Marijuana is good for you.

[Fenguin]

Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain

A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain.

In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning, memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.

They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?

A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this cell growth that caused Prozac’s anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the rats for behavioural changes.

When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress, they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth might be responsible for the behavioural changes.

In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington DC in November.

Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question of how they behave in humans.

Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.

Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation (DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)

----------
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8155&feedId=online-news_rss20
----------

OMFG OMFG OMFG.

[Hawthorne]

That just seems so...... well boring and dull and not ture, yet it seems somehow strange to me :P

[Basan]

Now I can get 'that' excuse needed to smoke it... only wonder if the police will let it sizzle by (if done in their faces), though. :D

[Nuts]

I wish people would stop trying to justify this shit. If you're going to smoke pot, please do so without the shameless boasting.

Good, Bad or indifferent, you're going to smoke it anyway, and when you fail the piss test for your new job, don't come running to me for sympathy.

[Schwitzer]

Pass me the joint, Fenguin.

On a serious note:
Good, Bad or indifferent, you're going to smoke it anyway, and when you fail the piss test for your new job, don't come running to me for sympathy.
I've forgotten... how long after you've smoked marijuana does it show up in a urine test? The figure four months is floating around, but I'm not sure if that's just my mind desperately trying to pretend it's remembered it.

Not that it'd concern me even if it showed up 21 years after smoking it ;)

[Black.Ice]

I hear it's much longer than that, but that's just what I've heard. I may be wrong though.

And Nuts, I agree with you completely.

[BlackHawk]

What jobs do piss tests? Well, what part-time jobs do piss tests (that's the only type of work I'm doing right now).

[Mattimeo]

So marijuana makes you more relaxed and less suceptible to stress? What is new about that? That's exactly what everybody knew the effects were, that's not a big deal.

~Don't Panic

[GrassDragon]

Duh?..

[hammocksleeper]

for a urinanalysis thc stays in your blood for, on average, maybe three or four weeks

there's a lot of stuff you can do to get it out of your system faster. it also depends on the type of piss test they use, many of them can't detect small amounts, and the ones that can are often prohibitively expensive.

[BlackHawk]

there's a lot of stuff you can do to get it out of your system faster.

Drinking lots of water maybe?

[hammocksleeper]

Drinking lots of water maybe?

more like watching what you eat, there are also some specifically-designed cocktails you can take, some of them work and some of them don't. a lot of exercise also helps. the only time water is going to help you is the day of the test, you want to drink up to dilute the urine, and then take some vitamin b to give it a yellow color so the testing dude doesnt reject it

[Fenguin]

Piss tests suck. You can fail them if you eat poppy seeds.

[Black.Ice]

What jobs do piss tests? Well, what part-time jobs do piss tests (that's the only type of work I'm doing right now).

Most jobs I'm applying for require it. Government jobs (obviously), banks, etc. etc. Basically, most big companies that offer part-time office job require it. Well, atleast here in Utah.

[Kingscrab]

I wonder how many work days are lost due to alcohol/hangovers, as compared to those lost because of marajuana use. Piss tests for jobs are such a sham.

[Geckat]

So marijuana makes you more relaxed and less suceptible to stress? What is new about that? That's exactly what everybody knew the effects were, that's not a big deal.

Exactly what I was thinking. I don't smoke pot, or cigarettes, or even drink. And I've only gone insane once. That's got to count for something, right? Even if mary-jane does 'supposedly' promote positive growth, you won't find it in your local IDA any time soon. A small amount of alcohol is also good for your brain, but Medi Plus doesn't have Molssen stacked on the isles, does it?

My favorite news article shown on WB is still the squid one :) .

[Nuts]

What jobs do piss tests? Well, what part-time jobs do piss tests.
I do. I'll explain why later.

Drinking lots of water maybe?
Nope, diluted results are almost as bad as a positive.

Piss tests suck. You can fail them if you eat poppy seeds.
Modern drug testing will detect the difference between poppys and true illicit drugs.

I wonder how many work days are lost due to alcohol/hangovers, as compared to those lost because of marijuana use. Piss tests for jobs are such a sham.
Marijuana is illegal, no? So if a potential employee tests positive for an illegal substance, would you want that individual working for you? If they're willing to break the law in this area, what other laws are they willing to break?

And yes, marijuana is a contributing factor in workplace accidents, anywhere from 7-10% depending on the few studies that exist. Alcohol is much more prevalent due to the obvious legal nature of the substance. However, it is true that a person whom smokes marijuana is much more likely to abuse alcohol, which leads us back to an unsafe work environment. I don't care if you smoke it and enjoy it at home, you're breaking the law because you care more about getting high than you do about legalities. Tell me why I should hire someone who cares more for themselves than the law. There are plenty of other people out there whom want and need a job that do respect the law, and I would much rather have them on my payroll.

Edit: When the day comes that marijuana is made legal (if and when,) I will consider it just as I do alcohol. If I suspect your using on the job, you're fired (assuming I can prove it,) otherwise keep it at home. But until such a time comes, it's still illegal and a certain disqualifier from employment at my office.

[Darmago]

Stress and Anxiety arnt necesarily bad...

a little of it is what drives you to do better, too much of it is what drives you to go to sleep...

Wisdom (http://www.illwillpress.com/drugs.html)

'nuff said.

Strong language and opinions, just in case you might get mad at me.

[Glad_2_bestoned]

I wish people would stop trying to justify this shit. If you're going to smoke pot, please do so without the shameless boasting.

Good, Bad or indifferent, you're going to smoke it anyway, and when you fail the piss test for your new job, don't come running to me for sympathy.

seriously.

[Xenon]

:( I guess I can't go to work for Nuts.

Marijuanna is being decriminalized here in Canada. The cops won't bust you if you stand on a streetcorner and blow mary jane all up in their faces. Marijuanna has been decriminalized over most of Europe as well. It's only logical.

Alcohol, Tobacco, and caffeine have as bad, or worse, side effects as marijuanna. It's hypocritical to allow those drugs, and not THC.

You can drink and get violent and abusive, but god help you if you smoke and get mellow and happy.

Just another small reason why I enjoy living where I do.

[WeekendLazyness]

Alcohol, Tobacco, and caffeine have as bad, or worse, side effects as marijuanna. It's hypocritical to allow those drugs, and not THC.Agreed. Just think of the tax revenue the U.S. would generate through legal marijuana sale.

[Muse]

What jobs do piss tests? Well, what part-time jobs do piss tests (that's the only type of work I'm doing right now).

Mine does. And people I know who smoke pot are fucktards. You mention anything that is synonymous to drugs in any way they might know and they get all super-giddy, happy, and excited like "OMG DRUGS OMG YEAH I WANT SOME WEED MAN.". All I do is roll my eyes and shake my head at this road of stupidity down which society is traveling.

I'm all for the legalisation of marijuana if it will get you people to shut up.

[Xenon]

Mine does. And people I know who smoke pot are fucktards. You mention anything that is synonymous to drugs in any way they might know and they get all super-giddy, happy, and excited like "OMG DRUGS OMG YEAH I WANT SOME WEED MAN.". All I do is roll my eyes and shake my head at this road of stupidity down which society is traveling.

I'm all for the legalisation of marijuana if it will get you people to shut up.

Meanwhile... Flak's avatar is the Prozac mascot... talk about hypocrisy and a drug dependant fcuktard...

Xenon 1
Flak 0

[Muse]

Meanwhile... Flak's avatar is the Prozac mascot... talk about hypocrisy and a drug dependant fcuktard...

Xenon 1
Flak 0

That's Zoloft, which I don't take, dumbfuck.

Flak 1
Xenon 0

And I'm not opposed to weed, I'm opposed to people who obsess over it.

[Xenon]

Ah yes... Zoloft, the Prozac knock-off.

So... you're a cheap fcuktard instead of a hypocrite.

[Aquarian]

Ow...You want us to have drugs?

[Muse]

Ah yes... Zoloft, the Prozac knock-off.

So... you're a cheap fcuktard instead of a hypocrite.

And you're just a complete idiot, expressing anger at someone who hadn't even acknowledged your presence until you started hurling insults at him. Good job.

"Let's start a flame war!" Or not.

Anyway, if anyone failed to notice, which I'm sure all of you did, this is a synthetic chemical. Just sitting around smoking regular pot won't help your brain, sorry.

[Nuts]

Alcohol, Tobacco, and caffeine have as bad, or worse, side effects as marijuanna. It's hypocritical to allow those drugs, and not THC.

Edit: When the day comes that marijuana is made legal (if and when,) I will consider it just as I do alcohol. If I suspect your using on the job, you're fired (assuming I can prove it,) otherwise keep it at home. But until such a time comes, it's still illegal and a certain disqualifier from employment at my office.

For clarity, so nobody thinks I am a complete square.

[Darmago]

Everything out of moderation is bad for you.

To little oxygen, you die. However if there is too much oxygen you get poisoned by it.
To little water you die of thirst, too much you drown.

There is a moderation of everything in which it remains good for you, but in excessive amounts it is not.

[Kingscrab]

Marijuana is illegal, no? So if a potential employee tests positive for an illegal substance, would you want that individual working for you? If they're willing to break the law in this area, what other laws are they willing to break? . So, just because someone smokes pot on their leisure hours they have the potential to be uber-criminals who will rip off your company? Yeah, I guess we must assume that everyone who applies for a job automaticly becomes suspect regardless? Thus they ALL must be tested? It's Insulting. I don't care if you smoke it and enjoy it at home, you're breaking the law because you care more about getting high than you do about legalities. . Apparently you DO care. If they test positive then they should be denied a job... EVEN if they only use it at home. So, every adult that consumes a beer that is under age 21 should all be fired from their jobs because they might drink on the job, right? Clearly the potential is there, since they broke the law by abusing alcohol while being underage.

If someone uses pot on the job, then yeah, their ass should get fired.
Of someone drinks on the job, then their ass should get fired.

Pretty simple. I see no need to infringe on people's rights in such a way.

[Xenon]

Face it Nuts. You are square. :D

Kingscrab makes a good point. Just because you do something that shouldn't be illegal, but is, in the privacy of your own home doesn't mean you are automatically headed for the big house later in life.

I bet even you Nuts have done some things of "questionable legality" in your life.

Besides, you already spy on your employees with hidden cameras, so shouldn't that be enough?

[Nuts]

So, just because someone smokes pot on their leisure hours they have the potential to be uber-criminals who will rip off your company?
Yes. Everyone has the potential to break the law, but those whom have already show their willingness to break said laws are more likely to break others, it's rather sound logic.

Yeah, I guess we must assume that everyone who applies for a job automatically becomes suspect regardless? Thus they ALL must be tested? It's Insulting.
No, it's insulting when people don't understand breaking the law is not a debatable subject. If you disagree with the law, fight to change it, otherwise you are subject scrutiny just like any other person. I don't have a place for law breakers in my company when there are plenty of other candidates that can demonstrate the ability to control their actions.

Apparently you DO care. If they test positive then they should be denied a job... EVEN if they only use it at home. So, every adult that consumes a beer that is under age 21 should all be fired from their jobs because they might drink on the job, right?
Correct. Unfortunately I do not have the legal ability to test for such abuses.

Pretty simple. I see no need to infringe on people's rights in such a way.
Engaging in illegal activities is not a right. You have no right to work for my company if you fail to demonstrate the proper qualifications. The biggest qualification for employment with my company is adherence to the law. If you engage in criminal activity, you have no right to be employed by me.

I think you should redirect your frustration towards the laws. If I were in Canada, I wouldn't have a problem with an employee whom smoked marijuana. Think about it.

I bet even you Nuts have done some things of "questionable legality" in your life.
You bet. That doesn't preclude me from learning from those mistakes and applying those lessons to my employment practices.

Besides, you already spy on your employees with hidden cameras, so shouldn't that be enough?
Spying would indicate that the employees are unaware of the monitoring, which isn't the case. Besides, it's absolulely 100% legal.

And I'm no square. More of a rectangle.

[TimP]

Just because you think it shouldn't be illegal doesn't make it any less illegal. The law stands and whining about it isn't going to change it. As far as I'm concerned they should keep it this way.

EDIT: As Nuts nicely phrased it:
No, it's insulting when people don't understand breaking the law is not a debatable subject.

[Seal]

remember, laws are not static. they are to change with the times.

[Xenon]

Laws were meant to be broken. If they weren't, there wouldn't be penalties for breaking them. ;)

I don't trust people who are such sticklers for sticking to the letter of the law. I usually find that they break the worst and most morally reprehensible laws while keeping all of the petty ones that aren't really an issue.

In a word, such people are generally hypocrites. Not you though Ste...

[Nuts]

remember, laws are not static. they are to change with the times.
As would I, if and when those laws do change.

I don't trust people who are such sticklers for sticking to the letter of the law. I usually find that they break the worst and most morally reprehensible laws while keeping all of the petty ones that aren't really an issue.
I have no way of knowing this to be true or false, but it seems like a blanket generalization to me. I am using very practical screening procedures for my employment decisions. If and when I cannot find a qualified candidate that doesn't break the law, then I might be forced to lower my standards. Until that time, I see no reason.

[pixels]

personally i cant understand why cigarettes are legal and weed isnt.

[TimP]

I don't trust people who are such sticklers for sticking to the letter of the law. I usually find that they break the worst and most morally reprehensible laws while keeping all of the petty ones that aren't really an issue.

In a word, such people are generally hypocrites. Not you though Ste...
Speaking of hypocrites, I find it amusing that after you attack Nuts for generalizing marijuana users you go and make a sweeping, ignorant assumption about people who give a damn about the law.

[Nuts]

Speaking of hypocrites, I find it amusing that after you attack Nuts for generalizing marijuana users you go and make a sweeping, ignorant assumption about people who give a damn about the law.

Oh snap! ;)

On another note, I wouldn't mind seeing drugs legalized so long as there are some stiff penalties for those that abuse them, just as we do with alcohol. Unfortunately, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that laws are currently being broken.

[Muse]

Pretty simple. I see no need to infringe on people's rights in such a way.

There's an extent to which you can have a right to do things, but you have to draw the line somewhere, or society will become too unstructured and decay. As of right now the activity is illegal and there is no way around that fact.

[Kingscrab]

Yes. Everyone has the potential to break the law, but those whom have already show their willingness to break said laws are more likely to break others, it's rather sound logic. Don't employers already have the ability to do criminal background checks? You have no right to work for my company if you fail to demonstrate the proper qualifications. The biggest qualification for employment with my company is adherence to the law. If you engage in criminal activity, you have no right to be employed by me. Don't employers already have the ability to do criminal background checks? Engaging in illegal activities is not a right. You know I was refering to the right to privacy. You still have to have probable cause to search someone or their home. Why is someone's body any different? Would you let a policeman randomly search your home? Why not frisk every employee as they come into work? Seriously, what good does a piss test really do? So you've determined that Joe Schmoe has smoked pot. Big deal. Have you looked at his resume? You might be passing up a real catch. Is it now your civil duty to turn this awful "criminal" applicant in to the cops? I prefer to judge people on their proven work merit as opposed to their desire to roll a joint every now and then. I don't have a place for law breakers in my company when there are plenty of other candidates that can demonstrate the ability to control their actions. Don't employers already have the ability to do criminal background checks?
Don't employers have the ability to check work perfomance references?

Do you honestly think that a desire to smoke pot to relax in your off time has such a huge bearing on your desire (or ability) to be an effective worker if you really want to be? Would you want to be denied a job for driving 100 in a 50 zone? That's a "criminal" offense. Smoking pot is a lousy misdomeanor... Come on. It's a friggin witch hunt and you know it. Don't let your bias against that particular lifestyle cloud your judgement. (no pun intended) I don't smoke pot, but i have worked with PLENTY of "potheads" in my day who did their job just as well as the next guy... If they bring their habit in to work, it will be their last day on the job. If I were in Canada, I wouldn't have a problem with an employee whom smoked marijuana. Come on dude, who you kidding. We've already established your rectangularness... ;)

[Nuts]

Don't employers already have the ability to do criminal background checks? Don't employers already have the ability to do criminal background checks?
Don't employers already have the ability to do criminal background checks?
Don't employers have the ability to check work perfomance references?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

How does this affect a drug test? Just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean that you're innocent.

You know I was refering to the right to privacy.
You have no right to privacy, it doesn't exist. You won't find such a phrase in the Constitution for the very reason that such protections are too vague.

You still have to have probable cause to search someone or their home. Why is someone's body any different? Would you let a policeman randomly search your home?
Drug screenings are neither random nor unreasonable, and they certainly are not done without the applicants consent. Drug screenings are optional to the extent that if you don't want to take the drug test then you don't gain employment. Nobody is being forced to give up their privacy.

Why not frisk every employee as they come into work?
Because then I am performing an unreasonable search. If I were to tell my employees that they are subject to such searches in advance, then I would be warranted in such an endeavor. However, I don't see this as a necessary step....yet.

Seriously, what good does a piss test really do? So you've determined that Joe Schmoe has smoked pot. Big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal. Why are you minimizing the illegal aspect of smoking marijuana? This is a black and white issue, there is no gray area.

Have you looked at his resume? You might be passing up a real catch.
I doubt it. A real catch would be a law abiding citizen.

Is it now your civil duty to turn this awful "criminal" applicant in to the cops?
No, why would I do that? Drug screenings are private.

I prefer to judge people on their proven work merit as opposed to their desire to roll a joint every now and then.
And I prefer to judge people based on their character, which is largely dictated by their ability to adhere to the laws of the land.

Do you honestly think that a desire to smoke pot to relax in your off time has such a huge bearing on your desire (or ability) to be an effective worker if you really want to be?
You keep skirting the issue my friend. This isn't about rolling a blunt, it's about breaking the law.

Would you want to be denied a job for driving 100 in a 50 zone? That's a "criminal" offense.
Minor speed violations are considered infractions, but 50+ mph over the posted limit is a misdemeanor and shows a major flaw in a person's judgement . So yes, this would be a criminal offense and one that would be judged accordingly.

Smoking pot is a lousy misdomeanor... Come on.
Fair enough, but that's not my decision.

It's a friggin witch hunt and you know it. Don't let your bias against that particular lifestyle cloud your judgement. (no pun intended) I don't smoke pot, but i have worked with PLENTY of "potheads" in my day who did their job just as well as the next guy.
And I've worked with many whom were incapable of performing their daily job functions because they were too stupid. The only question is, were they stupid before they started smoking pot, or after? But again, this isn't my call.

We've already established your rectangularness... ;)
Rectangles are kewl.

[hammocksleeper]

Come on dude, who you kidding. We've already established your rectangularness... ;)

haha. but the appropriate term is rectangularity. which sounds a lot cooler. nuts is right, rectangles are cool :)

in my opinion both sides of the argument have merit. i totally see where nuts is coming from, he chooses to use whether you obey the "laws of the land" as a sign of character. and when i read that post his argument suddenly made much more sense that his previous posts in this thread. all along i've been thinking, but what if you don't agree with the government's logic in their laws? what if you hold contempt for or are in protest of the legislative body? etc. but it's a matter of courtesy, a matter of gentlemanliness, a matter of character, to fit in with your surroundings, to go along with the customs of those who are around you, if you wish to remain in those surroundings. many people these days especially kids, think that its uncool to do that, or that it compromises your integrity, but with experience you will realize that it does anything but. and all of this is only taken to a certain extent, of course. you must ask yourself, is smoking pot so much a part of my code of morals, of my personal value system, that i am not willing to sacrifice it to benefit my career? which may sound like a ridiculous question to some, but to others who pride themselves on public dissent or whatever, it is a good question to ponder.

"when in rome, do as the romans do." or, one of my favorite quotes from Lisa Birbach's masterpiece (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0894801406/qid=1129558792/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4953246-5701458?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), a quiz question:

At a dinner party, a young guest drinks the contents of his finger bowl (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=finger+bowl). You, as the hostess...

a. Ask, in a loud voice, if the young guest wouldn't prefer his refill on the rocks.
b. Ignore his gaucherie and continue talking to Trip Dunwhistle just back from Bar Harbor sitting on your left.
c. Without further ado, drink the contents of your own.

And the answer, very humorously but perhaps appropriately, is c.

[GenocideAlive]

OK, just to clear a few things up:

At some point, someone said some dumb shit like "eating poppy seeds can make you positive for an opiate test". Given that I'm pretty familiar with saidsuch drug tests having worked for a Phase I pharmaceutical clinic, you'll find that this excuse is VERY prevalent among drug users whom are trying to conceal said drug use. If you ask someone who uses this excuse as to what they ate, they'll say something like "some bagels". Little do they know, they'd have to eat somewhere in the neighborhood of a POUND of seeds a few hours before they test in order for it to register a significant presence in their system. Try 40-50 "bagels", retard.

In regards to alcohol and cigarettes also being drugs: cigarette prices have nearly tripled in the past 15 years. They've been banned in most enclosed spaces and have even been outlawed in bars in entire cities. I'd say they're on the fast track to becoming illegal, and only very persistent traditional smokers and their interest groups are the only thing keeping them on the right side of the law. In another 15 years, I'd be willing to bet that it will be made illegal.

Alcohol has been banned before, but it was recinded because it was too easy to make and too difficult to control. It has become very heavily regulated. This time they're going from the other end--removing the license of solictors that sell to innebriated customers that get into trouble on the road. Alcohol is very different from pot in that it's not an aerosol--people around you are unaffected.

In regard to drug users attempting to state that they're "enjoying it in the privacy of their home", please spare me your fabricated propaganda. You had to leave your home to get it, and also had to confer with the criminal element in order to obtain it. I laugh and laugh every time little teenagers leave with a pocket full of money and return from the ghetto with a bag of basil leaves because they're too stupid to realize what constitutes a criminal. Get a clue; if you have to go to private armed individuals in order to supply your habit, that's a good clue that your habit isn't as innocent as you think. And if you don't have to see the guns (eg you go to some dumbass college kid), that doesn't mean that they're not there.

The reason that drug tests so successfully predict poor employees is because poor employees have engaged in a heavily researched "gateway" behavior. In order to obtain, use, and maintain their drug habit, they have to learn a number of techniques for concealing it from those that would potentially interrupt their use (cops, security figures, mother, etc.). If you'll do pot despite the number of laws against it, why wouldn't you just take a five at the register to buy some? Statistics say, you probably would.

This learning process easily lends itself to the application of non-drug related activity, as well as more "serious" drug-related activity. The basis of this is formed in the "underground" society that will gladly teach new users the tricks of the trade: what to do in a series of circumstances that could lead to either getting caught or getting ripped off. Be it throwing it out the window, flushing it down the toilet, swallowing it (ugh...), etc. This isn't my opinion, this is well-documented fact. If you don't think it's true, please write Harvard.

And in regard to being frisked before you come into work, they're called metal detectors, and they're used anywhere that has anything of serious value. Guns are protected in the Constitution, but anyone that isn't some kind of unstable gun fanatic can easily see that a crowd of people armed to the teeth at a circus is begging to turn into another kind of circus. You have no right to privacy when you enter a public place, and if you're under the influence of behavior-changing drugs or are equipped with dangerous goods, the public has a right to deprive you of them under certain circumstances.

If you want to break the law, great, super. Smoke a bowl, pass the joint, puff puff give and all that. But don't tell me you have the "right" to break the law, that no-one has the right to tell you what to do, or that you're not doing anything wrong. It's illegal--if you want that changed, talk to your Congressman. The consequences of your illegal habit are yours to deal with, and it's nobody's responsibility but your own. Stop crying that everybody that doesn't have your values is persecuting you.

In my opinion, they should ban all of that shit. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, get rid of that trash. In the meantime, just because cigarettes and alcohol are available, doesn't mean we need to legalize marijuana, cocaine, and LSD because there are a bunch of people hooked on it. That kind of logic is just pure ass. Shit, handguns and high powered rifles are legal, why not legalize bazookas? STS missiles? Stop oppressing me...

[Kingscrab]

How does this affect a drug test? Just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean that you're innocent. Look out! Everyone's a supect now! :o Drug screenings are neither random nor unreasonable, and they certainly are not done without the applicants consent. Drug screenings are optional to the extent that if you don't want to take the drug test then you don't gain employment. Fair enough. I'll concede that point. If you object to the principle of a drug test, then I guess don't apply. Yes, it is a big deal. Why are you minimizing the illegal aspect of smoking marijuana? This is a black and white issue, there is no gray area. I guess it's a matter of opinion. I don't think it is a big deal. I don't think a person's true character should be judged by whether or not they smoke pot. I guess my opinion on this stems from the fact that I feel the anti-pot laws are hypocritical. Alcohol, a proven addictive chemical substance, is legal and it's use embraced by our culture, yet those who smoke pot are branded as worthless criminals? I can only speak from personal experience and say that alchohol is a FAR more deadly and reprehnsible chemical when abused then pot could ever be. But, I suppose it's silly to try to debate fact based on my own personal opinions. You're right, the world is black and white. Pot smokers are all vile criminals and should be taught a harsh lesson. I doubt it. A real catch would be a law abiding citizen. I know plenty of "law-abiding" citizens (Or maybe they just haven't been caught yet at whatever mischief they are up to!) that utterly suck at their job. And I prefer to judge people based on their character, which is largely dictated by their ability to adhere to the laws of the land. So where do you draw the line? What crimes push one over the edge of poor character? If you can elect a drunk driver/cokehead for president, can't you cut the little guy some slack? You keep skirting the issue my friend. This isn't about rolling a blunt, it's about breaking the law. Minor speed violations are considered infractions, but 50+ mph over the posted limit is a misdemeanor and shows a major flaw in a person's judgement . So yes, this would be a criminal offense and one that would be judged accordingly. So you would deny someone a job for such an misdomeanor (criminal speeding) offense? Just curious. So, if you wanna talk "black and white", then again, i will argue that smoking pot is a misdomeanor. If a misdomeanor is not just cause for denying someone a job, then why would a pot ticket be the exception? (If you feel it is just cause, then my argument is mute of course...) And I've worked with many whom were incapable of performing their daily job functions because they were too stupid. The only question is, were they stupid before they started smoking pot, or after? But again, this isn't my call. Maybe you just hired the wrong guy. Sometimes shit happens. Comes with the job. Replace that person if they can't cut the mustard. That IS your call. Rectangles are kewl. In a square kinda way... :bonk:

[GenocideAlive]

So you would deny someone a job for such an misdomeanor [sic] (criminal speeding) offense? Just curious. So, if you wanna talk "black and white", then again, i will argue that smoking pot is a misdomeanor [sic]. If a misdomeanor [sic] is not just cause for denying someone a job, then why would a pot ticket be the exception? (If you feel it is just cause, then my argument is mute [sic]of course...)
Actually, people who have committed felonies generally lose their right to vote, own a gun, among other things. Generally those who break the law are denied certain rights they would otherwise be entitled. And as to whether that law is applied unilaterally, I assure you it is. In all circumstances, they permit an explanation, in rare circumstances are they interested in excuses.

For instance, getting a ticket for +50MPH dragracing isn't worth the ink taken to put it on the paper--a pregnant wife that's dying would. Similarly, you have no good excuse for smoking pot, other than "it feels good". You could try to point out the hypocrisy of allowing some problematic drugs but not others, but then that doesn't give any reason to legalize another one.

[Mtank]

I don't think a person's true character should be judged by whether or not they smoke pot.


If it was legal, then perhaps not. But this involves the breaking of laws, which does give an indication of the character, and is something that employers would most probably be interested in keeping in mind.

When you're employing a person, you want to get the best possible employee out of the salary you're paying him. Even the slightest possiblity of him indulging in actions that harm his performance on the job would probably lower him in the eyes of an employer who is hell bent on getting the very best. And there's nothing wrong with wanting the very best possible, is there?

I know plenty of "law-abiding" citizens (Or maybe they just haven't been caught yet at whatever mischief they are up to!) that utterly suck at their job.

I dont think Nuts meant that he would consider every person who obeyed the law to be the ideal employee, but rather one who is good at his job and does not, in addition, indulge in illegal activities.


So you would deny someone a job for such an misdomeanor (criminal speeding) offense? Just curious. So, if you wanna talk "black and white", then again, i will argue that smoking pot is a misdomeanor. If a misdomeanor is not just cause for denying someone a job, then why would a pot ticket be the exception?

er...read it again...

Minor speed violations are considered infractions, but 50+ mph over the posted limit is a misdemeanor and shows a major flaw in a person's judgement . So yes, this would be a criminal offense and one that would be judged accordingly

So he says that it would, in fact, be a cause for denying employment.

Perhaps you meant to label smoking pot as "infractions". But they're not. Speeding can be caused by a mistake, whereas when you're smoking Pot you are fully aware that you are breaking a law.

[Kingscrab]

I'm sure Nuts is quite capable of responding to the posts directed to him if he feels inclined to do so... :smirk:
Speeding can be caused by a mistake, whereas when you're smoking Pot you are fully aware that you are breaking a law. Criminal speeding can be caused by a mistake? Riiight. Driving 50mhp+ over the listed speed limit clearly takes some serious disregard for local traffic laws.

[GenocideAlive]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_tobacco

While Kingscrab (among others) are ignoring my post, this is at least good supporting material for my contention that cigarettes will soon be going the way of marijuana. Big suit against tobacco companies, though currently undecided in the billions of dollars arena.

[Nuts]

Let me draw a line in the sand so I'm clear. If you have any sort of criminal history, you will not be employed by my company. The only exception to this rule might be cases where a candidate has displayed his or her ability to remain crime free for a lengthy period of time, in which case we might be able to assume that the crime was a youthful mistake, but I have not yet come across one of these individuals. I do believe in a persons ability to turn over a new leaf, this is why I might allow this exception. However, if the criminal activity is recent, then it makes no difference if it's criminal speeding, drug use or murder. Criminal behavior, by it's very definition, demonstrates an inability to conform to societal rules. If you can't follow the simple rules of your community, how can I expect you to follow the rules at my company?

For instance, getting a ticket for +50MPH dragracing isn't worth the ink taken to put it on the paper
Drag racing has caused the unnecessary deaths of many teenagers; are you claiming that this is not an important issue?

So he says that it would, in fact, be a cause for denying employment.
+50mph would mean 125mph on the interstate, 80mph through a residential area, or 65mph through a school zone. I believe those speeds would be indicative of a highly irresponsible person.

While Kingscrab (among others) are ignoring my post, this is at least good supporting material for my contention that cigarettes will soon be going the way of marijuana. Big suit against tobacco companies, though currently undecided in the billions of dollars arena.
I disagree. The tax revenue from cigarettes is funding a great deal of pork, therefore removing said revenue stream would be incredibly silly from an economic perspective.

[Darmago]

A lot of the hypocracy you keep flinging around is history. America is an offshoot of European society, and now, many societies imitate America as America once imitated Europe. But 16th century europe and before, the only notable intoxicates were alchohol, tobacco, and opium. Since opium has such a noticeable affect as bad, it was soon outlawed. But Alchohol and tobacco were the norm. Marijuana is rather recent, Seeing as its introduction to the world at large was more or less in the 70's. Because thats when it became popular. And since our society hates change so very very much, it didnt accept it as norm.

I bet that had tobacco been replaced with marijuana as the norm 200 odd years ago, this same argument would be happening for tobacco, or it wouldnt be used at all.

It is humanity's endless quest to escape reality, or to make things softer. Therefor even if we do elimiate alchohol tobacco, caffeine, marijuana, and such, people will just find somthing else to get intoxicated on.

[Nuts]

A lot of the hypocracy you keep flinging around is history.
How exactly am I being a hypocrite? I can't wait to hear this.

[hammocksleeper]

How exactly am I being a hypocrite? I can't wait to hear this.

You misunderstood him, try to read a little more into the post before you post some one-line thing in IR. He wasn't calling anyone a hypocrite, but rather referring to the supposed hypocrisy in "alcohol is legal, tobacco is legal, but marijuana is not" that some folks have been saying in this thread, and giving it some historical context.

[Nuts]

You misunderstood him, try to read a little more into the post before you post some one-line thing in IR.

This wasn't in IR originally and I wasn't aware that it had moved.

I guess I need to be banned for my failure to recognize my place.

[hammocksleeper]

This wasn't in IR originally and I wasn't aware that it had moved.

I guess I need to be banned for my failure to recognize my place.

You don't have to be aware of the rules to be castigated for them. If you had been smoking pot but didn't know that it was illegal, you could still be fined, and denied employment.

[L2_1989]

Man, this is whacked. Smoking weed can cure depression someday. Come on. If this is true, we're all gonna get high. But it's not good for the jobs where you need to be clean of all THCs. Don't get a job, or quit smoking weed and wait 30 days for the THCs to pass through your system.

Sorry if I went off-topic.

[GenocideAlive]

Drag racing has caused the unnecessary deaths of many teenagers; are you claiming that this is not an important issue?
While I initially could see some cause for confusion with your spate involving hammocksleeper, I'm pretty convinced that his initial comment has validity. You failed to comprehend what you were reading, then removed that quote from context and asked me to defend it as an off-topic point. You're getting a little too standoffish without anything to stand on. Here's where it came from:

In all circumstances, they permit an explanation, in rare circumstances are they interested in excuses. For instance, getting a ticket for +50MPH dragracing isn't worth the ink taken to put it on the paper--a pregnant wife that's dying would. Similarly, you have no good excuse for smoking pot...

So in other words, if you're going to apply for a job and you're busted speeding +50MPH and the ticket says "drag racing", don't bother putting down some excuse; nobody will want to hear it.

And although it's slightly off-topic, no I don't give a monkey fuck what happens to idiots drag racing. There are about 10 million issues involving people involuntarily being involved in much worse. If you want to take your dad's $20000 sports car and smash the gas pedal to the floor until you hit a tree or spin off the road, go for it. I'm not going to shed tears because people that have money to burn are dying from stupidity. Educate your kids if you don't want them involved, and prosecute those who cause problems for others doing it. That's all that needs to be done.

[Darmago]

Smoking weed can cure depression someday.

You might try handling your own problems instead of relying on a substance to fix it.

To me, All antidepressants are just a fix for weak willed people. I know that my dad met somone who was clinically depressed, and then he was really screwed up untill he got his pills... I mean, "leading studies say that depression may be caused by a chemical imbalance in your brain." I mean what happens if your depression caused the imbalance, and suddenly your removing pain which would have just made you stronger in the end of it. I mean, I've felt depressed before, but I didnt take prozac, or smoke weed, I just got over it. If you are depressed for seemingly no reason whatsoever, get over it. Slap yourself in the face a few times, say "I'm being stupid and there is no reason to be this sad" Hell, even if there is a reason, "i'm fat and lazy and I procrastinate too much, everyone hates me 'cause I'm fat and cant do anything" be proactive, and do somthing that will fix the problem instead of sitting around moping. I mean life can suck sometimes, but if you are proactive then it is a lot better. When you get over your depression without pills, then you wont be stupid enough to fall for it again. The quick fix isnt always the right one. The only real cure for depression, you already possess... and its not weed.

Grow a will.

outlaw antidepressants, tobacco, marijuana, and alchohol.

[edits for like.. the 12th time... 13th...14th...]

[GenocideAlive]

...some people have chemical imbalances that cause depression-like symptoms. They need treatment, for sure. Obviously they don't represent the majority of pill-popping hypochondriacs, but making blanket statements about others' hormonal problems, etc. just sounds ignorant. You couldn't rightfully tell all insulin users to "get over eating problems", so offer those with depression the same courtesy.

By the way, Scientology was made up by one of the most prolific, boring scifi writers in history. I wouldn't put too much creedence into it, unless you're some major actor/actress. Then you have about as much education and background in religion and science to qualify. Plus it might keep you focused on important things like the environment. heh.

[Napalm]

well im glad i live in canada where all you get is a fine if ur cought smokin

[Windwalker]

You know what,

People like illegal things in america, like alcohol rose during its unfortunate ban lol.

[GenocideAlive]

well im glad i live in canada where all you get is a fine if ur cought smokin
I'm glad I live in America where this shit gets you jailed. Please, move to Canada. TheXenon, Napalm, and dope smokers everywhere apparently woudl be glad to have you there. It's so much better. You can smoke all the stupid you want! Please do. Move to Canada.

[Prozerran]

I'm glad I live in America where this shit gets you jailed.

Please qualify your statement with something more than your obvious bias against this naturally ocurring substance.

Let's present criteria on why Marijuana is bad for you.






Marijuana is unhealthy?
Marijuana is addictive?
Marijuana is illegal?
Marijuana is a gateway drug?
If there are more reasons, feel free to post them, but these are the ones I'm aware of. Now, let's take this criteria and look at all the other things that share this criteria.


If Marijuana is bad because it's not good for your health, then we might as well illegalize fast food, cigarettes, most dietary food, and some prescription medication (for all the negative side effects).
If Marijuana is bad because it's addictive, then we might as well illegalize fast food, cigarettes, any product containing caffiene, and alcohol.
If Marijuana is bad because it's illegal, then we all need to wake up. I'll get back to this.
If Marijuana is bad because it's a gateway drug, we should illegalize cigarettes, alcohol, and over-the-counter medications as they are also commonly consumed in social situations that lead to illegal drug use.
Back to Marijuana being illegal. The alcohol prohibition notwithstanding, the use of Marijuana shouldn't be bad because it's illegal. Didn't Native Americans smoke marijuana in ritual and ceremony before the legalization of marijuana was even an issue? What historic event involving marijuana use has ever been documented? Why are we leaning on marijuana as some bane to our social order?

Tobacco is far more deadly than marijuana. The only common thread Marijuana has to drugs that are much more harmful and even deadly is THC. I don't know much about THC, but I understand that as a naturally occuring, non-lethal substance, it seems unreasonable that THC alone has much to do with why Marijuana is bad.

So, why is it that caffiene, smoking, alcohol, fast food, prescription and non-prescription medications are all acceptable while marijuana is not? Why is this list of unhealthy, addictive, and gateway substances all legal while marijuana is illegal? I could speculate on why that is, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[Kingscrab]

Please qualify your statement with something more than your obvious bias against this naturally ocurring substance. I agree with your entire post and I think you worded everything nicely. Good luck finding an unbiased debate partner though. I think it essentialy boils down to the fact that it's all too easy for people to be personally biased against pot smokers (and the free-wheelin' lifestyle that stereotypicaly accompanies pot use) and lump them all into the "useless pothead" category simply because they smoke pot. I know and have known MANY people that smoke pot as casually as one might have a beer or two after work, and they are by no means lacking in moral values or strong and productive work ethic. Quite the opposite actually. Are they breaking the law? Yes, but if we wrote off every person in this country who has broken a law (no matter how minor... and i suspect that we all have at one point or another) at one point, there would not be many of us left to judge... I guess that's why pot smoking is a misdomeanor. I have no problem punishing or fining people for getting caught doing it, (because yes, it IS against the law, and don't do the "crime" if you can't do the time) but it does not mean they are any less of a person then the next average Joe.

[Basan]

I wish people would stop trying to justify this shit. If you're going to smoke pot, please do so without the shameless boasting.

Good, Bad or indifferent, you're going to smoke it anyway, and when you fail the piss test for your new job, don't come running to me for sympathy.

Oh boy... it seem that I must start handing out hints when making sarcasm. :rolleyes:
I wasn't trying to justify it, just making a tiny mockery of it.
And yes if you're wondering, I do smoke it occasionally, plus am a Safety Technician (a real demanding law abidding trade). Are the two incompatible? It seems so by your standard, unless... you make part of both (as in, don't mix bussiness with pleasure). Most fellas I know that use it, never even dream of smoking one at work (or in public, for that matter).

I've forgotten... how long after you've smoked marijuana does it show up in a urine test? The figure four months is floating around, but I'm not sure if that's just my mind desperately trying to pretend it's remembered it.

Not that it'd concern me even if it showed up 21 years after smoking it ;)

Around 3 weeks, at least. I know, because that's the amount of time I keep spaced between before going to donate blood.
But just to be safe, it's best if you wait for around a month period (for the residues to be clensed from your system for sure).

Nope, diluted results are almost as bad as a positive.
...
Marijuana is illegal, no? So if a potential employee tests positive for an illegal substance, would you want that individual working for you? If they're willing to break the law in this area, what other laws are they willing to break?

And yes, marijuana is a contributing factor in workplace accidents, anywhere from 7-10% depending on the few studies that exist. Alcohol is much more prevalent due to the obvious legal nature of the substance. However, it is true that a person whom smokes marijuana is much more likely to abuse alcohol, which leads us back to an unsafe work environment. I don't care if you smoke it and enjoy it at home, you're breaking the law because you care more about getting high than you do about legalities. Tell me why I should hire someone who cares more for themselves than the law. There are plenty of other people out there whom want and need a job that do respect the law, and I would much rather have them on my payroll.

Edit: When the day comes that marijuana is made legal (if and when,) I will consider it just as I do alcohol. If I suspect your using on the job, you're fired (assuming I can prove it,) otherwise keep it at home. But until such a time comes, it's still illegal and a certain disqualifier from employment at my office.

Then I'm screwed from the get go. I usually drink up to 1,5 L of water, daily. My urine seems to be a mildly coloured water, am I to blame by default on that account (forgive me the 'colourful' cenario)?
NSide note: The minimal ammount of daily ingested water should be around 1,5-2 L, according to Medics (to ease kidney functions, amongst others). :poke:
You're making an inverted onus of evidence here, by assuming everyone is guilty 'till proven innocent.

As I've said somewhere around here before (read, in the site). Moral standards depend on where your standing, cultural references and a few others (like addaptation to recent advancements). If this debate took place in Netherland, it would be legal to smoke it in cafes (as alcohol consumption is), but not on the outside. As for most everything we know in similar but legal drugs (alcohol, cafeine, etc.) moderation and adequate placement are a must. And it seems that you haven't been lucky enough so far to have found a person with high moral standards apart from 'that' pot consumption. Alas, I've met (and obviously had to stop) lots of fellas that can't quit drinking alcohol, to the point that they weren't any near reliable, at very dangerous work places such as constructions' sites (as in, having additional alcohol meter tests for assuring my initial assessment was right). But never had to stop a pot consuming one yet (and I can tell from their looks and scent also).

Plus, I'd like to see those 7-10% statistics. From a mere professional PoV, of course.
I also can get ya statistics that show that workplace alcohol abusers cause far more greater impact in their accidents (larger percentage slice almost assuredly), but still alcohol is legal none the less. Just out of curiosity, what would you do in those cases? Have them piss tested as well? :shiftyl:

And you're being hypocritical about the "caring more about themselves than the law". The human nature is egocentrical by default and only when organizing ourselves into societies we (Humanity) began to set a line of conduct to what should show what to be the best profile or atittude when in public.
For sums, maybe a national motto of mine might do the trick: "Public virtues, private vices.". Sorta like stated before, don't mix pleasure with the rest.

I'm glad I live in America where this shit gets you jailed. Please, move to Canada. TheXenon, Napalm, and dope smokers everywhere apparently woudl be glad to have you there. It's so much better. You can smoke all the stupid you want! Please do. Move to Canada.

Regional bias at work. Move along, nothing more to see here. Again, you're snowballing this whole issue together. If it's legal over there, then it is.
And if you see a full whammed fella in the street, just because it's on the account of alcohol abuse, it's fine and dandy, right? (I do know that in the U.S. as in here, the guy who'd be jailed, but that would only be until he gets sober.)
Now if it's on the account of sole pot abuse, he should get heavilly jailed (which seems to be the msg that you're trying to pass here)?

Just because it's a no-no over there, it just simply doesn't makes it a world wide truth so ya know. :P
Go to Holland, see their concepts of pot consumption in 1st hand. They do have it legal to a small extent (permitted cafes, bars and private usage) and it does not interfere with the society's normal way of working. Please get more open minded to accept diferences then your own strict set... and maybe then, come around hammering regional giberish like ya did.

[GenocideAlive]

Regional bias at work. Move along, nothing more to see here. Again, you're snowballing this whole issue together. If it's legal over there, then it is. And if you see a full whammed fella in the street, just because it's on the account of alcohol abuse, it's fine and dandy, right? (I do know that in the U.S. as in here, the guy who'd be jailed, but that would only be until he gets sober.) Now if it's on the account of sole pot abuse, he should get heavilly jailed (which seems to be the msg that you're trying to pass here)?
Do you have ADHD? Every other sentence you've constructed (I use the term loosely) is about something entirely different and non-sensically hammered together. I don't know what the fuck "regional bias" is supposed to mean, nor do I know what the hell alcohol abuse has to do with making THC abuse more appealing.

You keep bringing up alcohol as a counterpoint to legalizing marijuana. Let's examine the FACTS: tens of thousands die from alcohol abuse every year. Hundreds of millions of dollars in businesses are lost to alcohol abusers. Alcohol abusers generally tend to fuck up their families as a result. Alcohol abuse can ruin lives.

This is why you want to legalize THC? Because it's hypocritical to have this happening with legal drugs when it could be happening with other, illegal drugs? I guess people don't have enough drugs to kill themselves and ruin lives.

[Basan]

Do you have ADHD? Every other sentence you've constructed (I use the term loosely) is about something entirely different and non-sensically hammered together. I don't know what the fuck "regional bias" is supposed to mean, nor do I know what the hell alcohol abuse has to do with making THC abuse more appealing.

I simply 'love' your innuendos... you assume a whole lot on your wild imagination's account. Actually, I find it rather amusing that you apparently can only make debate points when naming fellas according to your own biased standards. And allow me to fetch it back in a highlighted manner (in bold). :P
... TheXenon, Napalm, and dope smokers everywhere apparently woudl be glad to have you there. It's so much better. You can smoke all the stupid you want! Please do. ...

Regional bias - Hell, I could simply link ya to a dic' (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regional) for ya to see what both words mean and then you could add your own 2+2 there. (Plus for the fact that have somewhat refered to it in other view point in my previous post's last paragraph.) *Meh's and points that my coonsumptoin hasn't diminuished my understanding skills *

Just making a point a point that if one is legal and gives even more trouble than the other, why not legalize marijuana and other non-addictive similars in a restraining manner? For a short example, pick the Netherlands system (that have explained already in previous post).
The main problem here is that you won't even try to see the other options presented. And never had mentioned the pot/similars abuse in such a manner. You did. I just stated that with alcohol is a lot easier to get addicted, therefore to lose control over it's consumption (turning it into addition).
Another funny deal I've realised, though, is that you've 'failed' to comment my other paragraph in previous post. Can I assume that you do agree with it? :smirk:

You keep bringing up alcohol as a counterpoint to legalizing marijuana. Let's examine the FACTS: tens of thousands die from alcohol abuse every year. Hundreds of millions of dollars in businesses are lost to alcohol abusers. Alcohol abusers generally tend to fuck up their families as a result. Alcohol abuse can ruin lives.

Exactly. But it's funny none the less, that I haven't seen ya even comparing those to their counterpart in non-addictive drugs (marijuana and the 'ilk'). Why? Because the impact isn't any near that latitude (of grievance). It's as I've said above, you only can't see the other possibilities, just because you're stubborn enough to not be willing to see and/or accept the differences.

And yet, since it's a legal drug it's offenders get only a small jail time (as mentioned post above), especially when compared to your goal at pot users punishment.

This is why you want to legalize THC? Because it's hypocritical to have this happening with legal drugs when it could be happening with other, illegal drugs? I guess people don't have enough drugs to kill themselves and ruin lives.

It's a non-addictive drug and you know it. Stop the inferences... and cut the crap (it doesn't ruin anyones' lives).
Actually, it might get some folks to drop on other legal but more health/social damaging ones, like alcohol. They could change, if a viable option was presented (as in, legalize it). I've seen a far widened panoply of alcohol effects on it's users so far and, alas, have to say that have seen far more agressive tendencies in it's abusive consumption than in pot ones.

[GenocideAlive]

Just making a point a point that if one is legal and gives even more trouble than the other, why not legalize marijuana and other non-addictive similars in a restraining manner? For a short example, pick the Netherlands system (that have explained already in previous post).
Just because the effects of one could be argued as "worse" doesn't mean that you need to add onto the pile. And BTW, marijuana is at least as addictive as cigarettes^1 according to pretty much every source that is a source on addictive drugs.

And I'm pretty fucking sick of people bringing up the Dutch. They have roughly 16M people on a landmass about twice the size of New Jersey (a small US state). How the hell are you comparing something less than 1/20th the size of the U.S. in terms of landmass and population? They're a constitutional monarchy, for god's sake. Why don't you compare witch doctors in Africa to cardiologists?
But it's funny none the less, that I haven't seen ya even comparing those to their counterpart in non-addictive drugs (marijuana and the 'ilk'). Why? Because the impact isn't any near that latitude (of grievance). It's a non-addictive drug and you know it. Stop the inferences... and cut the crap (it doesn't ruin anyones' lives). Actually, it might get some folks to drop on other legal but more health/social damaging ones, like alcohol. They could change, if a viable option was presented (as in, legalize it). I've seen a far widened panoply of alcohol effects on it's users so far and, alas, have to say that have seen far more agressive tendencies in it's abusive consumption than in pot ones.
Any and all drugs ruin lives^1, because there are bozos who can't control themselves. Then they get addicted physically and psychologically^2; whether or not they COULD eventually quit is completely immaterial because they have no NEED to quit. The dealers will keep taking their money, and they'll keep getting their high. Some become addicted needing the drug more and more frequently, some build a tolerance and require higher and higher doses to get the same effect.

It's cute that you keep putting your beliefs about drugs against facts, but sorry it doesn't hold water. Marijuana will help people drop alcohol? Bitch please; stop pulling stuff out of your ass. There's a strong link between people smoking and drinking, so it's FAR more likely that drinkers will take up smoking marijuana to supplement their alcohol rather than suddenly drop alcohol to smoke pot full-time^1. But then again, I don't know why I'm even arguing with you--beyond trying to be cute your posts rarely have any substance.

There is no good reason to legalize pot; only good reasons to outlaw other drugs.

1 Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E. A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.

2 National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.

[Prozerran]

1 Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E. A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.

2 National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.

I'm not trying to step in here or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're quoting the same sources that argue the illegalization of Marijuana opposed to those who have researched the substance itself. I looked into this a long time ago and found a remarkable dissent in opinions based on science compared to those that interpreted those results and based most of their findings on statistics. The latter sources obviously have a bias against these kinds of drugs; hell, they're organizations that run a political platform AGAINST drug use and encourage more spending on the drug war.

Now, you would think that would be a noble cause to stop drug traffic and drug dealers from putting those substances on the street, but the simple truth is the drug trade as an underground industry only increases its demand. It's the basic premise that if you tell a child they can't have something, they only want it more. Not to mention the millions, if not billions of dollars that exchange hands on both sides of the issue over these substances. You ask why add another dangerous substance to our list of acceptable poisons. I ask why you add it to an already popular list of substances you're not allowed to have? It seems bass-ackwards, but that's how it tends to work.

I'm not advocating drug use, but I am questioning the sources you're basing your argument on. It seems entirely too one-sided to actually maintain any merit. Objectivity is a beautiful thing.

EDIT:

I keep thinking about this further. It's been argued that many illegal drugs are only dangerous due to the way they are prepared. Supposing some of these substances were legalized. Legal restrictions could be placed on these substances that keep them in check, and when those substances emerge that are doctored and potentially lethal in design, the state would then have much stronger legal standing to punish the people that pose the danger to society rather than blaming the substance. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this..

[GenocideAlive]

as an underground industry only increases its demand. It's the basic premise that if you tell a child they can't have something, they only want it more.
Fortunately, most people who are interested in illicit drugs aren't children. Feel free to show statistics or evidence supporting your wild claims, but as far as I know (and common sense dictates) making something illegal sharply decreases its demand. The vast miniority of the adult public are willing to get a criminal record, lose a job, or do jail time so they can do drugs.
You ask why add another dangerous substance to our list of acceptable poisons. I ask why you add it to an already popular list of substances you're not allowed to have?
Again, you're answering a question with a question--because you have no answer. Don't try to follow it up with some sort of see-through philosophical bullshit. The question is, what good reason is there to legalize marijuana on top of other drugs? There is none.
I'm not advocating drug use, but I am questioning the sources you're basing your argument on. It seems entirely too one-sided to actually maintain any merit. Objectivity is a beautiful thing.
I don't really care if you question my sources. If you want to start a "Government Conspiracy" thread, then knock yourself out. In the meantime, the CDC, FDA, NIH, and othersuch government agencies (the people who funded the research) are the foremost bodies in the world for what they do. It's funny how entire nation's governments change their policies based on the advisory of these agencies, yet if they say "marijuana is bad for you" suddenly their credibility is sketchy. That seems "one-sided", but not in the way you were trying to push.

I don't believe in I.D. either, but I guess you're going to tell me that science is divided over that, too.
Supposing some of these substances were legalized. Legal restrictions could be placed on these substances that keep them in check, and when those substances emerge that are doctored and potentially lethal in design, the state would then have much stronger legal standing to punish the people that pose the danger to society rather than blaming the substance. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this..
Again, this is inductive reasoning starting with "what if we legalize it..." Nobody likes "the ends justify the means" as a national policy. Try starting with deductive reasoning such as "marijuana is vastly underused by the majority of mainstream society because it is illegal. If made legal, the number of users will skyrocket and it will probably become as prevalent as cigarettes, with more drastic state-altering effects. It also has a much higher incidence of extremely negative side-effects and in some cases, pushing new users into a paranoid, delusion state requiring medical attention."

Anyway, it's not very convincing to argue that legalization will help enforce a healthy distribution of pot. If you're willing to break the law and risk your lungs to get a high, I don't see how the government should suddenly step in to try to save you. If you want to jump a barbed-wire fence into a rocky, turbulent undertow at a beach, I don't think the government should take down all the fences and order nationwide evaluation and subsequent destruction of dangerous beachfront.

If common sense can't keep you out, it's not the government's role to idiot-proof your environment.

[Prozerran]

Nobody likes "the ends justify the means" as a national policy. Try starting with deductive reasoning such as "marijuana is vastly underused by the majority of mainstream society because it is illegal. If made legal, the number of users will skyrocket and it will probably become as prevalent as cigarettes, with more drastic state-altering effects. It also has a much higher incidence of extremely negative side-effects and in some cases, pushing new users into a paranoid, delusion state requiring medical attention."

Anyway, it's not very convincing to argue that legalization will help enforce a healthy distribution of pot. If you're willing to break the law and risk your lungs to get a high, I don't see how the government should suddenly step in to try to save you. If you want to jump a barbed-wire fence into a rocky, turbulent undertow at a beach, I don't think the government should take down all the fences and order nationwide evaluation and subsequent destruction of dangerous beachfront.

If common sense can't keep you out, it's not the government's role to idiot-proof your environment.

There's nothing wrong with educating people about the use of Marijuana and letting them make their own decision about it. We let people make these decisions about cigarettes. We inform people on the consumption of alcohol. We warn people about the dangers of driving. We direct people on how to take strong medication.

Yet, we illegalize marijuana because if consumed at the rate of a vacuum cleaner, it can cause some delusional side effects?

I could do a 5 minute keg stand to try to impress a friend, get alcohol poisoning, and DIE! It's legal.

I can smoke 40 cigarettes a day and die from lung cancer. It's legal.

I can mistakenly take more prescription medication than directed and potentially die.

I have never, ever, ever heard of anyone dying as a direct result of the consumption of marijuana. Where has it happened that someone smoked so much marijuana, and only marijuana, that it killed them? Compare that to how many people die from alcohol poisoning, smoking cigarettes, and overdosing on prescription meds.

Demonizing marijuana has been the political agenda since Nixon declared a drug war. The agencies paid to research the substance were being paid by the same people that declared this war. This isn't conspiracy theory. This is the reality of what developed over the course of 20 years... but feel free to draw your own conclusions. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to politics.

[xodkrm]

By the way, NO ONE HAS DIED FROM MARIJUANA.
And thats a fact.

[GenocideAlive]

Yet, we illegalize marijuana because if consumed at the rate of a vacuum cleaner, it can cause some delusional side effects?
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. First time users that encounter marijuana have very unpredictable responses to it, including heart palpitations, shock, neuroses, paranoia, extreme fear, and nervousness. These people smoke no more or less than normal, it's just a reaction to the drug. And it's so frequent that it has it's own nickname: "a bad trip".
I have never, ever, ever heard of anyone dying as a direct result of the consumption of marijuana. Where has it happened that someone smoked so much marijuana, and only marijuana, that it killed them? Compare that to how many people die from alcohol poisoning, smoking cigarettes, and overdosing on prescription meds.
That you haven't heard of it means it's never happened? This is a new form of logic. I'm going to call it "Prozerran's Logic", because I think it should be recognized when someone uses it. This entire blurb of yours about alcohol and cigarettes killing people has already been addressed. Restating it and adding prescription meds doesn't help your case. They kill people, they hurt people. Marijuana will do similarly--there's no reason to add it to a list of shit that kills people.

Prescription meds as a comparison is totally inappropriate; they only kill when used or prescribed improperly. Just because people injure themselves when running with scissors doesn't mean we should legalize marijuana.
Demonizing marijuana has been the political agenda since Nixon declared a drug war. The agencies paid to research the substance were being paid by the same people that declared this war. This isn't conspiracy theory.
I repeat, the FDA, NIH, and CDC are all government agencies relied upon for their unbiased, accurate reporting. What basis do you have for claiming that they're running a conspiracy against marijuana instead of simply reporting facts?

[Prozerran]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. First time users that encounter marijuana have very unpredictable responses to it, including heart palpitations, shock, neuroses, paranoia, extreme fear, and nervousness. These people smoke no more or less than normal, it's just a reaction to the drug. And it's so frequent that it has it's own nickname: "a bad trip".

First time smokers have a bad trip because they smoke more than they're used to. They may have a hit on a pipe, then a couple passes around the table, and then they have that time where they take in far more than they're used to. Marijuana is a depressant, and though the reactions are broad, they are far from unpredictable. It's obvious you've not had much exposure to the substance. You might have a better idea if you actually sat in a room and watched someone you warned four times to stop smoking have a bad trip because they had more than they're ready for. They lay there, sometimes vomit from nausea, but its over in about 20-30 minutes. I've seen people who drink too much alcohol pass out unconscious, try to drive, suffer delirious episodes, talk to dead people, and vomit until they're dry heaving. Obviously, they had to go to the hospital... point being, everything's dangerous if it's taken to its extreme, and even at its extreme, marijuana doesn't go so far as to cause death like alcohol and cigarettes.

That you haven't heard of it means it's never happened? This is a new form of logic. I'm going to call it "Prozerran's Logic", because I think it should be recognized when someone uses it. This entire blurb of yours about alcohol and cigarettes killing people has already been addressed. Restating it and adding prescription meds doesn't help your case. They kill people, they hurt people. Marijuana will do similarly--there's no reason to add it to a list of shit that kills people.

Well, it's agreed upon here that no one has died from smoking only marijuana. I'm sure if someone has, it would be in the news, or in one of those FDA, NIH, or CDC journals you posted as sources. I'm willing to bet they have no case to support that Marijuana has ever been the sole cause of someone's death. Marijuana doesn't kill anyone. Alcohol, and alcohol alone has. Prescription medication alone has. Smoking cigarettes alone has. Legal substances that are sold in the US daily that can do that while banning a substance that doesn't should, at the very least, raise eyebrows.

Prescription meds as a comparison is totally inappropriate; they only kill when used or prescribed improperly. Just because people injure themselves when running with scissors doesn't mean we should legalize marijuana.

Your use of metaphor makes me laugh. Prescription medication is appropriate in this discussion. The perpensity for a substance to illicit a harmful reaction is at issue here. Taken to each extreme, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Cigarette Smoking (the legal substances) all go much further to harm people than Marijuana. That's not to say Marijuana has no negative impact, but let's be honest. What is the extent of harm to people who smoke Marijuana compared to drinking, smoking cigarettes, and taking prescription medication? The answer should be obvious.

[Kingscrab]

An interesting update. I thought it relevant to the discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_el_st_lo/denver_marijuana

[Basan]

Just because the effects of one could be argued as "worse" doesn't mean that you need to add onto the pile. And BTW, marijuana is at least as addictive as cigarettes^1 according to pretty much every source that is a source on addictive drugs.

*Meh* What else do you want me to say? Linkage, please. And alcohol is also and always a non-addictive one, right? :angel:
No, it's not addicting and I'm living proof of it. See how easy is to make statements without backing'em up?

As said before moderation also has a lot to do with these consumptions, either those be legal drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) or illegal non-addictive ones. In this case, what we're dicussing here are marijuana, similar compounds and not the high rollers (cocain and likewise ilks).
(Side note: In fact, my consumption is around once or twice a month tops.)

And I'm pretty fucking sick of people bringing up the Dutch. They have roughly 16M people on a landmass about twice the size of New Jersey (a small US state). How the hell are you comparing something less than 1/20th the size of the U.S. in terms of landmass and population? They're a constitutional monarchy, for god's sake. Why don't you compare witch doctors in Africa to cardiologists?

So is Great Britain, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium for a few examples. And ain't quite sure about Australia and Canada too (but I know that one of their supreme head of state representatives is the British monarchy). There are several constitutional monarchies out there and that doesn't mean that their social systems doesn't function properly.
So what's your point anyway (if you even had one)?

Any and all drugs ruin lives^1, because there are bozos who can't control themselves. Then they get addicted physically and psychologically^2; whether or not they COULD eventually quit is completely immaterial because they have no NEED to quit. The dealers will keep taking their money, and they'll keep getting their high. Some become addicted needing the drug more and more frequently, some build a tolerance and require higher and higher doses to get the same effect.

It's cute that you keep putting your beliefs about drugs against facts, but sorry it doesn't hold water. Marijuana will help people drop alcohol? Bitch please; stop pulling stuff out of your ass. There's a strong link between people smoking and drinking, so it's FAR more likely that drinkers will take up smoking marijuana to supplement their alcohol rather than suddenly drop alcohol to smoke pot full-time^1. But then again, I don't know why I'm even arguing with you--beyond trying to be cute your posts rarely have any substance.

There is no good reason to legalize pot; only good reasons to outlaw other drugs.

1 Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E. A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.

2 National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.

Funny, so do you (as in, keeping your beliefs into this). And I do remind myself of a certain alcohol banishment period in your country, between the 1920-30's, and they stepped back after realising that the forbidden fruit was indeed far more tempting than when it was legalized (plus the criminal exploit over that market when it was illegal, mostly done by the Mob). How would that be any different for the marijuana and hashish case? I fail to see the difference.
Here's an article (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/Society2001_DistortionDutchDrugStats.pdf) on what assumptions over this matter should not be. Even not believing that you'd listen much for the statistics contained and to the following article I'll link it none the less, so folks 'round can see for themselves.
...
In October 1997, Peter Reuter and I published an article in Science examining Dutch “de facto” cannabis legalization and its consequences. The article was motivated by our frustration with the grossly discrepant “factual” comparisons of U.S. and Dutch drug statistics routinely encountered in the mass media and on the internet. According to recent clippings in our files, the lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (the percentage who have ever used marijuana) among Dutch teens had either fallen from 15 to 2 percent or risen from 5 to 14 percent. Readers were told that respective marijuana rates for Dutch and U.S. adolescents were either 14 vs. 38 percent or 30 vs. 11 percent.
The sources of these factoids appear authoritative on their face, and in fact each is technically accurate. It all depends on which statistics one cites—in particular, the year of the estimate and the age group of the respondents. Even under the best of circumstances, cross-national comparisons are problematic. But at the very least, one ought to compare rates for the same year, and the same age groups.
...
A corollary to the “constrained directional bias” idea is the suggestion by Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel, in their 1966 The American Jury, that jurors’ personal sentiments are most likely to emerge as a factor in deliberations when the evidence was equivocal or ambiguous. Similarly, physicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford has offered a “Law of Controversy” in which “passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.”
Drug policy fits these models perfectly. For many if not most Americans, the use of intoxicating drugs, at least illegal ones, is a profoundly immoral act and must be judged and policed on moral terms. In principle, illicit drugs might be regulated like any other risky activity, and one can plausibly argue that doing so might produce more effective policies than the current approach. But the fact of the matter is that the science of drug policy is still remarkably crude. At present, there is little serious prospect of the sort of demonstrably effective technical expertise that might trump simple moral intuitions—as has largely happened in the domains of medicine, cosmology, and (for the most part) natural history.
Will good drug data eventually drive out misleading claims? There are some grounds for optimism.
...
And btw, here it is the institute and it's monitoring programs (http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/organisatie/ORG1236731/#lopendprg) that control the 'drug status' over there (read, in Holland).

Oh, lookie. It seems that the "witch doctors" have a case... at least they might know the active priciples contained in plants to use'em in the healing field (anyone reminded of tranquilizers, in this similar application area?). You know, like when Medicine arose from the dark ages. They're somewhat late, no doubt (if that's correct to say) but at least they keep the basis from where medicine and it's drugs began from (since they're countries are most likely 3rd world nations in poverty, they must handle with what they got). Nothing any near to you and your comaprison assumptions, I might add. :P

Plus, are the sources you quoted seen anywhere in the Net? If so, please hand over a few linkages. I'd like to see'em as well.

Fortunately, most people who are interested in illicit drugs aren't children. Feel free to show statistics or evidence supporting your wild claims, but as far as I know (and common sense dictates) making something illegal sharply decreases its demand. The vast miniority of the adult public are willing to get a criminal record, lose a job, or do jail time so they can do drugs.

Curious, you speak of statistics and try invert the onus of evidence. You're the one who's spoke that kids aren't as much into drug consumption as adults (just in case, may I remind that marijuana and hash' are the debated ones here).
I'd like to see those stats as well (showing that kids aren't more into these drugs than adults). Most kids I know and have known (aka below 18) in here so far are interested in at least trying it, since it's illegal.

Again, you're answering a question with a question--because you have no answer. Don't try to follow it up with some sort of see-through philosophical bullshit. The question is, what good reason is there to legalize marijuana on top of other drugs? There is none.

I don't really care if you question my sources. If you want to start a "Government Conspiracy" thread, then knock yourself out. In the meantime, the CDC, FDA, NIH, and othersuch government agencies (the people who funded the research) are the foremost bodies in the world for what they do. It's funny how entire nation's governments change their policies based on the advisory of these agencies, yet if they say "marijuana is bad for you" suddenly their credibility is sketchy. That seems "one-sided", but not in the way you were trying to push.

I don't believe in I.D. either, but I guess you're going to tell me that science is divided over that, too.

Again, this is inductive reasoning starting with "what if we legalize it..." Nobody likes " the ends justify the means" as a national policy. Try starting with deductive reasoning such as "marijuana is vastly underused by the majority of mainstream society because it is illegal. If made legal, the number of users will skyrocket and it will probably become as prevalent as cigarettes, with more drastic state-altering effects. It also has a much higher incidence of extremely negative side-effects and in some cases, pushing new users into a paranoid, delusion state requiring medical attention."

Anyway, it's not very convincing to argue that legalization will help enforce a healthy distribution of pot. If you're willing to break the law and risk your lungs to get a high, I don't see how the government should suddenly step in to try to save you. If you want to jump a barbed-wire fence into a rocky, turbulent undertow at a beach, I don't think the government should take down all the fences and order nationwide evaluation and subsequent destruction of dangerous beachfront.

If common sense can't keep you out, it's not the government's role to idiot-proof your environment.

Holly cow Batman, that would be hella difficult to prove (reason to why legalize non-addictive drugs like hash' and marijuana)... see the Netherlands case for real (as in, read carefully and out of your 'think tank') and the reasons why they even considered test trying it. And again you're getting in the same bag the non-addictive (marijuana and hash', for instance) and the rest of the illicit drugs. Inference and out world issue comparisons are definetly your favourite toys (I personally loved that remark of your government shouldn't make the environment idiot-proof, thus making the legalization would only follow such a pathway. You're self tripping on your own, since common sense must be always kept at hand when considering most matters through the scope. :D). Plus, even history shows that the dry law period was far worse in alcohol consumption than when they reversed path (aka making it legal again). In that period the illegal distillation process had much more led in it, resulting in an increase of it's percentage in the final beverage product. And you know what that means... an increase in led poisoning, no doubt.
By legalizing the non-addictive drugs you can get a strict hand on their fabrication process and make it more safe and standard complying, hence making it's final product a lot more secure to users than when it was illegal. Plus that you could get an income revenue out of it as well, similar to alcohol and tabaco. That's reasoning and it didn't take any "philosophical bullshit" sift through (as you've been trying to imply). And it has nothing to do with the government making our surroundings "idiot-proof" as well, just to make it crystal clear.

Demonizing marijuana has been the political agenda since Nixon declared a drug war. The agencies paid to research the substance were being paid by the same people that declared this war. This isn't conspiracy theory. This is the reality of what developed over the course of 20 years... but feel free to draw your own conclusions. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to politics.

Agreed. That's why I presented the article above (and a few of it's passages). And here are a few more stats on it (http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nutshell-marijuana.htm).

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. First time users that encounter marijuana have very unpredictable responses to it, including heart palpitations, shock, neuroses, paranoia, extreme fear, and nervousness. These people smoke no more or less than normal, it's just a reaction to the drug. And it's so frequent that it has it's own nickname: "a bad trip".

Again, your innuendos. It happens just the same as in 1st alcohol and ciggies encounters, which btw are legal. The chance is the even (if not higher since alcohol is legal afterall) What's your point?

That you haven't heard of it means it's never happened? This is a new form of logic. I'm going to call it "Prozerran's Logic", because I think it should be recognized when someone uses it. This entire blurb of yours about alcohol and cigarettes killing people has already been addressed. Restating it and adding prescription meds doesn't help your case. They kill people, they hurt people. Marijuana will do similarly--there's no reason to add it to a list of shit that kills people.

Prescription meds as a comparison is totally inappropriate; they only kill when used or prescribed improperly. Just because people injure themselves when running with scissors doesn't mean we should legalize marijuana.

You're simply... hillarious. Then, for one, care to explain to me as of why alcohol got back into the legal list after the "dry law" period. And btw, goin' with the same logic as of why cigarettes are still legal being a proven fact that they increase health problems.
Ops, anyone tripped again on their own logic of "... it's not the government's role to idiot-proof your environment". One of those quoted paragraphs of mine, from the article I've linked, sure seem to fit ya like a glove the more often this debate proceeds onwards. :smirk:

Again, does anyone reminds of what active principles are in medicamentation? I sure recall that tranquilizer pills are a similar form of marijuana (not drawing dosage and processing methods into the line here).

I repeat, the FDA, NIH, and CDC are all government agencies relied upon for their unbiased, accurate reporting. What basis do you have for claiming that they're running a conspiracy against marijuana instead of simply reporting facts?

Again, read the 1st article provided on their 'accurateness'. :rolleyes:

-----
And KingsCrab, I definetly 'wuv' ya. *Smiles and pats it's back*

[GenocideAlive]

No, it's not addicting and I'm living proof of it. See how easy is to make statements without backing'em up?
You're so totally full of shit it's embarrassing. I cite sources and studies conducted by licensed third parties for evidence, then you say that you smoke pot and you're not addicted so it's obviously not addictive. You wrap up your very strong argument with an article from Holland about how apparently it works in a country roughly equivalent to New York.

They even put in an extremely large umbrella-clause for margin of error, recognizing my earlier point that comparisons between the Dutch and the U. S. that sailed over your head. "Even under the best of circumstances, cross-national comparisons are problematic." Your own fucking source attests to its inaccuracy.

I'm not going to "debate" with you any more; you're not debating with facts, you're debating with bullshit and lameass comments that are the equivalent of "NUH UH I SMOKE POT ITS GREAT". Marijuana isn't legal because it's a drug, and we don't need to add a stack of fresh deaths, problems, and societal hardship onto the pile. If it's "the same as cigarettes" or "the same as alcohol" as you attest, then people wouldn't be willing to break the law to get it.

[Xenon]

You can't have a "bad trip" on mary jane... you're thinking of Acid, shrooms or some other psychotropic drug.

Puff, puff, pass.

[Prozerran]

I'm not going to "debate" with you any more; you're not debating with facts, you're debating with bullshit and lameass comments that are the equivalent of "NUH UH I SMOKE POT ITS GREAT".

Wait for it... wait for it...

Marijuana isn't legal because it's a drug,

Yes, Marijuana is a drug, and yes Marijuana is not legal. We know Marijuana is illegal and we know it's a drug. While you are stating a fact, there is no substance to this argument to justify its unlawfulness. You're saying Oranges are a fruit because they have seeds. No kidding?!

and we don't need to add a stack of fresh deaths, problems, and societal hardship onto the pile.

As if we'll ever be without societal hardship? We'll always have problems. This is exactly what I meant when I said we demonize marijuana. How much more vague can you be with this kind of argument?

And Fresh Deaths? Again I'll ask you to provide some evidence. I'm speaking from general knowledge that Marijuana is non-lethal. If you have something to offer to the contrary other than your opinion, please do so. Otherwise stop trying to debate with this point.

If it's "the same as cigarettes" or "the same as alcohol" as you attest, then people wouldn't be willing to break the law to get it.

What? What point are you attempting to make? This doesn't even qualify as an argument, much less support for one. This is about as unsupported and incoherent as you can get, and you're accusing Basan of debating with bullshit when you can't even complete an argumentative thought?

I'm not going to "debate" with you any more; you're not debating with facts, you're debating with bullshit and lameass comments that are the equivalent of "NUH UH I SMOKE POT ITS GREAT".

LOL!!!! Let's call this GenocideAlive debate, as it not only neglects to offer support to an argument, it also rewards hypocrisy in criticizing someone for not supporting their argument with facts when you not only neglect to support them yourself but also fail to maintain a cohesive train of thought. Wow.

EDIT: I apologize. That was a bit harsh. It's actually meant to be funny, not inflamatory... since this made me chuckle earlier...

That you haven't heard of it means it's never happened? This is a new form of logic. I'm going to call it "Prozerran's Logic", because I think it should be recognized when someone uses it.

[GenocideAlive]

I can't help you, Proz. It's pretty much up there in English. If there's something you don't understand or that isn't clear, you can ask about it. But otherwise I'm just going to assume you were just trying to flame. Quoting sentence fragments and following it with a series of attempts at wit don't really qualify as anything to which I should respond. Sorry you wasted your time.

[Nuts]

Marijuana isn't legal because it's a drug, and we don't need to add a stack of fresh deaths, problems, and societal hardship onto the pile.
Aspartame Caused 52 deaths in the year 2000 (Latest study available)
Ephedrine Side effects include stroke, heart attack and seizures. 155 deaths in 2003.
Acetaminophen 100 deaths per year on average.
Doxylamine Succinate : Side effects include hallucinations, coma, heart attack and oh yeah, death.

All of these wonderful drugs are available at your corner convenience store. In fact, each individual drug mentioned above has actively killed more people than marijuana, (which hasn't actively killed a single person to date.) All aboard the misrepresentation express!


If it's "the same as cigarettes" or "the same as alcohol" as you attest, then people wouldn't be willing to break the law to get it.
Bwahahaha....wait, hold on....hahahahahaha....just a sec, there's more, hehehehehe, oh man, you're a hoot! I'm serious, you should try stand up comedy or something, these jokes are hilarious man!

Hello Reality! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition)

You see, we have a philosophical difference of opinion. I believe that marijuana indicates lack of character due to the individuals willingness to break the law. On the flip side, you seem to actually believe that marijuana itself is a serious threat to society. Your arguments are weak and unfounded, go do some squats or something.

[Prozerran]

Bwahahaha....wait, hold on....hahahahahaha....just a sec, there's more, hehehehehe, oh man, you're a hoot! I'm serious, you should try stand up comedy or something, these jokes are hilarious man!

I'm so glad I wasn't the only one to find that so damn funny.

Genocide, sometimes you're on and sometimes you're not. This was by far not one of your best arguments ever. I'll hand it to you though, you seem more passionate about this argument than any other I've seen you partake in, and I think that says a lot for your character, especially over the subject matter. I have a new-found respect for you now as you stick to your guns when no one else agrees with you. Impressive.

[Basan]

You're so totally full of shit it's embarrassing. I cite sources and studies conducted by licensed third parties for evidence, then you say that you smoke pot and you're not addicted so it's obviously not addictive. You wrap up your very strong argument with an article from Holland about how apparently it works in a country roughly equivalent to New York.

They even put in an extremely large umbrella-clause for margin of error, recognizing my earlier point that comparisons between the Dutch and the U. S. that sailed over your head. "Even under the best of circumstances, cross-national comparisons are problematic." Your own fucking source attests to its inaccuracy.

I'm not going to "debate" with you any more; you're not debating with facts, you're debating with bullshit and lameass comments that are the equivalent of "NUH UH I SMOKE POT ITS GREAT". Marijuana isn't legal because it's a drug, and we don't need to add a stack of fresh deaths, problems, and societal hardship onto the pile. If it's "the same as cigarettes" or "the same as alcohol" as you attest, then people wouldn't be willing to break the law to get it.

You're getting pretty obvious here... you simply can't be reasonably debated on. I ask for evidences, on several occasions when refering to some of your points and where they are? Nowhere in sight. And I Also say this on your supposed sources, 'cause I can't get to a (U.S.) library and read the same studies you mentioned upon.
What you just conveniently forgot to state was that the comparison groups are between 12-17 year olds in one country and the 18 group in the other. Anyone else would see the difference, but you on the other hand seem to have not.

As if this wasn't enough to clear it up, innuendos to make a dismeanor of someone else's points are your main basis arguement. Get out more often and see what really are active principle, mairijuana (and similars) for a few examples. If I wasn't clear enough when refered that one of my previous quotes from the articles was getting awfully attached to you, it was the so called morals when faced versus to ignorance.

I can't help you, Proz. It's pretty much up there in English. If there's something you don't understand or that isn't clear, you can ask about it. But otherwise I'm just going to assume you were just trying to flame. Quoting sentence fragments and following it with a series of attempts at wit don't really qualify as anything to which I should respond. Sorry you wasted your time.

What an hellacious amusing comment of yours, that you're pulling out of the closet - the quoting fragmentation. You're the expert upon it here not us, since you vehemently keep ignoring other ppl's points as they freely "sail over your head" ... and btw, this wasn't the 1st time (or thread) where you fragmented quotes on purpose just to infer showing what you deem fit to be seen by others.

After these latest replies of yours, it got pretty evident imo that this thread is beggining to justly deserve a lockdown and pronto.

Edit add: And thanks Nuts for having showed a link into what the "Dry Law Period" really was in the States, thus somewhat presenting a basis to what I've been stating along (a few posts back).

[Prozerran]

After these latest replies of yours, it got pretty evident imo that this thread is beggining to justly deserve a lockdown and pronto.

I disagree. I think this thread has merit as it seems to address the subject matter rather thoroughly. I mean, where on this board can you find such a two-sided issue with such devotion to both sides of the table? I mean, we may criticize GenocideAlive on his argumentation in this thread, but he's singing the same chorus those on Capital Hill are singing against the legalization of Marijuana in the states.

Why would we want to close down a thread that actually explores the topic as much as it already has? If anything, it's to our benefit to keep it open to address the issues with more insight. If GenocideAlive has an opinion on the matter that has a factual basis (and some of his points do), then I say give it a chance and let's see how far we can go. For instance, we do refer to marijuana as causing "a bad trip", but until we actually understand what a "bad trip" is and why it occurs, we're all still in the dark. Speaking from experience with people who have had a "bad trip", it occurs due to a lack of exposure to what can be called a standard dosage of the drug, but the extent of its harm is far exceeded by the harm induced by other, legal substances. Had it not been mentioned, many might still believe a bad trip is equivalent to alcohol poisoning, which is clearly not the case if you explore the topic with some objectivity.

[GenocideAlive]

Aspartame Caused 52 deaths in the year 2000 (Latest study available)
Ephedrine Side effects include stroke, heart attack and seizures. 155 deaths in 2003.
Acetaminophen 100 deaths per year on average.
Doxylamine Succinate : Side effects include hallucinations, coma, heart attack and oh yeah, death.

All of these wonderful drugs are available at your corner convenience store. In fact, each individual drug mentioned above has actively killed more people than marijuana, (which hasn't actively killed a single person to date.) All aboard the misrepresentation express!

Here's a link to the Coroner's Society making mention of marijuana related deaths being listed as "accidents".
http://alcoholism.about.com/b/a/039646.htm

Sort of like if you die drinking and driving, it wasn't shitty driving, it was impaired judgement / reflexes / motor skills from drinking. If you want references for marijuana-imparied driving, I have those too. Published in the New England Journal of Medicine:
content.njm.org/cgi/content/full/168/5/565

Yes, no-one immediately comes to mind as having died from overdosing on cigarettes--the number that are dead or suffering from cancer/lung disease/heart disease is astronomical. Oh wait, "marijuana didn't kill them, cancer did." Right? Sort of like "guns don't kill people, bullets do." Spare me.

If you'll also notice, all of the drugs you've listed aren't inhalants. As a matter of fact, there are currently zero FDA approved inhalants. Sort of like morphine is legal, and heroin isn't. If you want to argue the active ingredient in marijuana (THC) is useful as medicinal, then go with Marinol (FDA approved). Otherwise, marijuana isn't medicinal, it's a pleasure drug.

Don't say that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes. Try more harmful: as in an order of 4-5 fold.

* 60 percent of MJ accounted for 12-17 year old rehab.
wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds00/5.1b.htm
* Marijuana contains 50-70% more carcinogens than cigarettes.
www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana3.html (http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana3.html)
* Marijuana admissions in ER visits has surpassed heroin.
www.samhsa.gov/oas/dawn.htm (http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/dawn.htm)
* Marijuana use causes similar brain changes to changes from heroin and cocaine.
www.druglibrary.org/crl/behavior/rodriguez-01.pdf (http://www.druglibrary.org/crl/behavior/rodriguez-01.pdf)
Bwahahaha....wait, hold on....hahahahahaha....just a sec, there's more, hehehehehe, oh man, you're a hoot! I'm serious, you should try stand up comedy or something, these jokes are hilarious man!
I'll skip the 14-year-old reply to your 14-year-old display. I think, at least in my case, it would be inappropriate for both my maturity level and the context of the debate.
Genocide, sometimes you're on and sometimes you're not. This was by far not one of your best arguments ever.
I think slightly differently; you've convinced yourself that you're right through a series of cyclical analogies and a support structure. Sort of like Christians standing in a church are smug whenever they mention Revelations to an aethist. The fact is marijuana isn't and won't be legalized. I'm arguing sheerly for amusement purposes, not because you convincing yourselves that your argument is solid will lend you any merit in that direction.

Allow me to give you credit, though. You're displaying more maturity than Nuts, who's about twice your age.

[Morkeliph]

The fact is marijuana isn't and won't be legalized.

In further news, the city of Denver has recently voted to eliminate the confiscation and punishment of possession of marajuana under a certain weight requirement (something like half and ounce!). I'll have to find the actual article, but that is what I read the other day.

[Nuts]

Here's a link to the Coroner's Society making mention of marijuana related deaths being listed as "accidents"...... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Your links do nothing to provide proof that marijuana has actively (I used that qualifier for a reason in my last post) killed a single individual. You even admit this