Welcome to Gaia! ::

Should Marijuana be legal? Explain your answer below!

Yes. 0.59821428571429 59.8% [ 67 ]
No. 0.23214285714286 23.2% [ 26 ]
I don't care just roll me a blunt. 0.16964285714286 17.0% [ 19 ]
Total Votes:[ 112 ]
< 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 >
Insanity_Of_Chaos's avatar

4,500 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Brandisher 100
  • Member 100
Mister George Kapland

However, Cannabis wasn't illegal until the early 1930's. Thus, it twas part of our cultural identity for the exact same time frame as Alcohol.


Marijuana was not made illegal at that time. In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, and it was only illegal if you did not pay taxes on it. It was a means of keeping minorities in check, as they couldn't afford to pay those steep taxes.
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
I've written a few research papers on this subject for my college classes. There is no reason that marijuana should be criminalized. The reasons it stays this way is not the reason most people think. It has nothing to do with the users and what they do with it. It has to do with what people replace with marijuana.

The cannabis plant itself it a small goldmine of resources. The plant is very strong and fibrous, lending well its uses to making textiles such as paper and fabric. The plant also can be rendered into fuel. The plant, in the correct growing conditions, can be harvested four times a year and it does little damage to the soil it grows from.

The plant also yields chemicals that do many things for the body. The two most active chemical components in this plant are THC and CBD. Both these molecules do different things for the body. THC rich treatments are used to treat issues such as pain, nausea, glaucoma, and even promotes healthy oxygen levels in the blood. CBD rich treatments have been shown effective in treating anxiety, ocd and other stress disorders, seizures, and has been known, since the 70's, to cure certain forms of cancer.

These benefits threaten not the people, but large companies that would normally have no competition. Marijuana's effectiveness as a textile resource is immense. The fact it can be grown and harvested so effectively means it very easily can push out major companies. These would be lumber industries, limited now to building materials (dying because of the economy) because hemp makes paper easily and cheaply. Also cotton industry, again because of the durability of hemp, which can be made as soft as the finest cottons. This would lower the price of these products to the american economy, and put these companies in jeopardy.

The benefits of using marijuana as a fuel source put every gasoline company in a state of panic as well. Since there are beginning to be more flexfuel vehicles oil could easily come from the marijuana plant and then could be refined into fuel.

The medical benefits of marijuana are various. Because of this pharmecutical companies have to compete with a substance which has no sideeffects, is low cost, and can effectively put many medications off the market.

Nothing to do with people getting high, nothing about how lazy we are or are not. People who are lazy will be lazy, and people who are modivated enough to make something of themselves will manage to do so. Marijuana isn't going to change that.

If you would like to see my sources, just let me know and I will post them.

I have never much bought the 'big pharma/gas/lumber/clothing is keepin us down man for the money man!' argument.

I mean really, am I to believe a sect of industry, with literally so much money its executives crap 500 dollar bills, really couldn't mosey on down to congress and create a regulatory scheme wherein only they are allowed to grow and commercialize weed? The argument is just too looney to me to buy when pharma and other large companies have proven to have a damn good track record of doing just this kind of thing with lobbying and PACs and the like.


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Are you just so bored that you feel the need to talk down to someone?
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Insanity_Of_Chaos
Mister George Kapland

However, Cannabis wasn't illegal until the early 1930's. Thus, it twas part of our cultural identity for the exact same time frame as Alcohol.


Marijuana was not made illegal at that time. In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, and it was only illegal if you did not pay taxes on it. It was a means of keeping minorities in check, as they couldn't afford to pay those steep taxes.


However, if inorder to grow/possess cannabis you had to have a Tax Stamp.

Inorder to get a Tax Stamp you had to grow/possess cannabis.

Possessing Cannabis with out a Tax Stamp was a prison sentence. IT was a thinly veiled attempt at illegality guised as a tax measure.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Man, you're a terrible debater. I thought because I was so bad the great and mighty Riviera would keep addressing posts that are so "obviously wrong" and conducted by a "poor debater"
You'd think you might even be able to bring a source or two to back up your assertions.


Your trolling and concessions have been noted, get the ******** out of drug threads. We're a better class of debater than such an average mind as yourself.
Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Are you just so bored that you feel the need to talk down to someone?

No- I just think its lame when people attempt to brag online.

Are you so bored you feel the need to respond to someone whom you think is talking down to you?
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Man, you're a terrible debater. I thought because I was so bad the great and mighty Riviera would keep addressing posts that are so "obviously wrong" and conducted by a "poor debater"
You'd think you might even be able to bring a source or two to back up your assertions.


Your trolling and concessions have been noted, get the ******** out of drug threads. We're a better class of debater than such an average mind as yourself.

I already provided all the sources I need to prove my point that you can't address arguments no matter how easily packaged they are. I guess if its not in a dime bag, you lose focus, huh?
CaseyAlena's avatar

6,800 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Tycoon 200
  • Brandisher 100
All I do is roll blunts. But some of the legalization laws coming up on the ballot for some states would actually put many more restrictions on the use and distribution of bud. So be careful where you're voting, and make sure to be responsible and read the facts.
MisdreavusPrincess's avatar

Timid Vampire

9,750 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Streaker 200
Consider that there are lots of legal things that do way more damage than weed, no reason why it shouldn't be legal.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Are you just so bored that you feel the need to talk down to someone?

No- I just think its lame when people attempt to brag online.

Are you so bored you feel the need to respond to someone whom you think is talking down to you?


Because it's haughty and frankly it's rude to sound like you're some kind of superior person because weed isn't your particular hobby when perfectly sound-minded people partake.

You've been doing it the -entire- thread. Calling names should be beneath you, I would think. Calling someone Shaggy or Scooby or in any reference to half the population in the 60's is also an implication that because we smoke weed or advocate for the legality, we must be lazy or slow-minded.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Riviera de la Mancha

I already provided all the sources I need to prove my point that you can't address arguments no matter how easily packaged they are. I guess if its not in a dime bag, you lose focus, huh?


I think it's time I bring something interesting up. I haven't smoked in a while. And you haven't provided ANY sources. Not once the ENTIRE thread.

Now address this post:
"
Riviera de la Mancha

Another one of these terrible shows from you Shaggy? Looks like its time for me to, again, show you that its not indeed a real swamp monster scaring people at the lake...
Your first source is, in typical form for you, off base. Quoting myself, "I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.". Your source says nothing about this point. Rather, it discusses Portugal's drug policy, which replaced more traditional punishments with rehab to reduce drug use rates. It does not address my comment, which, put differently, says that any time you allow the public to do something, you open up the possibility that some people will abuse the new thing you are allowing them to do.

And that source showed that we can help curb abuse with lenient policies, which in fact DOES address your point. Stop with the shell-game. You said allowing somebody to perform an act opens up abuse, my source says that allowing somebody to perform an act opens up the possibility of treatment for said abuse. wink
Riviera de la Mancha

Your second link is just as pointless, as it seems to agree with the current system we have in the US, as under the current policy, we have seen drug use by teens drop. This is despite your fear-mongering that it has done nothing.

Fear-mongering? I did nothing but point out statistics.


Oh, and my second source says drug use has INCREASED

Quote:
Marijuana use has increased since 1992. The past-month use has dramatically increased among teenagers of all ages:

High school seniors: from 12% in 1992 to 20%
10th graders: from 8% in 1992 to 16%
8th graders: from 4% in 1992 to 6%

Same source
Riviera de la Mancha

It does nothing to establish whether or not allowing for drug use to become easier would not, at some level, increase the number of underage users as you open more channels for use. Your first article would have been better spent addressing this, though it raises a case for changing how we punish people, not whether its criminal or not.

Except teen use goes down.
Riviera de la Mancha

Now, for the rest;
You erroneously assume my assessment of alcohol's cultural worth is a question of number of users, which your comments missed by only comparing weed to other illicit drugs. Alcohol is not illicit.

However, Cannabis wasn't illegal until the early 1930's. Thus, it twas part of our cultural identity for the exact same time frame as Alcohol.

And, I can chronicle it's use in the colonies, since their founding to the present. Every thing from presidential use, to pop culture, to medicine, to recreation, from film to music.
Just as you can with alcohol.

Now, kindly, get the hell out of drug topics.

Oh, and you don't have to support jail policies to enforce a moral code that allows for it too happen. You've offered no alternatives, therefore your lack of action is a form of support in-itself, regardless of personal view.
"

Or concede and get the ******** out.

Any deviation from this, or any name calling shall be considered a sign of your poor debate skills and you will be reported for spamming, trolling, and abuse.
Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha
Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
Riviera de la Mancha

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Are you just so bored that you feel the need to talk down to someone?

No- I just think its lame when people attempt to brag online.

Are you so bored you feel the need to respond to someone whom you think is talking down to you?


Because it's haughty and frankly it's rude to sound like you're some kind of superior person because weed isn't your particular hobby when perfectly sound-minded people partake.

You've been doing it the -entire- thread. Calling names should be beneath you, I would think. Calling someone Shaggy or Scooby or in any reference to half the population in the 60's is also an implication that because we smoke weed or advocate for the legality, we must be lazy or slow-minded.

Hey, I can't help it if I can push a poster's buttons while still making a point. Name calling is never beneath me when someone refuses to show me the same courtesy.

Look back to the beginning of this thread. I made one thing clear from the outset- I ultimately couldn't care less with what people do regarding pot. I know my view is contrary to alot of people, especially young people in my age group, my brother being one such person. I, like any person, dislike and condemn a number of things; weed smoking, saying 'axe' instead of 'ask', using text talk in regular conversation (cray, wtf, lol), wearing a dark tie, dark suit, and dark dress shirt. The list goes on and on.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

The20
Ontological Empiricism
The20
Ontological Empiricism
-Kali-La-Fae-
Yes now can we PLEASE stop talking about this.

It has been done to DEATH.

So has abortion and gay marriage. If we rid the ED of the hot issues, we'd probably die of boredom.
We could discuss more important issues, for example why you should all hail me as your new emperor.

Putting that aside, considering latest studies suggest strongly that Marijuana has a negative effect on intelligence it don't see why it should be legal. What i do think should change is the punishment for using and having Marijuana, which seems a bit over the top from my point of view.

Source for these studies? I've seen some that state that marijuana may affect short-term memory, but nothing really about affecting someone's intelligence.

But really, I don't see anything too damaging with marijuana, compared to something like alcohol.
Article from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456
Seems this is only true for young users, but then again, how many 30+ old people smoke cannabis?

Check out the abstract sometime it used less than 100 subjects and the correlation rate was less than .00[some] which puts it in the negligible category of correlation rates.

The "study" itself acknowledges that more data is needed
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha

I already provided all the sources I need to prove my point that you can't address arguments no matter how easily packaged they are. I guess if its not in a dime bag, you lose focus, huh?


I think it's time I bring something interesting up. I haven't smoked in a while. And you haven't provided ANY sources. Not once the ENTIRE thread.

Now address this post:
"
Riviera de la Mancha

Another one of these terrible shows from you Shaggy? Looks like its time for me to, again, show you that its not indeed a real swamp monster scaring people at the lake...
Your first source is, in typical form for you, off base. Quoting myself, "I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.". Your source says nothing about this point. Rather, it discusses Portugal's drug policy, which replaced more traditional punishments with rehab to reduce drug use rates. It does not address my comment, which, put differently, says that any time you allow the public to do something, you open up the possibility that some people will abuse the new thing you are allowing them to do.

And that source showed that we can help curb abuse with lenient policies, which in fact DOES address your point. Stop with the shell-game. You said allowing somebody to perform an act opens up abuse, my source says that allowing somebody to perform an act opens up the possibility of treatment for said abuse. wink
Riviera de la Mancha

Your second link is just as pointless, as it seems to agree with the current system we have in the US, as under the current policy, we have seen drug use by teens drop. This is despite your fear-mongering that it has done nothing.

Fear-mongering? I did nothing but point out statistics.


Oh, and my second source says drug use has INCREASED

Quote:
Marijuana use has increased since 1992. The past-month use has dramatically increased among teenagers of all ages:

High school seniors: from 12% in 1992 to 20%
10th graders: from 8% in 1992 to 16%
8th graders: from 4% in 1992 to 6%

Same source
Riviera de la Mancha

It does nothing to establish whether or not allowing for drug use to become easier would not, at some level, increase the number of underage users as you open more channels for use. Your first article would have been better spent addressing this, though it raises a case for changing how we punish people, not whether its criminal or not.

Except teen use goes down.
Riviera de la Mancha

Now, for the rest;
You erroneously assume my assessment of alcohol's cultural worth is a question of number of users, which your comments missed by only comparing weed to other illicit drugs. Alcohol is not illicit.

However, Cannabis wasn't illegal until the early 1930's. Thus, it twas part of our cultural identity for the exact same time frame as Alcohol.

And, I can chronicle it's use in the colonies, since their founding to the present. Every thing from presidential use, to pop culture, to medicine, to recreation, from film to music.
Just as you can with alcohol.

Now, kindly, get the hell out of drug topics.

Oh, and you don't have to support jail policies to enforce a moral code that allows for it too happen. You've offered no alternatives, therefore your lack of action is a form of support in-itself, regardless of personal view.
"

Or concede and get the ******** out.

Any deviation from this, or any name calling shall be considered a sign of your poor debate skills and you will be reported for spamming, trolling, and abuse.

As I have told you a number of times, your failures are documented here. Anyone is free to go find them.

1.) By arguing that it is curbing use, it assumes that there is use, which supports my point; anytime you permit people to do something, you open up the possibility that people will abuse that capacity to act. Your article doesn't discuss 'letting people do' anything. It discusses changing the punishments applied to drug crimes. It fails miserably at addressing anything I said. I can't put it any more simply than that.

2.) Read the figures you posted and your own argument. Its the opposite. And, additionally, it still doesn't address my previous point. Your first source argues nothing regarding making drug use legal. It argues, expressly, that the source of the change is attributed to how they are sentencing drug users. Failure squared now for you.

Hey, report me for trolling or abuse. I would love to open up a dialog with the mods regarding your behavior here. Do, please.

Said it once, said it again- you just are incapable of addressing anything I say. No matter how easily I package it. No matter how many times I serve it to you on a silver platter. You have no interest in listening to anything I post, and that is where your inequities show forth.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Riviera de la Mancha
Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha
Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha

Sure you can, Dead Eye.


Are you just so bored that you feel the need to talk down to someone?

No- I just think its lame when people attempt to brag online.

Are you so bored you feel the need to respond to someone whom you think is talking down to you?


Because it's haughty and frankly it's rude to sound like you're some kind of superior person because weed isn't your particular hobby when perfectly sound-minded people partake.

You've been doing it the -entire- thread. Calling names should be beneath you, I would think. Calling someone Shaggy or Scooby or in any reference to half the population in the 60's is also an implication that because we smoke weed or advocate for the legality, we must be lazy or slow-minded.

Hey, I can't help it if I can push a poster's buttons while still making a point. Name calling is never beneath me when someone refuses to show me the same courtesy.

Look back to the beginning of this thread. I made one thing clear from the outset- I ultimately couldn't care less with what people do regarding pot. I know my view is contrary to alot of people, especially young people in my age group, my brother being one such person. I, like any person, dislike and condemn a number of things; weed smoking, saying 'axe' instead of 'ask', using text talk in regular conversation (cray, wtf, lol), wearing a dark tie, dark suit, and dark dress shirt. The list goes on and on.


So, what your saying is,"i concede". Good.

I'd say from the shifting of goal posts and actually having your moral code put into question for the public with jail and use statistics, and your blatant ignoring of relevant posts your actually the one with pushed buttons.

Leave the trolling of drug threads too the curse and anarchy they can actually make relevant arguments when challenged.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games