• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Marijuana Thread

Should marijuana be made legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 120 89.6%
  • No (Please state why below.)

    Votes: 5 3.7%
  • On Planet X, we believe that the burden of proof is on those who want something to be legal.

    Votes: 9 6.7%

  • Total voters
    134
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

Argumentum ad ignorantum. I know plenty of junkies, including members of my extended family, who don't smoke cannabis. In fact, heroin and cannabis appear to be mutually exclusive.

BTW, there is far more evidence for tobacco being a gateway drug than there is for cannabis.
 
Now we are back to the "medical marijuana" argument. I think the argument here is about "self-medicating." A doctor perscribes the SSRI dosage, and monitors the patient for side effects. And a doctor perscribes THC or other marijuana item for medical marijuana. I feel that if someone prone to depression smokes pot every day and says it is for depression, then I think the marijuana just might be adding to it, and that a 12-Step program would make more sense. And the last time I checked, the 12-Step program is perfectly legal.

Yeah, Steve, and really all I see there is stuff you "think." Why don't you go find out for sure, or get a little closer to sure, and get back to me?

Edit: and I have no idea what the legality of a 12-step program has to do with butter in Burbank, but I wonder if you've ever examined the efficacy of them?
 
I think you're conflating two issues: self-dosage and ingestion method. Orally taken drugs, including THC, get absorbed through the intestines and filtered through the liver. The liver metabolizes a significant fraction of many drugs, including THC, which pass through it. Orally ingested THC is therefore less potent than inhaled THC, and so must be administered in correspondingly larger dosages. But nothing about oral ingestion in pill form means that the patient cannot self-dose. Just take more pills. But at least you'll know what your dosage actually is. With inhaled marijuana smoke, neither the patient nor their doctor have any way of monitoring dosage. Which just doesn't make any sense.

Not true. In fact, most doctors recommend either smoking or nebulizing to eating when possible.

First, cannabis, like most other drugs, is metabolized by the liver regardless of the ingestion method.

Second, the big difference between smoked and eaten cannabis is the speed of onset of effects. Eaten cannabis can take anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes before effects are felt. The onsent of effects for smoked or nebulized cannabis is typically less than a minute.

Third, having a pre-set dosage makes it difficult to titrate dosage by actual effects, rather than by trial and error.

So the variability of potency of crude cannabis is a red herring. It's far easier to titrate dosage when the drug can be consumed in small amounts and the effect felt almost immediately, and the effective dosage determined over a very short period of time (typically 3-5 minutes); than it is for a pre-set dosage that has to be monitored for an average of 30 minutes for each ingestion before a standard dosage is arrived at. Add to that the complication that the effective dosage will vary widely not only between people, but even from day to day. A dosage that is ideal one day may be suboptimal, or excessive, the next. Inhalation can customize the dosage extremely easily, again using smaller doses over a 3-5 minute period until the optimal effect is reached.

Add to that that the fact that cannabis is typically prescribed as an anti-nausea medication means that it many be difficult for the patient to keep the drug in their digestive system long enough to develop the desired effect. Many patients typically rely on suppository-form anti-nausea drugs because of this difficult,.

Ingestion is typically only recommended when the patient has a respiratory disorder of some sort, or when smoke or nebulized particles may be excessively irritating to the lungs (most often with the elderly).
 
So you still say there is some evidence, just less than the general public believes?
No, I'm saying that there is a demonstrated much higher correlation between tobacco use, and "hard drug" use than there is between cannabis use and hard drug use. As I recall from a couple of studies done over the last decade or so, there was not a single hard drug user (heroin, cocaine, meth, etc) who did not also smoke tobacco; whereas the percentage that used cannabis was closer to 50%.

And since the vast majority of cannabis users do not use hard drugs, according to many different surveys, that pretty much explodes the "gateway drug" myth.

My comment had to do with the fact that so many proponents of the myth rely heavily on the post hoc fallacy for cannabis vs. hard drug use, but do not apply similar logic to tobacco use.
 
Last edited:
To me, the main benefit is that we would free up a lot of law enforcement resources and unclog our prisons. Okay, maybe not unclog, but they'd probably smell better.
As a fellow Colts fan, I value and respect your opinion. However, I'd really be interested in finding out how of law enforcement's resources are actually taken up tracking down pot heads. If anything, it seems like something to tag on to an offense, like not wearing your seatbelt. I actually know/have known quite a few pot heads and not one has ever received a felony charge for possession. That's typically reserved for dealing. So... I would like to see how legitimate your concern actually is.
 
In a perfect world no one should smoke the stuff, but the cure is worse than the disease.

The general welfare of more people would be served by legalizing it (not encouraging it) than by the status quo. Even though tobacco remains legal, less and less people smoke it nowadays. This means that a combination of education and taxes can make a difference. Whatever the social costs of marijuana might be, they can be offset by taxing the weed.

However, these poll results probably do not reflect the general public's views. Tis a pity.
 
How many crackheads, methheads and cokeheads do you know?

I live on the contested, burnt out, hope-free warzone on the border of the USA and Mexico

I know WAY too many junkies, crack whores, and whatnot, these used to be my customers with real jobs, now they are theives I have to be wary of because they know I got stuff they can steal
 
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?

That is pretty good actually.

Pot use then, instead of being a door opening deal to other drugs, is just usually the first symptom of being a junkie?
 
My brother's drug of choice is alcohol. In fact, far more people's brothers have screwed up their lives with alcohol than they ever did with pot or cocaine. Yet, it remains legal.

Thus, it is apparent that "it can screw up someone's brother's life" is not a basis for outlawing anything. That's not why pot is illegal.

This is a little skewed though

I know a LOT of people that drink

a few of them mess up their lives to some degree with the alcohol

I know many people who use coke

ALL of them rule 8 their own lives and quickly everyone close to them
 
Yeah, Steve, and really all I see there is stuff you "think." Why don't you go find out for sure, or get a little closer to sure, and get back to me?

Edit: and I have no idea what the legality of a 12-step program has to do with butter in Burbank, but I wonder if you've ever examined the efficacy of them?

I am on intimate terms with the 12-Step program. I have been on the other side of the aisle, and attended Al-Anon as another individual's alcohol use almost drove me insane, and did scar my life spiritually and fianancially. My point is that the 12-Step program is a legal, and sometimes effective alternative to daily marijuana use for addressing both addiction and depression.
 
That is pretty good actually.

Pot use then, instead of being a door opening deal to other drugs, is just usually the first symptom of being a junkie?


Maybe. Maybe it's a sign of an "addictive personality," though again, I dunno if that's a real thing (this skepticism and having to always question what you think you know gets wearying, sometimes. :)).

But I'd say some folks get "hooked," although maybe not clinically addicted, to many things, and probably since childhood. You didn't know, maybe, that little Bobby's refusal to stop watching TV, or playing a video game, or eating chocolate were all signs of his lack of ability to control his impulses....until he smoked a joint. Then you noticed.

Maybe?
 
I am on intimate terms with the 12-Step program. I have been on the other side of the aisle, and attended Al-Anon as another individual's alcohol use almost drove me insane, and did scar my life spiritually and fianancially. My point is that the 12-Step program is a legal, and sometimes effective alternative to daily marijuana use for addressing both addiction and depression.

Yeah, me too. And it didn't work for either of us. He didn't get sober through Al-Anon. He got sober after I left him and he almost went to prison on a murder-for-hire scheme.

I've had some life, folks.

Anyway, I don't like the absolution of personal responsibility in AA. "Powerless over alcohol," "A higher power could restore me to sanity..."

Right. Santa can take your booze away too. As can the tooth fairy. Why would one trust their lives, families, and sanities to a program that espouses help from an imaginary being?


Sorry. Don't buy it.
 
show me a significant number of junkies who didnt smoke pot first
WHOAH!


You are the one saying that marijuana is a gateway drug, you provide the evidence, I carry no burden here.

Show ME a signifigant number of junkies who did, then prove causation as well as correlation. This is your claim, not mine.

I shall await your data.
 
WHOAH!


You are the one saying that marijuana is a gateway drug, you provide the evidence, I carry no burden here.

Show ME a signifigant number of junkies who did, then prove causation as well as correlation. This is your claim, not mine.

I shall await your data.

You are seriously, I am assuming have been outside in the real world once or twice, are going to seriously say 99 out of 100 junkies didnt smoke pot first?

Are you on earth?
 
That is pretty good actually.

Pot use then, instead of being a door opening deal to other drugs, is just usually the first symptom of being a junkie?

No, if pot use was "usually the first symptom of being a junkie" then the majority of people who smoked pot would be junkies. Now given that studies in my nation have estimated that well over ¼ of the population has smoked pot, we would expect around 15 million heroin addicts here, rather that the (roughly) 40,000 we have.

You may be able to make a case that "the first symptom be being a junkie is often pot use" (which is a different claim to the one you posted) but remember, correlation does not equal causation, an you would still have to show that an increase in the number of pot smokers would lead to an increase in the number of heroin users- especially if pot where legal and heroin remained illegal.
 
You are seriously, I am assuming have been outside in the real world once or twice, are going to seriously say 99 out of 100 junkies didnt smoke pot first?

Are you on earth?

And how many had a drink first, or smoked tobacco first? What is it that makes cannabis so different from those other (legal) drugs that it is classified as a "gateway drug" other than the fact that it is currently illegal?
 
And how many had a drink first, or smoked tobacco first? What is it that makes cannabis so different from those other (legal) drugs that it is classified as a "gateway drug" other than the fact that it is currently illegal?

I dont know, like slingblade pointed out, thats a really good question. And as slingblade said, may not be caused by even a drug!

I was just pointing out the hillarity that was suggested junkies didnt smoke pot before heroin or meth or crack or whatnot
 

Back
Top Bottom