QUOTE(Foster @ Apr 26 2006, 08:53 PM)
I am 100% against the legalisation of cannabis, because of several factors. Firstly there is a mainstream misconception about the facts of what it can actually do to you. The health risks are purposefully played down by the pro-legalisation groups, when in fact the scientific evidence for their claims is spurious at best - they quote facts and figures and ignore other evidence, but then that's the same with all arguements. They say things like "There are myths that...", all to really further their own agenda. Really the internet is a terrible place to look for facts because there are the true, the dodgy, the downright dodgy, and the downright lies.
But you see there are billions of dollars made to manipulate evidence against the use of marijuana, and only the anti-marijuana groups are the ones that can actually make money by keeping it illegal.
QUOTE
Anyway, from my experience of users of it, I can say that they are generally ignorant of its effects. I know a few of them that even believe it's perfectly safe to drive after smoking the vile weed, and it isn't. They tend not to mention the fact that it can cause impotence, too. And there is a lot of emerging evidence which is indicating links to lung cancer (as with any burnt matter - that's right, BBQs can give you cancer), and also, in people who are more prone to psychosis, it can make it more likely to develop a psychotic episode.
That's heavily exaggerated. There are links between psyxhosis and marijuana like there are links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda, they're overplayed, there's not much to them, and their used for an agenda.
QUOTE
Medically, in my professional opinion there is no benefit of using cannabis over already licensed medications. Does it have medical benefit? Well, for every piece of evidence for, there is one against. I don't know. What I do know is that firstly there are alternatives, secondly those alternatives have undergone years of testing to make sure that they are as safe as possible (no drug is 100% safe, obviously, but as safe as possible), and thirdly those alternatives are legal, with good reporting mechanisms if there IS a problem - something that doesn't exist currently with street drugs for obvious reasons, meaning that the demonstration of safety evidence by the pro-legalisation lobby is, in my opinion, questionable.
What about the man that murdered, molested and had plans of eating a girl he kidnapped due to wild fantasties triggered by being on zoloft? Evidence is spilling out the walls of the major dangers of widestream antidepressants like xoloft, prozac, paxil, etcetera. Do you really think marijuana is less helthy than that? How about diet pills, which are basically legalized speed. Speed is a hard core drug on the streets, and yet they are manufactured and bought. How are medicines approved by the EPA any safer? I mean allergy medicines cause anal leakage for god sakes.
QUOTE
I think that the alcohol and smoking arguements are getting away from the point. Cannabis supporters use this to say 'well, why can't we do it too'. At the time, alcohol and smoking were believed to be harmless enough. Of course now we know the facts about smoking there is a great big line being drawn, the fallout being endless. Alcohol is something I have great experience of, and it's a major problem in society today. It's one of THE major problems in society, and will cause a lot of problems. However, I reckon that, positions reversed, it wouldn't be legalised today. The reason alcohol prohibition failed wasn't so much the fact that it was a forbidden fruit, it was more because there was already a demand for it; basically, people were already hooked. If the majority of people wern't drinkers, then it might not be legalised because of the dangers.
The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't, isn't because of the market out there for it, it's because this country, when it was a colony, was stapled by alcohol and tobacco. All other drugs were competition. That''s why they were illegalized.
QUOTE
Ultimately, a line has to be drawn. If Cannbis was legalised, then why not MDMA? People will start to say how much safer it would be if drugs were legal, because then there would be no tablets made from whatever crap the dealer has around, but rather through manufacturing standards. Ultimately the arguements used for cannabis legalisation could be converted until you can wonder into a corner shop and by some crack rocks, a few lines of cocaine, and a spoonful of methadone to wash it down. So where do you draw the line? Personally, I think that the line has been drawn in a sensible, reasonable place.
Marijuana is less dangerous than cigerettes, alcohol (by far), and all other drugs, even advil has a bigger health risks according to most studies. Why don't we draw the line by telling the EPA to stop allowing drugs that cause heart disease? Why don't we draw the line to illegalize ciggerettes? A line is not simple, if a line were to be reasonably drawn then drugs have to placed in reasonable positions. Cigerettes are mutagenic and carcenogenic, and the addicting is one that trains the cells to crave tobacco, which marijuana does not.
Hell, why even make acid illegal? Acid is less toxic than coffee or coke. Or Cocaince, cocaine is less dangerous to your health than many diet pills.
QUOTE
On an intresting aside, there is more than one way to take cannabis - you don't HAVE to smoke it. The resin is far more potent, and far more dangerous. And there is more than one form - Skunk, for example. These are other facts the pro lobby seem to airbrush over.
Not at all, people who want pot to be legalized STRESS these things.
On one hand I'm kind of glad marijuana is illegal, because it adds to the rebelliousness, it keeps it interesting.