so are you classifying weed with those other drugs?
you have the experience..how does weed compare to the other drugs?
(been there,done that,done with that, in bold..)
Why should weed be illegal?
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
so are you classifying weed with those other drugs?
you have the experience..how does weed compare to the other drugs?
(been there,done that,done with that, in bold..)
Yes I include weed because it all started with a spliff. Well, MDMA and speed are cousins that give you energy and a high that is in some ways similar to coke and crack. MDMA is actually what they used to call extacy. But again, all similar. Mushies and LSD are strong hallucinogens. Good when they are good, but if you have a bad trip it's really really scary. LSD is one of, if not the strongest drug known to man. 10 microgrammes is plenty for most people.
Chloroform just kinda knocks you out after a while (not instantly like on films) and I took ether which has a similar effect.
Amyl you can buy in any sex shop. It's used by homosexuals for reasons I don't even want to imagine. If you use this it has a very short high during which sensory perception gets totally garbled.
And so to heroin. What can I say about this? Well it's the worlds most effective painkiller and it also kills psycological pain - which is partly why it's so damn hard to stay off. Once it starts killing everyone you care about, the psycological dependence just gets stronger. It's the only one I haven't been able to quit fully. I'd be a mess without it, yet I'm a mess because of it.
To compare weed with these sems pretty hard, but if you think about the people that die because of stoned drivers, bad drug deals, cancer (weed is a carcinogen and, incidentally, contains about 10 times more tar than a straight) et al, then it's not as innocent as it would appear. If weed was taken off the black market then a lot of people would, I think, start messing around with harder stuff. Personally, I think if people want to grow thier own then maybe an exception could be made providing they can guarantee that kids can't get ahold of it.
I'm not saying it's a gateway drug for everyone, obviously it's not. But for some it is, and who's to know who those people will be?
Chloroform just kinda knocks you out after a while (not instantly like on films) and I took ether which has a similar effect.
Amyl you can buy in any sex shop. It's used by homosexuals for reasons I don't even want to imagine. If you use this it has a very short high during which sensory perception gets totally garbled.
And so to heroin. What can I say about this? Well it's the worlds most effective painkiller and it also kills psycological pain - which is partly why it's so damn hard to stay off. Once it starts killing everyone you care about, the psycological dependence just gets stronger. It's the only one I haven't been able to quit fully. I'd be a mess without it, yet I'm a mess because of it.
To compare weed with these sems pretty hard, but if you think about the people that die because of stoned drivers, bad drug deals, cancer (weed is a carcinogen and, incidentally, contains about 10 times more tar than a straight) et al, then it's not as innocent as it would appear. If weed was taken off the black market then a lot of people would, I think, start messing around with harder stuff. Personally, I think if people want to grow thier own then maybe an exception could be made providing they can guarantee that kids can't get ahold of it.
I'm not saying it's a gateway drug for everyone, obviously it's not. But for some it is, and who's to know who those people will be?
All of the good evidence I've seen indicates that to the extent that marijuana is a gateway drug (which is to say, hardly at all), such is exactly because it is illegal. I.e., having to buy weed on the black market necessarily puts you in contact with the black market for harder drugs to some extent. More than that, it seems to be a reaction to the ill-advised rhetoric that conflates weed with much harder, more dangerous drugs. So when people try weed (which many, many people eventually do) and see that it isn't particularly dangerous (and, in fact, is less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco), it causes them to dismiss all of the warnings about the other illegal drugs that have been equated with marijuana as similarly bullshit. And since they've already crossed the legality line, what's the disincentive to trying some other drugs? Again, most weed smokers never do that, but that's where the "gateway" is - it's an artifact of senseless prohibition.
We'd be way better off with sensible categorization and prohibition. Make really dangerous drugs like coke and heroin illegal, and make a point of advertizing how bad they are for you. Make weed legal, and pursue sensible public safety and health advocacy to deal with the downside (just like with alcohol or tobacco). That way, weed smokers do not come into contact with the black market, and everyone has good reason to take the warnings about illegal drugs seriously.
So, again, the best way to address a putative problem with marijuana is to legalize it.
i know ALOT of ppl that just stay with weed..if there is a predisposition for addiction then that another story..
but at least it gives one something besides cancer..
that applies whether it is legal or not...
that is fair..
The strange thing is, although I got addicted to drugs, I never got addicted to alcohol even though there is a family history of it. Never could figure that one out. Of course, having had my own lab meant I was able to get a lot of stuff most people can't like Phenobarbitone etc. Fortunately, I lived to tell the tale - though it's more of a nightmare in reality. I dread to think how many months I wasted getting clean of this or that. If I can only give smack the boot, that'll be the lot.
The actual problem is not the drugs, it is the reason that you choose to take the drugs, that is why you go from one substance to another. You do not address the underlying problem.
The standard dose of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide is 250 micrograms, though it used to be 500 mg. It is definitely not the 'strongest drug' around. Heck - STP will take you on a 1 week 'trip' and a heroin overdose can kill you dead. Amyl nitrate can give you a heart attack, huffing solvents can kill your brain, your liver and are highly addictive. All of those are a bit more 'serious' than LSD.
To the contrary, hallucinogens - including LSD - have been used effectively in helping addicts to get off their drug of choice and get clean and sober, when used in the proper setting with a trained councilor.
Any "gateway" in drug usage is within the user - a predilection, emotional issue or skewed world view that makes a specific individual more susceptible to developing a dependence or addiction. This does indeed tend to run in families.
Further, there have been no studies that indicated that cannabis raised the risk of cancer to the user. Again, to the contrary, a recent study showed that cannabis only smokers had normal risk for lung, throat, neck and head cancers compared to tobacco smokers, tobacco and cannabis smokers and non smokers. It is theorized that the cannabinoids cause precancerous lung cells to commit apoptosis upon exposure.
I would not encourage anyone to inhale smoke of any kind for (what I consider to be) obvious health related issues. For the cannabis user specifically, I would suggest using a vaporizer or eating the herb rather than smoking it.
Look, part of the problem is one of potency. Coca tea or opium tea is pretty mild stuff, will perk one up or calm one down. When the substances are banned and interdicted the smugglers take larger chances with each trip so they want it to be as cost - effective as possible. Thus, they require a very refined product to smuggle. It is vastly more profitable to smuggle a pound of cocaine than it is to smuggle 20 pounds of coca leaf tea - especially if the clientele is desperate for the product due to their addiction to it rather than just desirous of a good nights sleep or a morning pick-me-up.
The standard dose of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide is 250 micrograms, though it used to be 500 mg. It is definitely not the 'strongest drug' around. Heck - STP will take you on a 1 week 'trip' and a heroin overdose can kill you dead. Amyl nitrate can give you a heart attack, huffing solvents can kill your brain, your liver and are highly addictive. All of those are a bit more 'serious' than LSD.
To the contrary, hallucinogens - including LSD - have been used effectively in helping addicts to get off their drug of choice and get clean and sober, when used in the proper setting with a trained councilor.
Any "gateway" in drug usage is within the user - a predilection, emotional issue or skewed world view that makes a specific individual more susceptible to developing a dependence or addiction. This does indeed tend to run in families.
Further, there have been no studies that indicated that cannabis raised the risk of cancer to the user. Again, to the contrary, a recent study showed that cannabis only smokers had normal risk for lung, throat, neck and head cancers compared to tobacco smokers, tobacco and cannabis smokers and non smokers. It is theorized that the cannabinoids cause precancerous lung cells to commit apoptosis upon exposure.
I would not encourage anyone to inhale smoke of any kind for (what I consider to be) obvious health related issues. For the cannabis user specifically, I would suggest using a vaporizer or eating the herb rather than smoking it.
Look, part of the problem is one of potency. Coca tea or opium tea is pretty mild stuff, will perk one up or calm one down. When the substances are banned and interdicted the smugglers take larger chances with each trip so they want it to be as cost - effective as possible. Thus, they require a very refined product to smuggle. It is vastly more profitable to smuggle a pound of cocaine than it is to smuggle 20 pounds of coca leaf tea - especially if the clientele is desperate for the product due to their addiction to it rather than just desirous of a good nights sleep or a morning pick-me-up.
In my personal experience, I've never met a hard drugs user that didn't start on soft drugs. Legalising cannabis is only going to make kids think - They lied about cannabis so maybe they're lying about the others - It would set a bad precedent, and yet more potentially vunerable people would consider trying it.
I am of the opinion that any drug should be available to take the industry out of the hands of the black marketeers, providing you are licenced to buy it.
the system I have proposed is thus:
1) User purchases licence from home office
2) Licence has to be stamped by a) a GP & b) Nearest main police
3) User takes valid licence to a pharmacy
Where he/she can buy a limited but adequate supply of the named drug.
It is incumbent on the licensee to ensure the drugs are not resold, shared or otherwise distributed, which would remain an offence under law.
Not only would this take a great deal of trade from the black market, it would have real cost savings through the licencing scheme and lower criminality overall. Obviously, this was designed for a British market, adapt to suit.
The scheme was refused though it "had merit" due to the difficulty of keeping said drugs away from minors in the home environment. I would be interested to know what refinements you can think of.
I am of the opinion that any drug should be available to take the industry out of the hands of the black marketeers, providing you are licenced to buy it.
the system I have proposed is thus:
1) User purchases licence from home office
2) Licence has to be stamped by a) a GP & b) Nearest main police
3) User takes valid licence to a pharmacy
Where he/she can buy a limited but adequate supply of the named drug.
It is incumbent on the licensee to ensure the drugs are not resold, shared or otherwise distributed, which would remain an offence under law.
Not only would this take a great deal of trade from the black market, it would have real cost savings through the licencing scheme and lower criminality overall. Obviously, this was designed for a British market, adapt to suit.
The scheme was refused though it "had merit" due to the difficulty of keeping said drugs away from minors in the home environment. I would be interested to know what refinements you can think of.
Well, I am way off the charts myself, on a personal level.
I think that all "drugs" should be legal in the US (including treadmills, as defined to be drugs under current US fed govt definitions) and that we should stop trying to push our "morals" on other countries and cultures. The DEA asparagus program is a prime example of US failure, despite that I buy the cheap Peruvian asparagus every week for $1.99/lb fully knowing that I am subsidizing that price to the cost of US growers and that it does not cut actual growth of coca by the farmers thus paid.
Beyond that, if the govt wants to levy 'sin taxes' on those drugs and the people agree with that, than so be it. Just so it is not like the classic 'marijuana tax' catch - 22 they tried to pull way back then.....
I note the non - response to some of my points. Not to worry. I must suggest something that has worked for a lot of folks in similar predicament: taper off, substitute pot, use a vaporizer. It will be hard, but you can do it. Do NOT use alcohol as a substitute. Weed has never killed a single person in approx. 11,500 - 12,500 years of usage, alcohol has been killing since day 1.
If you could downgrade to smoking opium, I would suggest that instead, as many folks around the world are able to continence an opium habit for their entire lives without negative effect.
Please do not even consider script drugs or synthetics.
I think that all "drugs" should be legal in the US (including treadmills, as defined to be drugs under current US fed govt definitions) and that we should stop trying to push our "morals" on other countries and cultures. The DEA asparagus program is a prime example of US failure, despite that I buy the cheap Peruvian asparagus every week for $1.99/lb fully knowing that I am subsidizing that price to the cost of US growers and that it does not cut actual growth of coca by the farmers thus paid.
Beyond that, if the govt wants to levy 'sin taxes' on those drugs and the people agree with that, than so be it. Just so it is not like the classic 'marijuana tax' catch - 22 they tried to pull way back then.....
I note the non - response to some of my points. Not to worry.
I must suggest something that has worked for a lot of folks in similar predicament: taper off, substitute pot, use a vaporizer. It will be hard, but you can do it. Do NOT use alcohol as a substitute. Weed has never killed a single person in approx. 11,500 - 12,500 years of usage, alcohol has been killing since day 1.If you could downgrade to smoking opium, I would suggest that instead, as many folks around the world are able to continence an opium habit for their entire lives without negative effect.
Please do not even consider script drugs or synthetics.
Kernl Sandrs
Registered Senior Member
hehe
Its always amazes me that people blame a democratic government for laws that restrict their freedom. If society did not want the laws they would disappear. Blame the voters not the government. This is why very dangerous drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legal because voters dont want them to be outlawed. Plus anyone who thinks pot is not harmful are kidding them self.
To be fair, the government here rarely bans something immediately. There is usually a period of grace when something new appears as the chief medical officer observes the effect on its users. If an unacceptable danger or too many deaths occur, it gets classified and banned usually within 6 months. Generic adaptations of existing drugs get banned instantly such as meth. There is no such thing as a totally safe drug.
As I recall, cannabis was originally outlawed under the marijuana tax act due to intense pressure from media ("yellow journalism") controlled by Hearst (didn't want paper-making competition from hemp farmers) and a consortium of SW states who believed the Mexicans were taking US jobs and that only Mexicans smoked pot.
When the tax act was found to be unconstitutional (violation of the fifth amendment) in 1972, congress just classified cannabis as a class 1 substance (no medicinal value) and flat out banned it. The "people" had jack to do with it and are making their voices heard in state after state now by decrim and medicinal.
Tobacco and alcohol are not titled as "drugs" because a batch of Southern senators and congressmen would not go along with the creation of the "Drug Enforcement Agency" if those 2 items were called "drugs", so they were retitled "substances" instead so the newly created DEA would not have ant jurisdiction over them.
While you may not be aware of this, that 'democratic government' you tout banned alcohol at one time and was forced to unban it due to widespread civil disobedience and the significant cost to society of trying to keep it illegal. I guess that they don't always get it right the first time, do they?
Well, air is harmful, as is water and pretty much anything else you can think of including cannabis. That doesn't stop you from eating and drinking though, does it? It is indeed true that the average adult male human being who consumes (eats) about 10 pounds of cannabis in under 8 hours will likely die from that, doing so would be a challenge, however. Before that point most of us would likely rupture our stomach or bowels with that much fiber.
The sad fact remains though, that in more than 8500 years of recorded human use no single death has ever been proven from ingestion of cannabis. Children's Tylenol is vastly more dangerous than that, a small overdose can and will kill a childs liver dead - happens to many thousands of Americans every year.
There is no such thing as totally safe - period.