Medicinal Marijuana [Archive]

Rower_CPU

Jul 24, 2002, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by hitman
Who, me or you? ;)

I'm against the legalisation of pot across the board. However, if they can prove with concrete evidence that it has some worthwhile medicinal use, then fine, let the terminally ill die happy. :)

I was referring to your old sig.

I'm not really sure how I feel about pot legalization. I have/had friends who smoke regularly and they were OK people; no addiction problems, just hungry and dopey sometimes.

If it alleviates people's pain, then I say it should be legal.

Sad thing is that there are lots of other substances that have been accepted by society and are legal that do have addictive properties and are far more dangerous to your health: namely tobacco.

job

Jul 24, 2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

I was referring to your old sig.

Ah yes, "Spam is my specialty." :D

If it alleviates people's pain, then I say it should be legal.

But where would you draw the line. Would there even be one?

Sad thing is that there are lots of other substances that have been accepted by society and are legal that do have addictive properties and are far more dangerous to your health: namely tobacco.

Well pot does burn hotter than tobacco and it certainly destroys far more lung cells than tobacco.

My main concern is that if we do legalise it across the board, our society will begin to break down. An example thereof is the import of Opium into China by British merchants. It utterly destroyed their society and resulted in an entire generation of drug addicts.

Rower_CPU

Jul 24, 2002, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by hitman
Well pot does burn hotter than tobacco and it certainly destroys far more lung cells than tobacco.

My main concern is that if we do legalise it across the board, our society will begin to break down. An example thereof is the import of Opium into China by British merchants. It utterly destroyed their society and resulted in an entire generation of drug addicts.

Which is why "water pipes" are the preferred method of consumption. Pot is going to be pure plant matter, God only knows what's in cigarettes.

Saying that our society will break down if pot is introduced is a little far fetched, don't you think? People said the same thing during the abolition era, when alcohol was banned. People knew it was a stupid law and eventually it got repealed.

One thing I would be interested to see is some sort of scientific study showing the addictive properties of THC...if any exist.

ponyboy

Jul 24, 2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by hitman

Well pot does burn hotter than tobacco and it certainly destroys far more lung cells than tobacco.

My main concern is that if we do legalise it across the board, our society will begin to break down. An example thereof is the import of Opium into China by British merchants. It utterly destroyed their society and resulted in an entire generation of drug addicts.

Puf to Puf you may be right, but considering that someone using medical marijuana might puf 3 or 4 times a day compared to 1-2 packs of cigs a day for the average smoker at who knows how many pufs per cig, your argument doesnt hold much water.

As far as the breakdown of society... Opium is by no means even a close comparison to marijuana. Opium is almost immediatley addictive physically. And pot has never been proven an addictive substance, because it isnt, period. It is addiction that tears down a society. There has never been proven any negative medical side effects to marijuana. In my opinion all of the negative effects of pot right now are do to its illegality, and nothing else. Because of its illegality it is associated with crime and an underworld, things that could be alieviated by legalization.

whfsdude

Jul 24, 2002, 05:55 PM

I think we should have it be a class C drug like in the U.K. :D

Wes

Jul 24, 2002, 06:07 PM

I think all drugs should be classified equally and have extreme penalities. Legalising just makes them more available. Step by step more drugs will be legalised. In the news in the U.K. last year and girl took a tablet of ectasy, it liquidised here blood and it flowed out of her mouth, nose and other places, the pictures were revolting. Why should anybody else have to die with blood pouring from all their orrapheuses or would that be orraphi?

Taft

Jul 24, 2002, 06:12 PM

I am all for the legalization and government taxation and control of Marijuana...for all purposes.

The Economist did some research into the effects of legalization, taxation and control of all drugs and determined that it would be in society's best interest to do so...in every aspect.

It would provide the government with more "sin" tax revenue. It would clean up the drug supply making its use safer. It would also rid us of the drug "war" which costs many lives and dollars every year.

Why? Because illegal trafficing would pretty much cease and controlled sources of the substance would be mandated. You could trust where you bought your pot from and not have to worry about it having coke in it--or worse. Also, records and tracking of who is buying in a controlled environment would prevent the young from buying and where the drug supply went.

Cleaner drugs and higher availability also means that there is less spread of conteagious deseases from drug use. Hepatitus and HIV would have less paths to spread on.

You would have less people in jail for petty possession charges. This would free a huge percentage of current prisoners, costing the taxpayer, and the government, less money.

Studies have also shown that making the drugs legal or more available woudn't lend itself to significantly higher use rates. Societal stigmas would still hamper use and with a variety of "safe" drugs available, youngsters would be less likely to experiment on far worse drugs. The "gateway" drug effect has neither been proven or supported.

Finally, with the savings of not fighting the "war" on drugs, cost of imprisonment and with the added revenue from the taxation of controlled drug sale, the government could put far more money into education and rehabilitation. This could mean less new users of "hard" drugs and more chances for rehabilitation of "hard" drug users.

IMO, this senario would be a very good thing to phase in. I completely agree with the Economist.

Taft

strider42

Jul 24, 2002, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by W-_-W
I think all drugs should be classified equally and have extreme penalities. Legalising just makes them more available.

What I'd like to see happen is making pot not a schedule 1 drug (I hope I remembered the classification correctly). Curruntly, it is illegal for any purpose, even medical research, by federal law. Drugs like cocaine, speed, and morphine are all legal for medicinal prupsoes and research, and yet are more dangerous. I don't really want to see pot legal or more available to the casual user, but medical research should be allowed so they can develope additonal therapies with it. Marinol, a THC derivitive, is already available, but since its a pill, it doesn't relaly work well for thsoe who are constantly throwing up because of their disease. A better delivery system could be found that is as effective as smoking it, but doesn't have the bad parts of smoking it. Working marinol into a patch or inhaler, while studying what other properties of pot are useful for medicinal purposes, would be a good thing I think. The restrictions on pot are more political than anything it seems right now.

blackpeter

Jul 24, 2002, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by hitman

My main concern is that if we do legalise it across the board, our society will begin to break down. An example thereof is the import of Opium into China by British merchants. It utterly destroyed their society and resulted in an entire generation of drug addicts.

I'm sorry, but that logic is utterly flawed. Lumping "soft" drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana) with "hard" narcotics like opium, cocaine, and the like is unfair. If you truly believe that marijuana is as dangerous as a narcotic, then you have to believe the same about tobacco and alcohol.

*How many people die every year of tobacco related lung cancer?
*How many people are killed every year by drunk drivers?
*Did you know that more people die every year from prescription drugs than from ALL illegal drugs combined??

The government has no problem letting us kill ourselves, as long as it's profitable. The people with money and power (tobacco - alcohol - perscription drug companies) loby against the legalization of marijuana because they truly believe it poses a threat to their profits. These are the same people that spent millions lobbying for perscription drug ads on TV. Since these companies began using TV to push their dope, sales of perscription drugs have increased by 30%.

Don't believe the hype!

Backtothemac

Jul 24, 2002, 08:01 PM

Well, I am totally for the legalization of pot. Especially for people who are terminally ill. My mom died of brain cancer, and I know it would have helped her.

zarathustra

Jul 24, 2002, 10:07 PM

they should legalize it. As of right now, when you smoke pot you know you are smoking pot. When you light up a cigarette, there is pesticide from the tobacco, ammonia and who knows what else put in there. I have seen lives destroyed by tobacco and it only makes most people irritated and nervous (while they are smoking or if they can't).

A pothead at worst is giggly and hungry.

Also, not to start a conspiracy theory discussion, but I heard about *hilip *orris plants standing by, ready to produce joints, in case it's legalized on a large scale.

sparkleytone

Jul 24, 2002, 10:10 PM

big companies wont make money on pot unless they add an addictive chemical into the mix. altho THC can definitely be psycholigically addictive, its not a guarantee, and of course, these companies make money on ciggies because once people are hooked, they are HOOKED.

job

Jul 24, 2002, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Taft
The Economist did some research into the effects of legalization, taxation and control of all drugs and determined that it would be in society's best interest to do so...in every aspect.

The only problem with actually taxing the drugs that if pot were legalised, people could simply grow their own. How could the government effectively tax something like that?

loveshismac

Jul 24, 2002, 10:33 PM

You all forgot the main reason its not legal.
It would destroy the economy of Mexico! our good friend to the south.
Think about what exactly does Mexico produce?
And to all you fools that think it shouldnt be legal due to social reasons. please open your eyes.
Your mom smokes your doctor smokes your lawyer smokes it. I smoke it, they smoke it,we all should smoke it.
Ever see an angry pot head?

Ever see an angry drunk?

Bring on the Marlboro Black!

IndyGopher

Jul 24, 2002, 11:53 PM

Let me start by saying that I can't really be objective here.. I don't smoke (anything), drink alcohol, or use drugs. Including caffeine. Now, I *have* done all these things.. I was a heavy drinker when I was a teenager, used to smoke 3 to 4 packs of unfiltered Camels a day, and have tried most of the social drugs that were available up 'til about 1989.

If a substance has a valid medicinal use, then by all means it should be available to the people who would benefit from it. The biggest problem that the pro-hemp and pro-legalization people have is the people that promote it. Try sending a few neatly groomed, well spoken people out to deliver your message, and not the loser we all remember from high school that was always too baked to remember his locker combination.

Someone mentioned that if pot were legalized, people would just grow their own and avoid taxation. That notion is pretty silly. Tobacco is legal... cigarettes now cost $5 a pack in lots of places. A casual smoker puts away 1.5 to 2 packs a day. That's $70 a week. Most of the people I know claim that sane people don't smoke $70 worth of marijuana a week. The point is, people don't grow their own tobacco to save money, and they wouldn't grow their own marijuana. People won't even ROLL their own tobacco and it costs 1/3 as much. People are lazy. If they could buy processed, cleaned, rolled marijuana, they would. In huge numbers. The tax money from legalized marijuana, coupled with the decreased judicial spending from legalizing it, would be staggering.

The notion that people would do everything while stoned if it were legal to buy marijuana is also wrong. Of course there are those that would smoke at inappropriate times, just as people drink alcohol at inappropriate times. You can't legislate people into being reasonable. Stupid people will do stupid things, making stupid illegal just means you get to arrest the stupid people.. it certainly doesn't stop them from being stupid.

I am all for people getting marijuana legalized. HOWEVER...

UNTIL you get it legalized, it's illegal. And that means you don't do it. This is not some sort of civil disobedience crap.. you're smoking it, it's illegal, you're a criminal. The idea that you get to break a law because you don't agree with it is more than just childish, it's dangerously antisocial. Band together. Get the law changed. I'm behind you 100%... but get caught with it before you DO get it legalized, and I'll just as strongly support the judge who sends you to jail.

jefhatfield

Jul 24, 2002, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by hitman

The only problem with actually taxing the drugs that if pot were legalised, people could simply grow their own. How could the government effectively tax something like that?

then people growing their own tobacco would happen a lot

it's not that easy...do you see us growing our own plants for food as an average citizen or raising our own animals for consumption?

it's not as if these things are rocket science...they all take time and money and resources which are in favor of large businesses and corporate farms

if i could build a mac cheaply, i would...same goes for pcs...but now the companies make it not worth my while to try and build a pc when all the individual parts i can possibly find give me no savings

only if i had a specific purpose for this part and that part would i try and build a machine today...several years ago, you could save money...today, it's just for fun but no true savings

if pot was legalized, it would be cheaper to buy it at the store than grow your own effectively...huge farms would bring down the price of pot to almost nothing...20 joints for five or six dollars or so...it just would not make sense to grow your own

jefhatfield

Jul 25, 2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by IndyGopher

I am all for people getting marijuana legalized. HOWEVER...

UNTIL you get it legalized, it's illegal. And that means you don't do it. This is not some sort of civil disobedience crap.. you're smoking it, it's illegal, you're a criminal. The idea that you get to break a law because you don't agree with it is more than just childish, it's dangerously antisocial. Band together. Get the law changed. I'm behind you 100%... but get caught with it before you DO get it legalized, and I'll just as strongly support the judge who sends you to jail.

where i used to live, until rather recently, ice cream was illegal in the downtown area (mayor clint eastwood, the actor, changed that law)

i wouldn't call eating ice cream...even then...an act of a criminal

the law, that specific law, was stupid

many countries don't allow one to practice their own religion

in montana, a husband can sell his wife's hair...should that old law be kept on the books? i don't know if it's still that way

sure i am taking it to the extreme, but calling a pot smoker a criminal by any stretch of the imagination is truly ridiculous...but if that pot smoker then robbed a bank, then i could see the criminality in that

where i live, cops look the other way for jaywalkers, not wearing seatbelts, or not wearing motorcylcle helmets...but in other areas, it may be different

3rdpath

Jul 25, 2002, 12:40 AM

first let me say that marijuana possession( medicinal or not ) in california probably will not be prosecuted if there is no intent to sell and distribute. with the state court's ruling, the likelyhood of any simple possession case going to federal court is about nil.

secondly, there is absolutely no reason why marijuana should not be legal for medicinal purposes. why on earth deprive an ill person the right to feel better, to function better and if need be, somewhat painlessly endure a terminal illness?
have you ever known someone who was terminally ill that couldn't eat because of persistent nausea? i have...its horrible...no other prescribed drug would help...and keep in mind that when you're that ill and in that much continuous pain, pot doesn't make you "stoned" or give you the "munchies", it merely brings that person up to a barely tolerable state of existence.

and finally, the whole heart of this compassionless mess is money. if a large pharmacutical company had the patent on marijuana you can bet your ass it would be advertised on tv and sold like every other cure-all. or a tabacco company would be marketing it with a cartoon camel(but not to kids- wink, wink...). the hypocrisy of our government and it's agencies is just sadly astounding.

djwoolf

Jul 25, 2002, 12:42 AM

a few things...
1 how did this get on a computer site? (steve and acid i can understand)
2 if legalized you should only be allowed to buy from a govt. liscensed store like a booze store but with the ganga (living in New Orleans though that would bcome corrupt)
3 Weed does slow reaction times like alcohl does so DUI is out of the question
4 In the UK when weed was legalized, non-violent crimes decreased dramatically (robbery theft etc....)

job

Jul 25, 2002, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
it's not that easy...do you see us growing our own plants for food as an average citizen or raising our own animals for consumption?

I personally do not smoke and do not intend to; however, I know several high school students, who, through the use of several potted plants (no pun intended :)) effectively grow and sell pot from their bedrooms.

Don't ask me where their parents are either. These are the types of kids you would not want to meet in a dark alley.

mac15

Jul 25, 2002, 02:02 AM

man my mstes would love it, bloddy pot heads

Taft

Jul 25, 2002, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by hitman

The only problem with actually taxing the drugs that if pot were legalised, people could simply grow their own. How could the government effectively tax something like that?

Do people grow their own tobacco?? Or brew their own beer? Or distill their own gin??

Sure, a few do. But if high quality product were available from a controlled source you could trust, who would want to. Like Jef said, its a huge pain in the butt. Why would you do something like that if you could buy it for a few cents more.

Believe me, big tobacco and the big brewing companies aren't that worried about do it yourself-ers. And the same principal would be at work for pot.

Call it the 'convenience factor'.

Taft

synergy

Jul 25, 2002, 08:21 AM

I say legalize it.

Is it the Netherlands that has all drugs legal?
War on drugs is a farce to extract tax dollars from us for funding the war.
It puts people in jail and results in gang wars.
Earmark 30% of taxes collected on drugs towards treatment centers. No one says drugs should be without cost. Government tax it as need be.

mcrain

Jul 25, 2002, 09:09 AM

Wow, I've got about three things to add to this conversation.

First, my wife is a doctor, and there are documented medical uses for smoked marijuana. There are also documented medical uses for the pill form of THC, however, when smoked, many of the benefits are amplified. (Glaucoma, nausea associated with chemotherapy, appetite)

Second, from a tax standpoint, it would be a huge economic change if the government started taxing the legal sale of marijuana, and stopped spending money on that part of the war on drugs.

Third, from a lawyer standpoint, there are an enormous number of people in jail for drug offenses, and if that number could be reduced, in any way, I'm all for it. There is an entire generation of black males incarcerated for one thing or another, mainly drug related offenses.

One other thing. Alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging and addictive than marijuana, furthermore, the rate of violent crime and negligence related injuries (DUI, etc) are far highter in relation to alcohol than marijuana.

All that being said, legalize marijuana, and you will be unleashing a whole bunch of criminal defense lawyers onto society who will have to find something else to do. Be careful what you ask for.

Release the hounds!

Rower_CPU

Jul 25, 2002, 09:27 AM

Well put, mcrain.

It seems that the consensus, for the most part, is that the illegal status of marijuana is ridiculous at best, and perpetuated by special interests.

Any other dissenters out there have anything new to add?

jelloshotsrule

Jul 25, 2002, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Taft
Why? Because illegal trafficing would pretty much cease and controlled sources of the substance would be mandated. You could trust where you bought your pot from and not have to worry about it having coke in it--or worse. Also, records and tracking of who is buying in a controlled environment would prevent the young from buying and where the drug supply went.

Studies have also shown that making the drugs legal or more available woudn't lend itself to significantly higher use rates. Societal stigmas would still hamper use and with a variety of "safe" drugs available, youngsters would be less likely to experiment on far worse drugs. The "gateway" drug effect has neither been proven or supported.

now, while i agree with pretty much the rest of what you said, and the more i think about it, the more i think pot could be legalized... the 2 things you said in the first paragraph (that i quoted) are a bit off to me....

1. i don't see how the illegal trafficking of drugs would stop. sure, the illegal trafficking of pot would pretty much stop. but there are plenty of other drugs folks want to do anything (and often "need") to get their hands on.

2. i don't think it would really prevent the young from getting it. the gov't regulates cigarettes and still so many 12, 13, 14 year olds getting hooked on that...

like i said, i agree in general. but those two things didn't seem right to me.

and i agree, tobacco is worse in that it is super addictive and contains all those chemicals (the insider?) and alcohol is abused so often and ends up killing/ruining so many people (all over the world!) that it's probably just as bad or worse than pot.

to those who said people smoke less pot than cigs. true. but is that cause it's illegal and thus a bit hard to just walk around and smoke? or cause they don't want to? i'm not sure.

anyhoo, carry on.

ps. pot smoke reeks. but then again, so does cig smoke.....

Taft

Jul 25, 2002, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

1. i don't see how the illegal trafficking of drugs would stop. sure, the illegal trafficking of pot would pretty much stop. but there are plenty of other drugs folks want to do anything (and often "need") to get their hands on.

I would agree that if you legalized only Marijuana, then illegal trafficing of other drugs would still be around. However, it would eliminate the illegal trafficing of pot, which would eliminate a significant portion of the drug trafficing community and all of the problems it causes.

But I wasn't advocating legalizing only pot. As crazy as it may at first sound, I am advocating legalizing and controlling all drugs. The Economist also supported all drug legalization.

My premise is that even if the drugs are illegal, people who want to use the drugs will still use them. By controlling and taxing the sale of these drugs, the lives of those who use them would improve. Also, with more funds for education and rehabilitation, it might be possible to curb the use of hard drugs especially if softer drugs are available and the public is made aware that these drugs are safer and available.

Right now, anti-drug groups associate pot with other hard drugs. They give the impression that it is horrible for you and very dangerous. If people were properly educated to the effects of pot--like the fact that it is safer than both tobacco and alcohol--then they might choose the safer drug over the other "hard" drugs.

We need to start being honest about the effects of pot and other drugs. We need to start being honest to our kids and educating them with the real facts, not scare tactics and propaganda. I want my kids to be informed about the effects and dangers of all drugs, but not feed them lies and scare them away from drugs. The facts about what cocaine, opium, or ecstacy can do to people should be enough to deter my kids from those drugs. With pot, those dangers just don't exist. I'd rather my kids were pot smokers than caffeine addicts (its actually more healthy!! :eek: ).

Taft

[edit: I should qualify my statement above. I prefer that my kids wouldn't do drugs at all. But if they were on drugs, I'd prefer pot to just about any drug out there.]