Now you sort of want to argue the old gaeway drug scenario doesn’t exsist. How about the guy who was smokin’ weed getting high and then someone comes over and goes “hey man wanna try a bump of H” now had he not been smoking he probably would have said no, due to lowered inhibitions and reasoning ability he says, “what the fuck why not”. When was the last time a fuckin’ twinkie lowered your inhibitions? I work as a CO in a jail, I talk to junkies who started smoking weed at 16 and then had heroin or crack introduced to them at a party, once your hooked on heroin you are fucked for life.
I have also seen pot destroy more than a couple of lives. Also one of them has moved onto harder drugs such as LSD and cocaine. Bottom line is that pot is bad for you and if you are trying to argue otherwise you’re just in denial.
Your point makes better sense explained below. And I agree that it should be legalized, not because of the medicinal use, but because of the govt’ telling us what to put into our bodies. I find it hypocritical of our government to allow alcohol and tobacco and even aspirin, but not steroids and marijuana. I too have never used marijuana and probably never will, don’t have a reason to. You make a good point and I wasn’t entirely arguing your point, there were others in this topic that made blanket statements recited from the myths and misconceptions generated many years ago by the media and religious fanatics. I wanted them to be sure they had a reason to state pot is bad and not just rely on others viewpoint. As with any drugs, legal or not, there will always be positives and negatives, but I find it disturbing when we have legal drugs where the negatives outweigh the positives and drugs that remain illegal where the positives outweight the negatives.
What are anyone’s thoughts on mandatory sentences for drug crimes, but not for violent crimes? What happens when we let a violet crime offender go because we have to give a drug offender a mandatory term?
Keefer,
Lest we forget, Cocaine was a “medicinal” drug, so is Oxycontin, so the point of having it prescribed does not back it as completey medically safe. In the cases that you refer, the drugs were given as a method of comfort for someone who already had a serious disorder. Scripts were not handed out to the Spicoli wannabes that want to smoke up for a buzz.
I completely agree with you on the immediate toxic dangers. The medical dangers that I referred to are all long-term and chronic (no pun intended).
I have, however, seen more of my friends’ (and 2 sisters) lives affected by their pot habit than those of alcohol.
Yes, I HAVE done my research. Both textbook and real world. Mostly in an attempt to sway my sisters (and a couple of friends) away from marijuana use. The fact is, much like cigarettes, alcohol, or (insert whatever vice) there is nothing short of someone WANTING to stop using that will convince a user otherwise. We could go on ad nausem about the cons of any vice. Likewise, you can put a media spin on the WORST vice to make it seem “safe” or “good”.
Besides, you completely missed the point of my post. Go back and read it ENTIRELY and you will se the point that I was making.
I was not making a point of “pot is bad”, because I know that those who have their opinions otherwise will not be swayed.
For the record (and not that I feel I should justify my position), I personally have never smoked it (mostly due to athletics and hopes for a future there- dashed, of course), but I find it funny that it remains illegal while cigarettes are still legal. (I am smart enough to know it’s purely political and financial- hell, I live in the South, where most of the state’s economy relies heavily on tobacco).
I am for legalization simply because I don’t think it’s the govt’s place to tell someone what they can or can’t do TO THEMSELVES. Although I do favor a public smoking (of anything) ban simply because non-smokers shouldn’t have to endure breathing smoker’s second hand smoke AND ONLY FOR THAT REASON.[/quote]
You guys are missing the point. Who cares what’s dangerous or not? I mean really? WE have allowed the people WE elect to dispose of our God-given right to be stupid enough to kill ourselves in the way we see fit. The original post is completely wrong in its logic to begin with. Our government is a republic (not a democracy) which means WE elect those who rule over us. The government gets its power from US. If you don’t like a law you have the power to run for office and change it. If you can’t get a bunch of people to think like you and agree to change the laws then maybe it’s because you’re a moron who doesn’t know crap. Or just maybe your ideas suck. Alcohol is bad in EXCESS, but when the government banned it the people drank anyway then elected representatives that would repeal the law. Steroids were invented to keep sick people from wasting away while they lay in a hospital bed. NOT to give some lazy dipshit an easy way to “look good nekkid”. Pot may as well be legal since most people caught with only a joint or two are let go or get a ticket the equivalent of DUI. Big deal. I say if you want to change things then 1. VOTE 2. Run for office or 3. Shut the hell up, your whining makes most of us sick.
Well that’s your take on it and i respect that. Personally i think that the very officials which we elect in our democratic republic must do a good job to be re-elected. This follows a simple logic that a good way to do that is to create or bring to a public eye a controvery. A controversy which “must” be handled and adressed to save the children. Said politicain then buildes for him/her self a reputation and all else follows down from there.
All to protect the public. every politician looks for a cause to support and back.
Okay, but for folks that are getting all apeshit about pot, I really hope you are also railing against the availability of that dangerous drug known as alcohol.
Millions and millions of people abuse alcohol, for a large part of their lives, and it is certainly known to be bad for them. Also, since it lowers inhibitions, by the arguments given above, it is a gateway drug!
My point is not that anything is “harmless”, but that people should be allowed to make choices concerning their own lives. Pot is not dangerous in the sense that it highly addictive and causes people to commit crimes because of a necessity to get the next dose. Some drugs do that.
We need to restrict things that are directly responsible for endangering the law abiding public, not because people can in fact do stupid things while under the influence. This would also apply to steroids, prohormones, supplements and other substances.
People, of an appropriate age, should be allowed to make informed decisions with respect to their own lives. Perhaps that means signing a consent form which details risks and safety precautions when purchasing various substances, or only getting those substances from a licensed source.
It shouldn’t be hard to figure out how to let people make their own decisions in a way that doesn’t allow them to claim “they didn’t know”.
Get the hell out of my life and let me do what the hell I want you damned busybody assholes.
Word.
After Alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) was reduced. The FBN’s own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: “Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind.” “Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes.”
…still crazy, after all those years…
It comes down to:
- Either ALL of the ‘soft’ drugs should be illegal including alcohol and nicotine.
-or-
- NONE of the ‘soft’ drugs should be illegal including pot.
Sure, they are ALL bad for you, and ALL addictive in their own way, whether physically addictive (nicotine) or socially addictive (smoking pot with your buddies), but to pick and choose randomly which ones are legal or illegal is silly.
As the poster above said, it is my reading of history that pot was made illegal SPECIFICALLY OUT OF RACISM - white legistlators were scared that STONED non-whites were going to GET IT ON with their precious white daughters.
Period!
Whatever medical knowledge we have now, the history comes down to sheer prejudism and prudishness.
Who has ever watched “REEFER MADNESS” or the old propaganda films? They are so ridiculous.
I personally don’t believe in this concept of “gateway drugs”. I think there are certain people who are destined to abuse themselves, and they may follow similar patterns drinking->pot->heroin, but I don’t believe it’s the pot that’s driving here. It’s just those certain types of people who are wired for despair and addiction, and if there was no pot, they’d still find a way to get to the bottom.
I live here in Vancouver where we have some marijuana cafes, and a very active marijuana political party, and pot is the biggest cash crop, and people pretty much smoke it on the streets/sidewalks here. I’m not endorsing this, I’m just saying that it’s a pretty common thing here, and that people are not all going on to worse and harder abuse. For the most part it appears to be a simple recreational thing.
Sugar is bad for you, fried food is bad for you, booze is bad for you, pot is bad for you, skipping sleep is bad for you, pollution is bad for you, wasting your pay check on Starbucks is bad for you.
So don’t over-indulge.
Cut loose now and again, but don’t over do it.
Don’t sell bad stuff to kids, don’t sell bad stuff in schools, maybe regulate the kinds of advertising and marketing harmful products can engage in, provide informed and objective educational material to consumers, hell even require a note from the doctor to say it’s alright for you to do/take whatever, but making arbitrary things outright illegal just seems like hypocrisy to me.
Amir
wow, that was one of the most idiotic posts I have ever laid eyes on. I post a study and a source and you call me a crybaby. sure… And if you could read you could see where to find it. Obviously you arent the smartest in the bunch. you make baby jesus cry.
lothario
I never made the statement that weed was more dangerous than alcy- I asked the original poster to back up his blanket statement. But, as to the dangers of weed and its intoxication- you said it best yourself- as long as you dont fuck up other ppl its cool. the thing is, when you are intoxicated and dont think you are, you will likely fuck somebody or something up.
gregbrock
I agree. It is just a pet peeve of mine when ppl make wide sweeping statements like “pot is safer than alcohol” or “ephedrine will kill you” or “steroids will kill you” or “steroids make you crazy” etc, etc, etc, without backing them up. So I supplied a stance that opposed the stated one, and provided evidence to back it up, like the original poster should have. As far as taking away rights- i agree. i hate how the government has taken it upon itself to protect us from ourselves. like we are incapable of making our own decisions…
I’m glad to see some people haven’t forgotten that the issue isn’t just about the ganjia. This is really about personal freedom; something we all are being robbed of every day by the Government.
Effedrine anyone? Yes, effedrine had adverse effects on some individuals. So does pot, so does Alcohol. “Smart” people learn their lesson after a bad experience with any of these three. “Stupid” people die. It’s natural selection in a twisted way.
Let’s not forget that the Cotton Baron’s had a hand here either. They saw hemp as a threat to their income. Lobbying to ban “weed” fit their agenda of greed.
Ultimately, greed is the reason behind all that we are discussing here. Government taxes booze, ciggarets and perscription drugs at their will. They can do this since it’s “big business” and can be regulated as a result. How do you regulate something everyone can grow in thier own home?
If someone can’t have their hand in your pocket for a substance or prouct, they don’t want you to have it. If that means restricting personal freedoms to achieve this goal, then so be it.
[quote]Papa wrote:
I’m glad to see some people haven’t forgotten that the issue isn’t just about the ganjia. This is really about personal freedom; something we all are being robbed of every day by the Government.
Effedrine anyone? Yes, effedrine had adverse effects on some individuals. So does pot, so does Alcohol. “Smart” people learn their lesson after a bad experience with any of these three. “Stupid” people die. It’s natural selection in a twisted way.
Let’s not forget that the Cotton Baron’s had a hand here either. They saw hemp as a threat to their income. Lobbying to ban “weed” fit their agenda of greed.
Ultimately, greed is the reason behind all that we are discussing here. Government taxes booze, ciggarets and perscription drugs at their will. They can do this since it’s “big business” and can be regulated as a result. How do you regulate something everyone can grow in thier own home?
If someone can’t have their hand in your pocket for a substance or prouct, they don’t want you to have it. If that means restricting personal freedoms to achieve this goal, then so be it.
[/quote]
And that pretty much sums it up nicely. It’s all about $$$ and that’s it, simple as that. If there’s oney to be lost by any entity in making any substance legal, it will never happen. I’m sure Dupont would have a shit-fit at loosing 40-60% of it’s patents just because of hemp and all that’s made from it.
I find it really interesting how people are manipulated and why the need arose in the first place.
As long as there were no public media combined with a democratic system there was no need to influence the publics opinion because the “public” had nothing to say anyway.
Today such campaigns allways follow the same simple recipe:
-
First you frighten the unwashed masses or use an event that allready has frightened them
-
and then you present policies that you allways wanted to implement but couldn?t as a solution to the problem.
The link between the the two doesn?t really have to exist, it only has to have some superficial emotional appeal to it, because todays public debates consist of soundbites anyway.
I like the weed-example because the prohibition originally started to protect the interests of part of the american industry that had invested heavily in producing paper out of wood.
Now that drug enforcement is an industry in itself fear continues to be the weapon of choice when it comes to mass- manipulation.
In the 30 it was the evil weed that turned white women to have, gasp, sex with “negroes” (with their super-long penises and superior sexual skills- once you go black, you never turn back 
) , and now it?s " doesn?t anyone think about the children?" or marijuana as a gateway drug.
If you haven?t allready noticed it, I think it was pure genius to play on the sexual/inferiority fears of white men. No logic whatsoever, but the emotional appeal was so strong that it did its job anyway.