Should Marijuana Be Legal Or Not? Why?

Should Marijuana be legal? Explain your answer below!

Yes.	60.2%	[ 68 ]
No.	23.0%	[ 26 ]
I don't care just roll me a blunt.	16.8%	[ 19 ]
Total Votes:			[ 113 ]

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mister George Kapland

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.

So what you are saying here is "I can't read because I was dropped on the head as a child.". No need though- you have demonstrated that enough, I promise you.

My position has been the same- I will argue my views, and school people like you any time (not that its particularly hard, just annoying. Like working with Helen Keller.), but, at the end of the day, if there is a ballot initiative in my state to legalize weed in all forms, I won't campaign against it. I won't attend rallies opposing it. I just won't vote for it. See, its called being an adult. At your developmental pace though, you won't get that til your late forties.

[Mister George Kapland]

Riviera de la Mancha

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.

Oh yeah?

Source 1, the same one I used earlier states that teen drug use went down in Portugal.

Source 2, the one you said I stated that said drug use was going down for teens in the US, specifically says that since 1992 that teen drug use as nearly doubled.

So, mister "I read all your sources" you obviously haven't read s**t. Stop blowing smoke, save face. Read the sources.

Furthermore, Source 1, states that ABUSE GOES DOWN specifically curbing the abuse you said would go UP.


So, I've provided two sources that contradict with you.

Riviera de la Mancha

2.) Read the figures you posted and your own argument. Its the opposite.

See above. My sources specifically state the opposite of what you say they claim.

Quote:

And, additionally, it still doesn't address my previous point. Your first source argues nothing regarding making drug use legal. It argues, expressly, that

Already explained how it does.

Quote:

the source of the change is attributed to how they are sentencing drug users. Failure squared now for you.

Quote:

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment)

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz28DYlufVz

So, what they're saying is that people stopped for drugs have the option of seeking counseling IF THEY SO CHOOSE

Riviera de la Mancha

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

You ever even talk to a mod before? It goes a little like "You should have reported him, then"

Riviera de la Mancha

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.

Anybody in the thread, please explain to me how I've dodged any of his questions, failed to address any of his assertions, and ignored any of his premises.

Anybody.

[Amy Reinvented]

Mister George Kapland

Anybody in the thread, please explain to me how I've dodged any of his questions, failed to address any of his assertions, and ignored any of his premises.

Anybody.

Ugh, I can't believe I'm getting into this, and I can't believe I'm actually speaking in favour of this nutjob, but here goes. Waaaaaaay back when, you stated that the federal government does not specifically recognize medical use, thus making all use illicit. He asked you to find a specific reference to this, which you did not. What you did, and which any rational thinker would count in your favour, is to make the assumption that there could be considered two classes of use - medical and recreational - and that since the federal government does not recognize one of those classes of use, then all use must by default fall into the other class. Riviera did bring up that whole "oh, but religious/spiritual/scientific use" thing, but again, for the purposes of the discussion at hand, that's not really relevant. As you stated, religious or spiritual use is not covered by the Controlled Substances Act (which is why, for example, certain Native American churches are allowed to use peyote as a sacrament, whereas any other person could potentially go to jail for having the same cactus), so we can toss that right out. As for the "scientific use" thing, well, I feel that this is a gray area, as even legitimate researchers who want to do studies on cannabis have to go through an enormous amount of red tape and regulation and such. It's almost as though the government is contradicting itself - if it doesn't recognize medical use, then why do they even bother having a cannabis farm to supply MEDICAL researchers, and why do they continue to supply the grandfathered federal MEDICAL patients with pot?

Anyway, my point being, Riviera's rambling and insulting posts had far more inconsistencies and failures to address the topic at hand than yours did, so by all reasoned accounts, I'd say you came out on top in this debate. I specifically take exception to his whole "misuse of driving" thing, defining "misuse" as those times only when someone causes harm to another, and then turns around and says that all non-medical use of cannabis is misuse, without providing a shred of evidence that one's use of cannabis would ever cause harm to another. Certainly there is the *potential* for it, but there is also the *potential* for someone who is texting and driving to smash head-first into an oncoming car and kill its occupants. Any activity that is regulated is regulated for a reason, that reason being that irresponsible execution of the activity has the potential to cause harm to others. I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE in this thread who has advocated the legalization of cannabis has also called for its regulation, and for people who are actually misusing it to be punished in much the same way that people are punished for misusing alcohol (i.e. just like it's illegal to drive drunk, and like how most employers will fire you if you're drunk on the job, it makes sense for it to be illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis, and employers should likewise have similar policies regarding being stoned at work).

Please, Riviera, please feel free to pick apart my post and tell me all about how I'm an idiot. Throw in as many ad hominem attacks as you can muster, because that's all you seem to be good for in this thread. But please also rest assured that I will not be returning to this thread to read your reply or formulate a response to it.

Thank you for reading, and good night, everyone.

[The20]

Mister George Kapland

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

Are you sure we are talking about the same study? Because i read something about 1037 poeple.

[Mister George Kapland]

The20

Mister George Kapland

The20

Ontological Empiricism

The20

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

Are you sure we are talking about the same study? Because i read something about 1037 poeple.

It's possible, I'm using Gaias cell app and links aren't exactly that openable. later i shall read it

[deadroosters]

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'm a Floridian.