The Marijuana Thread

[Vorticity]

(In order to stop derailing the gay frivolity of this other thread, I'm starting a new thread about this.)

I'm of the opinion that marijuana in all its forms should be legal. My argument is simple: The burden of proof should always be on those who say that something should be illegal. In my entire life, I've never heard a coherent argument for why pot should be illegal. For that matter, I've never met anyone for whom keeping marijuana illegal was an important issue.

And yet, it remains illegal. I am baffled.

Furthermore, anyone who suggests legalizing pot is generally regarded as some kind of marginal weirdo. If I were a Senator, for example, it would be the end of my career.

I don't get it, and I wish someone would enlighten me.

So: Is there anyone here who truly believes that marijuana should remain illegal? If so, can you please present your argument?

I'm particularly interested in hearing an argument that could not just as easily be applied to alcohol (for example).

Anyone?

 

[hgc]

Slowly, slowly, slowly resistance is breaking down. For instance I don't think that the position for decriminilization (legalization lite) is a career killer for a politician any more. If medical marijuana is allowed in more and more states, and if the next president (unlike Bush and Clinton) decides not to trample over states rights on medical marijuana, this little wedge might finally lead to breaking down the strong criminal sanctions. But then the whole "gateway" drug concept is very powerful in the minds of hysterics.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, conditionally

First things first: The Marijuana Thread
Marijuana/Hemp is too coarse to be made into thread. Line or rope, maybe, but thread? No. Far easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle, and all that. Oh, wait, that was the mushrooms.

As to legalizing pot: do it as soon as a breathalizer (or similarly effective field sobriety test) for weed is perfected. That protects me from "driving while stoned" as effectively as the breathalizer, which meets the "good enough" test.

There are farmers, to include tobacco farmers, all over America who would appreciate another cash crop.

Buy American. Tax it. Sell it the way we sell booze. Bust those who sell it to, or provide it to, minors. Marlboro Green, Salem Purple, and Winston Wowie could become brand names adorning billboards on highways across America.

And then, with everything nice and legal, invest is Ecstasy futures.

DR

 

[WildCat]

There are farmers, to include tobacco farmers, all over America who would appreciate another cash crop.

Buy American. Tax it. Sell it the way we sell booze. Bust those who sell it to, or provide it to, minors.

I really doubt that it would be much of a boon to farmers or gov't coffers, it's too easy to grow yourself. And it doesn't need any processing (other than drying) post-harvest, unlike tobacco.

Anyway, wasn't it made illegal in the first place because Mexicans liked it, and if Mexicans were for it, we had to be against it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Legalize medically-prescribed THC in exact-dosage pills, inhalers, or whatever. From a medical standpoint, it's simply absurd that people are burning a plant with unknown concentrations to get their medication.

 

[Vorticity]

Legalize medically-prescribed THC in exact-dosage pills, inhalers, or whatever. From a medical standpoint, it's simply absurd that people are burning a plant with unknown concentrations to get their medication.

Sure, but just medicinal THC?

Do you oppose total legalization?

 

[hgc]

Legalize medically-prescribed THC in exact-dosage pills, inhalers, or whatever. From a medical standpoint, it's simply absurd that people are burning a plant with unknown concentrations to get their medication.

Except that despite its uncertain dosage levels, smoked marijuana is still more effective than any oral version for the medicinal purposes for which it's desired. It's like self-administered morphine in the hospital: the patient will know how much is needed.

 

[steverino]

I am not comfortable with its becoming completely legal. I am not sure why. My big brother was a genius, and fried his brains out with pot. OK. He smoked every day, all the time. That can happen with booze, or Hostess Ding Dongs, I suppose. And it was illegal, so the law didn't help curtail his obsession.

Still, I think it has lasting negative physical and mental effects. Panic attacks, etc. And if parents smoke in front of kids, then kids will try it too young. And Hillary and the Left is now talking all about "protecting our kids."

But I realize that we all have personal responsibilities to take it or leave it regardless of the laws. I guess, as it affected my family the way it did, the topic is a touchy one for me.

 

[Katana]

Legalize medically-prescribed THC in exact-dosage pills, inhalers, or whatever. From a medical standpoint, it's simply absurd that people are burning a plant with unknown concentrations to get their medication.

Meet Marinol.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I really doubt that it would be much of a boon to farmers or gov't coffers, it's too easy to grow yourself. And it doesn't need any processing (other than drying) post-harvest, unlike tobacco.

Anyway, wasn't it made illegal in the first place because Mexicans liked it, and if Mexicans were for it, we had to be against it?

How many people are good enough, or care enough, to grow their own? Given the urbanized population of America, and the market for cigars to name just one, people will always pay for quality products, be it weed or whiskey.

When you factor in the economies of scale, you'll still get some folks growing their own herb, as some grow their own vegetables and brew their own beer, but most consumers will buy it at the store.

As to the Mexican thing: ¿que?

DR

 

[Vorticity]

I am not comfortable with its becoming completely legal. I am not sure why.

Fair enough, I suppose, but this response doesn't leave me with that satisfied, minty zing.

"Look, I came here for an argument!"

My big brother was a genius, and fried his brains out with pot. OK. He smoked every day, all the time. That can happen with booze, or Hostess Ding Dongs, I suppose. And it was illegal, so the law didn't help curtail his obsession.

You make my point for me.

Still, I think it has lasting negative physical and mental effects. Panic attacks, etc. And if parents smoke in front of kids, then kids will try it too young.

Doubtless. And yet, as you yourself say, the same things could be said about alcohol, tobacco, and probably lots of other things.

And Hillary and the Left is now talking all about "protecting our kids."

Please, please, please, let's not turn this into a thread about "Hillary and the Left" or "George and the Right" or "Bozo and the North-by-Northwest".

But I realize that we all have personal responsibilities to take it or leave it regardless of the laws. I guess, as it affected my family the way it did, the topic is a touchy one for me.

I understand, I've got a family and kids, etc, but this is not an argument.

Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. Put simply: I should have the right to screw up my own life.

 

[WildCat]

How many people are good enough, or care enough, to grow their own? Given the urbanized population of America, and the market for cigars to name just one, people will always pay for quality products, be it weed or whiskey.

When you factor in the economies of scale, you'll still get some folks growing their own herb, as some grow their own vegetables and brew their own beer, but most consumers will buy it at the store.

If it was cheap enough, sure you'd just go buy it in the store. But knowing politicians, they'd tax the living bejeebus out of it. And like I said, it's ridiculously easy to grow very high-quality marijuana. You can even do it indoors all year round, and just a few plants would be enough for even the biggest pothead.

As to the Mexican thing: ¿que?

Yep...

After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana. The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching "Marijuana Menace," and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html

 

[tkingdoll]

I cannot for the life of me understand why marijuana is illegal but alcohol isn't. So if one is, then yes, I would support the legalisation of the other. And in reverse, prohibition was about as effective at stopping drinking as marijuana laws are at stopping smoking. However, what I will say is that legalising marijuana will lead to an increase in usage which will lead to an increase in tobacco smoking and the associated health problems. In the UK, that's an NHS resource issue. In the USA, a health insurance one. But, as tobacco isn't illegal, it's not a reason to prohibit marijuana, it's just a reason to discourage use in the same way governments discourage smoking.

BUT if we argue that we'd want to discourage use, and legalising it would have the opposite effect, then it is better off illegal. That may be the reason it still is, who knows?

For the record, I neither drink alcohol nor smoke drugs, and never have.

The breathalyser comment is an interesting one.

 

[slingblade]

Re: Wildcat's post, we have a copy of Reefer Madness. We find it amusing. What's sad is how many folks think it represents anything close to reality.

I had once been told that hemp was a good cash crop in the US, but that cotton farmers wanted more of the action, and so either in WWI or WWII they lobbied to have hemp criminalized. I have no idea how true this is and haven't checked sources. It's just something I've heard.

 

[AmateurScientist]

For instance I don't think that the position for decriminilization (legalization lite)

There is no distinction at all. Decriminalization is legalization. How is something "illegal" in this context but not criminal?

Decriminalization is simply a more palatable term for legalization. For too many persons, "legalization" implies government condonation. I cannot for the life of me understand why. It's legal to overeat and be obese, yet surely no one would argue that the government condones being obese. Why then, does anyone argue that "legalization" is tantamount to condoning (some even argue than it would be encouraging) its use?

AS

 

[brodski]

I cannot for the life of me understand why marijuana is illegal but alcohol isn't. So if one is, then yes, I would support the legalisation of the other. And in reverse, prohibition was about as effective at stopping drinking as marijuana laws are at stopping smoking. However, what I will say is that legalising marijuana will lead to an increase in usage which will lead to an increase in tobacco smoking and the associated health problems. In the UK, that's an NHS resource issue. In the USA, a health insurance one. But, as tobacco isn't illegal, it's not a reason to prohibit marijuana, it's just a reason to discourage use in the same way governments discourage smoking.

BUT if we argue that we'd want to discourage use, and legalizing it would have the opposite effect, then it is better off illegal. That may be the reason it still is, who knows?

For the record, I neither drink alcohol nor smoke drugs, and never have.

The breathalyser comment is an interesting one.

Well, if taxed right cannabis could help to fund the NHS, and to be honest (in the UK anyway) dope is so easy to get hold of, and so tolerated by many police forces, that outright legalization is unlikely to massively increase usage.
I doubt that there are that many people out there thinking "I'd love to have a spliff, if only it where legal".

 

[slingblade]

However, what I will say is that legalising marijuana will lead to an increase in usage which will lead to an increase in tobacco smoking and the associated health problems.

And I have to ask, is this opinion, or can that be backed by some kinds of studies or other evidence? Because I have heard or read that the increase would be marginal. But I have no idea which is true, more true, or just plain wrong.

I'd like to know, as certainly as it is possible to know.

 

[brodski]

There is no distinction at all. Decriminalization is legalization. How is something "illegal" in this context but not criminal?

look to the dutch model, or the de facto situation in the UK, possession (under certain amounts) does not result in prosecution, production or sale of the drug is illegal and not as tolerated. that is what I call "decriminalization" as opposed to "legalization".

 

[steverino]

You make my point for me.

That's because he was not YOUR brother.

 

[Jeff Corey]

How many people are good enough, or care enough, to grow their own? ...DR

When I had to tell a teenager down the block that his plants were taller than the stockade fence, he should trim them and weed out the males, I'm pretty sure the skills required are well within the reach of the general population.