Should Marijuana be legalized

Should marijuana be legalized?

  • No

    Votes: 12 7.1%
  • Yes

    Votes: 147 87.0%
  • Yes but medical use only

    Votes: 10 5.9%

  • Total voters
    169
It's time to get out of this outmoded way of thinking that drugs are THE problem. They are A problem. One made hundreds of times worse by their illegal status. How many gangs are peddling booze again?

Also Obama was quite flippant with his answer to the question. It only "seems silly" because people aren't thinking about the actual question and what effects it would have. They just see "legalize pot" and dismiss it as a bunch of stoner kids asking to not worry about going to jail. Legalizing it would kill several birds with one stone and what exactly would be the downside? More space in our jails? Less gang violence? More money not coming out of my pocket on the war on drugs? More money going to the government, again not out of my pocket? Less of a chance of drug money funding terrorists? Cops having time to go after more serious problems? People are scared kids will be getting their hands on it? Let me tell you a secret: Kids get their hands on it now. And from much more dangerous people than a clerk at 7-11.

This is exactly it and how people avoid really talking about the issue in an open and honest way. The same thing happens with a national health care plan: someone says, "socialism!" and that's the end of the debate. Too much inflammatory rhetoric and ideology being tossed about to have a serious discussion. Like someone mentioned before: there is no critical mass of people that are okay with even talking about decriminalization, let alone legalization, let alone allowing people grow it.

Personally, there is no evidence that says smoking some bones are any worse for you healthwise than drinking. Yet, somehow, we have legalized booze (thank Jebus!). Certainly we should consider the seriousness of "harder" drugs but I believe the statistics show that most "drug users" are toke-heads, not smack or blow addicts (oh yeah, there is no such thing as addiction according to Szasz). Most of our drug laws are silly anyhow. Just think how much police resources could be freed-up if they didn't have to worry about marijuana...
 
I've never taken a hit off a joint, and I don't ever want to. But I say legalize it - the time, money, and resources we waste on busting pot users can be much better used elsewhere. Alcohol is way worse a drug, yet it is legal.

This stupid Drug Prohibition is a really long, bad joke, in my opinion. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and it's not working today for drugs either. When the proponents of this prohibition have nothing to fall back on except their lame "moral" arguments, then it is time to turn the page, folks.

Legalizing pot would be a good first step. I say we see how it goes... I predict that society/civilization will not collapse into the pits of Hell.

ETA: It looks like some semblance of sanity is coming to my state, Illinois, because they're working on legalizing medical pot. Baby steps...
 
Last edited:
Do you have a citation for the claim that all other smoke can cause cancer? Otherwise you're helping yourself to an unfounded assumption and then demanding that everyone else present multiple studies to disprove your assumption. Science doesn't work that way.

All smoke contains cancer causing agents, but then again so do all tomatoes. I haven't found any studies on 'all smoke' only on specific smokes, but it is as close to a 'safe assumption' as I can get.

Marijuana's been studied to death and despite the political motivations to find a clear link to cancer nobody's managed to find one that stands up to scrutiny except perhaps this recent testicular cancer study, and given the history of this research area I'd wait until the study was replicated before I put too much faith in it.

I have my reservations about the no-cancer link to mj smoke, as do a lot of the pot lobbies. From http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891 ,

"To date, similar epidemiologic and/or clinical studies on the use of cannabis and cancer are few and not definitive. However, the public and policy-makers should interpret the ambiguity of these results with caution – neither construing them at this time as an endorsement of cannabis’ safety nor as an indictment of its potential health hazards."


Also the link I sent you talked about six different studies, not just one. Two of them even showed a correlation between marijuana use and cancer, although the first conflicts with the findings of larger studies and the other can't show any evidence of causation.

I didn't see the other studies, but they are there. Again, seeing as even pot advocates are being cautious I'm not about to put money on it. If pot really doesn't increase the risk or cancer, it will be interesting to see where the research on it goes, and if cancer inhibiting chemicals might be located from it.
 
All smoke contains cancer causing agents, but then again so do all tomatoes. I haven't found any studies on 'all smoke' only on specific smokes, but it is as close to a 'safe assumption' as I can get.

You agree though that based on the current evidence, the carcinogenic effects of marijuana should not be a concern, seeing as we live with all sorts of much greater risks without worrying about them?

I didn't see the other studies, but they are there. Again, seeing as even pot advocates are being cautious I'm not about to put money on it. If pot really doesn't increase the risk or cancer, it will be interesting to see where the research on it goes, and if cancer inhibiting chemicals might be located from it.

Indeed. It's seems intuitive that something in the smoke mostly counteracts the carcinogenic effects of the other stuff in the smoke, somehow, given the lack of an overall effect.

I don't buy the "marijuana is a wonderful medicine!" woo, but the epidemiological evidence makes it seem likely there's something in there that could reduce your chances of getting lung and head cancer.
 
Just out of curiousity, what's an oz where you are? People tell me it's like 300 here.
Back in the day, it was 15 for mexican.
 
The other reason arguments regarding the scary new never-before-seen potency of today's weed are bunk is the simple fact that marijuana, unlike the slow-metabolizing of alcohol, takes effect almost instantly. Users are thus able to calibrate their dose much more effectively and its why weaker and stronger pot will end up with similar effects: you end up smoking more of the weak stuff and less of the strong stuff.

Because of this there's also almost a built-in cap: you can keep drinking past your limit and end up fux0red but with weed there's always the "I'm good" moment where you're content and just don't feel like smoking anymore.

Incidentally, this property of pot is one of the reasons it is an effective medecine - medecinal users like the ability to take just as much as they need.
 
For a start, they should stop calling it marijuana and call it by it's traditional name. HEMP!!

Medical applications are the least of the benefits to be had by mass cultivation of this plant, man's oldest and most useful plant companion.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF HEMP
• Hemp grown for the production of biomass fuels can provide all of our gas, oil and coal energy needs and end dependency on fossil fuels.
• Hemp results in a 95.5% fuel-to-feed ratio when used for pyrolysis the thermochemical process that converts organic matter into fuel.
• Biomass has heating value of up to 8,000 BTU/lb., with virtually no residual sulphur or ash during combustion.
• Biomass fuels offer a clean alternative to fossil fuels. No sulphur oxides are released, either during pyrolysis or combustion. A closed CO2 system is created. According to Stanley Manahan, «Environmental Chemistry », biomass fuels would not result in any net CO2 being added to the atmosphere.
• Hemp is the #1 producer of biomass per acre in the world. Biomass energy expert Lynn Osburn estimates that 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 million acres of hemp would replace all of Canada's fossil fuel demands.
• From 75% to 90% of all paper was made with hemp fiber until the late 1800's.
• U.S.D.A. bulletin #404 outlined a process for the production of paper using pulp and demonstrated that hemp could replace 40% to 70% of all tree pulp paper, including corrugated boxes, computer paper and paper bag.
• An acre of hemp will produce as much pulp for paper as 4,1 acres of trees over a 20 year period.
• The hemp paper-making process requires no dioxin-producing chlorine bleach and uses 75% to 85% less sulphur-based acid.
• Hemp paper is suitable for recycle use 7 to 8 times, compared with 3 times for wood pulp paper.
• By utilizing hemp pulp for paper, we could stop the deforestation of our country and produce stronger, more environmentally sound paper for less than 3/: of the price of wood pulp paper. The paper mills now in place would need almost no conversion in order to switch from wood to hemp pulp.
• Hemp produces the strongest, most durable natural soft-fiber on earth. Until the 1 820's, up to 80% of all textiles and fabrics for clothes, canvas, linens and cordage were made principally from hemp.
• Hemp cloth is stronger, more durable, warmer and more absorbent than cotton. Best of all. ' grown in Canada, cotton cannot.
• An acre of land will produce 2 to 3 times as much fiber as cotton, about 1,000 Ibs. of fiber per acre.
• Hemp grown in most parts of Canada will require no herbicide, fungicide or insecticide applications. Up to ½ of all agricultural pesticides used in North America are applied to the cotton crop.
• Natural, organic hemp fiber breathes and is recyclable, unlike petroleum-based synthetic fibers.
• A fully mature hemp plant may contain 1/2 of its dry-weight in seed.
• Hemp seed has an oil content of 34 % more than any other seed. Hemp seed oil is second only to whale oils in its quality and has the same burning qualities and viscosity as #2 grade heating oil without any of the sulphur-based pollutants.
• Once hemp seed oil has been extracted, the remaining seed cake is second only to soya bean for protein content and is an excellent source of nutrition for either farm animals or humans.

AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS OF HEMP
• England, France and Spain have all legalized low THC varieties of hemp for an agricultural crop. England planted 1,500 acres of hemp as a first year crop. Reports from England state that farmers are receiving in excess of 3,000$ per acre for their hemp crop.
• Low THC hemp is not suitable as a psychoactive drug.
• A Canadian report from the late 1800's demonstrated that hemp works very well in rotation with bean and corn crops.
• In 1991 Ontario farmers receiver 290$ and 240$ per acre for grain corn and soya bean respectively.
• Hemp was grown successfully in Canada for over 100 years. For a period in the late 1800's Canada produced 'hi: of all England's hemp requirements. At kite time, England was the largest hemp consumer in the world.
• In the 1930's, a South Western Ontario newspaper reported that Canadian grown hemp was among the best in the world and far superior to tropical hemp.
• In Canada hemp can be grown successfully from our southern borders to approximately 60O North Latitude, the parallel that divides the North West Territories from the provinces. This remarkable range is possible due to hemp's short growing season, usually 90 to 110 days.
• The hemp plant will reach a height of up to 5m (16ft.) and sink a main tap root down 1 ft. This tap root will draw nutrients from deep in the soil and make them available to subsequent crops when the hemp leaves are shed on the soil. This extensive root system also helps to alleviate the problem of soil compaction.
• Hemp is very easy on the soil and returns up to 60% of the nutrients it takes from the soil, when dried in the field.
• A report from Kentucky states that hemp was grown on the same land for 14 consecutive years without soil depletion or reduction in yield.
• Hemp is very economical crop to grow since it requires virtually no pesticide applications.
• Hemp is also relatively drought-resistant and has been relied upon several times during drought-induced famine for its high protein seed.
• Hemp is very resistant to increased UV radiation and should not suffer decreased yields, unlike soya bean and corn.
 
<snip unattributed Jack Herer rant>...

You forgot the one about how George Bush Sr.'s life was saved by a HEMP parachute during the war. If not for hemp W never would have been born, let alone grow up to be president!... :rolleyes:
 
• Hemp grown for the production of biomass fuels can provide all of our gas, oil and coal energy needs and end dependency on fossil fuels.
.

I would jump for joy if this turned out to be true.
But considering the huge and increasing consumption of fossil fuels, I suspect that this is impossible.

AFAIK there is no biofuel that could provide for all our energy needs.

Got a linky for that?
 
Some of the claims are nonsense.
In Kentucky, hemp was grown on river bottoms, which flooded and were re-fertilized by nature. Its not a legume. It will deplete soil.
 
I'll say what I alluded to before:

I don't care whether marijuana/hemp is beneficial or not. Any or all of these claims about medicinal/industrial/etc uses of marijuana might be true, partially true, or an outright lie. I don't care.

Something not being beneficial is no reason for it to be illegal. I can't think of any negative aspect of marijuana that isn't also the case for any number of already-legal substances. Can you?

(ETA: This post wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Just my long-held rant on what the nature of law should be.)
 
Last edited:
There really is no rational reason for it to be outlawed. It's pretty much the least harmful drug there is.

Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY and see how it was used to help America's previous war efforts.

After the war, it was outlawed and demonized as the eeeeevil marijuana, because it's a major competitor against petroleum based products.
 
God, now we have to get into the overblown benefits of hemp again. Hemp isn't that great as evidenced by the fact that it isn't a major cash crop in any country it is legal in. Hemp is at best the third or fourth best opinion for any of its uses.

But pot should still be legal.
 
Getting high should be legal, especially in the land of the free; home of the brave, with the bill of rights and all.

Yet criminals and jailers have to make a living too.
Have we ever had a poll?
How many people would like to get stoned, but don't, because of the law?
 

Back
Top Bottom