Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use?

[CaptainF]

The problem with the above is this: marijuana harms very few people right now BECAUSE it's illegal.

Then why are more people in the U.S. smoking weed now than ever before?

Why is it a billion dollar industry in California? It sure is "harming" a lot of people there...for medical reasons no less.

Why is it readily available to anyone who wants it?

...

When marijuana was first criminalized in 1937 the only people that smoked it were Jazz musicians in Harlem and New Orleans, and Mexican migrant workers in the South.

Nowadays, everyone, from all walks of life smokes it, in greater numbers than ever before. 40% of the country has been "harmed" by it at one point.

Being illegal ain't got nothin' to do with it. It hasn't prevented anything. I don't know why you can't see this...

 

[BasketCase]

Show me the evidence.

I went searching for spectra vs. hemp, but I found this instead:
http://www.textileworld.com/Article.../Performance_Fibers_In_Ropes_And_Cordage.html

Vegetable-based hard fibers such as hemp and sisal were the dominant materials for the rope industry until the late 1930s. The development and introduction of nylon in the late 1930s and early 1940s provided a new, higher-strength material for the rope industry.

Haven't found anything on hemp vs. spectra yet, but I know a quarter-inch spectra line can suspend a few cars and hemp can't. But that's now moot, since I found a link showing hemp is weaker than nylon. Leading to "you can make a decent rope out of hemp, but you can make a better one out of nylon".

Hmmm...how do you know this? Ever worn a pair of hemp jeans?

Twice. I ditched 'em and stuck with cotton.

Or am I lying......?

Wrong.

Back atcha.

 

[BasketCase]

Then why are more people in the U.S. smoking weed now than ever before?

It's probably a statistical fluke. According to mainstream news sources, marijuana use was in a steady decline for most of this decade--until the decline stalled last year. Over the long-term, the trend is still DOWN, not UP.

So, I'm gonna make a wild hunch and guess that you tried to slip me a loaded question. Nice try.

 

[CaptainF]

I went searching for spectra vs. hemp, but I found this instead:
http://www.textileworld.com/Article.../Performance_Fibers_In_Ropes_And_Cordage.html

Haven't found anything on hemp vs. spectra yet, but I know a quarter-inch spectra line can suspend a few cars and hemp can't. But that's now moot, since I found a link showing hemp is weaker than nylon. Leading to "you can make a decent rope out of hemp, but you can make a better one out of nylon".

So...since some synthetic (and thus more expensive to produce) materials can outperform naturally grown hemp in certain instances, we should make it illegal? Am I reading this right?

Do you think farmers should be able to grow industrial hemp?

Twice. I ditched 'em and stuck with cotton.

Or am I lying......?

Sweet. So the inanity of your personal preference should be applied by law to everyone?

Back atcha.

Check this out, it'll put your ignorance in perspective.

Link

 

[CaptainF]

It's probably a statistical fluke. According to mainstream news sources

Where are these sources?

Meanwhile, marijuana is the top cash crop in the U.S. with a $36 billion dollar market.

This mainstream news source says so.

 

[Sharwood]

And, post number 1000 goes to ME!

And when this thread gets locked, it'll be the best thing for it.

Some are. But then, I never said that. I said

You just moved the goalposts again.

No I didn't, I made an honest mistake.

There's no harm to you (or me) in allowing religious people to pray on the school campus or in the classrooms. Yet most of the people in this thread (including me) do not want people praying in the classrooms.

I have no problem with people praying anywhere they want. My only problem is with the teaching of religion in a public school. If you can find the time to give children the same amount and standard of tuition in all religions, including agnosticism and atheism, I'd welcome it, but since that is not feasible, religion should not be taught in public schools.

Yes it does, and I showed how.

No, it doesn't, and everyone in this thread but you showed how.

The problem with the above is this: marijuana harms very few people right now BECAUSE it's illegal.

Wrong. Its usage has increased since it became illegal. It's legal in Holland and elsewhere, yet still harms very few people. How do you account for that?

Nope. That's you. But then, I already said that.

In that case, you are willfully ignorant, because I do no such thing, yet you do it repeatedly. You haven't answered my other post about the uses of marijuana either.

 

[BasketCase]

Being illegal ain't got nothin' to do with it. It hasn't prevented anything. I don't know why you can't see this...

Because I'm incapable of understanding that which is wrong. I have never been able to figure out the fact that 2 + 2 = 5. I've tried and tried, but I JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

When marijuana was first criminalized in 1937 the only people that smoked it were Jazz musicians in Harlem and New Orleans, and Mexican migrant workers in the South.

So, what you're saying is that everybody else actually had a lick of common sense.

Just kidding. What you told me up there is worthless--mostly because your fancy words don't actually tell me HOW MANY people used weed at the time. And, much more importantly, you also didn't tell me how many people in those areas used weed AFTER it was criminalized! Those numbers are probably impossible to obtain, but you might find that criminalization in 1937 actually caused weed smokage to go DOWN. Maybe down in the short term, maybe down in the long term......

Nowadays, everyone, from all walks of life smokes it, in greater numbers than ever before. 40% of the country has been "harmed" by it at one point.

I'll assume that, by "40% of the country has been "harmed" by it at one point" you meant "40% of Americans have used weed at least once". If I got that wrong, don't worry about it. Call it a hypothetical and continue with the exercise, and you'll still (hopefully) see the point.

The statistic "40% of Americans have tried weed at least once" doesn't tell you a goddamn thing. It is a meaningless statistic. Maybe true (when I looked it up it was only 33%) but still worthless.

Virtually every American of drinking age has used alcohol at least once. How many alcoholics are there in the United States.....? Take a guess--you are not permitted to look it up on another web site before answering, that's cheating--and then open the spoiler.

Spoiler :

BZZZZ! WRONG. The correct answer is around one in thirty.

See? The fact in italics is true (got it straight off Google)--but it's useless. There's no way to figure out from that how many people are heavy users. From the fancy sentences and nifty words you wrote to me, you told me absolutely nothing. How many people as a percentage of the general population used weed the first time it was banned? Did they use regularly, occasionally, or only once in their lives? You have no actual starting baseline with which to compare anything.

 

[BasketCase]

You haven't answered my other post about the uses of marijuana either.

Yep. That's because I've done about 38 posts today--in just this one thread--and am getting sleepy and not giving a crap any more and am not getting around to reading every new post in here (only some of the good stuff that catches my eye).

But mostly because I got distracted by an episode of MXC.

Ouch!! Some doofus just did a total face plant on that Log Drop event. I'm so outta here.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Will there be a continuation of this thread in the future? Stay tuned for more!
BTW, I forced myself to read every post BasketCase and his opponents wrote so far (me so sleepy) and I have to say is: This thread is utterly useless. Today I'll throw the sweetest party Earth has ever seen, and yeah, it will contain lots of weed in it. Despite this, I'm no babbling idiot nor a doofus by doing so for the last years in surprisingly constant regularity and I enjoved every time I lightened up. BasketCase, you're kinda smart, no doubt. Dawgphood and Elta, you're surely enjoying weed as much as I do, so let him stay in his world and his beliefs if that is comfortable with him. Everybody to his own, I'm not going to convince every person on this freaking planet to try it just for once. If this topic will find it's relaunch in yet another thread, our opinions will surely not have changed after all, yet we'll be all again ready to fight each other in another round.
P.S. I had a couple of drags before ten minutes ago, and I'm feeling great!

 

[Elta]

Enjoy yourself Eastside. Let me know if you are ever in Vegas, I'll smoke you out.

Originally Posted by eastsidebagel
@ BasketCase: Please answer me this question in order to understand you: Do you enjoy drinking alcoholic beverages?

Dear God, no. You know the old saw about how people drink to relax and get sociable and stuff?

I don't become I nicer guy when I get drunk. I get WORSE. A lot worse. I sit around and sulk about nothing in particular, and I get angry at people even more easily than I already do. I get absolutely no fun out of it.

You know alcohol does not change your personality right? It just amplifies it. You are naturally a sad, angry annoying person who whines about things of no consequence.

Good day sir,
And good luck.

 

[amadeus]

But mostly because I got distracted by an episode of MXC.

And you say weed makes you stupid.

 

[BasketCase]

Listen to me: No matter how stoned I am, I am always just as aware of the danger of me going on the road stoned as I am sober.

On the contrary, the very fact that you wrote that is the number one reason I do NOT listen to you any more.

Every stoner and drunk and cokehead thinks exactly that same thing, right up until the moment they ram their car into a tree. Or, Spaghetti Monster forbid, a PERSON. Why the freaking hell do so many people refuse to hand their keys to somebody else after getting smashed at a bar???

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

On the contrary, the very fact that you wrote that is the number one reason I do NOT listen to you any more.

Every stoner and drunk and cokehead thinks exactly that same thing, right up until the moment they ram their car into a tree. Or, Spaghetti Monster forbid, a PERSON. Why the freaking hell do so many people refuse to hand their keys to somebody else after getting smashed at a bar???

Right, and you prefer to base this on absolutely nothing. I didn't ask you to believe me, I asked you where you get your information. To back it up. So far all you have is: because I say so.

And the example you gave there (bar) is about alcohol, not marijuana. The two substances have quite a different effect.

Back it up or back off.

"Back up that weed disables the "responsible part of your brain", because what you describe there is totally alien to me."

Nice snipping by the way. Lets take this one line to reply to. The rest was a bit too difficult to respond to I assume?

edit: By the way, I lolled at the underlined part. Nice one

 

[BasketCase]

Shouldn't be too tough, you made the legs with straw. No one said pot cures cancer

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

I have no problem with people praying anywhere they want. My only problem is with the teaching of religion in a public school. If you can find the time to give children the same amount and standard of tuition in all religions, including agnosticism and atheism, I'd welcome it, but since that is not feasible, religion should not be taught in public schools.

Here's a case of you moving the goalposts again.....or did you make another "honest mistake"?

Schools don't provide children identical standards of tuition in all aspects of history, either. Or in art. Or in foreign languages--those are really unfair. Or, very particularly, in politics; varying political ideas definitely do NOT get their fair share of the attention. In my entire trip through college, I received exactly TWO DAYS of instruction in the philosophies of fascism. A political stance which, we all know, has had widespread influence on world history, yet very few people on Earth know what it actually IS. (Let me be very clear: fascism sucks ass. But after those two days of instruction, I now know WHY it sucks ass)

But no, you don't demand the removal of history or art or languages or art or politics. Just religion. You take the rule (all aspects of a subject should get equal face time) and then you apply it unevenly. You apply it only to the one subject (religion) you really hate. Bad Sharwood.

Me? I say religion shouldn't be in public schools for an entirely different reason: because religion belongs in church. Math teachers teach math. History teachers teach history. PREACHERS teach religion.

It's legal in Holland and elsewhere, yet still harms very few people. How do you account for that?

There are many possibilities, but two new ones come to mind:

#1: You are poorly informed.

#2: You are lying to me.

Why do those two (additional) possibilities come to my mind? Here's why.

Holland scrapping liberal policies on drugs and brothels to clean up image
The Dutch are rethinking their famously liberal polices on legalised brothels, prostitution and soft drugs, such as magic mushrooms and cannabis, amid fears of growing crime and social decline.

It would seem that the Dutch government considers your claim false; they seem to think weed is causing more harm than you know (or admit, I don't know which)


I think I'll stop there. My opponents have tried your little trick several times in past threads (and Holland was their favorite country to use, too!), but seeing it nixed as Holland finally comes to its senses? That's gold. I'm grinning from ear to ear at the delicious irony of all this, and I'm gonna go to bed in a good mood.

(In the meantime, this change in Dutch policy might be worth a whole new thread....?)

 

[BasketCase]

On the contrary, the very fact that you wrote that is the number one reason I do NOT listen to you any more.

edit: By the way, I lolled at the underlined part. Nice one

Omigod. I'm so sorry. I apologize.

I made a typo.

On the contrary, the very fact that you wrote that is the number one reason I do NOT listen to you.

There. Fixed it.

 

[Munch]

You seem to be arguing this all day; have a break, get some sleep! I find a bit of a smoke helps, and encourages lucid dreaming.

 

[Elta]

My god Basket Case.

A conservative majority has taken control in Holland.

Marijuana does turn people into homosexuals!!!!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Omigod. I'm so sorry. I apologize.

I made a typo.

There. Fixed it.

I didn't lol at the typo, but at the claim you listened to me before. And it was just a joke.

Again, you seem to forget to back up the claim that started our little conversation. Am I to conclude you don't have any? Or as I said before: Nice snipping by the way. Lets take this one line to reply to. The rest was a bit too difficult to respond to I assume?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Coffee shop" cafés, legalised to sell cannabis, since 1976 have been closed, and more restrictions are to come, by city councils concerned at their link to organised crime and the often unpopular and disorderly hordes of marijuana tourists attracted to the Netherlands.

This is handled per city. A decade ago a ruling in Holland determined a minimum distance between shops and school, plus a maximum per buy. I haven't heard anything about more restrictions, and can't determine from the article.

Meanwhile, the major of Maastricht (close to Belgium and German border) is making a case to legalise the production of weed.

It would seem that the Dutch government considers your claim false; they seem to think weed is causing more harm than you know (or admit, I don't know which)

Now the Dutch government has announced new plans to strictly regulate the sex industry, massage parlours and brothels more by imposing a tough licensing system to drive out organised crime

Where is the closing of the shops by the government?


edit: look what I found on the same site:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...3496604/Amsterdam-cannabis-cafs-to-close.html

Amsterdam Council plans to shut 43 out of the capital's 228 popular marijuana-selling coffee shops in support of a Dutch Government bid to protect schoolchildren from drugs.

The cafés are a big tourist draw and resemble ordinary coffee bars but include a cannabis menu detailing several varieties of the drug.

The city's Labour Lord Mayor Job Cohen said the businesses due to close were all within an "unacceptable" 200 metres of schools.

[...]

Mr Cohen is in favour of legalising soft drugs but not before a proposed government inquiry into possible criminal connections between soft drugs and the outlawed hard drug industry.

He chaired a conference in Almere on Friday which brought 40 lord mayors from around Holland together to discuss the future of soft drug sales in Holland. Mr Cohen believes banning soft drugs will criminalise the trade, resulting in an increase in drug related crime.

For the same reason, he is also against a recent Government decision to ban the sale of Magic Mushrooms, another famous Amsterdam tourist attraction. The ban is due to come into force on Dec 1.

And more from that site

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Dutch-cities-to-grow-their-own-cannabis.html

The "grow-your-own" idea has taken hold in Eindhoven, while Tilburg's city council has said it is considering starting up a "cannabis market garden" of its own to supply local coffee shops.

Others are expected to follow suit, as the Dutch government considers nationalising soft drugs production and sales in a bid to decriminalise the industry.

Forty mayors met at the weekend, with many in favour of legalising soft drugs, whose consumption is a major tourist draw for Holland.

Amsterdam's Lord Mayor, Job Cohen, said that he was in "full" support of the country's cannabis-selling coffee shops, as their survival would hlep to keep the trade out of the hands of criminals.

However, he told The Telegraph that the Eindhoven city council's plan to start an experiment involving the council actually growing cannabis for supply to coffee shops was going a "little too far".

He said that he would prefer to see a form of 'Cannabis licence' granted to potential growers who would be carefully monitored by police.

"While I don't agree with the idea of councillors actually growing cannabis in plots near their town halls a positive development has been that our government has now said it will take a close look at the issue of where the cannabis should come from. We could see the problem of the two doors - legal front door for customers, illegal back door for supplies - being resolved soon."

Mr Cohen's office is situated nextdoor to the Bulldog cafe, one of Amsterdam's oldest so-called coffee shops.

Amsterdam has the largest concentration of coffee shops, 250 in the city centre and immediate suburbs alone. Last week the Lord Mayor revealed his plan to close one-fifth of the shops in the city, namely those situated within 250 metres of schools in a bid to protect schoolchildren.

However, according to the Chairman of the country's Cannabis Union, the move is unnecessary as coffee shop owners "exercise strict control and no-one under 18 is allowed on the premises."

Mrr Cohen told The Telegraph that while he did not agree with the use of soft drugs and did not even smoke tobacco, he believed that soft drugs should be legalised.

"Look what happened during prohibition years in America and how criminals took over and look at Belgium, France and Britain where soft drugs are not legal but are available and are a part of the criminal world," he said. "We can't avoid them, so it is better to legalise them to keep them under control."

A large sign in English stating that "identification must be shown" could be seen clearly displayed on the door of the Bulldog coffee shop - right beside a sign reading "traditional English breakfast served all day".

I'm glad Basket is asleep and grinning right now. If he were awake he might be less cheerful now the broader picture is clear

 

[Munch]

the Dutch government considers nationalising soft drugs production and sales in a bid to decriminalise the industry.
...
Amsterdam's Lord Mayor, Job Cohen, said that he was in "full" support of the country's cannabis-selling coffee shops, as their survival would hlep to keep the trade out of the hands of criminals.
...
"We could see the problem of the two doors - legal front door for customers, illegal back door for supplies - being resolved soon."

This is all excellent news in my book!

Mr Cohen's office is situated nextdoor to the Bulldog cafe, one of Amsterdam's oldest so-called coffee shops.

Damn, I wish my office was next door to the Bulldog. I was there at the start of Euro 2008, it's a great place. It's slightly odd that the Bulldog people own several buildings on that street: you go to one of them to purchase weed and another to purchase alcohol, but I think consumption is allowed in both places. Smoking a pipe, drinking beer AND playing pool in the same place? Genius.