Weed

[Ħ]

At any rate, while I agree that weed ought to be legalized sometime, it really isn't a big issue, no matter how big people make it out to be.  We have much larger foreign policy issues to deal with, that the marijuana debate is simply unimportant.  It would be retarded if a politician's stance on marijuana legalization swayed a voter, in either direction.

[7StringedBeast]

If its not a big deal, why not just make it legal and get it over with.

[Ħ]

If its not a big deal, why put up such a fight to get it legalized?

[7StringedBeast]

I never said it wasn't a big deal.  You did.

[Jamesman42]

Smoking weed is actually worse for you than cigarettes (IIRC one joint is roughly the equivalent of 5 cigarettes), it's just irrelevant because no one smokes 20 joints a day like people do with cigarettes.

From what? The smoke?

Because other ways of ingesting it (by eating) get you high and you don't have to deal with the smoke.

[bss4life15]

At any rate, while I agree that weed ought to be legalized sometime, it really isn't a big issue, no matter how big people make it out to be.  We have much larger foreign policy issues to deal with, that the marijuana debate is simply unimportant.  It would be retarded if a politician's stance on marijuana legalization swayed a voter, in either direction.

What about the increased prison populations for nonviolent drug offenses that cost us money as taxpayers?  Also, it is putting people who have done nothing wrong in prison.

[zxlkho]

Hayden, it is an prett big deal actually. Mostly because of this so-called "War on Drugs" that's costing us billions of dollars.

[Ħ]

Hayden, it is an prett big deal actually. Mostly because of this so-called "War on Drugs" that's costing us billions of dollars.

For weed in particular?  I haven't personally experienced or seen any active govt role in fighting weed.

[zxlkho]

Did you watch the entire documentary? There was a whole section on it...

[Ħ]

No I didn't watch all of it.

[GuineaPig]

Hayden, it is an prett big deal actually. Mostly because of this so-called "War on Drugs" that's costing us billions of dollars.

For weed in particular?  I haven't personally experienced or seen any active govt role in fighting weed.

I think that there are ~150,000 people in federal prison on charges of possession or distribution of marijuana.

[Orthogonal]

Do I want all drugs to be legal.. no.  I would like to see them decriminalized, however. 

I think drugs such as LSD, Shrooms, Ecstasy, Weed, Cocaine etc etc should be 100% legal.

I think stuff like Heroin and Meth should be decriminalized.  I think there should be severe punishment for the creation/selling of these products.  I think the people who use these products should not be put in jail, but rather forced to spend time in rehab until they are deemed fit to return to society.

Not sure where I stand on Steroids.  And I'm pretty sure PCP should be banned outright but not 100% sure on that.

I agree with your sentiment, I would love nothing more than to see the really dangerous drugs removed from society, but I don't agree with your conclusion. We have to look at the situation from a broader perspective to see what is really going on with the War on Drugs. There are really two sides of the War on Drugs. On one hand we have the gangs/cartel's, violence in the streets and millions of people locked in prison. On the other hand we have millions of people addicted to a destructive chemical and harming themselves and possibly others around them. They are two different problems and need to be addressed differently.

We already know from history that Prohibition does not work. Any attempt to ban something will inevitably lead to a black market. If the ban is enforced with violence, the black market will respond in kind and escalate the situation. This is how the mafia gained power in the early 20th century, through the production and distribution of alcohol during prohibition. Once alcohol was legalized, the mafia faded and violence in the street declined. Sure there is still alcohol abuse among society, but atleast the violence was diffused. Now we have a very peaceful market in the production and distribution of alcohol. We don't see Annheuser Busch and Coors shooting it out in the streets over turf wars. The same is true with all other drugs. Legalize them, ALL of them, and the violence will disappear, virtually over night (Mexico would thank us). The gang's and cartel's go out of business, the prison's empty by releasing non-violent criminals and we save billions of dollars.

If we legalize everything, now we can focus on the real issue. Substance abuse. Instead of spending money on fighting and imprisoning people, we can instead focus on education and rehabilitation. Yes, drugs like Heroine, Meth and PCP are dangerous, but by banning them outright, the violence will continue to escalate and the problem will never go away.

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah that's actually a really great idea.  I do agree with you 100% on that actually.

[Scheavo]

At any rate, while I agree that weed ought to be legalized sometime, it really isn't a big issue, no matter how big people make it out to be.  We have much larger foreign policy issues to deal with, that the marijuana debate is simply unimportant.  It would be retarded if a politician's stance on marijuana legalization swayed a voter, in either direction.

To add to what other people are saying, the War on Drugs is really starting to escalate to War like behavior on the Mexico/US boarder. While not the most important fish to fry, it is rather important, and something that could very easily be done.

[Orthogonal]

Yeah that's actually a really great idea.  I do agree with you 100% on that actually.

I'm glad to help. It's not common I convince someone of an argument on the Internet 

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah that's actually a really great idea.  I do agree with you 100% on that actually.

I'm glad to help. It's not common I convince someone of an argument on the Internet 

Well I think we were pretty much on the same page to begin with in how we view the issue.  The war on drugs is definitely a huge waste and a big problem and I would be happy to have that money go to education and help for people on drugs or thinking of doing drugs.  Also, getting rid of the black market for them would be a great thing.

[slycordinator]

The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high.  The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it.  So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.

That's categorically false.
1) A THC pill will absolutely get you high. It's the main chemical in pot that gets one high.
2) The THC pill you're referring to is dronabinol (sold under the brand name Marinol). It's manufactured by a pharmaceutical company and not the DEA. In fact, the DEA doesn't manufacture pharmaceuticals at all.
3) It's too simplistic to say that choosing marijuana over the prescription drug are choosing that only to get high. There are many reasons the plant/leaves themselves can be preferable to the pill that don't involve the person wanting to get high.

[zxlkho]

Guys. I think I found the answer to all of our disagreements here.

[7StringedBeast]

The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high.  The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it.  So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.

That's categorically false.
1) A THC pill will absolutely get you high. It's the main chemical in pot that gets one high.
2) The THC pill you're referring to is dronabinol (sold under the brand name Marinol). It's manufactured by a pharmaceutical company and not the DEA. In fact, the DEA doesn't manufacture pharmaceuticals at all.
3) It's too simplistic to say that choosing marijuana over the prescription drug are choosing that only to get high. There are many reasons the plant/leaves themselves can be preferable to the pill that don't involve the person wanting to get high.

Perhaps the DEA did not make this drug I'm talking about.  However, my information is coming from a conversation I had with a chemist from the DEA.  I was told there was a THC pill that would not give you the effects of being high.

[El Barto]

THC is the actual component that gets you high.  It's also [I believe] not one of the medicinally useful Cannabinoids.  If you made a pill that didn't get you stoned,  it wouldn't be THC and it wouldn't have any actual value.

What I could see is making a pill with some of the other Cannabinoids,  which might actually be useful.  There are something like 300 of them,  many of which seem to offer medicinal benefits.  It seems like it might be more feasible to make a strain of marijuana that just lacks THC but still has all of the other compounds in it which would still offer the medicinal benefits. 

[slycordinator]

Perhaps the DEA did not make this drug I'm talking about.  However, my information is coming from a conversation I had with a chemist from the DEA.  I was told there was a THC pill that would not give you the effects of being high.

Let me put it to you this way:
If it doesn't get you high, it's not THC. Your chemist friend had to have been talking about a totally unrelated drug that had from his estimation almost all effects of THC without the euphoric effects which he tried describing as a "THC-like pill."

THC is the actual component that gets you high.  It's also [I believe] not one of the medicinally useful Cannabinoids.

That's not true. Marinol (dronabinol) is THC and is available by prescription. It's used for stopping extreme vomiting but they use it as a last resort after others haven't worked and also used for AIDS-associated anorexia/weight loss. And it's commonly used for pain (even thought that's an off-label use here in the US).

What I could see is making a pill with some of the other Cannabinoids,  which might actually be useful.  There are something like 300 of them,  many of which seem to offer medicinal benefits.  It seems like it might be more feasible to make a strain of marijuana that just lacks THC but still has all of the other compounds in it which would still offer the medicinal benefits.

In Canada, they've got a prescription pain mouth spray that's composed of THC plus cannabidiol. Apparently approved for MS patients for spasticity and neuropathic pain. And there's research that cannabidiol reduces the possible psychotic effects of THC and that it alone can also be used to reduce effects of schizophrenia.

[7StringedBeast]

Ok you might be right sly.  I maybe I'm just remembering what he told me wrong.  Perhaps it was a new substance that has the medicinal effects of MJ without the high. 

So back to my point regarding that, there is medicine that will do what medical marijuana does, but people opt not to take it when presented the option.  I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, just throwing it out there that it exists and this happened.

[El Barto]

And back to my original response to your point,  if it's a chemical that those douchebags at Merck want a gazillion dollars a month for,  then why is that better than something which,  not only can you grow for free in your back yard,  but also gets you high?

[7StringedBeast]

And back to my original response to your point,  if it's a chemical that those douchebags at Merck want a gazillion dollars a month for,  then why is that better than something which,  not only can you grow for free in your back yard,  but also gets you high?

Well I'm not saying its better.  Although potentially more healthy for you if you aren't breathing in smoke.

[Fuzzboy]

I know they have a form of LSD that doesn't make you trip that helps some folks that get crazy headaches. BUT IT'S STILL ILLEGALZ BECUZ ITS A DRUGS AND DRUG IS BAD

[Ħ]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy that judgment-altering substances are either "bad" or should be monitored.

[kirksnosehair]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy that judgment-altering substances are either "bad" or should be monitored.

You mean, like alcohol? 

oh, wait...

[7StringedBeast]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy that judgment-altering substances are either "bad" or should be monitored.

Why?  It can be both good and bad.  It depends on the person.  If someone does drugs and then does something bad because of drugs, just have that punishment be extremely harsh.

Or we can keep pretending that without drugs like pot and LSD the world would be a better place and no more bad things will happen to good people.

[Ħ]

Why?  It can be both good and bad.  It depends on the person.

Oh, well you know me and my belief in objective moral values.

[7StringedBeast]

Right, so then you don't do drugs because you think its morally wrong.  However there are drugs that aren't going to be harming anyone so why make them follow your moral values if they don't believe in them?  Seems a bit rude to me.

[Sigz]

Why?  It can be both good and bad.  It depends on the person.

Oh, well you know me and my belief in objective moral values.

Laws don't exist to enforce morality, they exist to protect people - e.g. I personally think that adultery is wrong, but there's no reason to make it illegal.

[zxlkho]

There's nothing more bullshit than the "objective moral" argument. I can't stand that.

[Fuzzboy]

There's nothing more bullshit than the "objective moral" argument. I can't stand that.

[El Barto]

And why is getting stoned contrary to an objective morality?

[zxlkho]

There is NOT an objective morality.