Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use? (Part 2)

[Stolen Rutters]

I used to hate all smokes when I was younger since I am allergic to cigarettes, but over the years, I have ended any philosophical opposition to either nicotine or thc.

Once public smoking is restricted in Michigan, I won't have an issue moving cannabis to the same level as tobacco. I don't plan on trying the drug myself, but it seems unfair that the two drugs are treated so differently, especially when it looks like tobacco may actually be the more dangerous of the two.

edit - caveat, from a public health standpoint, I think it's a good idea to work at reducing tobacco use, and I don't believe we should let pot smoking go wild either, since it is still smoke people are breathing with the thc, but that's another topic. I just think the current criminalization of cannabis is over the top.

 

[CaptainF]

Czar Roosevelt.

Granted, while he was the goon that signed the Marihuana Tax Act into law in 1937, Harry J. Anslinger fueled the irrational hysteria that drove us to that point, and still continues to drive much of the propaganda surrounding marijuana today.

He's the one who lied to the American public with these famous gems:

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries and deeds of maniacal insanity it causes each year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured... No one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a joyous reveller in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer..."

...

I love how in one quote he says it promotes pacifism and communist brainwashing, then in lots of other quotes says that it drives people to homicide. Which is it Harry?

All joking aside, he's a great example of what happens when you let bureaucrats run the show. Truly one of the most reprehensible figures in American history, at least in my opinion.

 

[say1988]

I personally believe that in theory Tobacco should be illegal, but that will never happen. I really don't see the need to go in the other direction with other drugs.

Apparently Michael Phelps is just one of those lazy potsmoking go nowhere in life hippies.

And Obama used cocaine. It doesn't mean anything.

I continue to support the changing of it's legal status and a start to finally use weed (or hemp, as you may call it) as a mean to produce cheap paper, clothing and fabrics.

Except the plants normally used for those purposes have a small fraction of the amount of THC that Marijuana does and I believe is usually harvested when there are negligible quantities of THC. These plants should be legal to grow, though heavily regulated to ensure that this is the use.

I support decriminalization primarily because, at least in Canada, in many cases the cops couldn't be bothered to charge the person, as the amount of paper work and stuff was extreme. That and our courts just let them go all the time anyways. There is no point in this. Just have the cops take it away and give them a fine.

In order to cut the use of marijuana, police must target growers and suppliers. They should be hit with heavy fines and prison sentences.

And yes I support medical use of marijuana.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Can someone please explain to me what the exact difference between legalization and de-criminalization?

 

[Shekwan]

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

Oh man thats priceless.

 

[Bill3000]

Can someone please explain to me what the exact difference between legalization and de-criminalization?

Decriminalization means that you don't go to jail, but get a fine instead, essentially.

 

[BasketCase]

Me again. Puttin' the ol' billboard up:

Don't legalize it. Mostly because it messes up the human brain and poses a threat to people besides the user (it also causes cancer, but that one runs a distant third place).

There won't be significant tax revenue from the "legalize and tax" solution (just look at what happened when they tried that with any other drug).

It's impossible to overdose on weed, you say? So what?? You can't overdose on tobacco either. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.​

There, that should cover the big items most-often mentioned in these threads--



--okay, look. I'm getting a lot of angry stares from people thinking "god DAMMIT, BasketCase, shut the hell up and go away". Not happening. If it's an Off Topic thread, I'm gonna post in it. If you want me off your back, go post at the message board on reeferhead.com or whatever.


Alrighty, time to do some debating.

Even if marijuana was very harmful to your body (which it isn't at all, to say the least) who's to say I can't smoke it? Why can't I do what the hell I wanna do? Why are drunk asses legally sanctioned to get hosed and spew vomit everywhere where as I don't have the freedom to smoke myself silly?

I hate to use that tired comparison, but it really is valid. The laws the way they are right now just ooze hypocrisy.

Same reason firearms laws are completely different all over the United States, despite the fact that we have ONE U.S. Constitution that says ONE thing about whether or not we have the right to carry firearms.

I don't actually know what that reason is--just that there is one. Maybe the law is just plain messed up. Or maybe the nation's lawmakers decided to split the country up into separate parts with different laws so that people can move to the areas with the laws they like best. If it's so important to you, move to Holland--errrr.....wait..........oh dear. Bit of a problem there.

Of course, no matter where a person moves to, they will never have EXACTLY the laws they want. Right now it's your desire to smoke weed that is getting stomped on by the guys with black boots and MP5's. In other areas it will be your right to guns, or your right to not worship a God. Somewhere or other, the law is gonna supercede one or another of your rights, and you're just gonna have to deal with that.

Or you could :suicide:


Side note for ya, Dawgphood. Bringing up the hypocrisy angle doesn't really do much for you. Here's why: because there are TWO ways to put a stop to the hypocrisy you pointed out. Either legalize both weed and alcohol, or BAN both weed and alcohol. If you present it as a hypocrisy issue, both solutions become valid, and I'm just gonna take a wild guess that you were aiming specifically for the first one.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Decriminalization means that you don't go to jail, but get a fine instead, essentially.

That's what I thought but I wanted to be sure. So it'd be like getting a speeding ticket. I guess that's better although the distribution would stay the same.

Or you could :suicide:

You shouldn't say things like that.

 

[Shekwan]

Or you could :suicide:

Better solution , and relax. I'm pretty sure a SWAT team is never going to raid my place. I don't even think we can afford SWAT teams in Ireland.

But yeah, you don't need to be apologetic about why you're posting in this thread Basketcase. I think the majority of people here find your posts very entertaining.

 

[BasketCase]

That's what I aim for.

Edit: Errrr.....I'm mildly bipolar, and once in a while it's just the Prozac wearing off.

 

[Berzerker]

Granted, while he was the goon that signed the Marihuana Tax Act into law in 1937, Harry J. Anslinger fueled the irrational hysteria that drove us to that point, and still continues to drive much of the propaganda surrounding marijuana today.

He's the one who lied to the American public with these famous gems:

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries and deeds of maniacal insanity it causes each year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured... No one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a joyous reveller in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer..."

...

I love how in one quote he says it promotes pacifism and communist brainwashing, then in lots of other quotes says that it drives people to homicide. Which is it Harry?

All joking aside, he's a great example of what happens when you let bureaucrats run the show. Truly one of the most reprehensible figures in American history, at least in my opinion.

Some of the Feds waging alcohol prohibition were left without a job in '33, so pot became the target. But yeah, in the 30s that whacko was claiming pot made people kill each other and then in the 50s pot became a commie plot to pacify the nation. But Harry Ainslinger's crony in crime was William Randolph Hearst, he was claiming all sorts of evils for pot in his newspapers. It just so happened he had bought up a bunch of forest for wood pulp and new advancements in farming technology were making hemp more productive - hemp is far better than wood pulp for paper. Not surprisingly, Hearst was a big fan of Mussolini...

 

[Berzerker]

BCase

On the contrary, a few people RIGHT HERE ON CFC have, in past weed threads, posted links to studies claiming precisely that.

Not in this thread... so you're admitting yer post was totally irrelevant to the "ongoing" debate? And I see you're still claiming pot causes cancer but I dont see your links

 

[BasketCase]

Wow! Brainstorm!!

Suddenly I'm glad I brought up the :suicide: deal. Here's the thing. Why shouldn't people be allowed to :suicide: if they want to? It's their choice; they're not hurting anybody else (unless their aim is REALLY bad ).

Yet, our reaction to suicides is....what?? Well, obviously such people must have a screw loose--we don't even put any effort into reasoning about it, we just sorta think that instinctively. We set up suicide prevention hotlines, and we have psychologists and antidepressant drugs, and we put a LOT of effort into "curing" suicidal people.

If you want to destroy yourself with alcohol or tobacco or weed or cocaine or hollow point, that's your choice.....or is it?


See? Why do we make a distinction about suicidal people? Why the extensive effort?

For their own good.

Sometimes we do the "nanny state" deal, and sometimes it IS the right thing to do.

 

[Munch]

Don't legalize it. Mostly because it messes up the human brain and poses a threat to people besides the user (it also causes cancer, but that one runs a distant third place).

Alcohol causes liver damage (and other things) and poses a threat to people beside the user. Even if we believe your claims about brain damage and cancer, all we realise is that some harm to the body is allowed through some drugs, but other forms of harm are disallowed. Now I anticipate the 'ban them all' 'solution'.

It's impossible to overdose on weed, you say? So what?? You can't overdose on tobacco either. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Yes, but tobacco is legal, so what's your point? If you can't overdose on either what's the difference? Certainly not the health effects according to you. Nobody's making that comparison anyway. The point in the whole 'comparison with other drugs' thing is that weed isn't any worse than what is currently legal. Again I anticipate the 'ban them all' 'solution'.

I don't actually know what that reason is--just that there is one. Maybe the law is just plain messed up. Or maybe the nation's lawmakers decided to split the country up into separate parts with different laws so that people can move to the areas with the laws they like best. If it's so important to you, move to Holland--errrr.....wait..........oh dear. Bit of a problem there.

If you don't like something about the country/state etc just move away? Damn. Not 'try and raise consciousness about the hypocrisy and work peacefully towards a fairer society'. Just 'get out, we don't like your types'. Aside from the weed discussion, that's a fairly negative outlook.

Side note for ya, Dawgphood. Bringing up the hypocrisy angle doesn't really do much for you. Here's why: because there are TWO ways to put a stop to the hypocrisy you pointed out. Either legalize both weed and alcohol, or BAN both weed and alcohol. If you present it as a hypocrisy issue, both solutions become valid, and I'm just gonna take a wild guess that you were aiming specifically for the first one.

Well of course, otherwise he would have taken up your previous 'get out' advice and moved to Saudi Arabia already. That's really the point: it's about the freedom. 'Ban them all' isn't a solution. It shouldn't be the government's business if I drink a beer or smoke a cigarette or a spliff, even if these things harm me. As long as I don't drive under the influence of any drug or otherwise endanger the lives of others, then there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Berzerker]

Wow! Brainstorm!!

I hope you didn't soil yerself

Suddenly I'm glad I brought up the :suicide: deal. Here's the thing. Why shouldn't people be allowed to :suicide: if they want to? It's their choice; they're not hurting anybody else (unless their aim is REALLY bad ).

Legalizing suicide is your brainstorm? Okay, fine with me... It should be legal.

Yet, our reaction to suicides is....what?? Well, obviously such people must have a screw loose--we don't even put any effort into reasoning about it, we just sorta think that instinctively. We set up suicide prevention hotlines, and we have psychologists and antidepressant drugs, and we put a LOT of effort into "curing" suicidal people.

Sure, when we think someone is acting irrational we want to give them time to reconsider, but ultimately its still their choice. If you found out the guy you were saving from suicide was being eaten alive by cancer would you be doing the right thing? Aren't you responsible for his pain and suffering now that you've relieved him of the freedom of ending his life? I think so... See how many people you're hurting?

If you want to destroy yourself with alcohol or tobacco or weed or cocaine or hollow point, that's your choice.....or is it?

It is, but whats with all this "destroy yourself" stuff? You're now equating suicide with booze and tobacco and pot? Oh boy, another analogy gone astray.

See? Why do we make a distinction about suicidal people? Why the extensive effort?

For their own good.

No, for our own good. I dont want someone committing suicide in front of me or my kids. Its too bad they wanted to end their life, but they're the one having to live that life so its their decision. Your analogy requires us to equate irrational behavior with behavior that is not irrational. But thats the warped mentality behind the drug war, we are all irrational children in need of protection from ourselves and you just argued for that position by comparing us to the suicidal.

Sometimes we do the "nanny state" deal, and sometimes it IS the right thing to do.

I knew you had more in common with Marx than Madison

 

[Berzerker]

Hey BC, would you let suicidal people have guns? If not, do you wanna ban guns for everyone based on what suicidal people are doing?

 

[BasketCase]

Not in this thread... so you're admitting yer post was totally irrelevant to the "ongoing" debate?

Nope.

And I see you're still claiming pot causes cancer but I dont see your links

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp

Known human carcinogens

....
Benzene
​

Probable carcinogens

....
Household combustion of biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from​

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp

Where benzene is found and how it is used

* Benzene is formed from both natural processes and human activities.
* Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis

Cannabis (Cán-na-bis) is a genus of flowering PLANTS

http://www.bestvaporizers.com/herbal-vaporizer.html

The vaporizer produced THC at a temperature of 185° C. (365° F.) while completely eliminating three measured toxins - BENZENE, A KNOWN CARCINOGEN, plus toluene and naphthalene. Carbon monoxide and smoke tars were both qualitatively reduced by the herbal vaporizer, but additional testing is needed to quantify the extent of the decrease.

....

Significant amounts of benzene began to appear at temperatures of 200° C. (392° F), while combustion occurred around 230° (446°F) or above. Traces of THC were in evidence as low as 140° C. (284° F).

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/cannabis

Cannabis is almost always smoked

Your witness.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Basketcase is ironically the best reason for the legalization of marijuana. Poetic justice.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And Obama used cocaine. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Berzerker]

Nope.

Nope, what? You said people were claiming pot cures cancer and no one in our debate made that claim. You then moved the goalposts to some other debate you had with someone who claimed pot cures cancer (I'd love to see you provide the exact quote and the person's name, I smell BS on that too).

Your witness.

Where do your links say pot causes cancer? We are talking about humans and not lab rats bred to get cancer, right? You got a human study of actual pot smokers who dont use other drugs like tobacco? Telling me a chemical in pot causes cancer doesn't tell me smoking pot causes cancer. And what happened to your theory about the soil causing (and inhibiting) cancer?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

cont

Do you have a more recent (and large) study contradicting this?