of evidence of voilence caused by marijuana use, and i mean complete absence. I cannot recall a single case in which marijuana contributed to domestic voilence, crimes of theft and the like, show me a guy who smoked too much pot and went home and beat his wife and kids like you see on alcohol"
Furthermore, the cost of enforcing marijuana prohibition is astronomical; Last year, USA spends $7.7 billion enforcing cannabis prohibition every year. Only $400 million is spent on enforcing prohobition of all the other drugs combined- crack, coke, heroin, meth, ketamine, LSD, mushrooms, the date rape drug etc. Which do you think damages society more?
If you're convicted for possession of one joint, you can't get a government loan to get you through college. Even with a murder, rape or aggravated assault conviction, you can get a loan from the government to get you through college. i guess the message is it's ok to murder rape and pillage, just dont smoke a j afterwards.
To Illustrate the sillyness of the smear campaign on marijuana ; "Everyone of the bastards out for legalizing marijuana is jewish" - Richard Nixon 1971, White House Tapes. He ignored the Shafer report he commissioned as it stated that £marijuana should have no criminal penalty attached to it" and created this war on marijuana to prevent pacifism in the USA which led to war protests about Vietnam.
In terms of the god uses that industrial hemp can be put to, the list is endless
It's fibres are the strongest naturally occuring fibres in the world
More than 5000 textile products
More than 25000 products from cellulose- dynamite to cellophane
Paper superior to trees and a much more renewable resource- The bill of rights was written on hemp paper
Biofeul
Clothes - longlasting, more durable than cotton
MEDICINE - SO MUCH FUCKING MEDICINE I WONT EVEN BEGIN
Seeds are a great source of amino acids
sooo many more
.Marijuana is not a moral debate, you must be pragmatic about it. There is a demand, and we cannot stop the supply. We should legalise it, regulate it, taxt the hell out of it and put every penny back into the health system. Whether it is good or bad... I see a plant which can bring a lot of happiness, a lot of pain relief and a lot of answers to modern day problems which poses very few negative side effects. I think marijuana could be put to good use.
Use of Cannabis does not contribute to brain damage, memory loss, or stupidity THIS IS A LIE spread by Ronald Reagan in 1974 in the Heath/Tulane study. They pumped monkeys full of weed roughly 30 joints worth a day, after about 90 days they tended to die and were shown to have suffered from brain damage- THIS WAS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL ARGUMENTS THAT CANNABIS CAUSED BRAIN DAMAGE AND KILLED BRAIN CELLS. After 6 years of requests for how the study was conducted, they finally caved in; instead of pumping monkeys with 30 joints a day over 12 months, Heath and Tulane used a gas mask on the monkeys and pumpedthem with 63 columbian strength joints worth of weed in 5 minutes over 3 months WITHOUT ADDITIONAL OXYGEN - this suffocated the monkeys, and this is why they were observed to be losing brain cells - this is the study you are quoting when you say cannabis causes brain damage. It is scientifically unfounded
Studies since have shown no connection between cannabis and brain damage. 2005 Journal of Clinical Investigation ; Xia Zhang of Saskatchewan University actually showed that marijuana could stimulate brain cell growth.
In terms of health, Marijuana of course is not the perfect thing to be putting in your system, you're inhaling the smoke of plant matter after all. BUT IT POSES MINIMAL SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARDS
Cannabis doesn't cause lung cancer, brown lung or emphesyma ; no government is yet to provide one example of a case of Cancer caused by Cannabis use - as the 1999 study by the Medical Institute of USA shows. Dr Donald Tashkin of UCLA recently performed a study and concluded that MJ does not in any way contribute to lung cancer and "does not potentiate emphysyma in any way"
Don't even have to talk about deaths. Cannabis kills nobody. Caffeine kills more of us, as does DIY
Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard medical school has stated "the damage to health caused by moderate cannabis use is minimal, a poor diet would cause more medical problems." Dr. Perry Kendall, BC Provincial Health Officer has said "You have to smoke 15000 joints in 20 minutes to acquire a toxic level of THC in your body." I challenge anyone to do that
Also there is a common misconception that the potency has been increasing, and higher THC levels have contributed to more damaging effects. THIS IS NOT TRUE. No grade available in any country is significantly higher than any Columbian or British Columbian buds of the 20th century- and everyone turned out fine! it is pure ego to suggest that in the last 50 years of prohibition we have developed better strains and varieties than were cultivated in places like India for the past thousands of years.
Another argument is the addiction/gateway drug theory.. after all there are more kids in therapy and rehabilitation for cannabis addiction than any other substance. So it must be addictive. right? No. The reason for thsi figure is down to the policy of the DEA- if a kid gets caught smoking cannabis and it is filed as an offence, a first or second timer is offered a choice- face a minor criminal record and some kind of fine or punishment.. or go into therapy/rehabilitation. What would you choose? and this creates a figure the DEA can point to as evidence that the amount of kids in treatment shows that cannabis damages people and society. But it is a manufactured figure. Only 3% of people in cannabis treatment are there volunatarily.
Cannabis possesses no addictive element. People argue of its psychological addictiveness- anything can be psychologically addictive, and cannabis posseses no quality than any other form of medicine or drug doesnt have whic.h makes it more prone to causing psychological addiction. It is habituating, but can be discontinued.
Cannabis in itself is not a gateway drug it is not a stepping stone on to harder drugs. Again Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard medical school has stated "there is no inherent pharmacological or psychological property in cannabis that pushes one towards another drug... by such reasoning it could be argued that if alcohol is your drug of choice, you started on milk." The only actuality that can make cannabis a stepping stone drug is when the markets of hard drugs are blended together with the markets of soft drugs by Cannabis' prohibition which creates a intimacy in which people who go to score pot do end up being exposed to some ketamine or coke. The prohibition creates a black market which is the only cause of the 'stepping stone' event which OCCASSIONALLY OCCURS. A 2008 DEA study showed only 1/104 marijuana users used cocaine, and less than 1/104 used heroin or LSD. Which shows that ultimately, Marijuana consumption poses a minimal threat as a gateway drug. But the study was kept a bit quiet And Legalisation and regulation would prevent this small effect entirely.
And now we come to face the idea that marijuana use harms society. No it doesn't, it's prohibition does.
I think Sandy mentioned that it causes laziness and uselessness?
Steven Jobbs developed apple computers smoking pot
Ted Turner developed CNN smoking pot, still smokes a j every day
Almost every modern presedential candidate has admitted to using marijuana at some point in their lives
Cannabis does not cause idleness, many are in fact motivated by it.
Second, even if you do stick to your guns that cannabis is detrimental to society, ok. But does prohibition protect society from it? NO. There are over 50 million regular users in the USA, and more who don't admit it, supply is as high as ever as is demand. So what does prohibition actually do? It provides money for organised criminals ; In British Colombia, Canada alone, its estimated that the illegal marijuana trade brings in $7 billion per year. Prohibiton also allows our children to access the drug at will, Prohibition creates an unregulated market, where one cant regulate who can buy pot. People who say we need to protect our kids from weed should want it legalised, because then you can enforce an age limit, at the minute any 11 year old can score some weed if you know someone scummy enough. We should not leave the dealers to decide what age is appropriate for a kid to buy weed. Ask any 16 year old what's easier to get, booze or weed. They'll say weed. If you try to prohibit something that's in demand, it is folly.
To decide whether marijuana should be prohibited or not, you should just look at the effect that prohibition compared to regulation had on alcohol. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to massive organised crime, Al Capone and the like, led to a general disregard for the law and a general disregard for police activity. Alcohol poisoning increased by 600% during the prohibition years. People were shooting each other over booze. Similarly, the prohibition of marijuana strengthens organised crime, and funds their activities- weed is now worth more oz per oz than gold, it creates an artificially inflated price for the product which makes people prepared to fight and murder over it. The Frasier Institute called cannabis prohibition a "gift of revenue to organised crime." When you have organised criminals supporting prohibition, you have to scratch your head and wonder who this prohibition is really benefitting. Legalising cannabis would undermine this violent and criminal trade and redirect the benefits of cannabis back into official hands - it's been estimated that taxing cannabis consumption in the US at similar levels to tobacco or alcohol would raise between $10-14 billion a year.
Nay sayers may say 'What about all the crime and voilence associated with marijuana?' Stoned people are not violent, and they definitely aren't up for holding robberies or raping someone, we're chilled, we wanna watch a black and white film and eat some fucking pizza.
Norm Stamper, police chief of Seattle 1994-2000 ; "While I saw ample evidence of violence caused by alcohol I saw the absence of evidence of voilence caused by marijuana use, and i mean complete absence. I cannot recall a single case in which marijuana contributed to domestic voilence, crimes of theft and the like, show me a guy who smoked too much pot and went home and beat his wife and kids like you see on alcohol"
Furthermore, the cost of enforcing marijuana prohibition is astronomical; Last year, USA spends $7.7 billion enforcing cannabis prohibition every year. Only $400 million is spent on enforcing prohobition of all the other drugs combined- crack, coke, heroin, meth, ketamine, LSD, mushrooms, the date rape drug etc. Which do you think damages society more?
If you're convicted for possession of one joint, you can't get a government loan to get you through college. Even with a murder, rape or aggravated assault conviction, you can get a loan from the government to get you through college. i guess the message is it's ok to murder rape and pillage, just dont smoke a j afterwards.
To Illustrate the sillyness of the smear campaign on marijuana ; "Everyone of the bastards out for legalizing marijuana is jewish" - Richard Nixon 1971, White House Tapes. He ignored the Shafer report he commissioned as it stated that £marijuana should have no criminal penalty attached to it" and created this war on marijuana to prevent pacifism in the USA which led to war protests about Vietnam.
In terms of the god uses that industrial hemp can be put to, the list is endless
It's fibres are the strongest naturally occuring fibres in the world
More than 5000 textile products
More than 25000 products from cellulose- dynamite to cellophane
Paper superior to trees and a much more renewable resource- The bill of rights was written on hemp paper
Biofeul
Clothes - longlasting, more durable than cotton
MEDICINE - SO MUCH FUCKING MEDICINE I WONT EVEN BEGIN
Seeds are a great source of amino acids
sooo many more
.Marijuana is not a moral debate, you must be pragmatic about it. There is a demand, and we cannot stop the supply. We should legalise it, regulate it, taxt the hell out of it and put every penny back into the health system. Whether it is good or bad... I see a plant which can bring a lot of happiness, a lot of pain relief and a lot of answers to modern day problems which poses very few negative side effects. I think marijuana could be put to good use.
I totally agree, just playing devil's advocate.