Are you for legalization or against it? (marijuana)

[Qwerty1942]

I like this politics forum so I wanted to vent a few opinions of mine.

As a Marine (Force Recon) who's just come back from doing a few tours in Iraq & Afghanistan, I'd like marijuana to be legalized (at the state and federal level) someday because I've got PTSD and it really is a better alternative than those nasty, man made garbage called pills.

If alcohol is legal marijuana absolutely should be legal. I do not understand why the former is totally legal while it is much more harmful than the latter.

[Qwerty1942]

whoops thought I posted this in the politics forum, can someone move this? thanks

[danielekfuj]

I agree, although my parents don't.

[MinisterofDOOM]

whoops thought I posted this in the politics forum, can someone move this? thanks

[SHIFT_COUPE]

Moved. Your failure to post in the correct spot leads to an example of marijuana lol

Damn pot heads

[Qwerty1942]

"pot heads" lol, how old are you?

[SHIFT_COUPE]

Relax brother. I was being facetious

[Qwerty1942]

im relaxed as can be

love waking and baking

[rn79870]

First off, welcome to the political forum, and a big thumbs up for your service to our country. Nico has a special spot for those who serve.

The issue of marijuana legalization is a good question. I would be against legalizing it, however, I am not against allowing it for medical purposes when given by a doctor and controlled. I have no problem with people using it when it resolves medical/psychological issues. California sees it the same way, but the feds don't.

Look at alcohol. 49% of Americans abstain from alcohol use. 22% are light drinkers and 29% are problem drinkers. If marijuana were legal, would the same figures apply?

[Qwerty1942]

I would be against legalizing it

Why would you be against it for recreational use? Alcohol is much worse.

Quote »49% of Americans abstain from alcohol use. 22% are light drinkers and 29% are problem drinkers. If marijuana were legal, would the same figures apply? [/quote]No, the same figures would not apply. From a physiological point of view, you cannot get addicted to marijuana. I bet more Americans would smoke than drink because, compared to alcohol, it has no negative effects.

[MastaYu]

Why would you be against it for recreational use? Alcohol is much worse.

No, the same figures would not apply. From a physiological point of view, you cannot get addicted to marijuana. I bet more Americans would smoke than drink because, compared to alcohol, it has no negative effects.

no negative effects?

[Qwerty1942]

yup no negative effects, compared to alcohol. Marijuana has even been correlated with preventing cancer & Alzheimer's.

[Soravia]

No Negative effects? You think getting high is NOT a negative effect? Being a bum is NOT negative effect?

Only ***think drugs don't have negative effect on people. Obviously, they have no idea how much Chinese lost before the Opium war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

[1unar3clipse]

No Negative effects? You think getting high is NOT a negative effect? Being a bum is NOT negative effect?

Only dumbasses think drugs don't have negative effect on people. Obviously, they have no idea how much Chinese lost before the Opium war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

Changing your oil can have negative effects on you ALOT of things have negative effects that you ignore daily to enjoy yourself.

I wonder how long it will take this thread to realize the danger in smoking anything comes mostly from the harmful combustible fluid that makes lighters work.

[Soravia]

***

[1unar3clipse]

*****.

***

I'm for legalization if it applies to true medical use, I'm more for the legalization of Hemp because of its many applications.

[JerodKing]

No Negative effects? You think getting high is NOT a negative effect? Being a bum is NOT negative effect?

Only dumbasses think drugs don't have negative effect on people. Obviously, they have no idea how much Chinese lost before the Opium war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

I agree, there are negative effects, including memory loss, lung cancer (I don't know where you got cancer deterrent from), among other things. I am completely against now, but I may be middle of the road, if they were to develop some sort of "breathalyzer" for THC, so there could be DUI's for it as well.

[1unar3clipse]

double post?

[rn79870]

Come on guys. Let's work on expressing ourselves and our opinions, not our opinions of other posters. Please?

1unar3clipse nope, I was editing when someone was posting or something like that. It wasn't you.

[1unar3clipse]

I agree, there are negative effects, including memory loss, lung cancer (I don't know where you got cancer deterrent from), among other things. I am completely against now, but I may be middle of the road, if they were to develop some sort of "breathalyzer" for THC, so there could be DUI's for it as well.

on site urine test? It's happened to me..

1unar3clipse nope, I was editing when someone was posting or something like that. It wasn't you.

Oh alright, I actually feared the ban coming.

[Soravia]

I wonder how long it will take this thread to realize the danger in smoking anything comes mostly from the harmful combustible fluid that makes lighters work.

How intelligent is this post to edit my post? Do I need to show you Surgeon Generals Warning written in bold letters to get my point? Or will it even matter to that poster?

[Soravia]

Here's a linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#EffectsQuote » Health issues Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs (the British medical journal The Lancet [1])Smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since combustion of material and inhalation of smoke in itself from organic materials such as tobacco, wood, gasoline and cannabis causes various health problems. By using a vaporizer or orally consuming cannabis, many health problems and many objections to using cannabis as medicine can be eliminated.[56][57][58][59][60]

A recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[61] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke.

Smoking cannabis is a potentially harmful method of consuming cannabis, yet the most practiced.In spite of this, a recent large-scale study found no correlation between heavy marijuana use and lung cancer, despite noting that cannabis contains the same carcinogens as tobacco. The same study found a 20-fold increase in lung-cancer rates of smokers who consumed two or more packs of cigarettes per day.[62] These researchers postulated that the THC present may have a "protective effect" by causing aging cells to die before they become cancerous.[63] Other recent research suggest the cannabinoid CBD may stop certain cancers from spreading, although not in concentrations consumed during smoking.[64]

Tar, a sticky incomplete combustion product from smoking, clogs the lungs of both tobacco and cannabis smokers; vaporization is a much healthier alternative.In contrast, a study published in the January 2008 edition of the journal Respirology found that "regular" cannabis smokers who developed bullous lung disease[2] did so on average 24 years sooner than tobacco smoking counterparts.[65] Researchers attributed this to the inhalation of a larger volume of smoke, and typically holding it for four times longer than tobacco smokers. Bullous lung disease is considered an uncommon cause of respiratory distress.[66] In general, habitual inhalation of any kind of smoke is detrimental to lung health.[67]

Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of depression, psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history.[68] More recently, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study published research showing an increased risk of psychosis for cannabis users with a certain genetic predisposition, held by 25% of the population.[69]

Vaporization pipe with flame filter28. Tobacco, herbs or essential oils36. Flame filter made of a stack of metal screens (5+) or a heat resistant porous materialStudies have also shown links between heavy long-term use (over five joints daily over several years) and incidence of heart attacks, strokes, as well as abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain.[70][71]

In July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.[72][73][74]

Marijuana has been reported both to enhance and lessen the subjective enjoyment of sex. [75][76] There is some concern that marijuana may impair reproductive function and contribute to birth defects, but research in this area is not conclusive.[77]

Gateway drug theoryMain article: Gateway drug theory Lifetime cannabis use in EuropeSince its origin in the 1950s, the "gateway drug" hypothesis has been one of the central pillars of cannabis drug policy in the United States. One variant is that people, upon trying cannabis for the first time and not finding it dangerous, are then tempted to try other, harder drugs. The validity and implications of these hypotheses are debated.[78] A 2005 comprehensive review of the literature on the cannabis gateway hypothesis found that pre-existing traits may predispose users to addiction in general, the availability of multiple drugs in a given setting confounds predictive patterns in their usage, and drug sub-cultures are more influential than cannabis itself. The study called for further research on "social context, individual characteristics, and drug effects" to discover the actual relationships between cannabis and the use of other drugs.[79]

Some argue that the purported relationship between marijuana and more illicit drugs, as proposed by the "gateway theory", is methodologically flawed. A common argument is that a new user of cannabis who doesn't find it dangerous will see the difference between public information regarding the drug and their own experiences, and apply this distrust to public knowledge of other, more powerful drugs. Some studies support the "gateway drug" model.[80] An example from 2007: A stratified, random sample of 1943 adolescents was recruited from secondary schools across Victoria, Australia, at age 14–15 years. This cohort was interviewed on eight occasions until the age of 24–25 years. At age 24 years, 12% of the sample had used amphetamines in the past year, with 1–2% using at least weekly. Young adult amphetamine use was predicted strongly by adolescent drug use and was associated robustly with other drug use and dependence in young adulthood. Associations were stronger for more frequent users. Among young adults who had not been using amphetamines at age 20 years, the strongest predictor of use at age 24 years was the use of other drugs, particularly cannabis, at 20 years.[81] Those who were smoking cannabis at the age of 15 were as much as 15 times more likely to be using amphetamines in their early 20s.[82]

Analysts have hypothesized that the illegal status of cannabis is a possible cause of a gateway drug effect, reasoning that cannabis users are likely to become acquainted with people who use and sell other illegal drugs in order to acquire cannabis. But it is said that Marijuana is not as harmful or addicting as any other drug.[83][84] Some contend that by this argument, alcohol and tobacco may also be regarded as gateway drugs. Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis.[85]

A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.[86]

A study[87] published in The Lancet on 24 March 2007 was twenty drugs were assigned a risk from zero to three. Dr. David Nutt et al. asked medical, scientific and legal experts to rate 20 different drugs on nine parameters:

Physical harm (acute, chronic, and intravenous harm) Dependence (intensity of pleasure, psychological dependence, physical dependence) Social harms (intoxication, other social harms, health-care costs) Cannabis was ranked seventeenth of twenty for mean physical harm score and eleventh for mean dependence score. Not shown is the mean social harm score, which rated ninth, in a tie with amphetamine.

Poly drug use is not unusual among established users; statistics from Spain show that cannabis users aged 15 -34 also used amphetamine (9%), ecstasy (11%) or cocaine (18%) the same year.[88]

[/quote]

[Soravia]

There's enough people causing problems in the world. I don't want to add crack-heads (I know the term is named for differently but it works the same) going crazy on top of it and kill, rape, go into accidents, start fires, etc.

Now I wouldn't mind if they just jump off the Golden Gate and stuff and not bother others.

[1unar3clipse]

How intelligent is this post to edit my post? Do need to show you Surgeon Generals Warning written in bold letters to get my point? Or will it even matter to that poster?

I've read it, and I have a 215 script.A surgeon generals warning didn't stop me from getting ink done, it sure as hell wont stop me from being able to sleep at night.

[Soravia]

That's your own choice. Still doesn't make your post correct.

[1unar3clipse]

That's your own choice and your own stupidity. Still doesn't make your post correct.

I never said my post was correct or the wise one, I don't understand why your panties are in such a bunch.

Studies by the British and Canadian governments...... wait I thought you meant OUR surgeon general..?

"but research in this area is not conclusive." should not be in any paragraph you copy and paste from wikipedia to prove a point.

[96Qowner]

I'm 100% in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana.

You model the law on the wine and beer laws. You can grow it on your property or in your home, you can consume it in your home, alone or with friends, but you can't sell it. Licensed outlets would sell it in liquor stores or on site.

There is far more harm caused by criminalization than by consumption. I speak with some personal experience. I "have a friend" who began smoking pot when he was 15. From the time he was 22 until today at 55, he has smoked every day, mostly in the evening, but often in the morning, too. He has been happily married for 22 years, owns his own business, and has two homes. Another friend also began when he was 15 and has smoked every day since, usually all day long. He's now 52, is happily married, owns his own business and also has a vacation home. I know a dozen people like that. Marijuana has few long-term detrimental effects.

Sure it's going to have a bad effect on some people, just like anything else. But once past that, it's not addictive. "My friend" has twice just quit cold turkey - once for 1 year, once for two years. There were NO, I repeat NO reactions, nada, zip, nuttin. Hardly even fidgety, NOTHING like quitting nicotine. It's not debilitating. Everyone I know who has smoked pot for a long time is as able as anyone else to direct their lives in a responsible manner and is as healthy, or more so, than the average non-smoker. It's not socially disruptive. Pot smokers don't drive their cars fast and don't fly into rages and assault people. Pot smokers generally sit by themselves and chill out.

I'm all for it!

[1unar3clipse]

I'm 100% in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana.

You model the law on the wine and beer laws. You can grow it on your property or in your home, you can consume it in your home, alone or with friends, but you can't sell it. Licensed outlets would sell it in liquor stores or on site.

Thats the way I'd like it, and thats kinda how it is here in CA with the dispensaries.

[rn79870]

Okay guys, I've just edited this thread for the second time. Although you've toned it down much, I know all of you can debate as rational adults 'cause you've done it many times. Thanks.

[Ilvemynissan]

I'm pretty sure you won't get a DUI for it. I got pulled once, he turned on his lights and we were still smoking a blunt. He came up to the door, said "Where's the dope at!?" I kinda laughed and said, "We smoked it all." I got out of the car he put me in cuffs, searched the car, asked me if I am too impared to drive, I said i'm fine and he let me go. I had to pay like 50.00 dolllars or somthing like that.

As far as legalization goes, i'm for it. I would rather have a bunch of high people driving around than a bunch of drunks. I know weed slows down your reaction times for some people, but so does alcohol. And you can smoke as much as you want and you'll be able to see straight and drive. Now i've noticed a lot of people go too slow while they're high. Better that than too fast IMO. And I know it's not healthy by any means, but it's my body i'll do to it what I please, I understand the risks involved. But guaranteed tobacco or alcohol alone causes more deaths do to cancer/car crahses than Marijuana ever will. And I agree with some of the stuff Soravia posted, but you can't entierly trust wikipedia. I can go on there and change things right now.

EDIT: 96Qowner, just to let you know, i'm not saying your bound to get cancer nowadays, but 10 20 30 40 50 years ago, marijuana didn't have half the amount of chemicals it does now.