Marijuana-what is it good for? :0

[MadDogMe]

Under that argument, child porn should be allowed, since "it's there anyways"...

That's like saying Martin Luther King and Adolph Hitler were the same because they both wanted to 'reorganise society'. Or comparing jaywalking to genicide because they are both crimes . It's childishly polarised generalistion and hardly constructive to the debate. Come on people! ...

Let's not confuse canabis with class A drugs and perverts please?...

It was meant as a very pertenant point(you have to consider the sheer amount of people who use cannabis or who are not opposed to it. 50/50%?). My point being it's not going to make it any more widly available than it already is (and if any of you think it is'nt extremely widespread, please remove your noggin from your colon ), in fact it'd probably take away the mysterious glamour that's attatched to it. As it stands now it's an uncontrolled mess that cost's a fortune in money and manpower that would be better used elsewhere, and would actualy MAKE money for the economy (not to mention third world crop growing countries eh?)...

I don't know for sure why it was criminalised, at a guess it may of been something to do with the depression?(wrong era?), may have been an increase (along with cocaine and opium which were also legal) in abuse due to the 'unpleasant reality' of the time?. The economy could'nt take the added strain of money passing into illicit channels or out of the country?...

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by MadDogMe
My point being it's not going to make it any more widly available than it already is

So the problem is enforcement, right? It's still wrong, correct?

I gotta google something up...

[MadDogMe]

I don't get what you mean. If you mean is it wrong to smoke canabis?, then no. IMO it is'nt a 'crime against the soul'. Cannabis does'nt turn you into a demonic monster(Alpha positive male for all the scientificaly minded out there ). It all depends on the person. If they're a 'bad un' then they're a bad un without cannabis's help. Cannabis is'nt a soul destroying drug like heroin, cocain, amphetamins, LSD and alcohol can be. It just is'nt in the same class. The only comparison is that it's 'mind altering' to some people :shrug: ...

If not, what do you mean? ...

Criminalising cannabis has'nt worked. It has'nt stamped it out, it has'nt even dented it, to much stick and not enough carrot. If society was a better place less people would be escapists...

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by MadDogMe
...then no. IMO it is'nt a 'crime against the soul'.

You may be right, but that's outside the scope of the government involvement, which stands for what's best for people, either individually, or as a group. They're not concerned with spirituality, if that's what you were getting into

I still have to Google for it, but I'd like to know how the government came to make Cannabis Illegal.

Otherwise, having a law and enforcing a law are seperate. If cannabis's availability is still an issue, it's not a legal problem, it's a law enforcement problem, and we all know that our law enforcement organizations aren't able to enforce everything.

[bigben2k]

Here's a good article:
http://www.wikman.com/eric/marijuana.html

In short, it concludes that privately growing/using cannabis ought to be legal.

Here's another one (multiple pages):
http://marijuana.bdtzone.com/history/history.asp

[Boli]

I thought you where against it Ben?

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by Boli
I thought you where against it Ben?

Did I say I was for it?

(don't conclude that because I post a link, that it relates my position )


I just thought that the history of the legalization was relevant, and the first link supports my position.

Maybe privately growing it should be made legal. It could be limited/supervised, so that "Farmer Joe" doesn't turn his 1'000 acres into a cannabis field!

[Boli]

Well my position is and will prob. allways will be:

As a small time recreactional drug and uses in medicene: OK

As a way of life: you need help maaaan.

[bigben2k]

Well, if the above link proposes legalizing it, for one's own consumption, maybe we ought to run a poll on that.

And following the NCAA objective debacle, maybe these personal fields ought to be registered, just to make sure that it doesn't turn into acres upon acres of the stuff, and the resale ought to remain illegal.

The problem really, is that if it's legalized, there's not much stopping the free enterprise spirit from kicking in, to where people would resell it, and the resellers aren't going to care one bit who they sell it to.

Registering the users isn't going to do anything useful.

I don't know. Does anyone else have any ideas about how it would be legalized?

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k
...

I don't know. Does anyone else have any ideas about how it would be legalized?

In my opinion, all drugs should be treated the same way we treat alcohol or tobacco (both "legal" drugs).

Bob

[Boli]

Just make it legal to smoke it in your own home... though illegal to grow it yourself.

Then the government introduces packets of leaf an puts tax on them.... but since they are mass producing it they can tax it up the level of most dealers.... plus people can be sure they are getting the right stuff -- guarantied so people WOULD invariably buy it.

Of course they would still have an underground black market there is no way to stop that b/c it is too easy to grow yourself and since the price varies so much; but people tend to go where it is most convenient not where it's cheapest most of the time.

As for medicinal purposes threat comes in easily. Controlled farming/cultivation of the drug lends it hand in hand to research and prescriptions.

It has been thought through before but there are still hard liners who perceive the drug to be the root of all evil b/c it affects your concentration and inhibitions and will INVARIABLY lead on to harder drugs. And no government will support such an enterprise knowing they will alienate approximately 30% of the electorate.


~ Boli

[Cova]

Here's another article that discusses the history of weed.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

I find it kind of interesting that though many of these articles are very similar, there are suble differences in the things they present as facts. For example, BigBen2k's second link above on the first page states that cotton replaced hemp as the primary fiber for clothing and such because it became cheaper to produce. Yet still today one of the primary arguements for legalization that many use is that hemp is such a good fiber for making various things out of (clothing, rope, etc.).

In any case, I believe we have at least gotten to the point where people who are actually reading these links are coming to understand the issues instead of blindly stating un-informed opinions on the subject. For example I think BigBen at least understands what and why the Canadian government is trying to do in decriminalizing it, even if he still disagrees with it - unlike icehearts 1-liner post at the top of page three which I consider nothing more than flamebait.

Personally, I would like to see it completly legalized (and if you look to the left, you may note that I am in Canada where it is already on the road to being decriminalized). I believe people should be free to grow their own and smoke it for whatever reasons they wish. They should be allowed to sell it, and the government should collect a tax on it. In the end, it should be controlled very much like tobacco currently is here. I should also say that tobacco is currently controled much more stricly here than anywhere else I've been to. Smoking tobacco is currently illegal in ALL public places in Alberta except for bars/pubs which require everyone that enters to be 18 years or older (18 is also the drinking age here btw) - by the end of 2004 that will also be illegal, all public places will be smoke free. That includes dedicated smoking areas of these places, there is not a single McDonalds in this province with a smoking section anymore - if minors are allowed inside, smoking is not allowed. It is also illegal to smoke tobacco outdoors in many public places - notably just outside the doors of buildings that you can't smoke inside of - if you're out in the middle of nowhere you can smoke, but you can't do it in a place where the public needs to walk through your cloud to get to where they are going.

Weed should IMHO be controlled very similar to that. It should not be allowed to be smoked in public, where secondary smoke would be inhaled by the general public. If you are purchasing it somewhere, it will be heavily taxed (tobacco is currently taxed by about 200% here) and require the purchaser to be at least 18 years of age. Just like alcohol driving while under the influence, selling to minors, etc. will all be illegal and have heavy penalties. But for the average recreational user, the government really should have no say in him being allowed to have a plant in a small pot on his dresser in his bedroom, and to break off a bit of it to smoke while he watches a bit of TV before he goes to bed.

[bigben2k]

A very intelligent response, thank you Cova! I have a new respect for you!

Not that I'm changing my position in any way, but if I was forced to choose, the minimum that I would agree to, is smoking it on private property only: anything else would remain illegal.

Maybe that way, when someone is pulled over that's smoking it, they can still get a DUI charge on them, plus a "smoking in public", but not the higher charge of drug possesion, and not any "intent to resell". After all, it would have to be legal to carry it, just like any other commodity.

[iceheart]

I am on the brink of being offended by that comment! But I'm not really...

I was in a hurry and wanted to express a deep concern of mine in as a simple fashion as possible. Stating my arguments would just be a reiteration of bigben's early posts, so I refrained from posting that again and decided to simply lend my support to one of the sides of this argument.

[Cova]

Originally posted by bigben2k
A very intelligent response, thank you Cova! I have a new respect for you!

Not that I'm changing my position in any way, but if I was forced to choose, the minimum that I would agree to, is smoking it on private property only: anything else would remain illegal.

Maybe that way, when someone is pulled over that's smoking it, they can still get a DUI charge on them, plus a "smoking in public", but not the higher charge of drug possesion, and not any "intent to resell". After all, it would have to be legal to carry it, just like any other commodity.

First - thank you for that first line. Now you just have to forgive me if I come back and post something that makes no sense at all after a good smoke

As to the last mini-paragraph, again I think it's pretty much covered by existing laws, in that case the ones dealing with alcohol. Obviously it is illegal to drive while drinking, in fact current laws also make it illegal to drive after smoking up (as it is illegal to posses any weed, but there are no laws against having possesed and smoked it in the past). Public drunkenness laws can be expanded to cover more than just being drunk, but also high on various compounds (which again, would cover even people who have done illegal drugs but no-longer have any in their possession). As for smoking off of private property, it would be the same as where you are allowed to drink. You can't walk down the street with a beer in your hand, and you shouldn't be able to with a joint (and here in Alberta in a year you'll have a hard time doing it with tobacco too). And obviously on private property you can pretty much do as you please. But then there's also crown land - if I'm out camping somewhere (not a official campground, but hiking off the trails) or at a bush-party or something, again I should be free to do as I please. In an effort to crack down on the drug-use that is common at many late-night parties, raves, etc. the entire class of parties is being made illegal in many cities, and such parties are moving out of the cities and into the great out-doors. I don't agree with making the parties illegal in the first place (you are punishing a lot of people just to stop a few from doing some drugs that don't affect others much if at all - E and LSD being the most common to see people doing in my experience, both are swallowed and produce no "second-hand-smoke" type of effect for anyone else in the area), but wherever we end up having them, let us do what we want at them.

And iceheart - I meant no offence. You've made some decent responses since then, but you have to admit that posting nothing more than "I can't believe people are actually even contemplating something so stupid as drug legalisaztion..." is a pretty useless post. At the least if all you wanted to do was state your position on the matter you could have done so without attempting to insult any/all of us that are pro-legalization. In fact I would go so far to say the fact that we are contemplating it shows that we are in fact intelligent, and after we make a decision, whether for or against legalization, then you can make your own opinions on whether it was a good choice.

[bigben2k]

I hear you. The objection that I have, is more of a moral one. I don't want to do it, and I don't want my family exposed to someone doing it.

This is a similar situation to an abortion rights debate: some religions allow it, so it should be legal, and those whose religion don't allow it, still have the choice.

But in this case, there's no "need" or "right" that would allow marijuana to be made legal. If anything, it might cause a number of other vices to become legal.

On the other hand, and to be fair, tobacco is curently legal, and the real issue may be more about correcting an "injustice" in the first place, when marijuana was made illegal under dubious pretenses, as the history shows. But I'll always maintain that smoking pot is immoral.

[iceheart]

I did not imply or express (nor did I intend to) an insult to any one of you pro-legalisation people. My opinion is that it is, as I put it "stupid", I have no opinion on any person with this opinion. In fact I know a lot of smart people that do stupid things, doing a stupid thing (in my opinion) or believing a stupid belief (ALSO in my opinion... no insults thrown) does not make a person stupid, so I should whish that you did not interpret my first post in such a personal way.

[iceheart]

Also that sounds a lot like a legal disclaimer I should stop thinking so much while I write.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by iceheart
I did not imply or express (nor did I intend to) an insult to any one of you pro-legalisation people. My opinion is that it is, as I put it "stupid", I have no opinion on any person with this opinion.

I can respect your opinion. The objection that was noted against you is that you simply and bluntly expressed it. As with any other debate, you should be able to offer a rational explanation for your position, otherwise your position comes off as being based on prejudice, which also implies that you may be unaware of the details on the issue.

We're on the same side here, but on a different basis.

[superart]

I find it interesting that there are two rational, and expresive people, one on either side, (im refering to bigben and cova) and they have to keep all the crackpots and "uninformed" at bay, and must routinely remind them that these wild outbursts are not helping, but most likely hurting their case. Just an interesting observation, IMHO.

By the way, I am pro-legalization. pot should be legalized on the same level that tabaco or alcahol are, since it is nowhere near as harmfull to either the individual or society as a whole.

Furthurmore, I believe that harder and more addictive drugs, such as cocain, crack, etc. should also be legalized, but HIGHLY restricted. What I mean is, should an existing adict want/need a fix, he would go to a clinic, where a doctor would both prescribe and administer the propper dosage. I emphasize administer, since this would cut down or eliminate the street resale of such drugs, the rate of overdoses, and the rate of infection through dirty needles. Also at these clinics the addicts would recieve help on overcoming the problem and beating the habit.

In adition, since there would no longer be a demand for illigal drugs, the crime associated with them, such as bribery of officials, murder, gang violence, etc. would be eliminated as well. Just like after prohibition.

With such a plan, not only would the addicts no longer have to commit crimes such as burglary or mugging to get the needed funds to buy drugs, there would be less or no drug related crimes of the nature described above. Plus the addicts would be getting help with beating the addiction.

It is my understanding that some parts of canada have recently started similar programs in low-income enviornments with high drug problems. They have noticed a dramatic decrease in overdose cases and drug-related crimes commited by desperate addicts.

Im not sure of the source for this, I heard it on a news blurb on the radio.


*P.S. Sorry for the poor spelling, I'm @ work and i have no spell-check.

[bigben2k]

That's an interesting perspective, Superart. It's similar to Utabintarbo's, where he expresses that the government shouldn't have any influence in our personal and private lives.

However, it becomes the people's problem, when medical expenses negatively affect them. In other words, if you end up needing treatment, as a result of being on drugs, wether it's detox or a car crash, then you just bumped my insurance premiums. In Canada, it increases your taxes.

It's also not in the people's interest to allow a company to make money from selling a substance that is addictive, because the product markets itself, and I mean, the product creates a need for more of it, and that's unfair.

[nicozeg]

But if goverment cuts all the money spent on drugs war and reassign it to health and rehabilitation programs, the thing balances. Maybe it could lower your insurance costs!

[superart]

However, it becomes the people's problem, when medical expenses negatively affect them. In other words, if you end up needing treatment, as a result of being on drugs, wether it's detox or a car crash, then you just bumped my insurance premiums. In Canada, it increases your taxes.

Yes, but what about all the drugies that wind up in the ER from overdoses? Such a plan would practicaly eliminate overdose cases in the ER, which is a cost to taxpayers both in the US and Canada.

It's also not in the people's interest to allow a company to make money from selling a substance that is addictive, because the product markets itself, and I mean, the product creates a need for more of it, and that's unfair.

The whole point of the clinics would be to get the drugies off the drugs. The doctors would be there to administer and monitor, and at the same time could employ therapists to help in the recovery process.

Also, I did some googleing, found a couple links, unfortunately most of them were broken. this one, however was good:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/cds..._drug/appb.htm
if your concerned about financial cost to citizens, read the end. Se how this type of program has made life cheaper already.
does that sound like an infommercial?

also:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n992/a06.html?192

[superart]

Originally posted by nicozeg
But if goverment cuts all the money spent on drugs war and reassign it to health and rehabilitation programs, the thing balances. Maybe it could lower your insurance costs!

BINGO!!

Imagine all the money we spend on drug raids, customs inspections, court time, and the like that would all be gone.

[Boli]

I'm sure they'll find another way to waste it... ---> millenium dome now wasn't that a great success?