The Marijuana Thread

[The Painter]

Legal. Smoke 'em if you got 'em

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I don't know about you, but I drink wine to stay healthy.

Just what the doctor ordered!

Yep. And I only masturbate because it's good for my prostate.

 

[Pardalis]

No, simply because it stinks.

 

[brodski]

I simply do not know. I know people who won't try it because it's illegal, and the vast majority of householders wouldn't have the first idea where or how to get hold of it.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of householders knows someone who could get them some cannabis, even if they didn't know that they knew...

But you are right, it's possible outright legalisation won't massively increase usage. The difficulty is, you can't make it legal on the sly, so the publicity would in effect amount to an endorsement. And as the govt. spend so much combatting tobacco smoking, would it not be taken as politically hypocrital? I do wonder if that's a motivating factor and the status quo is the best compromise available.

David Cameron (leader of the Conservative party for non Brits), and several members of the Cabinet have admitted to smoking dope, without reporting negative effects- some even reporting pleasurable experiences , now that's not an endorsement I don't know what is. The BMA no longer supports legalization due to their goal of reducing ALL smoking, but I don't think that is an issue for Ministers.

The problem is not that marijuana shouldn't be illegal, it's that you'd have to make it legal when you could just tolerate it like the police in the UK do, as you point out. That way, those who want to smoke it, do, and those who don't because they can't get it, or because it's illegal, don't. Which works, I think.

It gives the entire trade over to criminals, and it criminalize's an otherwise law abiding segment of society. And the situation in the Uk at the moment is a mess, enforcement is down to individual police authorities, some take a much harder line than others. The other problem with "tolerance" is that the police can decide to become intolerant tomorrow, and you have no way of knowing when that will happen.

I will try and find some figures to back that up but I think any projection about increase in usage is pretty useless until someone actually tests it. And that won't happen. If the benefits of legalizing marijuana outweighed the disadvantages, it would be done already I think.

You have so much faith in our political system...
the problem isn't pro's and cons in medical or societal terms, the problem is how will legalization play out on the pages of the Daily Mail, and there aren't enough votes in legalization to risk that backlash.
You also have to look at international angle. If the UK legalized dope tomorrow, there would be pressure from many EU members states (France and Germany have both put pressure on the Netherlands to clamp down on cannabis) and perhaps others. How would the US government feel about loosing an ally in the "war on drugs"?

 

[LashL]

<snip>If the UK legalized dope tomorrow, there would be pressure from many EU members states (France and Germany have both put pressure on the Netherlands to clamp down on cannabis) and perhaps others. How would the US government feel about loosing an ally in the "war on drugs"?

In Canada, simple possession of marijuana has been largely de facto decriminalized, although technically it remains "illegal" (but there are exceptions for medical purposes, in which people are wholly exempt from even the decriminalized version of the law).

Basically, simple possession of small quantities is treated much like a traffic ticket and it is left to the discretion of the police officer involved whether to lay a charge or not, and if he or she does, it is dealt with by way of a "ticket" rather than by way of arrest, detention, etc.

Also, as alluded to above, marijuana is legal here for medical purposes, and the country has officially recognized the medical benefits of marijuana for certain ailments and illnesses. There is a process by which one can obtain exemption from the possession of marijuana laws and many, many, many people have availed themselves of that process. In those cases, it is perfectly legal for a person with a medical exemption to smoke a joint on the courthouse steps, or outside the police station, for that matter.

The U.S. administration is not happy about these developments, of course, given the proximity of the two countries, but ~ as we say above the 49th parallel ~ c'est la vie

Edit to add: For clarity, though, possession for the purpose of trafficking remains illegal and is still prosecuted vigorously. Grow-ops are busted regularly and have, in fact, become quite a problem. Trafficking, similarly, is prosecuted vigorously. And all other drug offences (i.e. drugs other than marijuana) are still prosecuted vigorously. Small amounts of marijuana for personal use, however, are generally viewed as not worth charging someone over and most often, the cop will simply confiscate the pot and send you on your way (unless you really, really annoy the cop who's caught you).

 

[steverino]

I remember in junior high school, around '72, when the health teacher warned that heavy pot smoking would cause boys to grow breasts. So are we deciding that one is not accurate?

 

[aerosolben]

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

I think you overestimate the industry of your fellow citizens.

1. Hordes of stoners do not currently grow their own for personal use, preferring to overpay a dealer.

2. I can't name a single crop that enjoys more success being grown at home than purchased at a store. Further, there are lots of products even easier to manufacture at home (see Oscar Mayer Fast Franks) for which there is a market. Convenience is king.

3. The price is already very high (heh) due to the legality of the situation.

 

[fuelair]

That's yes as long as the rules on where it can be used are more stringent than those on cigarettes. Many people not allergic to tobacco smoke are allergic to marijuana (doesn't come up that often for the obvious reason). In my earlier SF party days, it was understood that until my film program was over (and pretty much no one wanted to miss my film programs!! We MST3Ked shorter films of a particular genre. A Boy and His Hog -a Danish farming short - was a particular favorite of the crowds)no one lit up joints unless thoroughly outside.

 

[WildCat]

I think you overestimate the industry of your fellow citizens.

1. Hordes of stoners do not currently grow their own for personal use, preferring to overpay a dealer.

Only because their parents/wives/girlfriends/roomates won't let them, because the gov't will seize your house if caught among lesser reasons.

2. I can't name a single crop that enjoys more success being grown at home than purchased at a store.

You couldn't be more wrong about that, the very best marijuana is grown in homes for personal use. When you have just a few plants, each one gets a lot of TLC.

And if you ever grew your own tomatoes you wouldn't say the ones in the store are better! And tomatoes, btw, are much harder to grow.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's yes as long as the rules on where it can be used are more stringent than those on cigarettes. Many people not allergic to tobacco smoke are allergic to marijuana (doesn't come up that often for the obvious reason). In my earlier SF party days, it was understood that until my film program was over (and pretty much no one wanted to miss my film programs!! We MST3Ked shorter films of a particular genre. A Boy and His Hog -a Danish farming short - was a particular favorite of the crowds)no one lit up joints unless thoroughly outside.

At least that prevents the nefarious bongwater on the carpet disaster, which can really stink up a house. An infamous party in my high school days -- legendary in how many people showed up, parents out of town, natch -- got the young hostess in mucho trouble when Mom and Dad got back. Seems someone spilled bongwater in the living room, on the carpet, and Mom not only wasn't pleased upon return, she very obviously knew what that smell was. (Min 1970's) Someone's TR-6 got repossessed by Daddy.

My friends and I could not even get in the front door, of course. We ended up drinking our beer on the front yard, and wandering off before the cops got called on a noise complaint.

DR

 

[pipelineaudio]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

 

[clarsct]

If you think that Marijuana is a gateway drug, then please provide evidence.

Thanks.

 

[Francesca R]

I have rather little experience of it. But I smirk at the number of times I used to hear: "It's not addictive" . . . "It's less bad for you than cigarettes" . . . "It no way leads to other stuff" and "If it was legal, more people wouldn't take it"

PS I have no evidence of anything whatsoever about grass.

 

[Tony]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

How many crackheads, methheads and cokeheads do you know?

 

[aerosolben]

Only because their parents/wives/girlfriends/roomates won't let them, because the gov't will seize your house if caught among lesser reasons.

If I'm not mistaken, asset forfeiture has nothing to do with growing, and only with possession (and intent to sell, quantity, etc). They'll still take your stuff (and your wife/girlfriend will still be made) if you bought the bud from someone else.

You couldn't be more wrong about that, the very best marijuana is grown in homes for personal use. When you have just a few plants, each one gets a lot of TLC.

And if you ever grew your own tomatoes you wouldn't say the ones in the store are better! And tomatoes, btw, are much harder to grow.

You misunderstand my use of success - I use it in the sense of popularity, not quality.

No matter how easy it is to grow at home, the vast majority of people will still find it easier and more convenient to go to the store and buy their Marlboro Green or whatever. This is true for every single other crop on the market today (and for that matter, pretty much anything else you can 'make at home'), and I see no reason to believe that Mary Jane is the one exception to the rule.

I mean, they combined peanut butter and jelly into a single product. Light years easier to combine PBJ than grow marijuana, and it's probably more expensive (than PB + J) to boot - but there's still a market.

 

[steverino]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

A couple months ago, SLINGBLADE provided links with evidence stating that marijuana is not a gateway drug. It was very convincing. Maybe she can find that info again? I always assumed it was, but not sure. An anecdote would be that a lot of rapists have an extreme interest in pornography, but porn does not lead to rape. Again, just an anecdote that came up on a thread a few months ago.

 

[LashL]

A couple months ago, SLINGBLADE provided links with evidence stating that marijuana is not a gateway drug. It was very convincing. Maybe she can find that info again? I always assumed it was, but not sure. An anecdote would be that a lot of rapists have an extreme interest in pornography, but porn does not lead to rape. Again, just an anecdote that came up on a thread a few months ago.

I would also be very interested in seeing that 'evidence' as one who smoked a lot of dope in all manner of variations back in the day, and as one who tried a lot of other drugs on a rather progressive sort of scale. Fortunately, I drew the line at a certain point and didn't go beyond certain boundaries, but I am very curious about this evidence you mention.

(As an aside, the pornography/rapist thing is a poor analogy and it's probably better left to a separate thread on that topic)

 

[slingblade]

A couple months ago, SLINGBLADE provided links with evidence stating that marijuana is not a gateway drug. It was very convincing. Maybe she can find that info again? I always assumed it was, but not sure. An anecdote would be that a lot of rapists have an extreme interest in pornography, but porn does not lead to rape. Again, just an anecdote that came up on a thread a few months ago.

Oh, gosh. I'll try.

And I'm rather flattered you remembered.

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/Library/mjgate.htm

http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html

also, one thing to think about in debunking this myth:

A person who is willing to smoke marijuana is already likely to try drugs.
If the "gateway" theory is in any way sound, then what was the gateway for the initial choice to use marijuana?

 

[slingblade]

double post.

 

[steverino]

Cool. Thank you for including those links. I now remember the Dutch examples. I guess my short term memory isn't fried!