[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Looks like reddog is a anti-pot zealot. Nothing worse than a reformed smoker.[/quote]
Yeah there is, somebody who makes dumb assumptions.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Ok, asshole, knock of the condescending “Im smarter than you” bullshit. Here is how internet debates work: you make a specific claim (like addiction went from .25% to 27% in 6 years) and you cite a source when asked. Thats not doing the research for someone else thats backing up your assertions…dick.
Your source (peacemagazine.org) makes an assertion that isnt even supported by a direct reference. Your source doenst explain how it reaches its conclusion. Exactly how do they know how much opium was being consumed. Go read my source (Harvard Institute of Economic Research), notice those things called footnotes with references in the text so you know exactly where the information comes from? My source makes it clear that it basis its conclusions on varifiable data…the amount of opium being imported. Here is a direct quote from my source:
“The results therefor provide no evidence that legalization increased opium consumption.”
Fine, here’s another: http://www.opioids.com/opium/history/
"Reflecting and reinforcing these global changes, the legalization of opium in China quickly transformed the country into the world’s leading producer. After the Second Opium War ended in 1858, Chinese officials encouraged local production, and poppy cultivation spread beyond the southwest to nearly every province. As addiction rose throughout China, imports of Indian opium increased from 4,800 tons in 1859 to an historic high of 6,700 tons in 1879. Despite the growth of Indian imports after 1858, most of the higher demand was supplied by Chinese domestic production.
By the 1880s, China was in the midst of a major opium boom, particularly in the rugged southwestern provinces of Szechwan and Yunnan. Observers claimed that China’s leading opium producing province, Szechwan, was harvesting 10,000 tons of raw opium annually. In 1881, the British consul at Yichang estimated the total opium production in the southwest at 13,525 tons, a figure that at first seemed exaggerated. Twenty-five years later, however, the first official statistics showed that Szechwan and Yunnan were in fact producing 19,100 tons, equivalent to 54 percent of China’s total harvest.
Although estimates varied widely, by 1885 China was probably growing twice as much opium as it was importing. By 1906, China had 13.5 million addicts consuming some 39,000 tons of opium. With bountiful supplies and legal retail sales, China had 27 percent of its adult males addicted to opium–a level of mass addiction never equaled by any nation before or since…"
…“–Rising from low levels in the 1840s, China produced 35,000 tons of raw opium in 1906-07–equivalent to 85 percent of world opium supply.”
“The number of opium smokers in China increased from 3 million in the 1830s to 13.5 in 1906”
Look, use whatever numbers you like, the undisputable fact is that opium turned China into a shit hole for over a century. Whether or not you believe that legalization increased opium use, it sure as hell didn’t decrease it. And this you what you want for your country?
[/quote]
Now thats more like it. From 3 to 13 million users in 70 years is a far cry from .27 to 25% in 6 and is right it line with growth trends prior to legalization. My point was not that decriminalization leads to a decrease in use but I see no evidence that it leads to a large increase. Furthormore, aside from allowing English imports, China didnt simply decriminalize opium…it encouraged production. Corrupt government officials grew rich of the drug trade. The situation here isnt the same and I, nor anyone else, is suggesting that our government push for increased production. Using China as an example while ignoring the fact that durring the exact same time period opium was still legal and in use in the United States and much of Europe is kind of duplicitous. How about you use us an example and not China? We didnt have mass addiction in this country before criminalization and we wont after. Its apples and oranges…
Im trying not to bang my head against the desk but…fuck! You know damn well that a lot of laws are bull shit…just because its law doesnt make it right! Im talking about how things ought to be and you keep telling me how things are. You didnt even rebut any of my points. You just regurgitate the same old stock answer. By your logic we shouldnt question anything the Supreme Court says because after all, it must be constitutional if they say so. Never mind that in the medical marijuana case Justice Thomas, Renquist and O’Conner all said that the federal government shouldnt have the power to prohibit its use. But no, your’e right, we shouldnt question the judgment of the other justices…never mind one is a rabid social conservative and the others are all for increasing the scope and power of the federal government.
I want to know how YOU justify prohibiting the personal use of drugs under the commerce clause? As justice Thomas pointed out, it has nothing to do with commerce! When the Founders wrote the words “interstae commerce”…thats what they meant! If they have the right to regulate personal drug use under the commerce clause (when absolutely NO interstate commerce is involved) what dont they have the right to regulate?
Just answer this one question and I’ll shut the fuck up: how come Congress felt it needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol? And if it needed one in that case…how come you dont think it needs one in this case?
Reddog. You need to go smoke a bowl or something. Jeez. Just make sure you don’t jump into your car or get high before work. The substance iteself is innocuous enough that everyone should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it and if they do choose to how often or rarely. The responsibility should justly rest on the individual. If someone’s enough of a dumbass to smoke before heading to work and miss they day, then they deserve to get fired. They lack common sense in the first place. Drugs that are highly physiologically addictive preclude rational thought. They become the entire world for users (who often become abusers).
For every irresponsible alcoholic (who gets behind the wheel after a few too many or misses work after a bender), there are exponentially as many people who have a few drinks on a a weekend night. We have every reason to believe that this would be much moreso the case with mariunana which is many ways is much more innocuous than alcohol. And I would be willing to bet a lot that those whose lives are adversely affected by marijuana already have ready access to it currently.
In fact everybody does. The only thing legalization would really do would be someone to walk into a door and buy a gram just as people walk into the state store and buy a bottle of vodka all the time. In fairness, I’ll admit that there might be some small increase in problems where marijuana has been a factor. But the rise in forseeable problems is small enough that the substance should not be illegal. Why not make Nyquil illegal?
Sure, millions use it to relieve cold symptoms. But there are those who use it to get high. What if they get behind the wheel or don’t show up for work? Better get it off the shelves.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How is my claim full of shit? That article backs up exactly what I wrote, that it decreases intraocular pressure. Get a clue, dumbass.
Let me quote: “A new study that says smoking marijuana is a hazy and impractical way to treat glaucoma is the latest twist to the medical marijuana debate.”
“But to be effective, Green said a patient would have to smoke an unrealistic amount of marijuana If you want to maintain a low interocular pressure with marijuana, then you have to smoke a joint every 1 to 2 hours which is 10 to 12 joints a day, which is 4,000 a year,” he said. “That’s by anybody’s definition – no matter how liberal you are – a considerable consumption”
“For those who smoke cigarettes, marijuana has 50 percent more tar and volatile cancer-inducing compounds,” Green said. “It causes emphysema, changes hormones, changes a whole bundle of things. It is quite a toxic chemical”"
Pehaps you should re-read it.
And you spelled my name wrong.
[/quote]
I should reread it? How about you? Does marijuana decrease intraocular pressure? Yes, it does. That is what I stated and that is what it does. For some strange reason, you seem to believe this article is stating otherwise. This article is simply taking the position that temporary relief from glaucoma is less of a benefit and that a patient should take their drugs instead. We are a very medicated society. Of course there are many people who actually think a patient would be better off fully dosed with Zoloft than studying any natural remedies that also decrease anxiety. Are you following? I tend to think that this plant should be opened for more freedom of study (something it is not currently and most studies that are done are under direct scrutiny by the same agencies tasked to decrease street usage). In short, this article states that it does exactly what I stated it does. That makes you a dumbass.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sure, millions use it to relieve cold symptoms. But there are those who use it to get high. What if they get behind the wheel or don’t show up for work? Better get it off the shelves.[/quote]
Nice. I wonder if reddog realizes that prescription drug abuse is a much bigger problem than marijuana abuse, medically speaking. Our medicines are powerful in this day and age, and many of them (like NyQuil) are double-edged swords. They are both usable and abusable.
An analogy: auto accidents are responsible for about 42 thousand deaths per year. Outlaw cars = problem solved? Impractical. We have to weigh the good vs. bad in these cases.
Legal Marijuana = Good
- Medical use (this is a BIG one, ask and AIDS or cancer patient)
- Recreational use in moderation
- Creation of a new legal industry, reducing criminal activity and CONSIDERABLY lightening the load of our overworked law enforcement and justice systems
- Maybe the hippie potheads will stop whining so much for a little while
Legal Marijuana = Bad
- Possibility of abuse, leading to stupidity and desire for twinkies, appreciation of shitty music like Phish and Weezer
- Commercialization of an underground culture thing, resulting in the death of that special “naughty” feel to smoking a jay
- One more thing that foolish youths will be lurking around convenience stores trying to get me to buy for them
- Loss of leverage for the police when they question suspects. “Do you see what we found in your car? [holds up joint] NOW TALK!!”
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sure, millions use it to relieve cold symptoms. But there are those who use it to get high. What if they get behind the wheel or don’t show up for work? Better get it off the shelves.
Nice. I wonder if reddog realizes that prescription drug abuse is a much bigger problem than marijuana abuse, medically speaking. Our medicines are powerful in this day and age, and many of them (like NyQuil) are double-edged swords. They are both usable and abusable.
An analogy: auto accidents are responsible for about 42 thousand deaths per year. Outlaw cars = problem solved? Impractical. We have to weigh the good vs. bad in these cases.
Legal Marijuana = Good
- Medical use (this is a BIG one, ask and AIDS or cancer patient)
- Recreational use in moderation
- Creation of a new legal industry, reducing criminal activity and CONSIDERABLY lightening the load of our overworked law enforcement and justice systems
- Maybe the hippie potheads will stop whining so much for a little while
Legal Marijuana = Bad
- Possibility of abuse, leading to stupidity and desire for twinkies, appreciation of shitty music like Phish and Weezer
- Commercialization of an underground culture thing, resulting in the death of that special “naughty” feel to smoking a jay
- One more thing that foolish youths will be lurking around convenience stores trying to get me to buy for them
- Loss of leverage for the police when they question suspects. “Do you see what we found in your car? [holds up joint] NOW TALK!!”[/quote]
haha. Agreed. Good post-some good humor but to the point as well.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bite me red dog
Good to see you put some thought into the debate.[/quote]
Red Dog I think the difference between you and me, besides being Anti / Pro drug legalization is that you seem to care a great deal more about the subject than me.
I feel your strong beliefs in this matter make you somewhat irrational. Peace 
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Now thats more like it. From 3 to 13 million users in 70 years is a far cry from .27 to 25% in 6 and is right it line with growth trends prior to legalization. My point was not that decriminalization leads to a decrease in use but I see no evidence that it leads to a large increase. Furthormore, aside from allowing English imports, China didnt simply decriminalize opium…it encouraged production. Corrupt government officials grew rich of the drug trade. The situation here isnt the same and I, nor anyone else, is suggesting that our government push for increased production. Using China as an example while ignoring the fact that durring the exact same time period opium was still legal and in use in the United States and much of Europe is kind of duplicitous. How about you use us an example and not China? We didnt have mass addiction in this country before criminalization and we wont after. Its apples and oranges… [/quote]
US did have a problem. --US opiate addicts increased from low levels in the 1840s to a historic high of 313,000 by 1896.
–US imports of all opium increased dramatically from 32.8 tons in 1859 to 298.1 tons in 1907.
–Average American consumption of opium increased four-fold from 12 grains per person in the 1840s to 52 grains in the 1890s
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi010.htm
Also, prohibition clearly works, if done correctly.
"In 1925, the League of Nations convened the Geneva Conference, launching a new round of drug diplomacy, moving away from voluntary national laws to mandatory international controls over drugs.
Restrained by the colonial lobby, this cautious diplomacy produced international treaties that gradually restricted the right of governments to traffic in narcotics, producing an 82 percent decline in world opium supply–from 42,000 tons in 1906 to 16,000 tons in 1934.
Although none of Southeast Asia’s states actually abolished their opium monopolies, all made gestures that reduced the region’s opium sales by 65 percent in the fifteen years after World War I. The Netherlands Indies, for example, cut the colony’s consumption by 88 percent, from 127 to 15 tons."
Here’s another example: http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1997120207.shtml
They used a Constitional amendment (we’ll never know if they truley needed one)so the Supreme Court wouldn’t overturn the Volsted act. Now you can shut up.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
…
Nice. I wonder if reddog realizes that prescription drug abuse is a much bigger problem than marijuana abuse, medically speaking…[/quote]
I know this is off topic, but how much less would my prescription plan cost if the insurance companies didn’t shell out big bucks for unneeded drugs?
So the reason we should legalize it is because there are worse things?
[/quote]
No, however the article brings up not only excellent points but also offers a rational personal and honest presentation on the topic. Something lacking in this thread and drug use debate in general. I find this excerpt to be an excellent take on why marijuana use is not as bad as alcohol:
"Call me a fuddy-duddy if you like, but tell me this isn’t true: Mix pro athletes with alcohol, other high-testosterone males, and females wearing very little – and bad things often happen.
The police blotter is littered with weekly proof.
If customers could only smoke dope in nightclubs, I seriously doubt as many pro jocks would be arrested for breaking some big mouth’s jaw or bouncer’s arm.
But please, this is no out-of-left-field campaign to legalize marijuana. I merely consider it by far the lesser of two evils. If I were king for a day, I’d make alcohol and marijuana illegal.
Also, please re-read this passage:
"And after checking out the effects of pot on friends, mostly in college, I reached a few conclusions.
Alcohol dramatically alters a person’s normal state, often bringing out his or her worst side, with little or no control over motor skills or better judgment. Marijuana mostly suspends a person’s normal state, allowing him or her to escape into an inner fantasy world moving in slow motion.
I fear people who are drunk, in bars and driving cars. I don’t fear people who are high on grass. "
Great post jsbrook. A lot of truth in there.
BTW Reddog, my POV is that I do feel it should be legalized, however, in a controlled fashion. Ideally, one state would do it, and the effects could be measured after say 18 months or so. Effects such as crime rate, drug arrests, alcohol consumption, DUIs, whether or not the criminal system load was lightened, etc.
Also, the effects would have to be measured in adjacent states.
I’m thinking a strong libertarian state such as New Hampshire.
ALso, it is next to Massachusetts, a state with a high # of potential users/sellers, namely the 100s of thousands of college students and a decent amount of poor inner-city minority groups which tend to make up the bulk of drug arrests.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Reddog. You need to go smoke a bowl or something. Jeez. Just make sure you don’t jump into your car or get high before work. The substance iteself is innocuous enough that everyone should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it and if they do choose to how often or rarely. The responsibility should justly rest on the individual. If someone’s enough of a dumbass to smoke before heading to work and miss they day, then they deserve to get fired. They lack common sense in the first place. Drugs that are highly physiologically addictive preclude rational thought. They become the entire world for users (who often become abusers). [/quote]
Then who makes up for thier lost productivity? If my co-worker calls in sick, either I have to neglect my work to do thiers, or it doesn’t get done, and my company looses money, which decreases the taxes paid, which in turns drives up everyones taxes. It’s been proven that pot smokers visit the doctor more frequently, whic drives up medical costs (supply & demand), which also drives up insurance costs. Who pays for thier workers comp. claims? We all do. If you could see past the end of your nose, you’d understand that. Everything is tied together, you don’t live in a vacuum. [quote]
For every irresponsible alcoholic (who gets behind the wheel after a few too many or misses work after a bender), there are exponentially as many people who have a few drinks on a a weekend night. We have every reason to believe that this would be much moreso the case with mariunana which is many ways is much more innocuous than alcohol. And I would be willing to bet a lot that those whose lives are adversely affected by marijuana already have ready access to it currently. [/quote] Ok, so alcohol kills 17,000 people every year in traffic accidents. How many deaths are you willing to accept so that you can get high? 10,000 a good number? I’d guess if one of your loved ones was killed by a stoned driver, you’d change your tune pretty quickly. [quote]
In fact everybody does. The only thing legalization would really do would be someone to walk into a door and buy a gram just as people walk into the state store and buy a bottle of vodka all the time. In fairness, I’ll admit that there might be some small increase in problems where marijuana has been a factor. But the rise in forseeable problems is small enough that the substance should not be illegal. Why not make Nyquil illegal?
Sure, millions use it to relieve cold symptoms. But there are those who use it to get high. What if they get behind the wheel or don’t show up for work? Better get it off the shelves.[/quote]
-Nyquil has very minor & benign side effect when used as intended. MJ, on the other hand, when used as intended has serious short term side effects: (National Institue of Drug Abuse, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Phamacology, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Pharmacology Review.)
-MJ has been shown to increase risk of heart attack. (Marijuana and Heart Attacks" Washington Post, March 3, 2000)
-MJ has been shown to weaken the immune system. (I. B. Adams and BR Martin, “Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans” Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996)
-Increase the risk of lung infections. (National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Smoking Any Substance Raises Risk of Lung Infections” NIDA Notes, Volume 12, Number 1, January/February 1997.)
-The Institute of Medicine concluded that smoking MJ is not recomended for ANY disease condition. (Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine, 1999)
-MJ has been shown less effective than standard treatments at increaseing appetites in cancer patients. (Marijuana Appetite Boost Lacking in Cancer Study" The New York Times, May 13, 2001.)
-MJ users are 104x more likely to try cocain than thier non-toking peers. (Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health)
This stopped being a useful or even interesting exchange of ideas about 6 pages ago. Before I go,IMHO, you folks are looking to legalize MJ for the sole purpose that you can get stoned without any ramifications, the cost to society be damned.
Over & out.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Reddog. You need to go smoke a bowl or something. Jeez. Just make sure you don’t jump into your car or get high before work. The substance iteself is innocuous enough that everyone should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it and if they do choose to how often or rarely. The responsibility should justly rest on the individual. If someone’s enough of a dumbass to smoke before heading to work and miss they day, then they deserve to get fired. They lack common sense in the first place. Drugs that are highly physiologically addictive preclude rational thought. They become the entire world for users (who often become abusers).
Then who makes up for thier lost productivity? If my co-worker calls in sick, either I have to neglect my work to do thiers, or it doesn’t get done, and my company looses money, which decreases the taxes paid, which in turns drives up everyones taxes. It’s been proven that pot smokers visit the doctor more frequently, whic drives up medical costs (supply & demand), which also drives up insurance costs. Who pays for thier workers comp. claims? We all do. If you could see past the end of your nose, you’d understand that. Everything is tied together, you don’t live in a vacuum. [/quote]
What lost productivity? The people that would be getting high before work and not showing up are the people who are now getting high before work and not showing up. Or the ones working at McDonalds or unemployed and living in their parents’ basement. What evidence do you have, either studies or anecdotal, that would make you think people who are responsible now wouldn’t be because marijuana is legal? Why would you think this? And where’s the proof that pot smokers visit the doctors more often? Having a background in statistics and Research Methods, I can tell you that would be an EXTREMELY difficult study to undertake. A million confounds. The biggest ones being that such studies typically look at heavy users who also usually smoke cigarettes. What is a pot smoker in fact? Someone who smokes everyday, once a week, once a month? Cigarette smokers, big drinkers, the obese, sleep deprived, over-stressed, over-worked, etc… also visit the doctor a lot more. I’d be willing to bet a hell of a lot more than those who smoke once or twice a month and exercise and eat well.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
For every irresponsible alcoholic (who gets behind the wheel after a few too many or misses work after a bender), there are exponentially as many people who have a few drinks on a a weekend night. We have every reason to believe that this would be much moreso the case with mariunana which is many ways is much more innocuous than alcohol. And I would be willing to bet a lot that those whose lives are adversely affected by marijuana already have ready access to it currently. Ok, so alcohol kills 17,000 people every year in traffic accidents. How many deaths are you willing to accept so that you can get high? 10,000 a good number? I’d guess if one of your loved ones was killed by a stoned driver, you’d change your tune pretty quickly.[/quote]
No, I think the punishment for vehicular homicide should be extremely strict when the driver is under the influence of any intoxicating substance. I don’t think my loved ones would be any less safe if marijuana was legal than they are now. A lot of people smoke and don’t get behind the wheel. Some do. I don’t think anyone is any safer because the legal drinking age is 21. A large percentage of those who drive drunk and hurt or kill themselves or others are underage. It’s fun, it’s illegal, it’s illicit, it’s exotic. It’s most appealing to those at an age where judgement is often the worst. I’ve traveled a lot, and the teenagers in all of the countries I’ve been to with less Puritan attitudes towards alcohol all have much healthier attitudes towards it. There’s less drunkeness in general and much less drinking and driving.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote: In fact everybody does. The only thing legalization would really do would be someone to walk into a door and buy a gram just as people walk into the state store and buy a bottle of vodka all the time. In fairness, I’ll admit that there might be some small increase in problems where marijuana has been a factor. But the rise in forseeable problems is small enough that the substance should not be illegal. Why not make Nyquil illegal?
Sure, millions use it to relieve cold symptoms. But there are those who use it to get high. What if they get behind the wheel or don’t show up for work? Better get it off the shelves.
-Nyquil has very minor & benign side effect when used as intended. MJ, on the other hand, when used as intended has serious short term side effects: (National Institue of Drug Abuse, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Phamacology, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Pharmacology Review.)
-MJ has been shown to increase risk of heart attack. (Marijuana and Heart Attacks" Washington Post, March 3, 2000)
-MJ has been shown to weaken the immune system. (I. B. Adams and BR Martin, “Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans” Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996)
-Increase the risk of lung infections. (National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Smoking Any Substance Raises Risk of Lung Infections” NIDA Notes, Volume 12, Number 1, January/February 1997.)
-The Institute of Medicine concluded that smoking MJ is not recomended for ANY disease condition. (Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine, 1999)
-MJ has been shown less effective than standard treatments at increaseing appetites in cancer patients. (Marijuana Appetite Boost Lacking in Cancer Study" The New York Times, May 13, 2001.)
-MJ users are 104x more likely to try cocain than thier non-toking peers. (Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health)
This stopped being a useful or even interesting exchange of ideas about 6 pages ago. Before I go,IMHO, you folks are looking to legalize MJ for the sole purpose that you can get stoned without any ramifications, the cost to society be damned.
Over & out.
[/quote]
How do any of the short-term effects mentioned have any impact on the safety of society? They don’t. You are free to think that about those here who support legalization. It’s not true, in my case at least. I really see little credible evdience that there would be any appreciable cost to society at all. And the point you’re missing is that it is quite easy to get stoned in the privacy of one’s home without any significant risk or ramifications.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
It’s fun, it’s illegal, it’s illicit, it’s exotic. It’s most appealing to those at an age where judgement is often the worst. I’ve traveled a lot, and the teenagers in all of the countries I’ve been to with less Puritan attitudes towards alcohol all have much healthier attitudes towards it. There’s less drunkeness in general and much less drinking and driving.
[/quote]
Thats pretty interesting. Durring my first year of college I had an English prof. from Italy (I know, kinda weird). The question of legalization was raised in class one day and though she didnt support the idea, she did tell us that in Italy children drink from a very young age and because of this (in her opinion) the rate of alcoholism is much lower as compared with that of the US. I dont remember the exact statistics but I remember being pretty shocked at the difference. That says something about human nature…
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
It’s fun, it’s illegal, it’s illicit, it’s exotic. It’s most appealing to those at an age where judgement is often the worst. I’ve traveled a lot, and the teenagers in all of the countries I’ve been to with less Puritan attitudes towards alcohol all have much healthier attitudes towards it. There’s less drunkeness in general and much less drinking and driving.
Thats pretty interesting. Durring my first year of college I had an English prof. from Italy (I know, kinda weird). The question of legalization was raised in class one day and though she didnt support the idea, she did tell us that in Italy children drink from a very young age and because of this (in her opinion) the rate of alcoholism is much lower as compared with that of the US. I dont remember the exact statistics but I remember being pretty shocked at the difference. That says something about human nature…
[/quote]
Yeah, it does. The ‘forbidden’ is very enticing to a lot of people. France is very similar to Italy in that respect. I spent a month there at 15. I lived with a French family. And backpacked around Europe with some friends one summer a few years ago. Social attitudes are really very different in a lot of European countries. Not always for the better with better results. But often.
Reddog,
All Im gonna say is that if you think a .5% addiction rate in the US constitutes mass addiction (which is what I was clearly refering to) then nothing I write is gonna make any difference.
And I’ll let everyone else decide if prohibition is working (I think its pretty obvious it inst). The example you gave dealt with government controlled drug cartels and production…thats hardly similar to todays drug cartels. Try convincing an illegal drug cartel to sign a treaty.
As far as the Volstead Act goes, why do you think Congress was worried about its constitutionality? Simply put, they, unlike you apparently, realized that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to regulate alcohol consumption.
Ill shut up now. I think its pretty clear this is going nowhere…
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
This stopped being a useful or even interesting exchange of ideas about 6 pages ago. Before I go,IMHO, you folks are looking to legalize MJ for the sole purpose that you can get stoned without any ramifications, the cost to society be damned.
Over & out.
[/quote]
“YOU’RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF HIPPIE STONERS!!”
Looks like somebody doesn’t like getting owned. Or should I say “st-owned”?
To set the record straight, I never touch the stuff, and I see no good reason why it should be illegal, reddog. Does that make me a stoner, too? Or can I just recognize a BS law when I see one?
PS The sand is a good place for your head. It suits you.
Reddog, I understand no one is siding with you anymore, like Zeb who is long gone from the thread. Not as fun anymore I know 
2 more opinions:
-Every stat you mentioned re: health is directly applicable to cigarettes as well
-THe war on drugs is failing and will continue to fail. THere simply isn’t enough manpower, the country is too large geographically, the demand is 2 high, and we are “too free” as a society to move around and do as we wish without any hassles, which is good for both good people awa criminals.
The logical decision then is to at least see what happens with legalization and if the positives outweigh the negatives, then go ahead with it.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
It also has the potential for causing auto accidents, work related accidents, work absenteeism, increased workers comp. usage, and lung cancer. Wow, where do I sign up?
By the way, your glaucoma claim is full of shit. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/13/marijuana.glaucoma/[/quote]
MJ is a good thing for the population to have and use. Funny how even with heavy use i still get up at 5 AM everday, workout and never a porblem with it hampering me and causing me to not show up for work. I sleep so well on it i look forward to going to work in the morning.
Cannabis has done wonders for my personal relationship with my Fiancee. Couples fight they bicker and nothing puts an argument to an end and esatblishes peace like MJ. All the emotions die down and you can just talk and actually want to communicate. I wonder how may marriages would be saved because of this effect alone. The purging of bitterness from the mind is very valuable and doen by MJ.
Galucoma? Well let’s just say that the active ingredient and the only effective ingredient in glaucome medicine is nothing other then THC. That’s right THC, one of the over 800 active ingredients in MJ. And it works because of THC receptors.
Now why would the human body have THC receptors and cannabinoid receptors? The identical ones found in cannabis, why?