I’m not sure. But its difficult to regulate every individual person in the United States and their houseplants. I suppose it could be legal, but the grower would be subject to any effects from homegrown plants.
Ok.
Hmm. I don’t know.
Who is to say a person is an addict? I don’t like the term because its a difficult thing to understand for me. Addiction is characterized by frequent use and need. I’m frequently on my computer, and when I’m not on it I usually feel I want to be on my computer; does that make me a computer addict by definition? Will a supporter for legalization of computer usage burst into my house, handcuff me to a chair and guard me? Same logic works for candy and little kids, or the TV, or junk food.
I’ve never heard of anyone overdosing on pot. Ever. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone dying of pot as a direct result. The only incidents I’ve ever heard of pot-related deaths is in car accidents, but even then, THC is found with alcohol as well.
Also, there’s the argument that three joints is the equivalent of an entire pack of cigarettes (I forget the exact number, not even sure if its a pack, but oh well). People forget that pot users rarely smoke very often; most people I know of only have one a day at most. With cigarettes, tobacco-smokers use up several packs.
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Where did I say anything about morality?
You make a point. However, those drug-related troubled people wouldn’t have to resort to illegal activity (often landing them in jail, disrupting the lives of others, diverting the efforts of the police and tax money, and crowding up our prisons) to get their next dose. Plus, if they do it legally, and a problem is identified by whoever monitors drug users (I suppose it should be regulated somewhat), then they can be treated.
No, we probably wouldn’t have fewer people doing drugs, we’d have less problems involving drugs. Again, you make a point.
Many kids don’t do drugs, not only because its illegal, but because they’ve been in health class, they’ve seen the TRUTH commercials, they’ve seen posters in school, articles in the paper or a magazine, billboards, TV programs, movies, etc.
You make a good point about healthcare. However, as the purity and strength of drugs are regulated, as well as their safety if medical studies prevail, then less people would end up in hospitals as a result of the effects of drugs. Let me ask you a question: why do drug users end up in the emergency room? It’s usually because of overdose. Overdose caused by an illicit drug that was either stronger than what the user expected or contained something other than what the user expected.
That’s the problem with most anti-drug propoganda. The studies are geared to find a certain result. They use fundamental attributional errors to “prove” their points, and, unfortunately, folks who are knoweldgeable as to how a good study should be done can become pretty hostile to government agencies who tout them.
I think Ben Stone on * Law and Order * said it best: “If 90% of juvenile delinquents chew gum, are we then to conclude that gum-chewing * causes* juvenile delinquency?”
It’s also equally unfortunate that a good deal of Americans never question how or why the study was done, but take it as gospel when they hear the words, “Studies have shown . . .” They take the words of the “expert” for truth, and never question his motivation.
There are countless conflicting studies on marijuana and its potential harms. Am I about to take the word of the DEA on its harmfulness? No, not really, because they have a vested interest in making people think it’s very harmful. They would not be interested in publicizing a balanced, fair examination of the facts unless it supported their view. The link you provided is further reason, to me, to distrust them when I see how broad the language is, and how vague the conclusions of their “studies.” It’s just not good science.
Using the broad language and sweeping conclusions such as propogated in the quoted you provided, I could “prove” anything. Hershey’s “proved” in its study that chocolate was actually * good * for your teeth. I could “prove” that deodorant gives women breast cancer, because, after all, the vast majority of women with cancer have used underarm doedorant. I could prove that loose change in the consoles of cars causes auto accidents, because the majority of wrecked cars are found to carry small stashes of loose change somewhere. (Read the book * Trust Us, We’re Experts! [i/] for a good explanation of the round-about wording and deceptive methodologies of sponsored studies.)
None of my statements are true, but it would be ridiculously easy to put together a study to “prove” them. Would it have respect in the scientific community? No, but that doesn’t matter. My conclusions will be widely publicized, and their criticisms won’t. Most Americans will never know.
**
In * that * state, yes. Other states have similar laws, but I don’t know when they were enacted. The Williams page notes that:
**
Which implies to me that other states had previously enacted similar legislation.
If I wagered a guess, I’d say that at some point someone who was driving high must have appealed conviction on the grounds that drunk-driving laws didn’t apply to drug intoxication, and so at some point, states started fixing that loophole. Anyone know?
That’s your opinion, and I don’t really disagee. My comment was legal in nature, as liability issues like these are still being worked out. People are, you know, currently suing fast-food giants because of their obesity.
That’s all well and good for psychological addiction, but there’s also physical addiction. Heroin withdrawal can be lethal. Psychological addiction - though I’ll ask a drug counselor - usually involves being unable to function normally without using the thing in question. If you’re having that problem with you’re computer, you’re in real trouble. And yes, even weed is addictive for many people in this manner.
I’ve never heard of a weed overdose either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a drug or not dangerous. Smoking too much, while not LETHAL - you can OD on something and not die - fucks you up pretty good.
I’ve read that studies show pot doesn’t mess you up regarding driving as much as alcohol, but it still messes with your motor skills and concentration. Seeing anybody who’s stoned try to do something should demonstrate that.
Equivalent in terms of what? I’ve never heard this argument about anything, so I’d like you to explain.
I think you’re overgeneralizing. Potheads often, not always, don’t smoke many joints at once, but I’ve known people who do more than that. But as far as ‘very often,’ you’re comparing cigarettes and weed, and they’re quite different. Regular use still has its effects. And plenty of smokers don’t do packs a day, many just smoke a couple of cigarettes. I think a few, as opposed to a pack or several packs, is more common.
Not to answer for someone else, but I think the idea is that responsible use won’t necessarily increase due to legalization, and problems like the ones he illustrates won’t just go away. There’s not even a reason to think they’d go down. PCP users will still be predisposed to violence whether it’s legal or not.
But the long-term effects won’t be any less damaging, which could be a health-care strain ultimately. In fact, higher purity might make the long-term problems more severe, more quickly.
Maybe that’s the cause of most overdoses (I bet you can’t offer a cite to back that up, though). Maybe. You can also just do too damn much.
Living in the USA in the Washington DC owned State of Alaska when indeed, the abundance good weed was legal. How many Americans can say they grew their own bud in the privacy of their own homes and a fucking PTA member could come over and enjoy an afternoon bong? With no fear of nothing.
I don’t think you will ever hear such a thing. Some substances are legal; some are outlawed. There’s no reason, logic, or sence behind which substance is in which column. And, among the outlawed substances, there’s no reason, logic, or sence behind the varying degrees of harshness of penalty for being caught with this or that substance.
There’s no rational justification for continuing to outlaw marijuana. It’s plainly less harmful then alcohol. Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are both cocaine; there’s no rational justification for the disparity in penalties for possession or sale of one vs. the other.
But most of our drug laws were not enacted for good reasons. They were enacted for very poor reasons. I recommend the book Drug Crazy: How We Got Into this Mess & How We Can Get Out by Mike Gray, 2000, Routledge, New York.
Oh, according to Men’s Health March or April 2003, it would take about three gallons of water drank in less than three hours to kill someone. I’d like to see someone attempt this. You would vomit most of it up after about 3/4 of a gallon, I would assume.
Here’s why I believe that marijuana, if legalized, needs the same restrictions as alcohol: The Trickle-Down Effect. It is illegal for anyone under 21 years of age in the US to purchase, possess or consume alcohol. Does this mean that 18-20 year olds at college don’t drink? Of course not. Is the amount less than those that would drink if it was legal? Yes. You can say that high school students drink and have access to alcohol, but the amount is significantly lower than if it were to be legal. If the drinking age were reduced to 18, you would probably see more middle school kids drinking, which, IMO, is a very bad thing.
Weed would need the same regualtion. There is no reason for a middle schooler to smoke. None. I don’t buy the “It’s my body” crap in this case. These people are not old enough to have a job in most cases, and would have no means of attaining the drug.
I agree totally. Fudgenugget keeps talking about “free will”, but in this country (and in most other developed countries, I believe) we don’t give our kids free will. They cannot legally choose to drive a car, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or vote. There are good reasons for this, the main one being that they’re (hello!) is that they’re children! If you’ll think back to your childhood, I think you’d agree that a lot of shit that seemed like a good idea in childhood and adolescence were indeed very bad ideas!
Please forgive my horrendous grammar in this statement! I did preview, but just to make sure I got my coding right! 
I’m aware of that. The point of legalization of all drugs is to offer a better option over illegalization. It’s better for a drug manufacturing company to be sued for an irresponsible user for a stupid reason than a drug dealer finding a guy with a baseball bat leaning against the side of his car when he leaves his house.
I’m well aware of physical addiction. If we have rehab centers now, and they work, who’s to say they won’t work a few years from now? As for weed, I’ve never heard or witnessed it being physicall addictive.
I never said it wasn’t a drug, or that it wasn’t dangerous. As for getting fucked up good, isn’t that the point?
I’m aware it messes your motor skills and concentration.
Here’s a quote from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/684328.stm :
Yes, tobacco and weed are different, and both have effects. As for tobacco smokers, more often than not they smoke many cigarettes a day, more so than potheads do joints.
It won’t necessarily increase due to legalization. But I’d say a violent drunk is better than a violent drunk, a violent guy with a gun smuggling in alcohol, a violent guy with a gun channeling that alcohol around through illegal bars, more violent guys with guns controlling those bars, and the police trying to crack them all down (prohibition era).
How so? The idea of higher purity is so users don’t end up injecting bleach or something in themselves.
http://www.ysas.org.au/harm_reduction/overdose_prevention.html
Yes, you can also do too damn much, which is why we need to have dosage levels indicated on packaging in order to prevent people from taking too damn much. You may argue that dosage levels are difficult to determine due to different effects on different people; I say that an average standard is better than no standard at all, no regulation of purity and strength, and no regulation of equipment. You may also argue tolerance; I say the same thing about average standards being determined for different levels of tolerance. You may also argue with stupid users trying to double or triple a maximum dose thinking it’ll just get them more messed up; those people will always be around anyway, and already are.
You both make good points. Most kids don’t have jobs and aren’t able to support a drug habit, so thats a good argument. I take back my suggestion to make drugs available to everyone. But what about parents who give their kids drugs? What would happen there?
So? Is your point that we shouldn’t legalize drugs because someone might sue the manufacturer? Should we make hamburgers illegal since McDonalds get sued?
And yet, it’s still considered much less dangerous than alcohol withdrawal: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/heroin.pdf
Weed is a drug. So is alcohol. And nicotine. And caffeine. Marijuana might be safer than all of these.
Yes, driving whil high is probably a bad idea. That’s why it’s illegal.
PCP & violence:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/pcpviol.htm
http://reason.com/sullum/010303.shtml
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/pcp2.htm
Not at all. I’ll try this a third time: FudgeNugget says that when an addict misuses or ODs on drugs, it’s his own fault. Another poster mentioned that companies might be reluctant to sell drugs because they could be blamed for overdoses and such. FudgeNugget reiterated the same position, and I was attempting to say that it’s possible the original poster of that argument could be right.
I’m NOT giving my personal opinion on this topic; I think people who get fat and suffer from eating burgers are basically the only ones to blame. I’m saying that the issue seems to be up in the air legally.
Interesting, and I’d never heard that before. Wish they explained why and how.
I agree.
I know that. I was responding to something FudgeNugget said earlier.
Interesting about the PCP. I picked a wrong example, then. I was concurring with a point made by miiikkkeee about problems relating to drug abuse not stopping just because the drugs were legal, and I stand by that.
I think most who favor legalizing marijuana take this for granted. If legalized, of course it would be regulated. The point is that it’s totally incorrect (idiotic, really) to put marijuana in the same catagory as heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, etc. Marijuana belongs in the same catagory as alcohol and tobacco. It should be handled as they are handled. This would include no sales to minors.
I do favor a complete end to the drug war. I believe that more harm results from the illegality of drugs then from the drugs themselves.
I want to legalize marijuana, hash, and the hallucinigins and treat them as we do alcohol and tobacco.
I want to decriminalize the hard drugs. Educate people truthfully about the risks. Make treatment available for all who want it. And throw the book at people who drive or operate heavy machinery while impaired, regardless of the substance used.
Oh. I say we let the companies decide on whether they’ll take the risk. And while they may be sued, they won’t necessarly lose the lawsuit. We’re at a time where companies know how to cover their asses when it comes to warning.
There are companies out there now making & selling “research chemicals”. I’m sure if all drugs were legal, someone would jump into this lucrative business.
Yeah. When discussing the War On Drugs, it really pays to just dump any assumptions you have. I know I keep getting surprised when I take a closer look at things. The WoD propaganda has been very effective.
I agree that drug abuse won’t disappear. But legalizing & controlling drug use/sales will alleviate a lot of the problems surrounding the abuse. Pure, inexpensive drugs would make any addiction much more manageable (it is possible to lead a productive life while, say, addicted to heroin). There will be fewer accidental deaths. The violence surrounding black market she drop. Without the demonizing of drugs & drug users, you’d think it would be easier to spot problems & treat problems (treat it like a health problem instead of a criminal problem).
And that’s ignoring the moral question of whether the government has any right to be my nanny. And if they do, they are sure doing a lousy job of it when marijuana is strictly forbidden while alcohol & tobacco is freely available.
I certainly have no problems with some restricitons on use. No sales to minors. Maybe force people to educate themsleves before they’re issued some sort of drug license.
At the very least they should decriminalize the safer drugs. There’s absolutely no reason pot should be outlawed. And you don’t get much abuse of the psychedelic type drugs. Barbituates, opiates & amphetamines are more prone to abuse, so I understand being more careful with those.