Legalize that Obnoxious Weed?

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by MaxJoker

As for the drug itself , hmmmm I've never partaken personally in a personal type sense.

Isn't it supposed to dull inhibitions and encourage someone to make decisions that are in no way sensible

You know full well it does,How else could You have "persuaded" Me to become a Mod ?

[b119a]

Weed if ever accepted throughout the US will no doubt have curiosity seekers now feeling good about smoking weed until friends that don't require it cause shakeups in relationships etc.

The children always a concern will require to put a supercharger on it.

Some communities will create zones in which people supposedly are safe.

[9876543210]

Well, it does appear there is quite a bit of interest in the subject. Again, I have to say that I'm no longer any type of expert on the subject as my experience was 30 to 40 years ago. But I'll do my best to move the debate along.

Beaker,

I'll do my best with this but, again, my experience with the subject happened long ago. But I do keep up with the news.

Originally Posted by Beaker

You may find that your belief that "it is certainly less harmful than alcohol and certainly less addictive than tobacco." will not go unchallenged not least by me.

Even if it were to be correct
...less harmful than....
is absolutely no justification at all, and rightly implicitly states it is harmful,
but just less so.

Well, I can't provide any studies at the moment, I can only provide my experience. And I have to agree almost entirely with Keefriff. I think he hit it right on the head.

Is marijuana (the drug) free of problems? No. I don't think people should use it. But just because I think that doesn't mean people will stop. People throughout history have always used some form of drug.

But lets look at the problems we know we have. Peoples lives ruined because they've gone to jail for it. How many billions (and, really, probably trillions) of dollars have we spent on the war on drugs? Look at whats happening south of our border in Mexico and Columbia. Mexico is close to becoming a narco state with Columbia not all that far behind. How many people are murdered and "disappeared" daily down there?

These are definite problems all associated with our policy of prohibition. So I guess the real question is, whats worse?

There seems to be a premise here that we are obliged to have recreational drugs, and must make a choice of which ones to have at our disposal.
Each of those choices should be made on there own risk/benefit analysis and if it means there are no recreational drugs as none of them passes that test then so be it.
Simply saying well "a" is less harmful than "b" is no justification of "a" at all
The harmful effects to many people's psychological well being are well documented.

Again, I agree. If this was a perfect world then I think there would be little interest in, or use of, any type of drug. But this isn't a perfect world. And no matter what you or I want people are going to do things that aren't all that good for them.

I'm glad to hear that you don't believe you have been harmed, and I sincerely hope that is true, but there are many others who have not been so fortunate.

Well, I think I've turned out OK. But others would certainly disagree.

The brain is a very delicate organ and should be respected. There are many clinicians who believe the fact that the drug is currently illegal means that the effects are under reported as patients don't always admit to having used it
This is arguably another reason for legalisation and one I don't necessarily disagree with.
It is also a valid argument that the law is there to protect individuals in society from each other and not from themselves and therefore the law has no right to interfere with an individuals choice to take drugs
However, we have got used to the law protecting us from ourselves too and legalisation can be interpreted as acknowledgment that it is not harmful which is perceived as sending out the wrong message to society
I also think it is important to distinguish between the proven beneficial pharmacological effects that you rightly bring to our attention and potentially widespread recreational use
There are plenty of drugs which have formerly been used for recreational use in man's murky past which have been banned for use recreationaly but are still invaluable clinically.

Again, I agree with almost all of that. The problem is that we don't live in a perfect world and people will do what they want to do. It seems to me that prohibition is doing a lot more harm than the drug will ever do. Especially in relation to alcohol and tobacco. I mean, I've never heard of a single person having a few (or a lot) of tokes and then turning around and beating their wife and/or kids. Have you? Not saying that it can't happen, it probably can.

[winebeavis]

I don't smoke. Not weed, not cigarettes, pipes, crack, nor banana peels, nada. nothing. Makes me cough.

The libertarian in me really doesn't care who does what to themselves so long as they don't bother me. Victimless crimes to me are senseless.

It's silly to me that cannabis, both rope and dope, are illegal. It's stupid. The only people profiting from cannabis being illegal are those in the drug enforcement business and those bringing in dirt weed from the south. When I look at other countries how they handle things, it's pretty sad that the U.S. is so hard headed.

[9876543210]

richardoe,

Originally Posted by richardoe

Its all very well legalising the stuff, but what happens when some one cant afford to pay for their marijuana? I would guess that they will do what they do now and commit crime to pay for it.

Well, some people may go the crime route but I don't think it will be the majority. The one really nice thing about pot is that you can grow your own. And, if you have the right seeds and a bit of knowledge, you can grow some really high quality stuff. Cost will be a few lights, an elevated electricity bill and a few other things. Not much at all.

There is also the problem of skunk which is far stronger than the grass of he sixties.

Thats a new one on me. What the heck is skunk? We have the furry critters around here but thats all I'm familiar with.

[9876543210]

b119a,

Originally Posted by b119a

Many patients out there may have a physical or mental problem that might be treated with weed, but doctors do not like to go on record as prescribing something that will make you feel good when they tell you modern antipsychotics do a better job.

One of the problems I remember is that we really don't have good scientific data about what pot can and cannot do. Almost any type of research was banned by the federal government for years. Maybe now that will change and we'll be able to get some really good (peer reviewed) studies.

The potency or whatever profile of the weed for such anti-anxiety treatment to be determined makes it nebulous in finding whether 'Xanax Weed' 'Valium Weed' or 'Ativan Weed' might be the best or correct choice for the patient and his dollars.

Never heard of any of those. Are they real? Or just some type of joke?

[9876543210]

brk549,

Originally Posted by brk549

The weed smokers will regret legalizing not to long from now after the feds and states start taxing at four or five hundred percent or probably more.

I'm not so sure of this. The governments will, of course, try to get their hands on this in any way they can. Thats a given. But the thing with pot is that you can grow your own. And thats going to be really difficult to tax. This is one of the areas, as time goes on and the state and federal laws are changed, that I'm most interested to see what happens.

If you grow your own how will they tax this? Can they?

If I understand what oxymoron is medicinal marijuana is.I don't believe smoke in the lungs of any kind can be good for anyone,soothing and gratifying yes but a lot of people smoke cigarettes for that reason.

Again, I have little experience with this but I do know that, at least with some people, marijuana does have a significant positive effect on cancer patients. Why? I don't know. Another reason we need good research.

And you do know that marijuana can be eaten and not just smoked? Chocolate brownies used to be a favorite method of consumption. Smoking gets the drug into your system faster though.

Would you rather have a guy driving an 80,000 pound bullet down the interstate 70 to 80 miles an hour smoking a cig or weed.The guy with the cig is harming himself,the guy with the weed could wipe out a whole family.

I don't think this is really an argument as I don't think anybody wants anyone out there getting high and operating any type of vehicle on public roads. The same rules that govern alchohol should apply. No ifs, ands or buts allowed.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Thats a new one on me. What the heck is skunk? We have the furry critters around here but thats all I'm familiar with.

"Skunk" is one of around 100 strains of Marijuana that have a high level of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4226260.html

[9876543210]

Mal Hombre,

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

"Skunk" is one of around 100 strains of Marijuana that have a high level of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4226260.html

Thanks for the article but it really doesn't clarify things much. According to them, as I read it, "skunk" is really just any type of high quality marijuana that has a THC level above a certain point. Is that how you read it?

Back in the day (70's to early 80's) I had some friends in northern California who grew some really, really high quality sensemilla's that would just lay you out after a single toke. Stuff tasted and smelled like heaven. But I've never heard of anyone even suggesting the stuff could bring on some type of psychotic event. And I never saw anything like that.

So would stuff like that be considered skunk?

The worst stuff I can remember hearing about was pot which was mixed with other drugs. Don't remember them all but I'm pretty sure heroin was one. But as I read the article a mixture of pot and some other drug would not be considered "skunk"?

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Mal Hombre,



Thanks for the article but it really doesn't clarify things much. According to them, as I read it, "skunk" is really just any type of high quality marijuana that has a THC level above a certain point. Is that how you read it?

As far as My Very limited knowledge goes,I would say yes.