DescentBB

Many Republican groups have talked about the war on drugs. Many say that these drugs are funding terrorism. Did you know many people die, not due to drug use, but do to what the drug was grown in, such as sewer water?

Although these may seem like reasons to not legalize marjuana, these are some reasons why I support legalizing it. If marjuana was legalized, then a number of things would happen, but mainly larger corporations would catch on. This could mean:

1.) Instead of money going overseas to terrorists, or staying here in gang-related activity, money could go to buisnesses. Although larger monopolies are bad for America, I would definatley hand over my $300 to a corporation than to a gang or Osama Bin Laden.

2.) Sickness rates could go down. I froget where I read it, but many people die from what the drugs are grown in (well, marjuana at least). If marjuana is grown in soil with chlorine, then the marjuana could be infected with chlorine. Marjuana isn't actually as bad as chlorine, in fact marjuana I belive is as bad as a cigarette, except average users smoke one... a week on average.

Also, here is an interesting fact, it could help our debt:

Wikipedia wrote:In the U.S., the War on Drugs is causing a prison overcrowding problem. In 1996, 59.6% of prisoners were drug-related criminals. U.S. population grew by about +25% from 1980 to 2000. In that same 20 year time period, U.S. prison population tripled. To make room in prison for incoming drug users and dealers, all inmates, including violent criminals are having their sentences shortened or are being paroled early.

We spend lots of money on our prision system, yet about 60% are not really a threat to be locked up. This could lower our debt and put more money back into the government.

Any thoughts?

I have a thought. Do you use drugs?

And by the way, cigarettes are proven to be very bad for you, destroying your lungs (one of my favorite organs, personally), and shortening life-span. So when you ★■◆●ing morons talk about marijuana being no worse than cigarettes, you're already arguing from a retarted stand-point. Now weed goes you one better and impedes the thought process over time.

By the way, you know how you can tell when someone is \"high?\" Is it because they're acting unusually intelligent or quick, or because of any positive evidence?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I have a thought. Do you use drugs?

Aside from normal pain pills and allergy medicine, no.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And by the way, cigarettes are proven to be very bad for you, destroying your lungs (one of my favorite organs, personally), and shortening life-span. So when you **** morons talk about marijuana being no worse than cigarettes, you're already arguing from a retarted stand-point. Now weed goes you one better and impedes the thought process over time.

I'm saying that it isn't bad enough to where people should go to jail. It should go under "No Smoking" and "Driving Under The Influence" should be illegal of course.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:By the way, you know how you can tell when someone is "high?" Is it because they're acting unusually intelligent or quick, or because of any positive evidence?

A.K.A. Hippies

I am just saying I don't believe people should go to jail for it, it would lower our government money spendature, it would lower gang activity, lower money going to illegal activities or terrorists, and lessen the health effects.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So when you **** morons talk about marijuana being no worse than cigarettes, you're already arguing from a retarted stand-point.

You're intentionally ignoring the most important part of the argument:

Dakatsu wrote:I belive is as bad as a cigarette, except average users smoke one... a week on average.

Most marijuana smokers smoke recreationally. I'd suggest a better investment of your fervor against unhealthiness to be in the War against Big Macs. (By the way, marijuana can also be ingested, mooting the whole smoking issue.)

Sergeant Thorne wrote: By the way, you know how you can tell when someone is "high?" Is it because they're acting unusually intelligent or quick, or because of any positive evidence?

Mentally speaking, marijuana is often used for increased creative performance. Other positive effects are euphoria, increase in laughter, decrease of stress, pain relief, etc. Regardless of whether or not you think these are positive effects, a lot of people do.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Now weed goes you one better and impedes the thought process over time.

Not for recreational users:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/166/7/887

Getting all bent out of shape over a 1/4 of an IQ point is not "the good" in life either.

Dakatsu wrote:Any thoughts?

Nothing is going to change so long as marijuana is a sin in God's eyes. And from this fact about what God thinks, we can deduce that it is ethically wrong and that we ought not do it. Even if it could be shown that the positive effects can outweigh the negative, nothing can change this fact about reality.

Dakatsu wrote:... If marjuana was legalized, ... Any thoughts?

Having at a time in my life, had friends who were users of Marijuana (proper spelling), it is my firm (ie: unshakable) opinion that there is no good thing that would come of legalizing marijuana. (My thoughts)

Jeff250 wrote:
Nothing is going to change so long as marijuana is a sin in God's eyes. And from this fact about what God thinks, we can deduce that it is ethically wrong and that we ought not do it. Even if it could be shown that the positive effects can outweigh the negative, nothing can change this fact about reality.

When did God say marijuana was bad?

Jeff250 wrote:Nothing is going to change so long as marijuana is a sin in God's eyes. And from this fact about what God thinks, we can deduce that it is ethically wrong and that we ought not do it. Even if it could be shown that the positive effects can outweigh the negative, nothing can change this fact about reality.

Dammit Jeff! You sound completely intelligent and cogent until your last paragraph, where you suddenly and inexplicably go completely bat sh|t crazy insane. I don't think I've been so utterly disappointed for many months.

I mean seriously man - you were doing SOOOOO good; 100% on to the issues and the balance of the topic, and then your brain imploded.

Graded F: nice try, but you need a strong finish.

GET A GRIP MAN!

It's possible to be on both sides of this issue.

I'm opposed to the recreational use of drugs, including not only marijuana, but also alcohol, and cigarettes. Heck, I even avoid caffeine. I'm quite happy and unashamed to stand up and say, \"You shouldn't do them!\"

I'm also a Libertarian and do NOT feel that the government needs to back up my stance. If you want to use recreational drugs, it's ONLY my business if you endanger someone else. (Which is why I support VERY stiff penalties for operating heavy machinery while under the influence)

I do see one way the government could ethically get involved in controlling the drug trade. There could be logic behind the stance that it is unfair trade practice to make a profit selling a physically addictive substance. If we adopted rules along those lines, it would be legal to grow your own tobacco, or even to belong to a non-profit co-op that grew tobacco and distributed it among its members. But it would NOT be legal for R. J. Reynolds to make a profit selling cigarettes. This would eliminate the advertising and marketing aimed at introducing young kids to the habit.

The reason pot is illegal is because the cotton growers were threatened by the 1000 uses of hemp.

Testiculese wrote:The reason pot is illegal is because the cotton growers were threatened by the 1000 uses of hemp.

That may have caused people with money to lobby for laws to be written that would protect their interests but the reason it stays illegal is fear, self righteousness and an irrational response to problems posed by drug users.

The same kind of problems, caused by those same people who support the draconian marijuana laws when they drink alcohol are not dealt with in the same inefficient and over zealous fashion.

Booze causes more deaths and more health issues than does pot. No questions about it. Booze leads to more poor life choices than pot does, no question about it.
So let's be consistent here, either start giving the boozers life in prison for the third strike offense or decriminalize the use of pot and start treating the smokers the way you treat boozers.

Mobius, fear not. I was being sarcastic. (I was trying to jest on a couple of points, namely that God thinks marijuana is a sin and that facts about what God dictates can establish prescriptive norms about what we ought to do.)

Will Robinson wrote:Booze causes more deaths and more health issues than does pot. No questions about it. Booze leads to more poor life choices than pot does, no question about it.

Hmm, not quite a fair comparison, as there is much more alchohol use than marijuana use here in the US. I'd be more interested in a weighted comparison, factoring in how often they're used.

Will Robinson wrote:So let's be consistent here, either start giving the boozers life in prison for the third strike offense or decriminalize the use of pot and start treating the smokers the way you treat boozers.

I agree a bit, but with a cavéat: make marijuana abuse equivalent to alchohol abuse, but toughen the laws on alchohol-abusers, especially those who drive drunk.

[I was in an accident years ago where alchohol was involved (not me, the other driver); one person was nearly killed, and had I been a couple of feet over, I could've easily been killed myself.]

I generally agree with what Will has said (but also with Foil's caveat). However, I would also like to note that cannabis IS dangerous, contrary what many claim. One big problem that has been scientifically associated with cannabis use is schizophrenia. Two heavy cannabis users I know have developed schizophrenia later in life. Two others have just barely avoided it by completely stopping consuming marijuana after the first symptoms manifested (extreme paranoia in one of them, and out of body experiences in the other one). None of my other friends who did not take marijuana have developed schizophrenia.

Because I generally think that people can decide for themselves what risks they want take I would be for legalizing it, but only if (1) the dangers are clearly communicated and (2) maybe only for people at a certain age when the brain has fully developed, and the influence of cannabis on schizophrenia is less severe.

I tend to agree with Kilarin. I think some people will lose no matter what is done, simply by nature of the fact that some people abuse drugs.

Right now drug use (and the fact that it's illegal) hurts the nation financially, because the money poured into drugs fuels gangs, drug lords, & crime. Legalizing marijuana would inject more money into the economy by making the money fuel better things, and by reducing the amount of money spent trying to enforce the laws against it.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that this new financial stimuli will really last forever. Marijuana use generally causes people to be less productive, and more creative, and legalizing drugs will inevitably lead to increased usage. I see legalizing drugs as just another action that will move us further toward a service-based economy, rather than a product based economy. That's a concern that I already have about the U.S. (I think that a service-based economy stands on shaky ground, though I'm not a expert in these things.)

But, I haven't addressed the problem (especially in the midwest) with meth usage. I would hope that the legalization of marijuana would convert some meth users, and I see meth as a far more damaging drug habit than marijuana, especially financially.

So, at this point, I think the legalization of maijuana would have a neutral if not positive financial effect, and a positive safety/crime effect.

I don't like the trend it sets up, though- that being that if you ignore a law en-masse, you can eventually have it changed (for the worse) because we are hurting the nation even more by ignoring the law. I think the libertarians are on the right track in terms of stopping this trend- trim back the government to the proper scope (and tend to err on the government controlling too little), and then crack down hard on those that continue to break the law. The laws concerning drugs should NOT be changed because it will improve the current situation- the laws should be changed because it isn't the governments business to tell you that you can't take it. The proper response to the argument that people are doing it anyway is to increase the level of enforcement until it isn't worth it to break the law.

Snoopy wrote:The laws concerning drugs should NOT be changed because it will improve the current situation- the laws should be changed because it isn't the governments business to tell you that you can't take it.

Exactly! Very well said!

Cannabis can be habitually addictive just like many other drugs. Drugs R Bad. I don't like debating that part.

What I hate is all the money spent on policing it, \"preventing\" trafficking of it, and even worse the jail space taken up for pot criminals. We have rapists, murderers who get out early because jail capicity is so high.

I'd be happy with decriminalization and a low police priority.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Booze causes more deaths and more health issues than does pot. No questions about it. Booze leads to more poor life choices than pot does, no question about it.

Hmm, not quite a fair comparison, as there is much more alchohol use than marijuana use here in the US. I'd be more interested in a weighted comparison, factoring in how often they're used.

Well my point is there is a greater number of booze related problems than marijuana related problems, yet the reaction is to go overboard on the pot heads and go easy on the greater threat, the boozers. So the number of problem users being disparate between the two groups only buttresses my point.

What they are waging is not a War on Drugs.
It's the War-on-all-drugs-except-the-most-damaging-one-because-it's-their-personal-favorite (and also excludes the ones produced by their corporate donors)!

Man, finally, a thread that's right up my alley.

I will admit that I'm a pretty heavy marijuana user. Usually about 3 times a week. Sometimes more.

Sure, marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes. And while some may think this is a stupid argument, the fact remains - cigarettes, while more lethal, are legal. And yes, they're both harmful, they both leave tar your lungs, yadda yadda, but the fact of the matter is it is my body and my decision. I'm not harming anyone else, so it is not anyone else's place to judge my behavior.

Marijuana is mentally addictive, I know this for a fact. There aren't physical symptoms of withdrawl, but you crave it like you crave any other enjoyable feeling - sex, chocolate cake, raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, etc...It boils down to personal responsibility, and I don't believe the government has the right to set that for you.

Why should marijuana be legalized? Let's start with the most basic argument, the medicinal reasons. You cannot argue with this, it has been used medicinally for centuries in hundreds of different cultures. Treats pain, eases side-effects of chemotherapy, treats glaucoma, just to name the most commonly known.

My real question is why marijuana is viewed any differently than alcohol. A person can be a social drinker and not face any reprocussions, yet if someone is a social marijuana smoker they can be put in prison? Alcohol is involved in thousands of deaths each year between diseases caused by alcohol, accidents caused by alcohol, or violent behavior caused by alcohol. Alcohol is much more physically harmful to your body and is physically addicting, yet it is legal. There are never reported violent crimes by marijuana users, there are no major diseases linked to marijuana use. As far as societal impacts, why would they be any greater than that of alcohol? The average person doesn't get liquored up and skip work, neglect his family and doesn't pay his bills. That's what we call an alcoholic. So why would the average person, if pot were legal, act like an addict?

In addition, by legalizing, regulating, and taxing it, we can generate millions in revenue. In addition, we could stop trying to inhibit the trafficking of a relatively harmless drug and focus our efforts on drugs that do have a serious negative impact on our society, such as meth, cocaine, and heroine.

As far as links to schizophrenia, I've been studying marijuana for years, because every time I have to write a persuasive essay or research paper, I choose marijuana as my topic, and I've never come across anything that links the two. Schizophrenia is genetic and inherent, and can be triggered by traumatic events in one's life.

The whole \"gateway drug\" theory is crap. That has aboslutely nothing to do with the drug and everything to do with the personality type.

People really need to learn to separate the drug from the person. If a person has an addictive personality and cannot set his priorities, drugs aren't for him. The same is true of alcohol. If you can't handle it responsibly, you shouldn't do it. It's true of anything that can become addictive - video games, jerkin off...whatever. If you do it too much and it starts to interfere with your responsibilities, you shouldn't do it.

I love the pot, but it hasn't interfered with my intelligence or my priorities. I had a 4.0 gpa all through high school and as a sophomore in college I'm still maintaining a 3.6 while working 20 hours a week.

That's my take on it. I feel America's greatest value is personal freedom, and if my habit doesn't harm anyone else, what I choose to do is my own business.

Ps- I'm high right now.

Firstly, the thing about marijuana is harmless is absolute rubbish! It may not take 10 years off of your life, like smoking does, but it's considered bad because it's known to, and biologically proven to, cause mental disorders; ranging from a strong personality change, to paranoia (also biologically proven why) and even schizophrenia! (IIRC, marijuana smokers were three times more likely to become severely paranoid than non-smokers.) Heck, even some of the effects of being high are paranoia symtoms themseves ("I can smell colours...")

Secondly, anyone seen smoking maijuana is instantly put in jail to show how serious the government is on this matter, not just because they're scared of those people doing something wrong when high.

Thirdly, yes, it does cause some people to use other drugs too. Even though that's only a small number of people, most people don't listen to the "it causes mental problems!" argument, so the protestors have to try every argument!

Beowulf wrote:Marijuana is mentally addictive, I know this for a fact. There aren't physical symptoms of withdrawl, but you crave it like you crave any other enjoyable feeling - sex, chocolate cake, raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, etc...It boils down to personal responsibility, and I don't believe the government has the right to set that for you.

...
You even said that you're a heavy smoker yourself!

Beowulf wrote:As far as links to schizophrenia, I've been studying marijuana for years, because every time I have to write a persuasive essay or research paper, I choose marijuana as my topic, and I've never come across anything that links the two. Schizophrenia is genetic and inherent, and can be triggered by traumatic events in one's life.

Sorry, Beo, but you are flat-out wrong on that. The link between schizophrenia and cannabis use is all over the medical literature and well established. A good review is here. Schizophrenia is also not "genetic and inherent". Although there is no doubt that there is a genetic risk for schizophrenia, it is clear (a) that it is not a single gene that's causing it but a number of genes that all increase the chance of developing schizophrenia, and (b) that developmental factors - such as cannabis abuse - contribute signficantly.

But, as I said, I am with you on the legalization issue. But I don't want so much to promote that cannabis can do no wrong...

I say we legalize it, stick a 95% sales tax on it, and use the tax revenue to fund all the Dem's social programs.

That way, the people paying for the govt services are the one's receiving them, and the people not paying for the govt services, don't receive them.

Can I get a ++

[misread post]

Taken from schizophrenia.com

\"Schizophrenia can sometimes be triggered by heavy use of hallucinogenic drugs, especially LSD; but it appears that one has to have a genetic predisposition towards developing schizophrenia for this to occur.\"

Also,

\"Professor Mullen said scientists knew the early stages of schizophrenia caused people to be more likely to take drugs at a young age, but researchers had so far not been able to prove the drug abuse was causing the earlier onset of schizophrenia.\"

Wow... now that was blatant cherrypicking. Your quotes come from this site. I quote from their first paragraph:

Use of street drugs (including LSD,methamphetamine,marijuana/hash/cannabis) have been linked with significantly increased probability of developing schizophrenia. This link has been documented in over 30 different scientific studies (studies done mostly in the UK, Australia and Sweden) over the past 20 years. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at age 18 were over 600% more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did not take it. (see diagram below).

but sure, you probably need to have a predisposition to schizophrenia, but that is not an all or nothing situation and it is not so rare as you think. There is no single gene that triggers schizophrenia. It is associated with a combination of genes, the more of them come together the more probable it is that you will develop it at some point in life. Cannabis seems to affect exactly these system of the frontal cortex that are regulated by these genes. So if you have some of these genes and you smoke marijuana it might just push an already imbalanced system over the edge. From your site again:

Without the effects of the drug, such a person might live their whole life without ever experiencing mental health problems. It has been estimated, for example, that between 8% and 13% of people that have schizophrenia today would never have developed the illness without exposure to cannabis.

Pandora,

I've been reading a lot about this since this thread. I honestly wasn't aware of these thinks prior to this.

However you've got to remember that a correlation doesn't necessarily indicate a causal relationship. There could be other factors in play. In addition, it could be those with psychotic tendencies are more likely to try marijuana, not the other way around.

From this article: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/hea ... 624953.800

\"The results showed that the majority of people who'd recently used cannabis had schizotypal symptoms before using the drug.\"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

\"Clinical status was assessed by means of the SANS, SAPS, PANSS and BPRS scales. Cannabis consumption was found in 54 subjects (43%), 66.7% of whom started it at least three years before onset of schizophrenia. Consumers were younger and with lower negative symptoms, specially abusers and polysubstance abusers. Family history positive for psychosis was more frequent in consumers, especially when consumption started before onset of schizophrenia.\"

From the same article:

\"Our data support both heterogeneity of schizophrenia and genetic susceptibility to environmental agents.\"

From here, http://www.cannabis.net/psychosisrisk.html

\"The results of this study suggest that cannabis use may not play an integral role in the development of psychosis in a high-risk group. While this study does not support a role for cannabis in the development of first-episode psychosis, we cannot conclude that cannabis use should be completely ignored as a candidate risk factor for onset of psychosis. A number of weaknesses of the study (the low level of cannabis use in the current sample, the lack of monitoring of cannabis use after intake) suggest that it may be premature to dismiss cannabis use as a risk factor for the development of psychosis and further research is urged in this area.\"

I don't doubt that marijuana can possibly send someone who is predisposed to psychosis over the edge, but I don't think it should be considered enough of a risk factor to keep it illegal. Especially when high consumption of alcohol or prolonged cigarette smoking is proven to eventually lead to potentially fatal diseases.

In response to Tiger's gateway drug argument:

From here, http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.ed ... ts/481.asp

\"Common knowledge suggests that marijuana is one of the worst drugs available. And experimentation with other illegal drugs stems from the initial use of marijuana. This is just not true. Use of illegal drugs also takes place after experimenting with two of the most common legal drugs available; alcohol and tobacco. After speaking with many individuals it has become clear that the majority of people do not realize that alcohol and tobacco are two of the biggest gateway drugs.\"

from the same site

\"People who drank more alcohol were more likely to want to try marijuana than people who had not been drinking. 67% of the high alcohol group, 31% of the moderate alcohol group, and 6.7% of the no alcohol group tried the marijuana.\"

I'm not arguing that marijuana is harmless. I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm saying that it is much less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal. If your argument for why marijuana should remain illegal is because of it's harmful effect on the body, then you should also criminalize those other substances. We tried prohibition once...didn't work out too well.

you've got to remember that a correlation doesn't necessarily indicate a causal relationship. There could be other factors in play. In addition, it could be those with psychotic tendencies are more likely to try marijuana, not the other way around.

You're right, of course. However, the scientists seem to do a good job in ruling out these alternative explanations. Please read the link to the Lancet review again. They sum up the results of major studies on that and show that in many of them the link between schizophrenia and cannabis use remains if they control for the alternative explanations you mentioned.

Thanks for the links. Two general remarks on reading and interpreting science. First, it is not good to draw conclusions from single studies. Researchers could be wrong and often are. So, one should only trust findings supported by many studies. Second, it is not good to draw conclusions from a finding that is NOT observed. Statistics are tailored such that it is many times more likely to NOT find a certain result even though it is true (\"beta error\"), then FINDING something even though it is not there (\"apha error\"). So, generally, you can trust studies more that demonstrate a relationship than those that reject a relationship. Your last link suffers from both of these problems.

Specific remarks on the first two links: Very interesting: there are definatly seem to two things going on here. First, there are people that already have symptoms and therefore tend to use marijuana more than those without symptoms. Second, there also is a group that develops the symptoms because they use it. it says so quite clearly in your second link: \"our sample could be subdivided into two main groups, one that uses substances to counter distressing symptoms of schizophrenia and another in which cannabis might be one of the factors predisposing to the disease.\"

The finding of the second group is in accord with the other data I mentioned above that around 10% of people with schizophrenia have it because of cannabis use. What about the first group? Does marijuana help or worsen their already existing symptoms? One way to find out is to select people on the basis of already existing symptoms and then investigate how the disease develops in those that use marijuana and those that do not. The result (from the Lancet review):

Henquet and colleages8 did a 4-year follow up of 2437 adolescents and young adults in Munich. They found a dose-response relation between self-reported cannabis use at baseline and the likelihood of reporting psychotic symptoms. Young people who reported psychotic symptoms at baseline were more likely to report psychotic symptoms at follow-up if they used cannabis than peers who did not.

This is also supported by studies that took people that already had schizophrenic symptoms and gave them THC. The symptoms worsened depending on how much THC they got. So, generally, marijuna isn't good for you in either case. You might develop schizophrenia although you would not have developed it otherwise. If you already have it it makes schizophrenia worse.

Still...

I don't doubt that marijuana can possibly send someone who is predisposed to psychosis over the edge, but I don't think it should be considered enough of a risk factor to keep it illegal. Especially when high consumption of alcohol or prolonged cigarette smoking is proven to eventually lead to potentially fatal diseases.

I agree 100% (as long as also the dangers of cannabis are well known and people can make an informed decision)

Beowulf wrote:In response to Tiger's gateway drug argument:

From here, http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.ed ... ts/481.asp

"Common knowledge suggests that marijuana is one of the worst drugs available. And experimentation with other illegal drugs stems from the initial use of marijuana. This is just not true. Use of illegal drugs also takes place after experimenting with two of the most common legal drugs available; alcohol and tobacco. After speaking with many individuals it has become clear that the majority of people do not realize that alcohol and tobacco are two of the biggest gateway drugs."

1: Alcohol won't be banned, because too many people drink it! Most people aren't just going to give up their one or two glasses of wine at a meal, just because some hooligans like getting drunk!
2: Tobacco can't be banned, because of the sudden withdrawl symptoms! It's also why if you legalise marijuana, and it goes wrong, there's no going back!

Beowulf wrote:"People who drank more alcohol were more likely to want to try marijuana than people who had not been drinking. 67% of the high alcohol group, 31% of the moderate alcohol group, and 6.7% of the no alcohol group tried the marijuana."

...
Do you even realise that you just said that 104.7% of the world's population have tried the marijuana?

Beowulf wrote:If your argument for why marijuana should remain illegal is because of it's harmful effect on the body, then you should also criminalize those other substances.

Did you even read my post? I specifically said it causes mental problems, and does "not take 10 years off of your life, like smoking does".

Beowulf wrote:it is not anyone else's place to judge my behavior.

It is most DEFINITLY my place to judge your behavior. It's NOT my place to criminalize your behavior.

This is an important distinction that I think gets missed often today. Everyone seems to think you must fall into one of two camps. Either you want the cops to arrest anyone who participates in a certain behavior, OR, you want the cops to arrest anyone who stands up and says that behavior is wrong. BOTH of these stances are incorrect.

As long as your behavior is not harming anyone else, you should have a right to do it. *AND* I should have a right to disapprove. Vocally.

One more qualm I have with pot is that I have the suspicion that it is one of those cheap drugs that maintain the social status quo. That is, it keeps the poor poor and content, but doesn't affect the rich so much.

The problem is that marijuana affects the brain's dopamine neurotransmitter system (that is also destabilized in schizophrenia), and through that the functioning of the frontal lobe. The frontal lobe is required to formulate and stick to long term goals, and to shield oneself from distractions, among others. So, it affects exactly those capacities you need if you are starting from a disadvantaged position anyways. Of course, the upside is that it make you much more content with what you already have as well. In contrast, the upper class has much better support systems in place (i.e. private schools, private tuition) that can compensate for most negative consequences.

That all my sound quite academic, but I am actually speaking from personal experience. My own career is lagging 2 to 5 years behind partially because of it (good years, mind you, so I am not complaining much), but has hit and is still hitting some friends harder.

I found a good (and quite scary) summary of the cognitive/brain impairments associated with cannabis in this university presentation (.pdf). It starts with a nice quote from Baudelaire:

“What hashish gives with one hand it takes away with the other: that is to say, it gives you power of imagination and takes away the ability to profit by it.”

What timing Here ia an article in todays paper on this subject in MN.


Medical marijuana may soon be reality


http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1032703.html

Pandora- I too wasted a decade on \"recreational\" drug use and so am several years behind the curve in career and lifestyle. I am mixed about the negative aspects of that as there is much more to life than career and money. However I too can say from personal experience that marijuana use tends to affect every aspect of your life. Your memory, your ambition, your concentration all are negatively affected by marijuana use. Those users that doubt me should try spending one year without it. It takes at least 6 months before your thinking will clear so a year is a good test. And a year is only a tiny fraction of your life. You won't miss anything major by not being high for a year, trust me.
That said I do not believe in that marijuana or any of the \"recreational\" drugs should be illegal. It is a waste of our societies resources to create a huge underclass of wealthy criminals and a huge expensive police force based on what is really a medical issue.
And when I retire and no longer need to have my wits about me every day to do my job well I may just go back to herbal enhancement of certain experiences such as music.

Beowulf wrote: "People who drank more alcohol were more likely to want to try marijuana than people who had not been drinking. 67% of the high alcohol group, 31% of the moderate alcohol group, and 6.7% of the no alcohol group tried the marijuana."

I'm not arguing that marijuana is harmless. I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm saying that it is much less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal. If your argument for why marijuana should remain illegal is because of it's harmful effect on the body, then you should also criminalize those other substances. We tried prohibition once...didn't work out too well.

But it doesn't over rule common sense that should tell you that impairing yourself intentionally is just plain stupid. There have been a couple or recent threads on common sense (here and on .com ) or the lack there of in the country. Here's just one more example. (trying to pass the law that is)

TIGERassault wrote:

Beowulf wrote:"People who drank more alcohol were more likely to want to try marijuana than people who had not been drinking. 67% of the high alcohol group, 31% of the moderate alcohol group, and 6.7% of the no alcohol group tried the marijuana."

...
Do you even realise that you just said that 104.7% of the world's population have tried the marijuana?

Only if you also say that 195.3% have not tried it yet

Pandora wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

Beowulf wrote:"People who drank more alcohol were more likely to want to try marijuana than people who had not been drinking. 67% of the high alcohol group, 31% of the moderate alcohol group, and 6.7% of the no alcohol group tried the marijuana."

...
Do you even realise that you just said that 104.7% of the world's population have tried the marijuana?

Only if you also say that 195.3% have not tried it yet

Yep, Tiger, those were three separate groups being referred to there. The percentage was different in each group, so there is a theoretical possibility of 100% in each group, so the percentages could add up to a possible total of 300%. Of course, adding the percentages doesn't make sense in this case.

Foil wrote:

Pandora wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

Beowulf wrote:"People who drank more alcohol were more likely to want to try marijuana than people who had not been drinking. 67% of the high alcohol group, 31% of the moderate alcohol group, and 6.7% of the no alcohol group tried the marijuana."

...
Do you even realise that you just said that 104.7% of the world's population have tried the marijuana?

Only if you also say that 195.3% have not tried it yet

Yep, Tiger, those were three separate groups being referred to there. The percentage was different in each group, so there is a theoretical possibility of 100% in each group, so the percentages could add up to a possible total of 300%. Of course, adding the percentages doesn't make sense in this case.

Oh, right, now I get it!

I've been off pot for 3 months, and while my career isn't better, I sure am more social and picking up way more chicks. Set some kind of personal record recently.

Marijuana = less chicks

Well yeah, marijuana is for chilling with the homies, relaxing, playing video games, watching a movie, listening to some good music or enjoying nice weather, not for goin out and trying to pick up girls. I wouldn't say I'm any less social when I'm high, but when I do smoke marijuana, it's when I'm in the mood to chill rather than go out and try to spit game.

So...

Marijuana = less Descent?

No way...when I toke I either want to play D3 or guitar.