Legalize it, then tax the piss out of it, then put a warning label on the box then tell eveyone what a disgusting habit it is, how it kills, how the pot companies lied to you, and find ways to make it illegal in bars, then restaurants, then the street. Eventually, it will be illegal again. Prohabition never works. Then again, it never has been legal in the US, so it is not like we are taking a legal substance and banning it, or unbanning what was once legal and now banned. Either way, who gives a crap? Seriously. This question has been debated more than Chevy vs. Ford, Liberal vs. Conservative and on and on. Do keep in mind though, if it is legalized then it will be REGULATED. That said, if you are driving under the influance it will likely be considered the same as a DUI. They will probably call it a DWS (driving while stoned). Of course driving while stoned may be better than driving while drunk. Think about it. We could put older retired people back to work. A 95 year old granny in a walker could catch a stoner in a Porsche given the speed at which they drive when stoned. Also, you would not be able to get stoned and go to work. That again would be the same as getting drunk on the job. Pilots flying stoned? Don't think so. Those that want it legalized really need to think about the ramifications. You're probably better off to be an illegal stoner rather than a legal one. With it legal you'll pay more, you'll be hassled more, and your be regulated more, perhaps even profiled. I don't get stoned, but I would adhere to a don't ask don't tell policy if I did. Seems to me it is less complicated. What we really need is to stop sending people to prison for years for a few joints and letting murdering incestual women out of jail, eh Canada? Anyway...
Thats the thing, you rarely here about someone developing lung cancer or liver cancer from Weed. I mean seriously, you have medical marijuana, but has anyone heard of medical cigarettes or medical alcohol. Think about that.
Here are just a few of the medical benefits: "EFFECTS OF HABITUAL MARIJUANA USE ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM The most potent argument against the use of marijuana to treat medical disorders is that marijuana may cause the acceleration or aggravation of the very disorders it is being used to treat. Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients. Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker’s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana as a medical therapy can and does have a very serious negative effect on patients with pre-existing immune deficits resulting from AIDS, organ transplantation, or cancer chemotherapy, the very conditions for which marijuana has most often been touted and suggested as a treatment. It has also been shown that marijuana use can accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections and Kaposi’s sarcoma. In addition, patients with weak immune systems will be even less able to defend themselves against the various respiratory cancers and conditions to which consistent marijuana use has been linked, and which are discussed briefly under "Respiratory Illnesses." In conclusion, it seems that the potential dangers presented by the medical use of marijuana may actually contribute to the dangers of the diseases which it would be used to combat. Therefore, I suggest that marijuana should not be permitted as a therapy, at least until a good deal more conclusive research has been completed concerning its debilitating effect on the immune system. For more on this topic, please see Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses," Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Intiative: Resource Papers, March 1997, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Pages 33-51 of this address can be found at the website of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University, located at http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/tashkin- marijuana.html. RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs. Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion ofmarijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity,pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases. For more information, please see the Tashkin website mentioned at the end of the section on immune disorders. See also: * www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/mrr/ 21.96.10.html, for information on the link between chemicals contained in marijuana and lung cancer. * http://www.marijuananews.com/latest_research_finds_that_heavy.htm, for an article concerning the link between marijuana and cancer, with commentary MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana. In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder. In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise. For further information, you may find the following sites helpful: * www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/reality/updatejl.html, for information on links between marijuana use and mental health risks. * www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/mrr/21.96.10.html, for more information on the indirect effects of marijuana on health * http://www.adf.org.au/drughit, the Australian Drug Foundation’s website * http://marijuananews.com/a_safe_ high_.htm, a reprint of New Science magazine’s "Marijuana Special Report: A Safe High?" with commentary * http://marijuananews.com/claim_four.htm, an article about the similarity of long-term marijuana use’s effect on the brain to that of "hard" drugs, with commentary * www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/misc/smokescreen.html, for general information on the health risks of marijuana. * http://www.health.org, the homepage of the National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, for general information on marijuana."
i vote that they legalize it rather than they don't but they tolerate it.. anyway, i read that marijuana is actually even better than other cigarettes.. it has less caffeine or something..
Mia, I concur! It was legal, it was out lawed in the early 1900s, iirc, because of propaganda of black jazz musicians using it to tempt away white women. Much like the nazis used propaganda of french black colonial troops raping german women as impetus for ill feelings towards france. Some people pay a lot of money for immunosuppressive drugs. In many cases, the drug is not used to "combat" a drug at all. But to lessen the horrible, painful aspects of terminal illnesses such as advanced cancer and aids. When you have a cure, then you can take away the current treatment that helps ease human suffering, until then, you have no right to deny something they feel helps them deal with a disease that will slowly, and painfully take their life.
So I take it that not one of you is going to touch the fact that it is unconstitutional to have it be illegal on a federal level. Is that a fair assumption?
Not really. I cannot find anything illegal with it being illegal. The federal goverment cannot make it illegal (mandatory statewide) but they can do some things to prompt all 50 states to make it and other things illegal. Take the drinking age for instance. The feds wanted it at 21, but Wisconsin was among a few of the hold outs citing the exact drivel you have. What the feds did was simply tell the state, "ok, no problem... Leave the drinking age right where it is. We'll just withhold your federal state highway funds." Wisconsin bumped the drinking age up to 21. There's nothing unconstitutional here IMHO.
Post #335 I quoted what the constitution says. The drinking age should NOT be determined by the feds. That is a decision for the individual state. In your opinion you can say it should be on a federal level, however the constitution is very clear in stating that the feds have no place in making these decisions. Pot being made illegal on a federal level is unconstitutional. This is not my opinion, it is law set forth by the founding fathers.
The drinking age was not determined by the Federal government. Did you read anything I said? States can be very easily coerced into passing legislation without the need for Federal intervention which you have so graciously pointed out is "unconstitutional". Look, who really cares? Speeding is illegal too, but I still do it. What should be attacked here is not the legality or constitutionality of the issue at hand, but the very penal nature of the "crime" when caught. When was the last time someone was incarcerated for any great length of time for a moving violation (not including DUI, DWI, hit and run, etc..) Generally you get a fine, and walk. With dope, depending on the circumstance, the amount, the situation, you could do some serious time. Perhaps just levy fines, no jail time, etc... Either way I really do not care if it is legal or not. If I had a dollar for every time I broke some law, either unknowingly or on purpose, I would no longer be chatting here or busting ass to make that buck!
mia, But the point is no one should have to worry about doing hard time for using or growing weed. (Growing is a SERIOUS offense). CrazyHorse, What does the netherlands have to do with prohibition?
I have to jump in again... This is an excellent point! Coming from a non-user, I don't see why our jails should be cram packed with people that got caught with pot, etc. In Arizona you can go to jail if they find a single seed. We have very, very tough laws here. But why would we want to send a pot head to jail? It costs me (all tax payers) too much money to keep people in jail. Our jails are no picknick either, we have tent cities instead of all inside jails and it gets rather hot here. Our Sherrif Joe has meals down to $0.40 each and he makes the inmates pay for them. We have male and female chain gangs that clean up our streets and emtpy fields of trash and debris, etc. No picknick at all my friends. I drove limos during college and Sally Jesse Raphel came here to do a story on the chain gangs and I ahd to drive her team. So we set off in a huge stretch to get to the jail right at sun up. Within an hour we were on the road (film crew and all) behind the county bus full of female chain gangers. How humiliating for them, not to mention hot swaety nasty work. And for Sally and here to team to hire super stretch limo's... talk about in your face. There is no need to fill our jails with pot heads. Though I'm not for legalizing, they should allow a pot head to at least grow a plant or two.
I heard placebo was pretty good for focus. I think it might be a good idea to legalize weed for personal use in private homes but there would have to be a great deal of regulation. I mean their are some pretty irresponsible people out there. If weed was legal you would get some fools that smoke around Pregnant women and baby's like Kevin Federline only now its not just cigarretes but weed too. Weed is much more damaging that cigarettes. There would be alot more car accidents as well. Its difficult for law enforcment to tell whether someone just smoked weed and is still intoxicated unlike with Alcohol.
Not really, it has just as a distinctive smell as alcohol, and it's not as easy to get rid of. And if you refuse a breathalizer, they'll just take you to the hospital for a blood test. They could do the same with weed. Nothing really changes if it's legalized, except that the illegal activities and violence that it funds will stop. As well as possible terrorists in other countries. The enforcement can then focus on DUI, instead of simple posession. It also saves tax payers money by not incarcerating people for simple posession, and putting the focus on the real criminals : the DUIs and the often violent importers and dealers. ---- Personally, I think we should legalize all drugs. Produce them safely, cheaply, undercut groups such as the FARC in south america, all kinds of opium selling terrorists in the middle east. We would have pure, cheap drugs, not ones made in a pit filled with kerosene in the amazon. Then the cops could focus on irresponsible activities, not just posession. We could also export our drugs to other countries, making money, and undercutting their local drug trades. This would also help reduces overdoses and poisonings from drugs being cut with unhealthy substances, and the doses being difficult to measure, especially in the case of heroin. It would also curtail the spread of common diseases like hepatitis and AIDs, as studies have proven, when sufficient quantities of a drug are easily obtainable, then the need to inject is very reduced. Considering the main reason for injection is to get maximum effect for lowest amount of the drug, and the reason is almost always price. This would most likely reduce drug related crime, as a regular job could support a drug habit, instead of constantly being out of money due to extremely high illicit drug costs, people would be able to support their habits. Not that they shouldn't be discouraged from the use of potentially damaging drugs. But we need to look at it pragmatically, people WILL use drugs. And the life damaging effects are often from lack of supply and interference from law enforcement. If a person wants to spend their free time high, and they do it responsibly, no one should be allowed to tell them they can't.