WEED

[microsoft windows]

I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME THEY LEGALIZED WEED. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[vun]

I predict this will be another mw thread where people will take the bait despite it obviously being a thread about a controversial topic created simply to rile up people.


Unless it gets locked before it goes that far.

[phetto]

Yes

[Dubsgalore]

blz it fgts

[SpAmRaY]

I already got too many weeds in my yard.

[Tym]

Unfunny joke removed.

[noisyturtle]

[tp4tissue]

I don't think there's a "HUGE" problem with it.

Though I've never met any "effective" / "highly-motivated" / "productive" individuals that do pot.

I do however know a few that became such individuals once they quit.


I suppose if the person's job does not require a huge amount of responsibility, weed would make zero negative impact on their lives.


There are definitely long term effects to use.  This is usually the case if someone begins very early, before their frontal cortex fully forms.  This isn't to say they can't change back.. it's just a very slow process past a certain age as the brain becomes less malleable.

The brain does not fully form until ~ 25yrs of age. (recent research suggests)

Which is why it's critical that we withhold certain things from children..


I think for responsible adults to "start" smoking, it should be ok... but the increase in lethargy and decrease of productivity should be expected..  As long as this part is provisioned for.. I think as a society we can tolerate another entertainment drug..

[SpAmRaY]

(Attachment Link)

But spider man doesn't give a....well you know. 

I don't think there's a "HUGE" problem with it.

Though I've never met any "effective" / "highly-motivated" / "productive" individuals that do pot.

I do however know a few that became such individuals once they quit.


I suppose if the person's job does not require a huge amount of responsibility, weed would make zero negative impact on their lives.


There are definitely long term effects to use.  This is usually the case if someone begins very early, before their frontal cortex fully forms.  This isn't to say they can't change back.. it's just a very slow process past a certain age as the brain becomes less malleable.

The brain does not fully form until ~ 25yrs of age. (recent research suggests)

Which is why it's critical that we withhold certain things from children..


I think for responsible adults to "start" smoking, it should be ok... but the increase in lethargy and decrease of productivity should be expected..  As long as this part is provisioned for.. I think as a society we can tolerate another entertainment drug..

The thing is if it is legalized at the state level I would 'assume' companies can still make it illegal for their employees to smoke, especially if they operate heavy machinery and/or operate any sort of transportation etc.

And I now doctors, airline pilots etc already do their jobs while drunk although it's usually frowned upon.

I'm sure after the first school bus crashes killing a few kids (I don't say this lightly having a school aged child.) and the bus driver is found to have been smoking some mary j right before their route it might become an issue.

I wonder if RJ Reynolds has a plan for marketing/growing/distribution of it on a large scale in case it is ever legalized nation wide. What would happen if you put nicotine (which we know they would) in your blunts?

[Dubsgalore]

(Attachment Link)

[SpAmRaY]

perhaps this is relevant

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=41072.0

[tinlong117]

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=47911.0

[daerid]

It's not frowned upon for a doctor to perform drunk. They can lose their license and in all likelihood get sued for malpractice

[SpAmRaY]

It's not frowned upon for a doctor to perform drunk. They can lose their license and in all likelihood get sued for malpractice

I was coming from the perspective it probably happens more often that people realize but I agree if something bad were to happen and they were found out they could be sued.

[Puddsy]

I post stupid things after I smoke. I tend to be for legalization, though I need to stay away from it or I **** things up.

[tp4tissue]

I post stupid things after I smoke. I tend to be for legalization, though I need to stay away from it or I **** things up.

at least you're the responsible type that could admit to it.

There are those who chant "it has absolutely zero negative effects"...  same people in the parade...

^^^ that is bad... because they take it a little too lightly...

[iri]

i smoked some weed 20 minutes ago. too bad it was mixed with cigarette tobacco. i ****en hate cigarette tobacco.

[Halverson]

i smoked some weed 20 minutes ago. too bad it was mixed with cigarette tobacco. i ****en hate cigarette tobacco.

I love me some cigarettes! But pure, none of that green stuff mixed in, yuck!

[dragonxx21]

I personally do not smoke, but am a strong believer in "People can do whatever they want". Frankly, I've met dozens of fine wonderful fellows who are just complete idiots while under the influence. I've always thought that users who argue saying that "weed helps me focus", or "I'm smarter when I'm high", are frankly just too incapacitated to realize that they are just being caught up in some sort of illusion. Yes, weed may help a few people with "focus" but for the most part, I've noticed nothing but downsides to the usage of pot. Legalization, no, decriminalization, maybe.

[mauri]

I'm not too keen on activities that include me inhaling smoke.

[CommunistWitchDr]

I've noticed nothing but downsides to the usage of pot

If you choose to completely ignore enjoyment then maybe. There are nothing but downsides to fatty foods, sugary drinks, alcohol (which is worse than weed on almost every front),  and almost all video games by the same standards. I respect your opinion (but still disagree with it) if you think all of these things (and countless others) should be illegal as well.

I don't even smoke anything, but arguments that completely ignore the fact people enjoy something in spite of possible negative effects are silly.

[Leslieann]

And I now doctors, airline pilots etc already do their jobs while drunk although it's usually frowned upon.

Doctors are HIGHLY frowned upon being drunk on duty. I used to drug test doctors.

Airline pilots over international waters are not under any law not to drink in the air, although laws regarding it are lax in most countries anyway.

[dragonxx21]

I've noticed nothing but downsides to the usage of pot

If you choose to completely ignore enjoyment then maybe. There are nothing but downsides to fatty foods, sugary drinks, alcohol (which is worse than weed on almost every front),  and almost all video games by the same standards. I respect your opinion (but still disagree with it) if you think all of these things (and countless others) should be illegal as well.

I don't even smoke anything, but arguments that completely ignore the fact people enjoy something in spite of possible negative effects are silly.

Of course, enjoyment is a factor, but arguably, there is more risk in inhaling smoke and using hallucinogens, than playing a video game. Plus, if you need to smoke weed to enjoy things, then you should probably find something else.

[mauri]

I've noticed nothing but downsides to the usage of pot

If you choose to completely ignore enjoyment then maybe. There are nothing but downsides to fatty foods, sugary drinks, alcohol (which is worse than weed on almost every front),  and almost all video games by the same standards. I respect your opinion (but still disagree with it) if you think all of these things (and countless others) should be illegal as well.

I don't even smoke anything, but arguments that completely ignore the fact people enjoy something in spite of possible negative effects are silly.

Of course, enjoyment is a factor, but arguably, there is more risk in inhaling smoke and using hallucinogens, than playing a video game. Plus, if you need to smoke weed to enjoy things, then you should probably find something else.

Trying to portray doing something to be the same as consuming something seems a bit far-fetched

[dragonxx21]

I've noticed nothing but downsides to the usage of pot

If you choose to completely ignore enjoyment then maybe. There are nothing but downsides to fatty foods, sugary drinks, alcohol (which is worse than weed on almost every front),  and almost all video games by the same standards. I respect your opinion (but still disagree with it) if you think all of these things (and countless others) should be illegal as well.

I don't even smoke anything, but arguments that completely ignore the fact people enjoy something in spite of possible negative effects are silly.

Of course, enjoyment is a factor, but arguably, there is more risk in inhaling smoke and using hallucinogens, than playing a video game. Plus, if you need to smoke weed to enjoy things, then you should probably find something else.

Trying to portray doing something to be the same as consuming something seems a bit far-fetched

Yes, but in context, it was implied that drug usage is alright simply because it's "enjoyable". There are more health concerns with substance abuse than many of the things said. Still, everything must be done in moderation, but drug usage in moderation is still much more hazardous than gaming in excess.

Edit: Feel free to completely disregard any of my posts if you wish to do so. I'm simply stating my opinions, and opinions are just opinions.

[mauri]

I've noticed nothing but downsides to the usage of pot

If you choose to completely ignore enjoyment then maybe. There are nothing but downsides to fatty foods, sugary drinks, alcohol (which is worse than weed on almost every front),  and almost all video games by the same standards. I respect your opinion (but still disagree with it) if you think all of these things (and countless others) should be illegal as well.

I don't even smoke anything, but arguments that completely ignore the fact people enjoy something in spite of possible negative effects are silly.

Of course, enjoyment is a factor, but arguably, there is more risk in inhaling smoke and using hallucinogens, than playing a video game. Plus, if you need to smoke weed to enjoy things, then you should probably find something else.

Trying to portray doing something to be the same as consuming something seems a bit far-fetched

Yes, but in context, it was implied that drug usage is alright simply because it's "enjoyable". There are more health concerns with substance abuse than many of the things said. Still, everything must be done in moderation, but drug usage in moderation is still much more hazardous than gaming in excess.

Beer and cigarettes seem to be socially accepted based solely on the fact they're for enjoyment. Gaming might have psychological effects, not physiological, like a drug does. You simply cannot compare two completely different things

[CommunistWitchDr]

Yes, but in context, it was implied that drug usage is alright simply because it's "enjoyable". There are more health concerns with substance abuse than many of the things said. Still, everything must be done in moderation, but drug usage in moderation is still much more hazardous than gaming in excess.

I would argue that any excess of weed (I'm talking like Snoop dog 81 blunts a day levels), even smoked rather than vaporized, would be less harmful than somewhat less extreme excesses of alcohol, tobacco (in retail cigarette form anyway), or very fatty foods.

[noisyturtle]

Yes, but in context, it was implied that drug usage is alright simply because it's "enjoyable". There are more health concerns with substance abuse than many of the things said. Still, everything must be done in moderation, but drug usage in moderation is still much more hazardous than gaming in excess.

I would argue that any excess of weed (I'm talking like Snoop dog 81 blunts a day levels), even smoked rather than vaporized, would be less harmful than somewhat less extreme excesses of alcohol, tobacco (in retail cigarette form anyway), or very fatty foods.

Pot is about on par with the health detriment cigarets cause. The same carcinogens that are present in cigaret smoke is present in weed, and about the same level of cell damage to lung tissue is caused by both.

[fohat.digs]

These are such complex issues.

My libertarian streak says that anybody should be free to do what they want without restriction, but we (most of us) live in a society where we interact with thousands of people every day (how many cars come within inches of you at killing speeds, per minute, multiple times per day?).

While I absolutely agree that anyone has the right to do just about anything in the privacy of his own home, an impaired individual behind a steering wheel is a deadly weapon. And let's be open here, I have driven thousands of miles in cars while stoned on pot (not in recent years, however) but I am not proud of that fact or think that I was right to do it.

We have a deep schism between public and private behavior that is all but impossible to quantify and legislate.

How do you draw lines and say that something is acceptable in this place and time, but unacceptable in that place and time?

[JPG]

I think that weed is not a good thing, but not that much by itself but more because in the end it's a drug and like many drugs, using for fun is always only a part of it.

When the same drug is used to "forget", then it's not really good. When this drug is the first on a list of drugs someone tries, then it's bad. But same can be said of alcohol in some way.

BUT, I concede that one of the major problem with weed is the illegal part of it, because being illegal, well it means illegal productions and illegal organizations selling it. All of this increase crime and THAT is really bad. So I would be for the legalization, but not because I consider that weed is good, but because I consider that it being illegal and non-controlled is worse.

[Elrick]

We have a deep schism between public and private behavior that is all but impossible to quantify and legislate.

The trouble is that Government (ours) will enforce it's restrictions on everyone here regardless if it's in your own home.

They will use all matter of propaganda to help support their restrictions but it has failed for many years.  Still there is much to gain for the Legislators to keep the humble "Weed" away from us.  Many inherent positives is to perpetually support Law Enforcement Agencies/Business's and Political Support for Candidates that gain seats in Parliament due to this rabid fear-mongering.

The funny thing is that Alcohol Consumption has killed more people on the roads and at work than any amount of so-called illegal drug-consumption.  Yet no one is going to make Alcohol Illegal.  We have this immense stupidity to ignore the White Elephant in the room yet concentrate our hatred towards the use of a single herbal remedy

Besides I've met many nasty, violent drunks on a regular basis - that get picked up by Police yet I've never been threatened by anyone using "Weed", besides the Pot-heads are generally nicer than any ordinary person.

[Michael]

Here Are All The People Who Have Died From A Marijuana Overdose

[tp4tissue]

What pot heads fail to realize, is that loss in productivity is in actuality the same as lost lifespan. Their "useful" lifespan is lost to humanity.

As an individual unit, they may live as long as someone who does not use recreational drug, but their usefulness is reduced...
 ^^^  this is the main issue social planners have been reticent about legalization of marijuana.

social planners do not care if you die... as long as every moment you've lived prior to death has been effectively appropriated in labor..

[meiosis]

What pot heads fail to realize, is that loss in productivity is in actuality the same as lost lifespan. Their "useful" lifespan is lost to humanity.

As an individual unit, they may live as long as someone who does not use recreational drug, but their usefulness is reduced...
 ^^^  this is the main issue social planners have been reticent about legalization of marijuana.

social planners do not care if you die... as long as every moment you've lived prior to death has been effectively appropriated in labor..

so as long as I buy an ergodox I will be okay?

[tp4tissue]

What pot heads fail to realize, is that loss in productivity is in actuality the same as lost lifespan. Their "useful" lifespan is lost to humanity.

As an individual unit, they may live as long as someone who does not use recreational drug, but their usefulness is reduced...
 ^^^  this is the main issue social planners have been reticent about legalization of marijuana.

social planners do not care if you die... as long as every moment you've lived prior to death has been effectively appropriated in labor..

so as long as I buy an ergodox I will be okay?

as long as you use ergodox in a neutral or positive way, I agree to whatever is stated.

[CommunistWitchDr]

as long as you use ergodox in a neutral or positive way, I agree to whatever is stated.

Show Image

And if I should use my ergodox for evil?

[tp4tissue]

as long as you use ergodox in a neutral or positive way, I agree to whatever is stated.

Show Image

And if I should use my ergodox for evil?

[demik]

this thread needs more marijuana

[Sifo]

420blzit

[demik]

YOLO SWAG FOR JESUS BLAZE IT 420

[meiosis]

DEMIK USED TO HAVE COOL KEYBOARDS THEN HE STARTED TO BLAZE

[demik]

and now i have no more keyboards due to my marijuanas addictions but at least my dog now talks to me!

[Sifo]

Can I direct everyone to the video that's been chillin on my profile?

[codymaust]

I understand the "lazy" and "decrease in productivity" arguments, but I'm curious what those of you who subscribe to this opinion feel about alcohol usage?

If (when) marijuana is legalized, OF COURSE there will be legislation to follow it to keep abuse down. There will be age restrictions, there will be a legal level of intoxication (this is probably the biggest difficulty)... It would never be legalized without fundamentals such as those. 

You people are acting as though it's legal to drive drunk, or socially acceptable to show up to work under the influence.

[tp4tissue]

I understand the "lazy" and "decrease in productivity" arguments, but I'm curious what those of you who subscribe to this opinion feel about alcohol usage?

If (when) marijuana is legalized, OF COURSE there will be legislation to follow it to keep abuse down. There will be age restrictions, there will be a legal level of intoxication (this is probably the biggest difficulty)... It would never be legalized without fundamentals such as those. 

You people are acting as though it's legal to drive drunk, or socially acceptable to show up to work under the influence.

you can recover from alcohol and work effectively MUCH MORE QUICKLY than marijuana.

With pot, it takes a day or so before you're really "up to working"..

[Michael]

I understand the "lazy" and "decrease in productivity" arguments, but I'm curious what those of you who subscribe to this opinion feel about alcohol usage?

If (when) marijuana is legalized, OF COURSE there will be legislation to follow it to keep abuse down. There will be age restrictions, there will be a legal level of intoxication (this is probably the biggest difficulty)... It would never be legalized without fundamentals such as those. 

You people are acting as though it's legal to drive drunk, or socially acceptable to show up to work under the influence.

you can recover from alcohol and work effectively MUCH MORE QUICKLY than marijuana.

With pot, it takes a day or so before you're really "up to working"..

Depends on the strain you take. There are 2 types: Indica and Sativa. Indica makes you sleepy, and is the common stereotype of marijuana (zoned out or asleep). Sativa gives you an 'up' high. Functional, and aware. It also greatly depends on the persons brain chemistry. Everyone reacts differently to stimuli. Most new strains are a hybrid of the two.

[KangarooZombies]

Chill out guys........

way too many words in this thread

[demik]

MOAR MARIJUANAS

[Michael]

Chill out guys........

way too many words in this thread

[KangarooZombies]

demik and brocaps to the rescue

i love u guys

[demik]

maebe

[noisyturtle]

marijuana is a gateway drug, soon you'll be smoking crack cocaine and committing violent crimes. you're all going straight to hell.

[meiosis]

marijuana is a gateway drug, soon you'll be smoking crack cocaine and committing violent crimes. you're all going straight to hell.

good thing i found demik while he was in the powder stage, poor guy was grinding up his hardcore white CC's

[KangarooZombies]

marijuana is a gateway drug, soon you'll be smoking crack cocaine and committing violent crimes. you're all going straight to hell.

i am doing all of these things at this very minute

save me pls

[unnatural]

YOLO SWAG FOR JESUS BLAZE IT 420

god bless you

[Michael]

[cactux]

A new taxation source

[Michael]

YOLO SWAG FOR JESUS BLAZE IT 420

[Moosecraft]

yes

[tp4tissue]

marijuana is a gateway drug, soon you'll be smoking crack cocaine and committing violent crimes. you're all going straight to hell.

good thing i found demik while he was in the powder stage, poor guy was grinding up his hardcore white CC's

it does seem to lower inhibition over time..

but you would have to be in a circumstance permitting situation for it to lead to other drugs.

and those are less than common conditions.

[Malphas]

What pot heads fail to realize, is that loss in productivity is in actuality the same as lost lifespan. Their "useful" lifespan is lost to humanity.

As an individual unit, they may live as long as someone who does not use recreational drug, but their usefulness is reduced...
 ^^^  this is the main issue social planners have been reticent about legalization of marijuana.

social planners do not care if you die... as long as every moment you've lived prior to death has been effectively appropriated in labor..

Absolute rubbish. No-one except aspie weirdos like yourself have actually had thoughts along these lines. There are countless unproductive things enjoyed and encouraged en masse, e.g. television, video gaming, alcohol, making nonsensical posts on Keyboard forums, etc., etc.

[demik]

I liquify  ccs and shoot them into my forehead.

[tp4tissue]

I liquify  ccs and shoot them into my forehead.

that explains alot.

[Moosecraft]

I liquify  ccs and shoot them into my forehead.

that explains alot.

I actually laughed at this haha.

[demik]

I liquify  ccs and shoot them into my forehead.

that explains alot.

I need to stop replying to myself

[phetto]

Stop getting off topic you buffoons

[Moosecraft]

Stop getting off topic you buffoons

But this is off topic o.O

[demik]

I'm on weed so on topic

[Findecanor]

I am strongly for banning smoking in all forms, but let the potheads eat their magic brownies if they want.

But A and/or B are legal, and that/those is responsible for much more crap than cannabis.

There are many stupid arguments for legalization... probably conceived while smoking cannabis, and this is the worst one.
Consider this: The only reason why tobacco smoking is not illegal is because it's use is already so common. That's it. If it had been introduced on the market today and there hadn't been as many users, it would have been made illegal at once. New types of tobacco products are not allowed, except for helping people quit smoking.
Alcohol is drunk a lot in the western world, but few who drink alcohol are actually addicted to it, relatively speaking.

[YoungMichael88]

Legalize or not? of course legalize. I find it sickening that this is still a debate. This plant is so useful and profitable that it should be a no brainer. Yes it can cause you to lose motivation but I would say that's 75% your fault and 25% weeds fault. Weed doesn't tie you to your couch with shackles and chains. I used to smoke weed before doing yard work or house work etc. and it really helped me enjoy the work I was doing and also made the time fly by as I did it. I would smoke and go on nature walks or actually hang with friends away from the computer. I ended up letting weed win in the motivation battle in the end but that's MY fault not weeds. We control what we do and don't do regardless of what we consume. I have friends who smoke everyday and go trail riding on their bicycles all afternoon. Its self control issues that cause you to lose motivation. Weed just pressures you to give into those issues. If you're concerned with smoke inhalation just vaporize or cook with it. Weed can be very safe and useful and its environmental benefits are unmatched.

[phetto]

Stop getting off topic you buffoons

But this is off topic o.O

Yes xD

[meiosis]

I'm on weed so on topic

no I will not sell you my 356cl for 2 oz

[Moosecraft]

I'm on weed so on topic

no I will not sell you my 356cl for 2 oz

How about 13.37?

[Input Nirvana]

I believe #1 it's important to get the high cost/illegal aspect of it removed to drastically reduce the criminal element. Pot somewhat legal=lower cost and less associated crime. California jails are filled with people that dabbled in pot, which seems ridiculous. Obviously the government can't seem to stop the whole pot thing, so maybe better to regulate the **** out of it and have massive restrictions. Of course California legalized "medical" marijuana (which has turned out to be a complete joke), and many "medical" "non-profit" dispensaries here do the big business after hours, a hundred pounds per transaction. Make no mistake, it's grown here outdoors and indoors, is travelled here in/out of state, has a massive history/infrastructure, and to a certain extent a blind eye has been turned on the subject. It's massive. You need to understand how large California is and how much open space there is in northern California, and it starts to make sense the size and scope.

Washington/Colorado legalized marijuana, not "medical" marijuana, so that's different right there.

It's a problem no matter how you look at it with no easy answer.

[Input Nirvana]

I liquify  ccs and shoot them into my forehead.

B

I liquify  ccs and shoot them into my forehead.

that explains alot.

Better than his testicle.

[demik]

Never again

[Malphas]

I am strongly for banning smoking in all forms, but let the potheads eat their magic brownies if they want.

But A and/or B are legal, and that/those is responsible for much more crap than cannabis.

There are many stupid arguments for legalization... probably conceived while smoking cannabis, and this is the worst one.
Consider this: The only reason why tobacco smoking is not illegal is because it's use is already so common. That's it. If it had been introduced on the market today and there hadn't been as many users, it would have been made illegal at once. New types of tobacco products are not allowed, except for helping people quit smoking.
Alcohol is drunk a lot in the western world, but few who drink alcohol are actually addicted to it, relatively speaking.

Nah, I'd say it's safe to assume there are a lot more alcoholics per regular drinker than there are cannabis-addicts (kind of an oxymoron since cannabis isn't physiologically addictive) per person who smokes weed. It would be even more pronounced if it weren't for the fact society has a self-regulating etiquette regarding alcohol such as it being considered taboo to drink in the early part of the day, drinking during the week (to a lesser extent), and such. Weed is too recent an introduction to Western society and thus doesn't have that, which is why people who wouldn't think of cracking open a bottle of vodka first thing in the morning don't have the same qualms about smoking a spliff on the way to work.

Anyway, I am strongly against banning smoking (both tobacco, weed, and anything else), and against banning recreational drugs in general for the primary reason that grown adults should be able to make their own decisions. I also don't care about the consequences to society (although I don't think they'd be any negative consequences anyway, and in fact the result would be the opposite as a result of less drug-related harm and less drug-related crime) because I believe that individual freedom trumphs the overall wellbeing of society.

[Input Nirvana]

Never again

+1

[daerid]

@dragonxx21: aren't those the same thing?

[Melvang]

My honest opinion is that marijuana should be legal and alcohol should be illegal.  Just on one fact alone.  It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.  You will die from lack of oxygen before you would ever be able to ingest enough THC to kill you.  And for those of you that don't think you can't be a fully functioning self supporting family man while preforming all responsibilities to society's expectations I call the biggest bull**** flag ever flown.

Now I don't personally smoke anymore (stopped before I joined the Navy)  but I know a lot of people that smoke.  And you know what?  I would rather work next to someone that took a couple hits on the way to work than someone that got totally black out drunk the night before.  Before you people start condemning it you should problably get educated on the subject at hand. 

While it may not be the best source of info (though it is accurate) it is still a good place to start.

http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

A sample quote from the book

"After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year’s legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgment, he ruled: “The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”"

[demik]

The problem with all this is god damn old Bible thumping people. once they die off we will get **** done

[demik]

And career politicians.  They ruin government.

[MTManiac]

[tp4tissue]

Show Image

he did it a few times at parties..

He's not a pot head..

[domoaligato]

It is legal in Washington and Colorado. I live in Washington state.

[domoaligato]

The problem with all this is god damn old Bible thumping people. once they die off we will get **** done

And career politicians.  They ruin government.

these both go hand in hand.

[demik]

Possibly. But for old people even doing it once and they see you as a pot head

[MTManiac]

Show Image

he did it a few times at parties..

He's not a pot head..

can you give me 100% assurance that is true?
do you hang with him on the daily?
how do you know he isn't ripping it erryday?
so much ignorant hate
Guessing these successful people only did it a few times at parties also...

Barack Obama. El Presidente de Los Estados Unidos!

Bill Clinton “…but I didn’t inhale.” Fomer U.S. President!

Bill Murray. Yep, everyone’s favorite actor was arrested for possession.

Paris Hilton. Socialite. Night Vision Porn-Star.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Basketball star

George W Bush Politician and professional hypocrite.

John F Kennedy. Politician.

Steve Jobs, co-creator of the Apple computer.

Queen Victoria.

Bruce Lee.

Aaron Sorkin, creator of ”The West Wing”.

Art Garfunkel , singer, Simon and Garfunkel.

Abbie Hoffman, Activist.

Al and Tipper Gore Politicians

Aleister Crowley, Author and Famous Satanist.
Alexander Dumas, Author – “The Three Musketeers”
Ali Campbell, Singer with UB40
Alice B. Toklas. Famous Cook – Wrote recipe for Hash Fudge Filmed as. ‘I Love You Alice B. Toklas’
Allen Ginsberg, Poet.
Andrea Corr, musician, “The Corrs”.
Anjelica Huston, Actress.
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Actor. “I did smoke a joint and I did inhale.”
Lebron James.
Arthur Rimbaud.
Balzac.
The Beatles.
Bill Gates. Not confirmed, just very strongly hinted at in his Playboy interview.
Bing Crosby. Famous crooner of “I’m dreaming of a White Christmas”. Now the Film “High Society” makes sense!
Bix Beiderbecke Jazz musician.
Black Crowes, musicians
Bob Denver, Star of “Gilligan’s Island”.
Bob Dylan, musician.
Bob Marley, musician
Burt Reynolds, actor. He left his first wife because of her drug use. But he has been seen in Cannabis Cafes.
Cab Calloway, Jazz musician. Claimed he only used it once.
Carl Sagan, Scientist – SiFi writer – film “Contact”.
Carlos Santana musician.
Carrie Fischer, Actress
Charlie Sheen, actor.
Charlize Theron, Actress.
Charles Beaudelaire, Author.
Cheech Marin, Actor Chris Conrad, Author and expert on Cannabis Hemp
Chris Farley. Comedian.
Chrissie Hynde, musician.
Chris Rock, Actor, Comedian, Producer, Screenwriter.
Chubby Checker, Musician. Sang; “Lets Twist Again”.
Cilla Black, Musician and presenter.
Claire Rayner, Agony Aunt.
Cody Kasch Actor. TV series Desperate Housewives
Conan O’Brian TV Host
Count Basie, Jazz Ban Leader
Dame Margot Fonteyn, Prima ballerina.
David Bailey, Photographer .
Dan Quayle . Politician.
David Hockney, Artist.
Diego Rivera Mexican Artist
Dion Fortune Welsh occultist.
Dionne Warwick, Famous singer of “Walk on by”.
Dioscorides Pedanius, 1 st cent. AD. Greek physician. Wrote ‘De Materia Medica’, used for 1,500 years.
Dizzy Gillespie, Jazz musician
Dr Francis Crick. Nobel Prize winner.
Dr Lester Grinspoon.
Dr R.D.Laing
Dr W.B. O’Shaugnessy Re-introduced cannabis to European medicine.
Drew Barrymore, actress.
Duke Ellington, Jazz Band Leader.
Elliott Gould. Actor.
Eminem, musician.
Emperor Liu Chi-nu, made medical recomendation for its use.
Emperor Shen-Nung, made first known medical recommendation for its use.
Errol Flynn, Actor
Evelyn Waugh. Author.
Francis Ford Coppella, Film Director.
Frances McDormand , Actress
Fats Waller, musician.
Fitz Hugh Ludlow – wrote ‘The Hasheesh Eater’.
Francois Rabelais. 16 th French author Friedrich Nietzsche, Used it as a medicine.
Gary Johnson. Governor of New Mexico – Reformer.
Gene Krupa, Jazz musician.
George Gurdjieff , Russian Mystic.
George Melly, Jazz musician.
George Soros, Financier and reformer.
George Washington , grew it and there is evidence that he prepared it for smoking.
Gerard de Nerval French writer Graham Greene, Author.
Grateful Dead musicians.
Harrison Ford, Actor.
Howard Marks. Ex-smuggler and Raconteur.
H R H Prince Harry, Third in line to the British throne.
H R H Princess Margaret, sister to Her Majesty the Queen.
Howard Stern
Hua T’o Medical use as anaesthetic .
Hunter S. Thompson, Author
Isabel Allende, Chilean author. Mentioned in her book “Paula”.
Jack Kerouac, Author
Jack Nicholson, actor.
Jackie Gleason, actor. Another whom the DEA kept on their pot files.
James Brown, musician
Janis Joplin, musician.
Jane Fonda, Actress.
Jennifer Aniston, actress.
Jennifer Capriati, Tennis champ.
Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota.
Jim Morrison, musician.
Jimmy Dorsey, Jazz musician,
Jimmy Hendrix, musician
Joan of Arc, was accused of using witch herbs (another name cannabis).
John Belushi, actor.
John Denver, musician.He recorded a song about it.
John Kerry . Politician. US Senator
John Lennon. musician.
John Le Mesurier. Actor.
John Wayne, Actor, “I tried it once but it didn’t do anything to me.”
Jonathan Miller, Theatre Director.
Johnny Cash, musician.
Jon Snow, Channel 4 News presenter. (UK)
Julia Roberts, Actress,
Kary Mullis, Nobel Laurate, Biology.
Ken Kesey, Author
Kenneth Tynan, Playwright.
Kurt Cobain, musician.
Larry Hagman, actor, of “JR” fame.
Led Zeppelin, musicians.
Lenny Bruce, Comedian.
Lewis Carroll, Author
Lewis Wolpert, biologist.
Little Richard, musician.
Louis Armstrong, Jazz musician.
Luke Perry, actor.
Louis Hebert, French Botanist
Macaulay Culkin. Actor, Home Alone.
Mark Stepnoski. two-time Super Bowl champ, Dallas Cowboy.
Mick Jagger, musician
Mike Bloomberg. New York City Mayor.
Mike Tyson, Boxer.
Miles Davis, Jazz musician.
Milton Berle, Actor
Mo Mowlam, Minister Modigliani. Sculptor.
Montel Williams Chat show host.
Montgomery Clift, actor
Neil Diamond, musician.
Neil Young, Musician.
Newt Gingrich Speaker of the US Senate.
Norman Mailer, Author.
Oasis, Noel Gallagher
Oliver Stone, Film Director.
Oscar Wilde, Author.
Pablo Picasso, Artist.
Pancho Villa, Revolutionary Leader.
Peregrine Worthstone, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph.
Peter Fonda, actor.
Peter Sellers, actor.
Peter Tosh, Poet.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Former Prime Minister of Canada.
Pink. Musician. Mentioned in Playboy interview (11/02).
Pink Floyd, Musicians. P. J. O’Rouke. Author. Ram Dass, Philosopher.
Ray Charles, musician.
Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Laureate physicist.
Richard Pryor, actor.
Robert Anton Wilson. Philosopher .
Robert Mitchum, Actor, was jailed in the 40s for possession of marijuana.
Rolling Stones, musicians.
Ross Rebagliati, first ever snowboarding Gold Medallist, 1998 Winter Olympics.
Rudolf Nureyev, Ballet dancer. Also see entry for Margot Fonteyn.
Rudyard Kipling . Author. Ryan Farrell, Australian Sprint Car champion.
Salvador Dali, Artist.
Samuel Beckett, Author.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Author. Sinead O’Connor, musician.
Sir Paul McCartney, Musician.
Sir Mick Jagger, Musician.
Snoop Dogg, musician.
Steve Martin , Actor.
Stephen King. Author.
Steven Soderbergh, Film director.
Stephen Sondheim. Broadway composer and lyricist.
Sting / Gordon Sumners, musician.
Ted Turner, of CNN fame.
Terence McKenna. Terry Pratchett. Author of the “Diskworld” books. The Who, musicians.
Thelonious Monk, Jazz musician.
Timothy Leary Tomas Enge, Formula 3000 World Champion.
Tommy Chong.
Actor Tommy Lee, Musician.
Tony Booth, the father-in-law of Britain’s Prime Minister.
UB40, Band. Victor Hugo.
Author ‘Les Misérables’ Walter ‘Stumpy’ Brennan actor.
Walter Benjamin, Philosopher.
Wesley Snipes, actor. Has been seen in Cannabis Cafes.
Whitney Houston, musician.
William Butler Yeats.
Famous Irish Poet and Occultist.
William S. Burroughs, Author.
William Shakespeare. Dramatist.
Willie Nelson, musician.
Woody Harrelson, Actor and reformer.

[domoaligato]

Washington/Colorado legalized marijuana, not "medical" marijuana, so that's different right there.

Washington does have legalized medical marijuana.
I do not know about Colorado but anyone can go get a "green card" and go buy marijuana here in washington.
It does have a separate set of rules at the moment from recreational marijuana but Washington state is also working on revising the medical marijuana laws around the resent legalized recreational law to make sure they do not conflict with one another.

[demik]

You had me till Paris Hilton. She is a trust fund baby.

[audukent]

My honest opinion is that marijuana should be legal and alcohol should be illegal.  Just on one fact alone.  It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.  You will die from lack of oxygen before you would ever be able to ingest enough THC to kill you.  And for those of you that don't think you can't be a fully functioning self supporting family man while preforming all responsibilities to society's expectations I call the biggest bull**** flag ever flown.

Now I don't personally smoke anymore (stopped before I joined the Navy)  but I know a lot of people that smoke.  And you know what?  I would rather work next to someone that took a couple hits on the way to work than someone that got totally black out drunk the night before.  Before you people start condemning it you should problably get educated on the subject at hand. 

While it may not be the best source of info (though it is accurate) it is still a good place to start.

http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

A sample quote from the book

"After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year’s legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgment, he ruled: “The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”"

This is one of the only posts in this thread that is constructed with sourcing actual research or study. lol

[domoaligato]

He had me at night vision.

[MTManiac]

You had me till Paris Hilton. She is a trust fund baby.

if you quit reading after one name of 200 then you either know the truth (motivation is independent)
or you were just looking for a name to troll with
either way I know what's up and this is the last bit of troll food I'm going to give you all

Experts Rate Problem Substances

    Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas.
    Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
    Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.
    Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.
    Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
    Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage a substance may do.


1 = Most serious  6 = Least serious

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS

Substance   Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn
----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
Nicotine        3           4         2           1          5
Heroin          2           2         1           2          2
Cocaine        4           1         4           3          3
Alcohol         1           3         3           4          1
Caffeine        5           6         5           5          6
Marijuana      6           5         6           6          4


BENOWITZ RATINGS

Substance   Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn
----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
Nicotine        3*          4         4           1          6
Heroin          2           2         2           2          2
Cocaine        3*          1         1           3          3
Alcohol         1           3         4           4          1
Caffeine        4           5         3           5          5
Marijuana      5           6         5           6          4

*equal ratings

http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

[domoaligato]

My honest opinion is that marijuana should be legal and alcohol should be illegal.  Just on one fact alone.  It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.  You will die from lack of oxygen before you would ever be able to ingest enough THC to kill you.  And for those of you that don't think you can't be a fully functioning self supporting family man while preforming all responsibilities to society's expectations I call the biggest bull**** flag ever flown.

Now I don't personally smoke anymore (stopped before I joined the Navy)  but I know a lot of people that smoke.  And you know what?  I would rather work next to someone that took a couple hits on the way to work than someone that got totally black out drunk the night before.  Before you people start condemning it you should problably get educated on the subject at hand. 

While it may not be the best source of info (though it is accurate) it is still a good place to start.

http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

A sample quote from the book

"After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year’s legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgment, he ruled: “The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”"

This is one of the only posts in this thread that is constructed with sourcing actual research or study. lol

I am at work so I can not browse jack herer's site. I would also post references to some of Jorge Cervantes enlightening discussions on this topic if I did not have content filters.

[demik]

Whoa Whoa Whoa,I'm on your side buddy.i got no beef with cannabis

[audukent]

I'm annoyed at some of you!  Some of you have quoted having 'never met a highly productive pothead'... just because you haven't met them, doesn't mean they don't exist!  Your sample, although should be considered does not give definitive evidence.

"I took a cup of water from the ocean the other day, there weren't any whales in it, so whales must not be in the ocean."

100th post! Woot!

[Melvang]

I'm annoyed at some of you!  Some of you have quoted having 'never met a highly productive pothead'... just because you haven't met them, doesn't mean they don't exist!  Your sample, although should be considered does not give definitive evidence.

"I took a cup of water from the ocean the other day, there weren't any whales in it, so whales must not be in the ocean."

100th post! Woot!

This.  I know people that smoke pot daily and that drink daily.  From the people that I know a higher percentage of the smokers are active productive persons than of the drinkers.

[demik]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

[Michael]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

[demik]

That's funny lol. but I'm talking about those idiots that are all "Hur dur, this is so funny because [9]"

[Michael]

That's funny lol. but I'm talking about those idiots that are all "Hur dur, this is so funny because [9]"

[sth]

[Photekq]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

too relevant for me to not post it..
http://i.imgur.com/x07sYz3.png

[KangarooZombies]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

too relevant for me to not post it..
http://i.imgur.com/x07sYz3.png

gold.

pure gold.

[Dubsgalore]

I dislike those annoying kids that have to tell you they smoke and how high they are. Like everybody on r/trees. It's no longer cool and rebellious. It's common and you are not special.

too relevant for me to not post it..
http://i.imgur.com/x07sYz3.png

hahahhahah

[demik]

Somebody sold rarar oregano

[KangarooZombies]

Somebody sold rarar oregano

wow, so flavor.

[Dubsgalore]

das some dank ass kush son

i believe he told irc that he was very high 

[KangarooZombies]

hahaha oh rarar.

Serious though, yesterday someone taught me a neat trick for all of you growers out there.

Right now is just before blooming season, start adding a little bit of molasses to your top soil before you water.

This will make for denser, sweeter tasting buds.

Kangaroo~

[Michael]

[noisyturtle]

Yeah, weed is fine(great even?) but the pothead culture is annoying and incredibly immature to me. Best to raise your own, avoid human contact that way 

[Findecanor]

California jails are filled with people that dabbled in pot, which seems ridiculous.

Jails in the USA being overflowing with people who dabbled in $DRUG is less because of $DRUG and more because of rich people in power fearing and hating the poor and the coloured.

... grown adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Yet another classic stupid argument, an argument you hear from drug addicts in denial and from libertarians who do not know any better.

Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it.
Becoming an addict is never your decision, it is a decision that the drug made for you. It feels like you made a choice, but you did not know it because the drug had tampered with your mind, literally!
While you don't have a choice of becoming an addict, you do have the choice of not actively spreading addiction to other people.
However, many drug addicts refuse to actively do anything that would restrict their drug own use, and that is why I think that there needs to be laws against smoking.

It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.

Some people suffer extremely ill effects because of THC while others are fine from the same dose. Just saying.

BTW, I think that medicinal marijuana should be sold in pill or drink form, in pharmacies, on prescription, like any other medicine. Any other way, and you are not really serious about it being used as medicine.

Note, I am not anti-marijuana. I don't use it, nor do I know anyone who does. It is not so common over here. I would probably have tried if when I was in Amsterdam a month ago if I had not been on medication at the time. I don't want to end up like Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy, you know.

[Melvang]

California jails are filled with people that dabbled in pot, which seems ridiculous.

Jails in the USA being overflowing with people who dabbled in $DRUG is less because of $DRUG and more because of rich people in power fearing and hating the poor and the coloured.

... grown adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Yet another classic stupid argument, an argument you hear from drug addicts in denial and from libertarians who do not know any better.

Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it.
Becoming an addict is never your decision, it is a decision that the drug made for you. It feels like you made a choice, but you did not know it because the drug had tampered with your mind, literally!
While you don't have a choice of becoming an addict, you do have the choice of not actively spreading addiction to other people.
However, many drug addicts refuse to actively do anything that would restrict their drug own use, and that is why I think that there needs to be laws against smoking.

So it is the drugs choice for the human to use it?  Like a bud of marijuana crawled itself into a bowl, magically floated up to someones lips and just spontanously cumbusted and forced said individual to inhale?  What kind of a delusion is this?  Also in the case of marijuana there is ZERO physical addiction.  There may be a small mental addiction to it in some people but still ZERO physical addiction.

So choosing not to use the drug in the first place apparently doesn't qualify as choosing not to become an addict anymore.

It is physically impossible to overdose on THC.

Some people suffer extremely ill effects because of THC while others are fine from the same dose. Just saying.

BTW, I think that medicinal marijuana should be sold in pill or drink form, in pharmacies, on prescription, like any other medicine. Any other way, and you are not really serious about it being used as medicine.

Note, I am not anti-marijuana. I don't use it, nor do I know anyone who does. It is not so common over here. I would probably have tried if when I was in Amsterdam a month ago if I had not been on medication at the time. I don't want to end up like Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy, you know.

The ill effects are that some people feel are whats called an allergic reaction. This is not the same as overdosing.   Not a result of THC in most people.  However, even adding in the amount of people that are allergic to marijuana it still has a lower rate of adverse effects than 99% of the other drugs that it is prescribed for.  And on the topic of medical marijuana in pill or drink for it already exist in pill form that I know of.  Problem is it is a synthesized form and has a very reduced effect from the smoked version. 

And on your last comment you would be safer mixing other prescriptions with marijuana than you are mixing it with alcohol.

[turtle]

 

  Ll
P

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

It would be nice if the federal government legalized it, but Congress is about as productive as a bunch of potheads so I doubt it'll happen for quite some time...

[turtle]

Sorry pocket post while I was reading up on it.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Relevant:

[Grim Fandango]

 I live in Holland. Though ironically, when I studied in dorms in the US and Canada, I did more weed than I ever did in my life or ever have since.

[Malphas]

... grown adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Yet another classic stupid argument, an argument you hear from drug addicts in denial and from libertarians who do not know any better.

Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it.
Becoming an addict is never your decision, it is a decision that the drug made for you. It feels like you made a choice, but you did not know it because the drug had tampered with your mind, literally!
While you don't have a choice of becoming an addict, you do have the choice of not actively spreading addiction to other people.
However, many drug addicts refuse to actively do anything that would restrict their drug own use, and that is why I think that there needs to be laws against smoking.

"Tobacco addiction spreads when people are subjected to second-hand smoke. That's it." - biggest load of horse**** I've read in a long time. No-one in their right mind would believe something as idiotic as that except for the most fanatical and deluded of the anti-smoking brigade.

Your point on addiction is moot. The individual should have the right on whether or not to take an addictive substance, the repercussions of that decision are that individuals responsibility. Some people handle addictive substances badly, others handle them are fairly well. Not only that but half of the illegal drugs list aren't even additive, e.g. cannabis, MDMA, LSD, whilst many legal drugs like nicotine or prescribed medications are. Why is it acceptable to decide to take an addictive drug for treatment of a minor illness, but wrong to take an illegal drug for recreation? The principle is the same, your analysis of whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks is an subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

[microsoft windows]

PEOPLE GET ADDICTED TO TOBACCO BECAUSE THEY STOP SMOKIING WEED

[cactux]

It could be anything else food, tabaco, light drugs, etc. They need to fillup that hole some how.

[microsoft windows]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

[Binge]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

I know a lot of people who use windows and apple products who smoke weed.  This obviously means it's fine and both operating systems are as good as one another.

[microsoft windows]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

I know a lot of people who use windows and apple products who smoke weed.  This obviously means it's fine and both operating systems are as good as one another.

You are wrong. Just because somebody smokes weed doesn't mean that they're smart. If they use Macs, than they are stupid. If they use Windows, then they are smart. It's just common sense--the science is already settled.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Any more thoughts on the legality of weed? Seems that the movement has been gaining stream recently.

Connecticut voters apparently support legalization: http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/05/12/connecticut-is-latest-state-where-a-majority-back-marijuana-legalization/

[Malphas]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

[baldgye]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

[Malphas]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

It's ideological. If you're of the opinion that authority should have the power to dictate the behavior of individuals based on collective effect, then that's one particular standpoint - although not one I can agree with even slightly - that means there would be zero point in us debating it and we'd have to leave it at that.

I believe strongly in individual liberty, and that the only behavior that should be dictated is where it has direct effect (or where there's a contract - legal or social - in place, as an aside). i.e. I think it's permissible for authority to forbid me from punching someone in the face - for instance, because I'm causing direct harm to that person as a result of my actions. However what when it comes to things like which recreational drugs I choose to use, the government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of the collective effect.

[sth]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

[Novus]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She and her kind are too erotic.
Will cause Western Society to collapse.
It'll lead to the events of Starcraft 1.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She doesn't have her GREEN card.

[baldgye]

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

It's ideological. If you're of the opinion that authority should have the power to dictate the behavior of individuals based on collective effect, then that's one particular standpoint - although not one I can agree with even slightly - that means there would be zero point in us debating it and we'd have to leave it at that.

I believe strongly in individual liberty, and that the only behavior that should be dictated is where it has direct effect (or where there's a contract - legal or social - in place, as an aside). i.e. I think it's permissible for authority to forbid me from punching someone in the face - for instance, because I'm causing direct harm to that person as a result of my actions. However what when it comes to things like which recreational drugs I choose to use, the government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of the collective effect.

Having a job that forces me to deal with a fairly wide range of different people, I've come to the conclusion that 99% of people, are total ****ing idiots and that they are incapable of rational thought about even fairly basic human up keep.

For example, take a place like America (for example), America has enjoyed amazing wealth for a very long period and as such has access to all kinds of foods, activities etc etc... yet instead of people having the best food possible (becasue they have a great economy) they eat poorly which gives them horrible international obese %'s.

If people where smarter and able to say, you know what, today I'm going to have a McDonald's as a treat. But tomorrow I'll make up for it by going for a run and make a pasta salad which I can put in the fridge and have for lunch the following day. But instead people tend to just go to fast food places and never learn how to cook or diet properly.

That's just an easy example, but there are many that range to many things all resulting in the same conclusion, by in large most people are total ****ing idiots.



Like Socialism is great, its a fantastic idea... only it doesn't work with humans lol... at least not yet...

[Novus]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She doesn't have her GREEN card.

She will after I'm done with her.

Making laws against what substances people are allowed to injest/inhale/inject is asinine. All recreational drugs should be de-criminalised immediately.

While I don't really understand your reasoning or logic I'm not sure I really agree too much.
As animals go, we are a pretty ****ed up species and many of us can't last without gambling, drinking, fighting etc etc... drugs are just another problem with our ****ed up species.
While I'm more than aware that 90% of drug caused deaths that arn't Heroin or some other insane drug are mostly made up by the media and that if drugs where legalised and then controlled so that people didn't die from some retard cutting rat poison with E, it would also have pretty sad results.

We are (at least in Europe) moving away from Smoking being acceptable and the insanely massively powerful smoking companies are feeling the pain, with drugs legalised new drug companies would sprout up and replace them, people who once smoked would slowly move onto drugs as people with addiction problems have addiction problems, and by legalising it you'd essentially be saying, yeah its safe and good now, no worries.
This would cause more fallout and Hospitals and AA-type places would be over-run and under funded thanks to the lobbying powers of the drug companies.


I'm personally not sure where I stand on the matter, I've done a wide range of drugs myself and have had some pretty good times, but as a society trying to bring something that alters your state of mind so quickly and drastically and make it 'safe' would probably do more harm than good.
Employment and the economy are still trying to get back on track and with more young people going to uni getting jobs after that is becoming more and more difficult, having the allure of legal drugs would only make the situation worse.


If you want a good example of how a legal drug can cause huge economic and social problems you only have to look at alcohol and its effects... and that's been around for thousands of years...

It's ideological. If you're of the opinion that authority should have the power to dictate the behavior of individuals based on collective effect, then that's one particular standpoint - although not one I can agree with even slightly - that means there would be zero point in us debating it and we'd have to leave it at that.

I believe strongly in individual liberty, and that the only behavior that should be dictated is where it has direct effect (or where there's a contract - legal or social - in place, as an aside). i.e. I think it's permissible for authority to forbid me from punching someone in the face - for instance, because I'm causing direct harm to that person as a result of my actions. However what when it comes to things like which recreational drugs I choose to use, the government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of the collective effect.

Having a job that forces me to deal with a fairly wide range of different people, I've come to the conclusion that 99% of people, are total ****ing idiots and that they are incapable of rational thought about even fairly basic human up keep.

For example, take a place like America (for example), America has enjoyed amazing wealth for a very long period and as such has access to all kinds of foods, activities etc etc... yet instead of people having the best food possible (becasue they have a great economy) they eat poorly which gives them horrible international obese %'s.

If people where smarter and able to say, you know what, today I'm going to have a McDonald's as a treat. But tomorrow I'll make up for it by going for a run and make a pasta salad which I can put in the fridge and have for lunch the following day. But instead people tend to just go to fast food places and never learn how to cook or diet properly.

That's just an easy example, but there are many that range to many things all resulting in the same conclusion, by in large most people are total ****ing idiots.



Like Socialism is great, its a fantastic idea... only it doesn't work with humans lol... at least not yet...

Oh for **** sakes.
You liberals.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

who is weed? why is she illegal? i oppose immigration regulation.

She doesn't have her GREEN card.

She will after I'm done with her.

So you're going to marry her???

[Malphas]

Having a job that forces me to deal with a fairly wide range of different people, I've come to the conclusion that 99% of people, are total ****ing idiots and that they are incapable of rational thought about even fairly basic human up keep.

For example, take a place like America (for example), America has enjoyed amazing wealth for a very long period and as such has access to all kinds of foods, activities etc etc... yet instead of people having the best food possible (becasue they have a great economy) they eat poorly which gives them horrible international obese %'s.

If people where smarter and able to say, you know what, today I'm going to have a McDonald's as a treat. But tomorrow I'll make up for it by going for a run and make a pasta salad which I can put in the fridge and have for lunch the following day. But instead people tend to just go to fast food places and never learn how to cook or diet properly.

That's just an easy example, but there are many that range to many things all resulting in the same conclusion, by in large most people are total ****ing idiots.



Like Socialism is great, its a fantastic idea... only it doesn't work with humans lol... at least not yet...

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

[baldgye]

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

Ah so your from the UK too??

Yeah my bit about Socialism was to highlight that having good ideas and good intentions for society is good, but not always practical.
Though I would say the sheer majority of people, on the planet are idiots. I would even go as far as to say that most people who have the legal right to vote, don't possess the brain power to be able to even make an informed decision on how to vote, let alone be pushed into it come election time.
I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, it's not perfect and it's pretty ****ed up in alot of places but this 'nanny state' has come becasue people have wanted it and brought it in, and for the most part its pretty good and helps people alot.

The part about legal highs is also bull****, like total bull****. The last two people to die of legal highs didn't die from any legal high they took, in fact the last kid who 'died' from it at uni died from an overdose on another illegal drug he was taking as well as the legal high. But legalising drugs won't stop people from making there own cheap nasty drugs, if anything it might spur it on.
Legalising it would mean that more people try it, becasue hey its ok now its legal right?
This would in turn raise the % of addicts to any particular type of drug, and we all know how that ends.


Like I said I'm not sure where I stand, I think there are drugs like LSD, MDMA and some others that should be legalised as they are non-toxic and totally safe, but others like Heroin and Cocaine shouldn't probably be ever legalised.

[Malphas]

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

Ah so your from the UK too??

Yeah my bit about Socialism was to highlight that having good ideas and good intentions for society is good, but not always practical.
Though I would say the sheer majority of people, on the planet are idiots. I would even go as far as to say that most people who have the legal right to vote, don't possess the brain power to be able to even make an informed decision on how to vote, let alone be pushed into it come election time.
I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, it's not perfect and it's pretty ****ed up in alot of places but this 'nanny state' has come becasue people have wanted it and brought it in, and for the most part its pretty good and helps people alot.

The part about legal highs is also bull****, like total bull****. The last two people to die of legal highs didn't die from any legal high they took, in fact the last kid who 'died' from it at uni died from an overdose on another illegal drug he was taking as well as the legal high. But legalising drugs won't stop people from making there own cheap nasty drugs, if anything it might spur it on.
Legalising it would mean that more people try it, becasue hey its ok now its legal right?
This would in turn raise the % of addicts to any particular type of drug, and we all know how that ends.


Like I said I'm not sure where I stand, I think there are drugs like LSD, MDMA and some others that should be legalised as they are non-toxic and totally safe, but others like Heroin and Cocaine shouldn't probably be ever legalised.

Cocaine is fairly harmless, frankly. Also I've know recreational heroin users, but it's always seemed like a knife edge of becoming a habit, still up them though. Even with heroin addicts, 90% of the problems they have are due to the exorbitant prices, the fillers the heroin is cut with, and poor administration - all of which are largely the fault of prohibition. If you legalised heroin tomorrow, and sold it for say £1 a gram (which is easily doable, whilst still making a profit, if it was legal), pure, and in pre-loaded syringes with instructions included you would see crime figures and drug-related deaths drop massively overnight.

[baldgye]

I'm not sure what you mean by socialism. What we're talking about doesn't really fall under the umbrella of socialism. In fact, the opposite - trying to dictate people's behavior - has more in common with practical socialism than what I'm talking about, which is more like libertarianism (although I hate to be associated with people who label themselves that).

I would agree that a large proportion of people are irresponsible idiots, not the majority, but a large proportion, which is evident from obesity rates, alcohol-related violence/crime/medical emergencies, etc. But I still don't believe that justifies curtailing the personal liberty of the population as a whole. Not only that, but I think creating a nanny-state to try and combat these collective issues, just makes it worse. The UK is an atrocious example of that, to be honest. There's definitely a mood here amongst a lot of people that the government is there to solve every single social problem.

For instance, in the last few years kids have been dying occasionally from using new "legal-high" drugs, which are formulated and released so quickly, the government can't respond and ban them in time for them to already be in wide circulation. Every time one of these kids dies, there's a big outcry in the tabloids and such, about what the government should be doing, how this is being allowed to happen etc. Well, my response to that is why is that even the government's problem? How about putting the responsibility with the parents or the kids themselves? One of the reasons this happens is because we've created this idiotic nanny state where anything remotely bad for you is legislated against, so when something that's legal comes along, people just go ahead and assume it's perfectly safe, rather than actually weighing the risks and taking responsibility for their actions - which is what they should be doing.

Ah so your from the UK too??

Yeah my bit about Socialism was to highlight that having good ideas and good intentions for society is good, but not always practical.
Though I would say the sheer majority of people, on the planet are idiots. I would even go as far as to say that most people who have the legal right to vote, don't possess the brain power to be able to even make an informed decision on how to vote, let alone be pushed into it come election time.
I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, it's not perfect and it's pretty ****ed up in alot of places but this 'nanny state' has come becasue people have wanted it and brought it in, and for the most part its pretty good and helps people alot.

The part about legal highs is also bull****, like total bull****. The last two people to die of legal highs didn't die from any legal high they took, in fact the last kid who 'died' from it at uni died from an overdose on another illegal drug he was taking as well as the legal high. But legalising drugs won't stop people from making there own cheap nasty drugs, if anything it might spur it on.
Legalising it would mean that more people try it, becasue hey its ok now its legal right?
This would in turn raise the % of addicts to any particular type of drug, and we all know how that ends.


Like I said I'm not sure where I stand, I think there are drugs like LSD, MDMA and some others that should be legalised as they are non-toxic and totally safe, but others like Heroin and Cocaine shouldn't probably be ever legalised.

Cocaine is fairly harmless, frankly. Also I've know recreational heroin users, but it's always seemed like a knife edge of becoming a habit, still up them though. Even with heroin addicts, 90% of the problems they have are due to the exorbitant prices, the fillers the heroin is cut with, and poor administration - all of which are largely the fault of prohibition. If you legalised heroin tomorrow, and sold it for say £1 a gram (which is easily doable, whilst still making a profit, if it was legal), pure, and in pre-loaded syringes with instructions included you would see crime figures and drug-related deaths drop massively overnight.

You got any facts to back up your claims?
Most of my knowledge comes from personal experience but also Horizon did a really good program about it and they re-classified drugs (including smoking and drinking) by how deadly they actually are in there purest form, Heroin and Cocaine where highest on there list as you can take either and die from a single usage and you wouldn't know your tolerance to it until you had taken it.

But I doubt leagalising drugs would solve drug related crime...

[Malphas]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine with zero ill effects.

Also you doubt legalising drugs would reduce drug related crime? I can't really fathom this statement. If that was the case then why aren't there moonshiners brewing up deadly swill in homemade stills and gangs murdering each other with tommy guns over the distribution of alcohol? Could it be because alcohol is legal and therefore produced in a sanitary and controlled manner by accountable manufacturers and distributed through supermarkets and off-licenses? Similarly, I doubt many heroin addicts are going to be mugging people or breaking into houses to fund their habit when the cost of it drops from hundreds of pounds (£) a day to less than £1 (which is perfectly possible if it was legal).

[sth]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine with zero ill effects.

oohhhhhhhhhhh...

ok i get it now.

[katushkin]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

As for deaths from cocaine, the same thing can happen with ecstacy. One badly mixed pill, or one person's adverse reaction can mean death, and it's happened a couple of times where people have literally drowned themselves after taking ecstacy. But yeah, heroin is like stupidly easy to kill yourself from an overdose it would seem. Take Peaches Geldof and whats-his-name this year.

With drug related crime disappearing overnight, that;s a tricky one. With prohibition, crime shot up in America with the mafia and others doing bootlegging and stuff like that, but then that part of the constitution was repealed, and the bootlegging stopped for obvious reasons. However then the mafia just moved into other things. Crime figures in general would drop, and depending on the distributors of drugs and the prices, if there was MASSIVE regulation, then *maybe* the deaths would drop. Although if it was more readily available, the strain on the health service would enter crisis mode.

[baldgye]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine with zero ill effects.

Also you doubt legalising drugs would reduce drug related crime? I can't really fathom this statement. If that was the case then why aren't there moonshiners brewing up deadly swill in homemade stills and gangs murdering each other with tommy guns over the distribution of alcohol? Could it be because alcohol is legal and therefore produced in a sanitary and controlled manner by accountable manufacturers and distributed through supermarkets and off-licenses? Similarly, I doubt many heroin addicts are going to be mugging people or breaking into houses to fund their habit when the cost of it drops from hundreds of pounds (£) a day to less than £1 (which is perfectly possible if it was legal).

So because you have done lots of coke (and are fine?), everyone can?

So there is no crime related to alcohol? Sure the types of crime would change, but the amount of crime would grow due to the increased number of people taking drugs.
Alcohol related crimes are a huge problem in the UK as your probably more than aware off and the increase of pubs and bars in towns and cities in the UK has made alot of places really ****ing dangerous to go out in becasue of the number of people who go out to drink so they can fight without feeling pain or without thinking. Adding drugs on top of that would only add to the problem which would achieve?

Plus the fact that you could never sell drugs that cheaply, for it to be sustainable it would have to be taxed like ***s are, making them expensive and as time goes on more and more expensive becasue again, there  would be more people taking them and thus the strain on the NHS would be even greater.

As for deaths from cocaine, the same thing can happen with ecstacy. One badly mixed pillhs would drop

That's my point though, if MDMA was legalised there would be no problem with what it is cut with and no one would die... as of 2008 (?) no person has ever died of MDMA poising in the UK, they die from the nasty **** that it cut with. Cocaine on the other hand can just out right kill you.

[Malphas]

I was being facetious, but really cocaine isn't that harmful.

The kind of alcohol-related crime you're talking about - i.e. people getting into a scrape on a friday night are absolutely nothing compared to prohibition crime from alcohol being illegal, with gangs, y'know, going out and shooting each other, murdering police, etc.

And of course you can sell drugs that cheaply, especially one as simple as heroin. Most generic drugs cost pennies. As I've already said, most of the harm caused by recreational drug use is the byproduct of prohibition, not the drugs themselves.

Every single place this has been tried (e.g. Portugal) goes completely against your assumptions, and the rates of crime, harm - even usage have all dropped as a result of decriminalisation.

[Malphas]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

Where do you actually get your information from though? Is it the media or is it real life? How many heroin users have you personally known?

[noisyturtle]

The biggest negative effect cocaine has on an individual is on their wallet.

As for heroine, I've only known one user closely. His name was Will, and he died in his car in a Target parking lot at the age of 19 with his less than one year old daughter in the back. I am not kidding.

[baldgye]

I was being facetious, but really cocaine isn't that harmful.

The kind of alcohol-related crime you're talking about - i.e. people getting into a scrape on a friday night are absolutely nothing compared to prohibition crime from alcohol being illegal, with gangs, y'know, going out and shooting each other, murdering police, etc.

And of course you can sell drugs that cheaply, especially one as simple as heroin. Most generic drugs cost pennies. As I've already said, most of the harm caused by recreational drug use is the byproduct of prohibition, not the drugs themselves.

Every single place this has been tried (e.g. Portugal) goes completely against your assumptions, and the rates of crime, harm - even usage have all dropped as a result of decriminalisation.

You might be able to make drugs cheaply but they wouldn't be able to sell them at that price becasue of taxation... like I said.

And your example of Portugal isn't that good, drugs where 'legalised' in a move to help combat the insanely high % of people with HIV largely due in part to drug users sharing needles. No formal studies have been completed on the effects of the period (looking at the wiki page on it).

I'm not sure how you can really come up with any correlation between Portugal and the UK as in the UK the biggest cause of HIV is unprotected sex...

The biggest negative effect cocaine has on an individual is on their wallet.

As for heroine, I've only known one user closely. His name was Will, and he died in his car in a Target parking lot at the age of 19 with his less than one year old daughter in the back. I am not kidding.

But if it was legalised that child would get an insurance payout!!!!!

[baldgye]

Like I said, I don't know how I personally stand as I'm not a doctor a sociologist or someone who's put a lot of time into researching it. I have no agenda other than knowledge gathering and debating.

[katushkin]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

Where do you actually get your information from though? Is it the media or is it real life? How many heroin users have you personally known?

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

[HoffmanMyster]

Saying someone is a recreational heroin user is a strange claim. It's one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and I really don't see how someone can ever claim that they only use it for recreation.

Where do you actually get your information from though? Is it the media or is it real life? How many heroin users have you personally known?

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

The problem is that you're only covering the demand side of things.  If it weren't illegal, the supply would increase (since it's no longer life-threatening to supply it) and the price would go down.  Demand won't change much if it's legalised, as you say.

[Malphas]

You might be able to make drugs cheaply but they wouldn't be able to sell them at that price becasue of taxation... like I said.

You did mention taxation but it basically made zero sense. There's no reason to tax cigarettes either, so I'm not sure why you think that's a prerequisite to it being sustainable. Besides, they could still tax them as they do with cigarettes and have them be vastly cheaper than present. Cigarettes are just as addictive as heroin, but it doesn't have the associated crime.

And your example of Portugal isn't that good, drugs where 'legalised' in a move to help combat the insanely high % of people with HIV largely due in part to drug users sharing needles. No formal studies have been completed on the effects of the period (looking at the wiki page on it).

I'm not sure how you can really come up with any correlation between Portugal and the UK as in the UK the biggest cause of HIV is unprotected sex...

I'm not sure why you think the reason for triggering legalisation (which you only just discovered in the last five minutes, I'm assuming) makes the rest of the benefits it's shown to have produced somehow redundant. Portugal is just one example, the point is you keep claiming that legalisation of drugs would cause a) more users, b) more related crime and c) more negative heath effects when every example in reality has shown the exact opposite happens.

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Exactly my point then. You claim recreational heroin use is somehow impossible, whilst admitting you have zero first hand experience of users. So I'm assuming you're going off media stereotypes.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

Of course heroin is addictive, I would never claim otherwise. Not sure where you got that idea from. Also, you're only really half-grasping supply and demand there. Plenty of things are in much higher demand that heroin, like milk for instance, but milk doesn't cost £40 a ml due to arbitrary prohibition laws trying to seize milk entering the country, smuggled in condoms inside people's stomachs as is the case with heroin.

[baldgye]

Alright Malphas, you clearly have a very warped perspective and logical chat is seemingly wasted on someone unable to grapple with the pretty simple logistics and reasoning of taxation on cigarets....


But just becasue I'm a super nice guy; you can't compare the legalisation in somewhere like Portugal and the UK becasue Portugal went at it with one single goal and that was to eliminate a very serious problem, a problem that dsnt exist in the UK.
So you couldn't reproduce the same or even similar results, making any of short term results and observations (as no long term studies have been completed) found in Portugal meaningless when compared to the possible effects of similar legislation in the UK.

[paicrai]

I've done massive amounts of cocaine

[katushkin]

None. Because doing heroin is a ****ing stupid idea. And if you are going to do something seriously harmful, on a regular basis, that wastes a stupid amount of money, most of which goes to Afghan drug barons (who I HAVE met, not nice people if I'm honest), and carries a large prison sentence, then no offence, but I don't want to be associated with you.

Exactly my point then. You claim recreational heroin use is somehow impossible, whilst admitting you have zero first hand experience of users. So I'm assuming you're going off media stereotypes.

Drugs are about supply and demand. It's basic capitalism. Something in high demand? Put the price up. Why is the price of heroin so expensive if you say it's so cheap to make? Because the demand is high. BECAUSE IT'S ****ING ADDICTIVE. If it wasn't addictive, if people weren't stealing morphine to try and get rid of their heroin cravings, then why would people be prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a fix?

Of course heroin is addictive, I would never claim otherwise. Not sure where you got that idea from. Also, you're only really half-grasping supply and demand there. Plenty of things are in much higher demand that heroin, like milk for instance, but milk doesn't cost £40 a ml due to arbitrary prohibition laws trying to seize milk entering the country, smuggled in condoms inside people's stomachs as is the case with heroin.

>Claiming recreational use of a highly addictive substance is possible.
>Not sure where I got the idea from

Milk is not illegal. It is also seen as one of a developed country's basic needs. Millions of litres of it are produced and sold every day around the world. The supply is high, the demand is high, yet the legal vendors of milk are all competing for customers. Hence the price is low.

Heroin is illegal. It is seen as a blight on society and a major problem in developed and developing countries. It is very hard to produce, ship and sell. The supply is low because of anti drug initiatives, and the demand is high. Therefore, the price is high.

[paicrai]

[Malphas]

No need to get surly, baldgye. You're the one who's not explaining yourself properly, here.

A) Cigarettes are heavily taxed to discourage smoking, there's no reason why it has to happen other than successive governments have decided to do it. Since we're talking about hypothetical legalisation of recreational drugs, I think we can safely assume that the taxation issue is up for debate as well. You're failing to explain why this taxation would be mandatory other than saying because cigarettes are, and because it's "simple logistics". These aren't proper reasons.

B) Even if drugs like heroin were taxed as heavily as cigarettes they would still be an order of magnitude cheaper than they are now. So the problems associated with heroin addicts resorting to crime to fund their habits would still be alleviated. As I said earlier, cigarettes are just as addictive as heroin, but smokers don't go out breaking into people's houses to pay for cigarettes, because they're still at a reasonable level. You ignored this point completely, to resort to insulting me instead,

C) Portugal didn't start their decriminalisation program purely to reduce HIV, despite what you're five minute skim-reading of Wikipedia might have told you.

D) That doesn't even matter anyway. It doesn't matter why they decided to decriminalise recreational drugs what matters is the effect it's had on drug harm - which it's reduced, contrary to your suggestions of what would happen in the UK. Regardless of what you try to claim the results are not meaningless and are comparable to what would happen in the UK. You're being childish to try and claim otherwise based on a trivial point regarding the incentive behind the program.

E) Portugal was a single example, i'm also talking about the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and the effects of alcohol prohibition in the USA. The trend is always the same, more prohibition equals more harm, and more crime in every instance.

[Malphas]

>Claiming recreational use of a highly addictive substance is possible.
>Not sure where I got the idea from

Then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, since in the same breath I said I thought that was risky. There is no law of the universe that states an addictive substance can be used recreationally, or that everyone has the same pre-disposition to becoming addicted. Despite what your sadly narrow world-view may dictate.

Milk is not illegal. It is also seen as one of a developed country's basic needs. Millions of litres of it are produced and sold every day around the world. The supply is high, the demand is high, yet the legal vendors of milk are all competing for customers. Hence the price is low.

Heroin is illegal. It is seen as a blight on society and a major problem in developed and developing countries. It is very hard to produce, ship and sell. The supply is low because of anti drug initiatives, and the demand is high. Therefore, the price is high.

Precisely my point. That's why drugs like heroin would be vastly cheaper once prohibition laws were repealed and as a result the associated crime would drop.

[jdcarpe]

Blah blah blah weed... Blah blah blah I'm right and you're wrong... No, I'm right and you're wrong, blah blah blah...

In other words, this thread = TL;DR

Don't do drugs, kids.

[Malphas]

Unless you want to, in which case go ahead.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Blah blah blah weed... Blah blah blah I'm right and you're wrong... No, I'm right and you're wrong, blah blah blah...

In other words, this thread = TL;DR

Don't do drugs, kids.

Or rather, discuss WEED legalization, as per the OP. Because no government in their right mind is EVER going to (re)legalize meth, cocaine, or heroine. So despite Malphas's brilliantly worded arguments, they're all irrelevant anyway.

I'm not saying you're wrong Malphas, as much of your argument is well informed and well said; I'm saying there is practically zero possibility that a government would take a stance even remotely similar to yours. The only drug this does apply to is, again as per the OP, WEED.

[noisyturtle]

Don't do drugs, kids.

But literally everything is better on weed, I honestly cannot think of a single activity that wouldn't be made more engaging and fun when stoned. Plus I get much more work done, easier to concentrate/ see simple solutions/ and excellent for any creative endeavor.

[microsoft windows]

Everything's better on weed except for other people it seems.

[jdcarpe]

Everything's better on weed except for other people it seems.

And /thread.

[paicrai]

GUYS ****ING WEED AND **** 420 AMIRITE






get back to talking about weed and stop being mad at eachother

[noisyturtle]

[microsoft windows]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

[paicrai]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

[Novus]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

Not EXACTLY what I meant, but that works too.

[microsoft windows]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

[Novus]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

[paicrai]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

And since they're obviously not grandmothers, it's definitive proof that they do NOT use Windows 98.

[paicrai]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

And since they're obviously not grandmothers, it's definitive proof that they do NOT use Windows 98.

suck it, microsam.bimbows microsoft.windows

[microsoft windows]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

And since they're obviously not grandmothers, it's definitive proof that they do NOT use Windows 98.

suck it, microsam.bimbows microsoft.windows

I bet you use a Mac. Because only outdated fools use Macs.

[paicrai]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

And since they're obviously not grandmothers, it's definitive proof that they do NOT use Windows 98.

suck it, microsam.bimbows microsoft.windows

I bet you use a Mac. Because only outdated fools use Macs.

i use windows 8
the superior windows

[Novus]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

And since they're obviously not grandmothers, it's definitive proof that they do NOT use Windows 98.

suck it, microsam.bimbows microsoft.windows

I bet you use a Mac. Because only outdated fools use Macs.

i use windows 8
the superior windows

More like the confused windows.

[microsoft windows]

You should smoke some weed. Don't forget to use Windows 98 while you're doing it too.

the **** are you talking about
windows 98 and internet explorer ruins the weed bro, way to waste it

but smoking weed within Windows is called hotboxing. and last I remember, hotboxing is quite popular these days...

(Attachment Link)

I bet those girls use Windows 98!

only if they are gold diggers.

or grandmothers

And since they're obviously not grandmothers, it's definitive proof that they do NOT use Windows 98.

suck it, microsam.bimbows microsoft.windows

I bet you use a Mac. Because only outdated fools use Macs.

i use windows 8
the superior windows

Windows 98 is superior to Windows 8. 98>8. Learn some physics!

[Malphas]

Or rather, discuss WEED legalization, as per the OP. Because no government in their right mind is EVER going to (re)legalize meth, cocaine, or heroine. So despite Malphas's brilliantly worded arguments, they're all irrelevant anyway.

I'm not saying you're wrong Malphas, as much of your argument is well informed and well said; I'm saying there is practically zero possibility that a government would take a stance even remotely similar to yours. The only drug this does apply to is, again as per the OP, WEED.

Yes, it's entirely hypothetical with regards to countries like the UK and the USA. Some countries in continental Europe and Latin America are slowly moving in this direction though, but still no-where near complete liberalisation yet. Also, thank-you for having a brain rather than parroting dated media inaccuracies.

[iri]

russia could benefit greatly from a well-established weed market. weed has little negative impact on health (at least it's nowhere near as harmful as low-quality alcohol) and doesn't release russians' harmful inner demons. if weed is legalized here, we will see unprecedented life expectancy growth and murder rate drop.

I honestly cannot think of a single activity that wouldn't be made more engaging and fun when stoned

driving is surely more engaging when stoned.

[noisyturtle]

I honestly cannot think of a single activity that wouldn't be made more engaging and fun when stoned

driving is surely more engaging when stoned.

brings to mind this entertaining bit of video )

[iri]

**** drugs and their users

/thread

[paicrai]

drugs are suck

[microsoft windows]

**** drugs and their users

/thread

You sound like you could use a little bit of weed to help relax!