De si, zemljache and it's actually 'Classic NISH CITY "slack" attitude'
Nah, God doesen't concern himself with such petty misbehaving... but anyway, I've taken care of that lil' stash I had, so there's no need for worry now (and no, I'm not telling you what did I do with it ).
Anyway, I've tried cannabis mixed with tobacco a few times and all I can say is YUCK tobacco is Teh Devil, I tell ya. I'll never understand people who smoke it - but then, no one will understand how I can drink insane quantities of black coffee without sugar.

p.s.: I guess that, at some points, everything causes a living organism to be stressed and damaged - even food and water. Concieder 20 years of drinking tap water dangerous... and then add unproper nutrition, not enough physical activities, coffe + ciggs, alcohol... and voila ! You don't need drugs to ruin your yourself (I'm such a happy camper, aren't I ? )

I would! I do it myself! But yore right almost anything can be dangerous if you overdo it!

Don't worry i'm sure it's gone!
About not mixing it with tabbacoo:Whatever you were smoking was crap.Stop by in Nederland sometimes and try this weed without tabbacco.I'm sure you'll be done in about 3 smokes.the first times i tryed marijuana in Nederlands was without tabbacco,and i had quite a cough.

The coffee you're having in western Europe is NOTHING compared to coffee in Serbia & Montenegro!
While you're having coffee from a coffee mashine we're making coffee in.....argh,i don't know the word.Anyway it's made in a metal ''pot'' and it's a LOT stronger for your stomach.I belive they're making the same type of coffee it Turkey.Give it a try sometimes

heh, nice way of putting it but I fear I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion Sleepy.

Responsibility or irresponsibility, if that would be a cause for not allowing something to be legitemate then I guess it's time to ban all weapons, from every country, as well as all alcohol, and all medicine, and all needles, and probably all the knives, forks and spoons and more as well since you can count on some irresponsible people using that to cause damage

Yes...why not.....erhmm....I did try in Turkey some years ago and I liked it so....


Yes Alex...you´re right I agree on that, you have to assume people have some kind of responsibility by themselves huh....

I mean I don´t consider myself as irresponsible just because I´ve tried some "stuff" when I was younger

I disagree. Responsibility and irresponsibility is a factor - if it wasn't we wouldn't have legal ages for gambling, sexual activity, purchase of alcohol and cigerettes, collection of medication and marriage.

What the judgement is made on is responsibility and irresponsibility being a factor in a risk/benefit analysis - the benefits of having forks outweigh the risks of someone trying to poke someone with them. The benefits of cannabis (if there are any - the only one I can see is that some people want to use it to relax) are outweighed by the risks.

Hmmm,as i said i belive they're serving that kind of coffee in Turkey.It's really strong,and it has some black stuff at the bottom of the cup.That kind of coffee is good for me too

Actualy in my country such limitations don't exist (at least they didn't exist while i was still there,i don't know how is there now).But you said it yourself:Such things are allowed only when a person gets to a certain age.So why not allow marijuana at age 18?I think we all agree that it isn't any worse that alcohol.


Is that so?
And who determines how big risk\benefit does a certain thing have?Society?Government?I will tell you what society\governmet thinks about certain substances:

Alcohol - Risks greatly overweight the benefits.I will only mention some risks such as liver cancer,lack of self-control,some people are quite agressive when they're drunk.While the only benefits i can think of are used in medicine (to clean the wounds or such).100% legal.

Cigarettes - Now let's see:They are bad for your health,you become adictive,you actualy PAY to poison yourself,and you're endangering others.I mean WTF?That defyes every posible logic!But people WANT to smoke cigarettes,they are aware it's bad for health and adictive,but they still want to do it.Nobody's forcing them to do it,they chose it themself,even though they know the risks. 100% legal,no benefits.I quit smoking,but even today when i'm drinking coffe,i say:Damn i could use a cig right now.But it's passing over time.

McDonald's - I feel i'lll get flamed for this.The fact is that McDonald's is unhealthy food.McDonald's food can make you fat,has no healthy things for your body,and what most people don't know,it must be eaten right away.Try buying a burger,and keep it for about a week(you can puit it ib your fridge,it won't make a differnce).I sugest you don't eat it though.It may contain diseases, at least people who worked at McDonald'd told me.The left-overs are thrown in containers and locked,so that poor people won't eat it and get a disease. 100% legal,no real benefits (It's better for you to eat that brokoly)

Coca-Cola - Ahhhh!Let's try a test shall we?Get a glass of coce,and put a chicken leg in it.Let 24 hours pass.See the results.The same thing happens in your stomach.That's why you have that thing on your bottle,writen in small letters:You can drink [a certain amount,i can't remember now] a day.Otherwise you can get a diareya(sp?). 100% legal,no benefits to society (better drink some nice clear water)

NOTE:As i said over-use of such things can have bad effects.Drinking a glass of wine a day,can improve your heartwork (confirmed by doctors).Casualy eating at Mac,won't make you fat.Casualy smoking marijuana won't make you an adict,and won't harm you in any way.

Marijuana won't benefit society in any case,that's for sure.
But if an adult WANT'S to smoke marijuana,and he\she knows what are the risks\benefits (No benefits),why forbid him\her to buy it.Wait,did't i already said this in one of my previus posts.Nevermind.

It's not all about ''benefiting'' society.If it was so,we would be living in the world like......You kow that movie with Silvester Stalone?Where everything is forbiden,even to eat bacon (holesterol).That's how would our world look like.Boring and Cold.

Casual(moderate) use of marijuana = Fun,and not dangerous

Like I've said, just because something bad has got through the system isn't a reason why we should let anything else through.



Really? The same thing happens in my stomach? My stomach? The one with a natural pH that is strongly acidic? The stomach that has Hydrochloric acid in it? The one that is lined with various mechanisms and barriers to stop corrosion because otherwise we'd all be dead from the acid in there? The stomach that has acids stronger than those in Cola, which has a pH of about 2.5? REALLY? Wow. I must have missed something in physiology, or all those classes I've taken where I learnt that cola doesn't corrode your stomach. So on that point, you've been taught incorrectly. Pepsi was actually made to initially sort out stomach pains.

And do that experiment yourself. The concentrations of the acid in Cola are so low that all you'll have is one soggy chicken leg after 24 hours. Oh, eventually it'll corrode. But 24 hours? That's an urban legend, nothing more.


The rest of it I'm just going to refer to our previous arguements on it, seeing as you're repeating exactly the same points, and I'm just going to repeat the same points I did.

I probably forgot to mention that i'm not an expert in such things.But what i wanted to say is that if used too much,it can have negative effects (you didn't quote that part of my sentence )And that's personal experience


Fair enough.
I did notice that i'm repeating myself constantly

Foster, there is no risk/benefit factor taken into consideration by our government. It may exist to you, but to most companies and politicians out there, the risk is less money, the benefit is more money.

Marijuanas benefits outweigh the risks, the way I see it. In fact, the way I see it, they HEAVILY outweigh the risks. Cocacola risks DO NOT outweight the benefit, unless you are an invester in Coca Cola, or a lobbyist for Coca Cola, or a politician lobbied by coca cola, in which case there's a lot of money in it for you to keep coca cola popular.

Note: In california public schools are not allowed to have coke in their vending machines or food services during school hours, as well as most other drinks and snacks with too many calories.

Anyway, the same story goes for pharmceutical drugs, such as antidepressants. In my opinion, these new antidepressants' risks outweight the benefit. Sure, you can SAY "Don't use if you have a history or mania, or if your pregnant, or if you're young, or if you've ever been to las vegas..." but obviously if a man kidnapped, murdered, raped and planned to eat a young girl because his antidepressant medication was triggering his mania and giving him bizarre fantasies (true story) then something went wrong. But, again, there's a gigantic lobby to keep them legal which adds a lot of pressure to politcians not to touch them, it makes people ignore the strange test results they got from them.

I mean, the studies weren't thorough enough when it came to what happens when you stop taking drugs like zoloft and prozac. The answer hit the US back up the boat with teen suicides as caused by the antidepressants. Now tell me the benefits outweigh the risks. Of course, it depends whose using them, if the perfect candidate (Joe, a 30 year old perfectly sane man whose life is perfectly balanced and is well passed his rocky teenage years... and has never been to Vegas) takes them he's fine. But we live in a society of misdiagnosis, and plenty of people will still be given drugs they shouldn't be.

If marijuana was legal, the same warning would be there as cigerttes, and to the same degree since cigerette warnings in the Unites States don't really capture the picture of what cigerettes do to the body. People would know the proper dosage, people would be more likely to follow the regulations put in place for marijuana, just as using them in the proper clubs, and here's the big one... IT'D NO LONGER BE A GATEWAY DRUG!

Here is why weed is a gateway drug, I'll spell it out for you. You're in smoking sessions with people every week, and for many kids every day. You're buying it from people who are consciously doing something illegal, and know how to not get caught, and like making money. Many dealers around here carry other things besides weed. Many people around here do other things besides weed, when I smoke weed with these people, I'm introduced to other illegal substances.

Alcohol doesn't have the same problem. You can get alcohol straight from a store, and even if you couldn't people would buy it from the store to get it, you don't have to go through some sketchy dealer. Marijuana would be the exact same story, and therefore by legalizing marijuana, you'd actually make kids LESS LIKELY to try cocaine, heroine, meth, etcetera. You'd be striking a blow against the drug cartels by taking out one of their products. God knows they took a heavy freaking blow when prohibition ended.

As far as prostitution goes, it is legal in Las Vegas and works out fine there.

As far as marijuana goes, it is illegal now all over the United States and not only is it making evil drug gangs in South American countries rich who subjigate their own people horribly .... but that same money is also invested in terrorist activities like Al Kaida (however you spell THE DEVIL'S CURRENT NAME.) Also, the same drug gangs that sell marijuana also deal in harder drugs like cocaine and heroin and they have enslaved way too many of our American citizens with these monstrous drugs.

IF Marijuana were to be made legal, that alone would lower the prices and take the substance out of the hands of these drug monsters and put it into the government probably who would tax the living slurpy out of it like they do alcohol and tobacco or individual companies like Marlboro, Winston-Salem, etc. who would then bare the tax and pass it on.

A much more amenable solution to me than having South American scoundrels controlling the economy of the richest country on earth at this time or for the terrorists to have their talons anywhere in our affairs.

Ibis has spoken ... no more will I say on this subject.

What an interesting thread, a global marijuana conversation!

My perspective:
We are talking about two large issues sort of superimposed.
1. cost/benifit of marijuana use.
2. role of government.

I can tell you the jury is still out on the danger of marijuana. Scientists are only now beginning to understand the mechanism of cannabinoid action. The first receptor was found about 7 years ago now and a second receptor was just dicovered a couple of years ago. People have made mice with mutations in those receptors and the phenotypes are complicated and puzzling.
Other studies on marijuana affects are flawed, biased surveys that often rely on self reporting and have no controlls. Studies such as these have linked marijuana to psychosis etc. Untill a mechanistic link is found you should be very skeptical about news reports written by journalists regarding the scientific literature. They almost always exagerate and sensationalize the scinetific substance.

As to the role of government, that is a VERY personal thing. I think the only way to establish the role of government is democratically. In this I think the U.S. fails. In the American state of Oregon the citizins repeatedly vote for legalization of marijuana but the federal government repeatedly exerts it's judicial supremecy to overturn these laws.

The debate on marijuana must be a debate on the role of government. The science is still too immature to be used for policy.

It all boils down too: Do you think the government should be able to ban things simply because they are not healthy.
i.e. is part of the role of government to monitor the health of citizens?

Rather deedo, that's not my argument, that's not what it boils down to me, because the government didn't ban marijuana out of health issues. That wasn't their reason. They banned it because of political and monetary issues. I can't stree this enough, the only reason marijuana is illegal in this country is because it benefits the tobacco and alcohol industries, which have been lobbying this government since it was born.

Here's a good example. After the end of prohibition a man invented synthetic rope. Of course, hemp rope was stronger, why would someone use synthetic rope when they could use a natural kind? He was just one man involved in a gigantic lobby that occurred right around the end of prohibition. Another man? The current head of the FBI. Why the FBI would want marijuana illegalized, you ask? Because after prohibition, the FBI had nothing to do, and they were about to lose most of their funding.

What are the benefits?



I'm guessing you're not a doctor, pharmacist, or allied medical professional? I apologise if you are, but I'm guessing not because your understanding of pharmaceutical treatment, psychosis diagnosis and medical knowledge seems to be totally lacking. You also seem to have absolutely no idea what it takes to get a drug onto the market - clinical trials ad nauseum. You're looking at eight to ten years before something is determined safe for the public, as well as countless determinations of the benefit of the drug (that's right - drug companies aren't just allowed to push out anything - they have to prove benefit) and even then there is no way to predict the effects, so drugs are immediatly pulled if they are shown to cause these deadly symptoms you're hyping so much (just look at Vioxx). So the antidepressants cause suicides? Rarely. You're looking at an incredibly small percentage of the total users of the drug. Compare it to the percentage of suicides there would be if they didn't take them. What exactly are you arguing? That nobody should take antidepressants? That a disease state is better than taking medication, because of and incredibly low risk? What are the test results that are supposedly covered up by this conspiracy theory lobby? And the healthcare professionals in charge of drug regulation don't care more about some lobbyist pressure than the safety of the general public. THAT is nothing more than a complete lie. Healthcare professionals act on the best data they have to make the best choice they have, which is ultimately a risk/benefit analysis. Personally I couldn't give a rats turd that Drug Company X is offering such and such over Drug Company Y - I recommend what I consider to be the best drug choice, balancing safety, efficacy, and cost. Of course the fact that drug licencing means that a drug is allowed to be manufactured by generic companies after a certain time, thus effectivly nulling the profits of the drug manufacturing company doesn't enter into your arguement.

The data on ceasation of taking the SSRIs (that's Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, acronym fans) is pretty damn thorough. It's well known that it can lead to withdrawal symptoms - that's why the doses are tapered when people come off them.

And before you go quoting your crazy cannabal man, if he's got manic episodes to trigger, then he shouldn't have been taking an antidepressant. The treatment of even bi-polar disorder is significantly different from plain old depression. As for misdiagnosis, it happens. Of course it happens - human error can never be removed. What we have and are constantly trying to achieve is the safest system possible, to make sure those cases are as limited as possible.

This is becoming incessantly a strawman argument.

Furthmore, I understand the trials, but what you seem oblivious to are the other factors. Vioxx went through 3 years of testing and was put out on the market before testing was complete. And yes, a small percentage of people committed suicide due to anti depressants.

Here is where the straw man comes in, my argument WAS NOT that all pharmaceutical drugs should be pulled, it's just that there is strong hypocracy when it comes to drugs like prozac verses marijuana. Marijuana can and has been used medically as an anti cepressant, and it certainly doesn't trigger suicide or cannibalistic fantasies.

So, this is my point, in showing how difficult it is for legal drugs to get on the market, how much of a trial it is, how much they keep count of the risks and benefits, how much they are careful over the side effects and how much scrutiny every drug is given, can you not agree it'd be more beneficial to keep marijuana legal so that it, and it's vendors were kept under the same scrutiny?

This is where I will again list the benefits of marijuana:

Medical:

*Relieves glaucoma build up behind the eyes

*Takes some of the edge off chemo-therapy side-effects.

*General mild pain reliever

*Battles eating disorders

Those are the four main reasons here in Marin County, California, medical marijuana is legal. That means if you are over the age of 18 and have been prescribed marijuana treatement by a doctor, and have your medical marijuana card, no police officer of any city in this county will arrest you for usage of marijuana. It also means you can purchase Marijuana at the Cannabis club.

Now for the recreational benefits:

* Relaxation, stress reliever, etcetera (already more beneficial than hundreds of other legal substances with more risk)

*Trigger openness and confidence in a more clear headed manner than alcohol

Imagine, for a moment, if marijuana was legal for medical purposes in the United States. There would be less organized crime, less young people slipping away into harder drugs, similar warning signs about the proper usage and dosage, more availability to find out if you should or should not be using it, less usage of more dangerous drugs such as alcohol or cigerettes, and lastly, a lot more useless people because of the small percentage that will overdo it and act washed all the time.

Keep it legal? It's not legal where I am. And personally I don't think that it ever should be. Control and regulation of a substance isn't a justifiable reason on it's own to make something legal. There are other considerations, which I've already put.



I'm suprised you didn't bring up the supposed benefits in muscle pain for MS patients, that's always popular. The fact is that the research done into cannabis has...some evidence that these may be right. But the majority of it is anecdotal, and not of a particularly high standard. Plus all things you've stated have treatments currently that have been shown to work, with very good evidence - treatments that work better than cannabis. Of course with that you've also got a drug that lists slurred speech, sedation, blurred vision and dizziness as part of the package, the increased risk of heart disease, and all the other fun that cannabis smoking brings - going beyond THC you've got all the other junk that goes into those joints.



I can't say I've ever tried it, so how if it relaxes you or de-stresses you I don't know. I don't think though that just because something relaxes or de-stresses you (or indeed triggers openess) that it's a reason to legalise it, given the other implications of the substance. I don't think it's more beneficial, and the less risk part - well, nah, I don't really agree with that either.



I disagree; I can't see organised crime being lowered, the information out there about it (you're always going to have interest groups no matter what that distort/lie), I can't see people going 'Oh, I think I'll smoke a joint instead of having a drink' - more likely they'd do both, and I'm not really sure what your point about the useless people is. Having more useless people isn't a good thing.

At the end of the day, every arguement that has so far been put forward for legalisation has ultimately come down to people believing that they've the right to choose if they can harm not just their body, but also the bodies of others. There is, in my opinion, no justification for the legalisation of cannabis.

Yeah, I should probably withdraw from this discussion, but against my better judgement I'll keep arguing.

You keep talking about how all the risks and benefits should be accumulated, and yet you claim I believed stress relief was ENOUGH to legalize it, again drawing a strawman. Stree relief is merely a plus.

Organized crime is different from regular crime, and of COURSE it would lower organized crime. Marijuana is their gateway product, from where the start is to gain all there other users. Again I say for the second time, look what happened to organized crime after alcohol was legalized. It flourished during prohibition, and now it's a shell, surviving only as columbian cocaine cartels and such. The only reason marijuana is a gateway drug is because it's illegal, and yet at the same time mostly harmless. Because of those two factors, not only are kids non-reluctant to try it (expecially at an age where it's important for them to test boundaries and enforce their individuality) but they're also inadvertantly forming connections to other illegal drugs just by smoking it, only because it's illegal.

And I wasn't saying more useless people was a good thing, it was mostly a test to prove you've spun me into the label of the "pro lobby" where I can say nothing bad against marijuana. That's not true, I believe people who smoke too much become useless human beings until they stop for a long period of time. I, and most of my friends, smoke responsibly, it's not hard.

So yeah, I've repeated myself enough for one argument.

Marijuana can be harmfull, irresponsibly used it can cause harm to the user and those around him/her. I think we can all agree on this.

Foster would refuse to allow this. He would authorize his government to have this power over him and others.

I think things have to be somewhat more nuanced. I do not beleive the government has the right to ban something simply because it isn't healthy. I also do not beleive something should be banned because there is a slight chance it will cause someone else harm.

Many products in our modern world are dangerous if abused. Few people have tendancies toward abuse. The factors that lead to substance abuce problems are complicated. Understanding these factors and designing rational therapies is needed.

Part of the role of government IMO is to invest in research, another part is to ensure honest buisiness among citizens. Government should not be allowed to legislate health.
So what about choosing to use a product with known risks?

Just an interesting observation. When it comes to marihuana, I keep reading of organized crime and violence and stuff like that. I'm a bit surprised. Where I come from, most of the "dope" comes from people that drive over to Holland and buy it in coffee shops, and smuggle it back here in shall we say rather creative ways. Through the treaty of Schengen, there shouldn't be border controls at the borders of the member countries of the EU anymore, but there are lots of controls around the "green" borders of Holland

Yeah, a few guys are selling stuff in the parks and they play cat & mice with the police, but I don't know of anyone stupid enough to ever buy any dope that way. Most people I know that smoke get their stuff through friends. Buying from a real life drug dealer...nah. You never know what's in their stuff. You keep your hands away from that.

I can only speculate that it must have been similar during the time of prohibition in the US: you'd only buy booze from someone you'd trust. The risk would have been to high: you'd have bought from someone who you trusted not to mess up the distillation.


Also, another observation on this gateway stuff: perhaps it's just that things are different here, that drug dealers don't play as important a role as elsewhere, but I've never in my life heard of anyone who started with marihuana and ended up with crack or cocaine or something icky like that. Perhaps having an alternative means of getting their dope meant they never got into a situation where they got tempted to try that [censored]?

Oh, and one other thing. Marihuana is not legal where I live. But if you get caught with less than 5g of it, usually that means they take that away from you and most of the time just send you on your way. Obviously, it's not considered that horrible a drug anymore .

I thought my point was clear with that, that legalising it there will be a certain amount of irresponsible people who will abuse, over dose, and any more number of things making it dangerous to themselves and others.

Although I do agree with Alexander on the point that atleast then the Trade can be regulated. Its a complicated issue.

Late reply to that I know, this forum moves really fast : /

Overdose? How's that work with marihuana?

Yes,i do. IRRESPONSIBLY is the key word here.


That is true,.There are a lot of controls in Nederland,not only Holland.
Holland is a region in Nederland,that rougly translated would mean ''hollowed land''.It's a region than includes Amsterdam,and area around Amsterdam
BTW where are you living?
5 grams and no fine?
Not even a warning?Well,it's a posibility that your country will legalise marijuana too,judging by their aditude .In my former country,it's a prison fine i think.But police is always taking bribes (just buy them a beer and they're happy),but that's another story


You mentioned over-dose.Over-dose with marijuana isn't posible.It's posible with a heroin or such stuff.When you smoke too much (speaking from personal experience),you will get very sleepy.Then you go to your bed,and wake up in the morning(basicly it's the same as with alcohol,exept you don't have a bad headache). So much about lethal danger to yourself by over-dose.It can however be dangerous to yourself in other ways,mentioned several times in this thread.

The post above answers your question.There is no real over-dose.

Actually, I don't know anyone for the past several centuries that has referred to that part of the country as Holland. There are two provinces that do have holland in their name yes, north and south holland.

ah, and not to nitpick, but...



/end offtopicness



as to the overdose thing, one can no more overdose on marihuana then one can on cigarettes

[offtopic]
Yeah,thanks for the heads up
I see you gave me that quote from wikipedia article (reading it right now )
I'm still fresh to your country and i don't really know a lot about your history.....But learning!
[/offtopic]

As for over-dose:well it wasn't the same when i smoked too much cigarettes and when i smoked too much marijuana.It's more acurate to compare it with alcohol i think.

hmm legalize it and drug bosses will loose big gains.
legalize it to empower governments, in some cases blind-headed war machines who will use the money, and that's for sure, for a crusade to get get even more cash.

Let it as it is. People will smoke, dumb people will continue (same as nikotin, alk, opium, no difference, really), smart ones will quit.

What's my point? None. As in maybe 200 years, people will quarrel on the legalization of silicium joints, gamma-radiation plaster or... vacuum shocks.

Not overdose cigarrettes? Well....actually I think it can be done! Imagine you´re having a reeeally big party, lots of booze and therefore lots of cigarrettes..at least if you´re a smoker!

Now..in the morning the non-smoker have a hangover..that´s it, but the smoker! He has a hangover AND a throat that feels as if it´s covered with the skin of a hairy pig!

OK OK....you probably don´t die of smoking too many cigarrettes on one time but you certainly feel........baaaaaad.....ick! (believe me....I´ve tried!)

You can only overdose on nicotine if you smoke, use patches and chew the gum at the same time, all far in excess of what you want to do.

See, your body runs a lot of stuff across nicotinic receptors in the... anyway, you can get muscle paralysis or have a heart attack. Either way you've pretty much got to be aiming to do that, and if I were going to OD on a drug, that wouldn't be my choice.

I know that's off topic, but I thought that fell into the 'public information' category of feeling-obliged-to-tell-peopleness.

God, imagine the addict, 6 cigerettes in his mouth at a time, plus like ten patches. I wonder if it's possible to become immune to nicotine's poisonous effects?

Sorry for the Grave-Digging people.

I quit smoking marijuana seven years ago. I WAS a pothead. Pothead refers to the 'chronic' use of Weed for recreational purposes.

MARIJUANA IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE!!!!!...psychologically, yes. In fact there is no SHRED of MODERN scientific evidence that supports this outdated and biased theory. I can tell you from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that anyone who tells you this is full of it.

Anyone who has never done Cannabis and tells you that it is bad for you, is like a Virgin telling you that Sex can get you STDs!!!

Yes you can get STD's from sex, but if you're careful and smart, the chances of that are practically nil. Same concept with weed. Lung Cancer you say? You're far more likely to get lung cancer living in city with all the car exhaust constantly in the air then from somking a little bit each day. Hey! Lets make internal combustion engines illegal!!! They Kill people! They promote suffering and death! And if you disagree with me you support terrrorists and the devil!!

For those who dont support the Legaliztion of weed, fine. Thats your opinion, you are entitled to it, heck you're even in the majority right now. But having been a Pothead, a heavy drinker, and current ciggarette smoker, I would tell you that of these three things, I would firstly wish that none of these things would enter my childrens lives, but knowing that they will be their own people, with their own choices to make, I would far rather they took up weed which is currently illegal in the states, then alcohol or ciggarettes, which are currently legal.

I say this from my own personal experiences, having walked the path, rather then having someone else tell it to me. I know which of these things is the far lesser evil, and it shames me to live in a world where we would promote drugs in the first place, and then promote ones that are actually addictive over one that hardly qualifies as a drug.....

Now to reveal the libertarian I am....

At the risk of looking like a pinko left-wing bleeding liberal communist, I am all for the legalization within the limits you gave. I don't do it myself and never well because of my quasi-straight edge philosophy (no casual sex, no alcohol, no smoking) and asthma. However, I have nothing against others using it. As far as psychoactive drugs go, marijuanna is relatively innocent. It clouds your judgement, true, but hardly to the extent of alcohol. If it was legalized, at least production could be monitored so people don't lace it with PCP, LSD, and other wacko hallucinogens. Really, pot isn't that much of a threat. At the most, it makes someone really hungry and lazy.

Besides, people would have much less incentive to commit drug related crimes pertaining to marijuanna, and there'd be less people in jail. It's ridiculous that there's tons of people in jail for drug charges. No wonder there's an overcrowding problem...

For those who say "all drugs should be illegalized," by saying that you include caffiene as well, which is a psychoactive drug under stimulants with amphetamine, methamphetamine, and various perscription drugs that treat ADD/ADHD (which is also fairly harmless), not to mention various pain killers (opiates) that makes recovering from surgery, even dental work less of a nightmare. Just saying, you should do a little research before saying things like that

I love grave-diggers that bring up good topics. I'd like to reform my argument since I'm not a medical expert and most of what I blabbered was compassion I read, and as I learned from trying to find a good way to flush your system (I have a drug test on Monday) you can't trust anything you read.

So I have only one real argument in favor of its legalization. We live in a liberal country, not liberal as in what conservatives call anyone who disagrees with them, but liberal as in the founding fathers based most of this nation on John Locke's principles. He stole his principles from the native americans, but that's another story.

But anyway, under the orginal intent of the constitution, and under the founding philosophy of this nation, marijuana must remain legal. Technically, since the constitution (including the bill of rights) supercede all laws post-dating it, marijuan still is legal because it's unconstitutional to make it illegal, so after the porhibition when congress decided to try and ban something else since alcohol backfired, they were all actually breaking the law.

If you want marijuana to be illegal, perhaps you would be happier living in a fascist nation. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Woah, sorry about that admins, my internet was being a real dilwad so I kept hitting refresh and... it reposted it for each one


Excess posts removed! (minque)

This was a pretty strange poll. Do you think drugs should be legal? Do you? Marijuana is way more dangerous than smoking. It does alot of damage. It should be illegal everywhere. I don't care what people say. Drugs are bad.

[rant]
I live in the Netherlands, and I'm sick and tired of tourists coming all this way to our insignificant corner of the world only because 'we have legalized drugs'. Which basically means that we only get the sort of tourism that we really don't need. It's the only sort of tourism, in fact, because there's nothing else of 'interest' here.

Also, when on the rare occassion that I visit our capital city, I hate it that I smell marihuana on every corner of the street. It stinks. Literally. It's one of the main reasons that I hate Amsterdam.

So, I think it's clear that I'm against legalization. I feel terrible when I'm visiting other countries, and people ask me where I come from. "Oh? You're from Holland? What with the drugs and all?" and then they look at me like I'm some sort of criminal, while personally I never touched anything remotely drug-like accept limited amounts of alcohol every now and then.
[/rant]

For one thing, drugs don't have any good points once you get hooked. They do nothing but ruin people. Frankly I don't like the liberal-conservative arguing on whether doing or not doing things are totally const. or unconstional. Somethings should be looked at with an unbiased case-by-case basis.

George Washington was against America being split into political parties in the first place, but it happened anyway. I disagree with a lot of the limitations placed on the legal situation (double jeopardy), but the point is, I do not believe marijuana should be legal for the overall degradory effect it has on society.

PS: I know how that side of things feel, sometimes I feel like I'm the only person my age in my school who has a set attitude of decency while everyone else is either egotistic, profane, or whatever. Before I rant further, I'll stop here.

As for drinking, I personally I'm never going to drink when I become of legal age. Why whould I be scrambling over myself to taste this thing that other kids my age who've taken a sip say tastes disgusting anyway? I'll stick with the stuff I don't have to aquire a taste for or possibly abuse (sodas).
The problem with alcaholism is that we've seen that Temprance (sp.) doesn't work and never accomplishes it's goal. It's too entrenched in society to simply be removed overnight. As for the drugs that simply make its way to dealers in the U.S., it causes violence and greed in the countries it's grown in before it even gets to the addicts.

From the whole angle alcahol can be made without forcing people to work like slaves, hiring private armies to protect facilities where it's made, etc. In that regard while alcahol is more widespread, it ends up killing a smaller percentage of the people involved (not just the people addicted).

I think you might be mistaken. I'm no expert of course, but I do believe smoking is quite a bit more damaging to the body then marijuana. I'm also pretty sure it's more addicting. Now of curse that all depends on how often you use the stuff, I mean smoking weed daily will likely get you addicted to it very fast.



Being from the Netherlands myself, I recognize the stigma. I was in Orlando recently and one of the first comments I got after telling someone from the hotel I was staying in, that I was from the Netherlands was a comment on drugs. At the same time though, I wonder if it's something that we're to blame for, or that others are to blame for? What I mean is, just because we're the only country that has legalized weed, or one of very few countries who have, does that mean we automatically qualify as a drug country? Does that mean the most interesting and memorable thing about our country is drugs? Or does it mean it simply sticks with people, perhaps even because people don't look beyond something like that?

If I were to venture an educated guess, I'd guess the latter.

I believe I've mentioned this somewhere earlier in this thread, I'm very liberal minded in quite a few things, I'm in favor of legalization on soft drugs (weed, hash), I'm in favor of Euthanasia, gay marriage, equal rights to everyone no matter the race, color, sex or sexual preference etc. I've felt that way for quite a while and still do.


Without even going into the arguments supporting legalized soft drugs, could someone explain to me why that in so many countries is not allowed, and frowned upon, while alcohol and tobacco are so commonly accepted into our culture? I really don't understand that. Looking at things like alcohol induced deaths, damages done to the body because of smoking or drinking and so much more, I really don't understand the crusade against soft drugs. (Hard drugs is an entirely different matter of course.)

I'd just like to make one little point of this;

It's only the industrialized, chemical sprayed, nictonie and hundreds of other toxin induced, tobacco that's bad for your health. Namely the way cigarette's are made. My grandfather smoked a tobacco pipe using tobacco he grew in his own back yard with no ill effect.

Just though I'd point it out that it's not tobbaco that's bad for you.

Tobbacco is bad for you, nicotine is a strong carcinogen and it has varius other unpleasant compounds in it as well as being quite addictive. Smoking is also bad for you because smoke is full of all sorts of nasty things (due to partial combustion) so smoking weed or tobacco are both bad for you. The main difference is that weed isn't addicive.

I would be for legalisation but not from the point of view of taking more, its easy enough to get anyway and legal or not I only have the occasional cake. Making it more availible would cut excessive drinking (which is very common here) and reduce the problems it causes.

There's also the matter that if someone wants to do something which doesn't hurt anyone else its their own business. Soft drugs don't hurt anyone. In fact I'd argue weed is less harmful to others than alcohol (compare bar brawls to sitting looking confused in a corner).

As said very addictive or damaging drugs are a different matter.

When I think of Holland, I think of Cassis and small towns or villages with houses that have signs up reading "te verhuur", and ads that say "Bellen & Surfen" which to me as a German sounds very funny.

Marijuana is not the killer it is made out in Reefer Madness. But it is also not harmless. No drug is harmless. What is necessary is a differentiated look at these things instead of emotional black- or whitewashing.

Marijuana differs from other drugs in a number of ways. When you use something like heroin, the effects will be quite obvious in a rather short time. You'll feel the physical need for more, you get the shakes and you feel horrible - you're addicted and you suffer from withdrawel, and your entire life focuses on getting more, no matter by what means. You'll degrade yourself without hesitation for just one more fix, hell, you might even turn violent.

Marijuana isn't like that. For one it's not as harmful, there's no physical addiction and it doesn't destroy your body like hard drugs. But don't kid yourself, it does change you. It does affect you. Maybe not if you just smoke a joint every now and then, but if you're a regular customer, your life will change in ways you don't even notice.

Trouble with abusing any drug, no matter which, is that quite often you end up using it to push aside what you perceive as problems in your life. You don't see it that way, you might think you're just doing it to relax, but in the life of most people there comes a time when they realize what has been going on in their life, and then, from one day to the next they'll just stop because they realize they've been wasting a lot of their life and they haven't done what they should've done because instead of solving their problems they ignored them. But if you just ignore your problems, whatever they be, they won't go away, they'll just accumulate.

Now you might say if you know that you can make an informed decision and take the risk. But this effect comes so slow and is so subtle you forget all about it. It doesn't destroy your life or anything like that, but it's bad.


I'm still pro legalization because it doesn't make sense to me that people are allowed to buy alcohol but not weed, and you can get it easily enough anyway. However I'd also be for strict age control, because in the hands of adolescents, weed does real and serious danger.

Once again on the subject of alcahol, the Temprance measures (the U.S.) attempted never worked because people would pay more money for it and make some at home (which lead in many cases to alcahol poisoning).

As far as America goes, alcahol is too deep to be taken away by a simple ban. Both good-quality alcaholic beverages and cigarettes are were (and in some ways still are) symbols of prestige.

I personally wouldn't care if alcahol or cigarettes were banned, no skin off my bone, but it's probably not ever going to happen.

PS: How about this? People shouldn't use drugs recreationally, but good luck stopping them.

And, once again on the subject of Americans and drugs, the drug running in South America probably leads to more damage to everyone involved (the involuntary workers, governments, private armies, AND the addicts) than fatalities due to getting drunk.

1. that's almost exclusively hard drugs, which this thread isn't about.
2. you're wrong. Alcohol causes many many deaths every year, mostly due to massive organ damage caused by long term alcohol abuse.

I am not in favor of legalization of marijuana and in fact, due to the fact that I now spend my work days selling cigarettes at 7/11 to people with young children and even pregnant woman - I'd like to see people with young children legally only be allowed to buy chewing tobacco (thereby poisoning only themselves but not their innocent offspring) and for it to be totally illegal to sell alcohol or tobacco to a pregnant woman (thereby not contributing to harming the unborn child.) My thoghts, though I have to make regretful sales to these people.

I think that if smoking tobacco is legal, cannabis should also be legal. From what I've seen, (I have friends who occasionally use, though I've never gotten high myself) the drug itself is no worse than tobacco. So rather than keep it illegal, which only encourages the various ills an illicit economy can foster, I say that it should be legal and regulated much in the same way that cigarettes and booze are.

Edit: My idea of regulation includes bans on smoking in public buildings, restaurants, that sort of thing. Second-hand smoke is a terrible thing... cigarette smoke quite literally disgusts me.

Personally, I think that mirijuana should be legal. Its not exactly a "safe" drug as some may say, in fact it may be worse for you in some aspects. The difference being that the average cannabis user smokes much less than the average cigarette smoker does so the effects are not so frequently noticed. It has also been linked by some studies to psychiactric problems as well.


And also,


That being quoted, I still feel that it should be legalized because I believe that you should have freedom of choice. The dangerous effects of it aren't quite so dramatic as long-term alcohol abuse or cigarette use in most cases but it is still quite dangerous if used too often. It has also been grouped close to caffeine in terms of addiction. I personally don't see much point in prohibiting its use since most people that want to try it don't have to try hard.

You've got a point.

By the way, I'm liberal minded too when it comes to euthanasia. Abortion, even. Not because I think it's a good thing that everyone can run around mindlessly having sex with everyone else without wondering about the consequences, but merely because it's tragic that some women become pregnant after being raped. And also because accidents happen, and those accidents may in some cases destroy relationships and lives. Is that ethical? Yes, it is in the way I view it, but I'll stop before we have a discussion about this completely off-topic idea.

Still, I'm against legalization. It's more of a feeling than an actual well-founded opinion though. I generally don't like the type of people who use drugs, specially not the sort of people who think it's 'cool'. I just can't stand them. I'm fine with people frowning on us because we legalized gay marriage, but I do not wish to be frowned upon because some of our softdrugs are legal. Drugs are completely unneccesary, in my opinion, and if we had to vote to abolish them altogether, I would vote in favour. Although, some drugs, like marihuana, can also be used for medical treatment. That, of course, I'm not against.

Since people are bringing up political allignment, I'm pretty conservative (as some might notice). I wouldn't resort to demonizing drugs to eradicate recreational use altogether, as I wouldn't for gay marriage, or abortion, but I am resolute in not allowing such things to become the "norm" where I live.

I actually can accept the reasoning behind euthanasia, but that's about it. Like Ethelle, if a drug has real medicinal value it should be used as such, not as something to get high on.
There's too much money in alcahol and tobacco to get rid of it, but as I have said before, I have no reason for sorrow if someone actually accomplishes putting any of the above topics to an end. That is all I have to say.

No neutral option?

I don't care either way.

Concerning that, I think as with numerous other things, marijuana will strengthen behavioral patterns already in someone, perhaps dormant, or perhaps simply suppressed. So I think even the people doing the research would vouch it's not the best argument against Marijuana.






Fortunately, in many cases we can let our feelings guide us Personally, I've never been very fond of alcohol, smoking and such things, for any number of reason and greatly on a matter of principal. But while I might discuss it with others, I've always believed to each their own.

As to users, that's a complicated issue.

I've been around blowers for the majority of my life, older and younger cousins doing it, friends doing it, and I've seen some very different cases.
One friend who's been doing it for as long as I know him, with absolutely no addiction or bad things coming from it. As far as I know that is as he doesn't really live next door
One family member who started it just to try it, and to whom it fast became a habit and beyond that even into a minor (if there is such a thing) addiction. Fortunately, after quite a bit of work he's been able to stop doing it.
One very good friend living nearby who's been on and off of the stuff for years now, for whom it's been completely innocent at times, and an addiction at other times. Adding to that the fact that he's struggling with pains and such, it will be a struggle if he'd ever want to completely stop doing it.
Another family member who used to do it somewhat frequently, then stopped overnight and hasn't touched it since.

And quite a few other cases I could mention, suffice to say though, all of those might have started as an experiment, but the reason they continued it always went beyond "trying to be cool" or something like that

As with so many other things, I think the important factor in whether or not things go bad, lies completely with the user. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is perhaps those people who say they use it to be cool, aren't being entirely sincere, and should you find their true reasons, it might be a surprise

Again, hard drugs and the likes I consider a totally different matter.

Well, I also read something today, if you're a human being on this plane of existence, you're 100% likely to die. Women over a certain age have an equal to completely same chance of knocking of this mortal coil, as a Bonobo in a Cayman Island Wildlife reserve.

Thats not all, it turns out living it up, may actually increase chances of magnitude of doom! The researchers stated that they would need more money before they could continue their research which was moved from Ashland, Oregon. USA to the Shores of Santa Monica beach.

No. I'm really sure about that marijuana is more dangerous. I really am. Believe me. It's proven, although I can't find it on the internet.