If people hurt others because of drug use, that's another story, but the drug use itself isn't the problem.

Read that slowly, Carlos, and think about what you actually said. ;)

I tried it a few times, but didn't get your point. I don't understand. Are you saying all drug use is a problem?

marijuana isn't exactly a big distorter of reality or perception. Hallucination is rare, if not impossible with only marijuana. It does not have any of the effect that LSD, mushrooms, ecstacy, or others commonly do.

No one has ever jumped off a rooftop whilst high on weed, cause they thought they could fly. If anything it encourages birkenstocks and passive, non-violent protests.

The reason I think it should be legalized is for the chemo patients, and others with serious illness. The current situation however black-lists doctors who prescribe it, and makes it difficult to aquire.

Why not dispense it where all the other medicine is? The hospital, or local drug store? They don't need to setup big outfits, which allow you to purchase up to 8-ounces at a time. IMO, that's way over the line.

I have a relative who is recovering from AIDS. One of the side effects of the 18+ pills per day is numb legs, and shooting pain when not numb. Marijuana happens to help him a lot. I cannot deliver any to him due to the fear of being busted with a large amount of green in my car. He cannot get it due to the area he lives and his health.

The small amount of bad weed can cause is far less than the benefits it provides.

The natural benefits are incredible as well. Help is used in many beauty products. Can be used in place of wood for some applications. Reduces the number of trees to be cut down for paper.

I think the argument is that often times when you take drugs you are inadvertantly hurting somone else. And while that's true, I think it's a bad argument.

Example, everytime I don't do so well in school I'm hurting any who a)might have future business dealings with me b) might be my employeer c)may be a current or future member of my family, etc etc. But I don't think it would be right to legally require that I get good grades or face 20 years of jail time.

Granted, it's not a perfect example. But CAlvarez's original point is that if what you are doing doesn't directly affect someone (and I would add, doesn't directly significantly violate someone elses basic human rights) then you should be allowed to do it.

The police forces of the world do get bogged down in pointless cases every now and then, and take man power away from cases that (in my opinion) it would be better to put man power towards. It would be nice if they could stop babysitting us and be allowed to spend more time on the criminals who are doing things to destroy our basic human rights.

Fat Elvis - Hemp is an entirely seperate issue. Hemp is made from plants that aren't nearly as potent, and really can't be smoked at all, unlike the pot we have been discussing. It's a plant in the same family, as I recall, but not the exact same plant.

I only bring this up because I'm a big supporter of using hemp, and it suffers from an unfair negative perception. Hemp is so superior to cotton in terms of feel and durability it's ridiculous. It's also easiar to grow and takes up less nutrients from the soil. It's far easiar to produce, and you can make more money per acre from it. And hemp requires fewer pesticides, anothe major eviromental plus. I really wish people would realize marijuana and hemp aren't really the same thing so that America could finnaly start growing such a valuable plant.

It sounded like you were saying that if people hurt others because of drug use, that's a problem, but the drug use that brought about the hurt was not. Sort of like when people say the alcoholic's drinking isn't the problem, but the behavior that results from it. Well . . . :rolleyes:

fat elvis, I've stated several times that I'm all for medicinal applications of marijuana. That's quite different from the social, recreational use that many are also pushing for.

The problem is the damage, not why it happened. I'm no more damaged if I'm rear-ended by a drunk (happened to me) than if I'm rear-ended by a perfectly sober idiot (happened also).

There's a big difference between being "for drug use" and being against making such use a criminal act. I don't want to do drugs, but I don't want to waste money and manpower on jailing those who do.

Yeah, the two (hemp, marijuana) are very different...however I feel that if marijuana were legalized, the stigma that hemp inherits from it would disappear.

Hemp is a wonder product that has been held down by those silly cotton commercials, and people who think it'll lead to crack houses on the corner.

...and the patchouli oil it's bathed in, isn't helping the cause either.

Of course, you're much more likely to be rear-ended by the former, so it's kind of disingenuous to discount that factor.

Patchouli oil? Why would that make it harder? I just googled it, and it seems perfectly legal...

And I agree with you in a way, legalizing marijuana might lessen the stigma on hemp. But I'm not sure. I remember when I was in HighSchool everyone use to use Binaca to freshen their breath. But it developed a stigma when someone realized there was alcohol in it. The reason? Alchohol is against the religion of most of the people in my area, even though it is legal to buy and consume. Thus, since legalizing marijuana won't change what it is in most peoples mind, I don't think legalizing marijuana will remove all that much of the stigma. It's best to separate the two as much as possible.

I just checked Britannica to make sure I wasn't off base. I found out that Hemp and Marijuana do come from the same plant (don't I feel dumb). The Hemp is the fibers in the plant, and the THC is present in all portions of the plant, but apparently is only strong enough in the resin in the male part of the flower to make you high.

Of course you can cultivate Cannabis Sativa so that the THC is in lower quantities and posses no risk of being used as a drug. But then again, if you can get seeds from one of those plants you could, theoretically, use a few generations to cultivate back to a plant that has a very strong concentration of THC.

But I seem to remember that when I lived in Arizona a lot of people talked about how hemp grew in the wild (it was cultivated in Arizona for rope during WWII if memory serves). But it apparently isn't strong enough to do anything for you. So I'm guessing that the particular version of Cannibus Sativa that they used for making those ropes wasn't all that strong. Of course, this is only a rumor...

I just hope we get to a point where we can use Hemp for textiles again. It really is rather useful, the article in Britannica pointed that out as well, and backed up most of my previous claims.

Patchouli oil is the trade mark smell of the hippies, and rather pungent. i was just poking fun at their trademark aroma.

Hemp in textiles is making slow progress. On Haight Street you can buy just about anything made from hemp.

You bring up a good point about it growing in the wild. It flourishes in wet places, like Northern California and Vermont. The cool thing about the plant is that it can grow almost anywhere...Arizona being a great example. Arizona and British Colombia have very different climates.

p.s. Don't feel bad about not knowing they two products came from the same place. I just learned last week what the "hair of the dog" meant.

p.p.s. For those that don't, it means drinking in the morning to wash away a hangover.

I disagree. I think morons are a much bigger problem. And there are lots of other impairments that people may have. Hell, for years I was probably a hazard as I was sugar-impaired, before I figured out I'm diabetic. Eating too much carbohydrates makes me feel like I've had a few beers.

However, my point is simply that we should punish the actual result, not what "might happen if..."

But you didn't choose to be diabetic.

I chose to eat sugar, and chose to drive afterward.

Funny thing is though, sugar not only makes me tired and slow, it makes it so my mind can't really comprehend that it has happened. If I'm drinking, I know exactly how impaired I am, but sugar is sneaky. I've learned now what my limits and blood sugar levels are, but it wasn't obvious like with alcohol.

Yet my point remains. If you want to jail someone for driving while intoxicated (on anything) and causing an accident, that's fair enough. Of course, causing an accident while stupid should be treated the same too. Punishing a victimless crime like possession or doing it at home makes no sense to me.

I didn't say "morons" weren't a problem, only that you're more likely to act and drive like one if you drink alcohol. There's inconstestable evidence that alcohol impairs driving ability, so I'm not sure why you're using such strained logic to try to minimize this fact.

Same goes for pot. It affects one's reaction time.
- http://www.psychologytoday.com/condi...marijuana.html

There is a public safety issue at stake, here.

It's been my experience that discussions sometimes turn more vitriolic when the participants aren't understanding each other - even on relatively straightforward issues.

So let me step in here as moderator and point out that the main point that CAlvarez has been trying to get across is behaviour AAA should not be illegal just because when combined with BBB, it causes societal harm.
AAA = alcohol consumption
BBB = driving

I.e. if a drunk falls over in a forest, does society bear the wound?

.
Leaving aside Cannabis for a moment, I think that synthetic drugs are the real societal evil in terms of damage.

Many recently developed synthetic drugs seem designed specifically to cause addiction. The trend is for such drugs to be offered/pushed to younger and younger people That, of course, makes great economic sense for the producers and pushers.

Likewise, I have heard convincing claims that some of the additives that the tobacco industry has the foresight to let smokers inhale, are even more addictive than nicotine. Of cours that is difficult to control, as there is no way the tobacco industry will accept being forced to reveal its secret recipes that add "flavour and aroma" etc – nor is there much chance of the current powers-that-be forcing them to do so.

When it comes to drugs, it is a pity that so many armies and resistance movements use drug production and trafficking as a major means of financing their organizations. That in addition to the various crime syndicates.

* * *

Personally, I believe it is socially irresponsible to get behind the wheel of a car when one has imbibed alcohol, smoked weed or has taken certain prescription drugs. Or for that matter behaving like an ******* behind a wheel -- which happens when that bubble of steal bloats the ego and aggression of a moron. (ref. Carlos)

* * *

Returning to Cannabis for a moment... I would argue that it is not a drug. And I think it is a real problem when an overfocus consumes too much police time. I think there are far better uses for these law enforcement resources, such as removing from active service the upper echelons of chains that deal in hard drugs.
Clearly Cannabis should be allowed for certain limited medical purposes. How can anyone fail to be swayed by stories such as Retcynnm’s? If you were a decision maker, would you honestly say: "No, your partner can’t have this treatment even though it eases their ailments."
I don’t, however, have a clear-cut opion when it comes to full legalisation...


With best regards,
ArcticStones


PS. Speaking strictly for myself, I haven’t had a desire to smoke in many years. (I’m not knocking anybody else’s choices here.) The experiences that I have had meditating have been for more potent than my experience with weed or other substances.

I'm not hearing it that way, hayne, but even if that's what's intended, I still think that because AAA combined with BBB causes social harm, then that harm justifies considering how reducing such harm could come about. In the case of alcohol, we're stuck with it, but social harm has been reduced by raising the drinking age and increating the legal consequences of drunk driving. These legal restrictions have made a difference, saving thousands of lives and countless injuries each year. Perhaps something similar could be done for pot as well if it were legalized? The present course has been to discourage the use of it through making it illegal . . . maybe not the best approach, I'll grant you, but it's difficult to understand how accidents resulting from CCC (cannabis use) plus BBB would be reduced if pot were legal.

Actually that has increased at least one social cost. The DOJ stats show a sharp rise in teens stealing alcohol from stores. In interviews, teens say that since they can't buy it, they steal it. Stealing is pretty safe since punishments are lenient, and extremely few are ever caught anyway.

As we have proven in the past, prohibition increases criminal activity.

Hayne had it dead right as far as what I was trying to get across. Further I would be for very harsh punishments for ACTUALLY DOING HARM and not for punishing an action with no victim. I realize that you believe that pre-emptive laws are better for society. I look at it from a level of the principles of liberty. This is a basic difference in our philosophies which we are unlikely to agree on. I value liberty and small government over the promise of a little more safety. My parents did too, and it is why my dad slaved away for four and a half years so we'd be allowed to leave Cuba. That gives me a very strong perspective on liberty.

There's very little crime in Cuba, BTW. It's dealt with harshly. Unfortunately, "crime" includes speaking against the government, and that put my uncle in prison for 15 years.