Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Going to Pot

  1. #1
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,089
    Blog Entries
    72

    Going to Pot

    On the controversial topic of marijuana, American opinions are rapidly changing, or at least the winds have slightly shifted. Twenty U.S. states have approved the use of marijuana to mollify the side-effects of certain medical treatments such as chemotherapy, and recently two others -– Washington and Colorado -- have gone the extra mile with the bold move of legalizing limited amounts of the weed for so-called “recreational” use.

    On the “pro” side of the issue, the reasons for promoting the “decriminalization” and/or legalization route are mainly solid, with one exception. This specious reasoning comes from a declaration of surrender (rather than victory) over the decades-long “War on Drugs” during which large portions of population ignored, if not flouted, laws against possession of pot. Those who hold this particular opinion like to mention the historical failure of “The Great Experiment” – prohibition – which had the unforeseen effect of inspiring folks who’d never before let a drop of liquor touch their lips to drink as if there were no tomorrow. The age-old conciliation “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is at the heart of this argument; “Everybody disobeys the law anyway, so we might as well make it legal.”(That’s similar to something I read earlier today – though on a less significant issue – about eliminating the apostrophe, since nobody uses it correctly.) If this is your only point for legalizing marijuana, your agenda probably won’t be – as pundits like to say –“going forward.” It reminds me of the famous quotation from Murder in the Cathedral: “The last temptation is the greatest treason. /To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

    A better argument may originate from a philosophical or ideological standpoint. Proponents from both the personal freedom advocates on the Left and the libertarian group on the Right firmly dispute a government’s authority to dictate what an individual can do to his or her physical body. The inherent right to privacy -- not specifically spelled out though clearly implied – in the U.S. Constitution can also enhance this argument.

    From a practical point of view, there are still more points that seem to indicate some change in our nation’s attitude toward marijuana. The down-to-earth financial windfalls of increased tax revenue from marijuana sales is enticing. Regulations and oversight can improve quality control and perhaps keep the black market and gangster element currently associated with the sale of pot under control, and maybe put a damper on the strongholds of violence associated with drug cartels.

    At this point in our history, decriminalization seems to be a crucial transitional step. The primary reason for decriminalizing marijuana for possession and low-level dealing is the shameful disproportion of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration among races. Few people may know and even fewer will admit it, but blatant racism is the primary reason we have anti-drug laws in the first place. Prejudice against ethnic minorities is the unsavory root of anti-marijuana legislation; indeed, the first federal drug laws were proposed as a way to control migrant workers from south of the border.

    Although statistics indicate similar incidents of use of pot among whites and minorities, members of the former group are rarely arrested and prosecuted, whereas the latter – specifically, young Black and Hispanic Americans- become inextricably tangled within the legal justice system, often to the point at which their lives are essentially ruined. Draconian measures such as the notorious “Rockefeller Drug Laws” and “three strikes and you’re out” are just a few of the past abuses of the national attack on drug-related crimes.

    Systematic racism aside, much of the outcry against legalizing pot comes from the ranks of the justice system itself. The more anti-drug laws are on the books, the more law enforcement officers are hired and/or allowed to work overtime. Drug enforcement plays a large part in the livelihoods of prosecutors, and while some high-powered defense attorneys may build lucrative careers from high-powered defendants accused of drug crimes, a large number of the accused facing the court are most likely to be poor and members of a minority, hence becoming victims of chance, the fates attached to the commitment and expertise of their attorneys, who often are over-worked public defenders.

    Another factor in the mix is the rapid rise of privately-owned and operated prisons, which amass considerable revenue by running the correctional system for certain states. These profit-making facilities are in the business of filling cells with inmates and sending the bill to the state. But unlike hotel chains which recruit “guests” through advertising and travel agents, the private prisons lobby for strict drug laws and especially assiduous enforcement to keep the money rolling in.

    Arguments for keeping the status quo regarding marijuana are less numerous. The obvious objection is health-related. Since the using method of using marijuana involves smoking the weed and ingesting the chemicals into the lungs, one might well assume that some of the same dangers associated with tobacco use might also arise with the use of pot.

    The fact is that researchers really don’t know much about the long-term use of marijuana, as opposed to that of tobacco, the harmful effects of which untold numbers of laboratory rats have sacrificed their lives. The scary statistics about tobacco smoke roll out constantly: smoking ranks in the top ten causes of death in the United States, that one in five Americans die from smoking, smoking-related illnesses have been responsible for the loss of 100 million lives in the 20th century, along with the panoply of ailments associated with the use of tobacco: lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and “COPD,” birth defects, ad nauseam.

    What is interesting is the topsy-turvy respective attitudes toward marijuana and tobacco. The stronger the drive toward legalizing marijuana, the harder the push against cigarette smoking. In the old days, marijuana users were “vipers,” whereas cigarette smokers were respectable citizens such as doctors(!), university professors, and advertising executives, like TV’s Mad Men. Now communities have been banning smoking in restaurants and bars, in the workplaces, even in some fresh air environments, like parks. Smokers themselves often are viewed with disdain, if not outright vilified. Such is our changing world: weed okay, Old Golds evil.

    I’m more favor of legalizing marijuana than not, though I’m fairly sure I’m not at all personally interested in using the stuff myself. What bothers me is that there could be deleterious effects of marijuana that haven’t been entirely disclosed and are yet to be discovered.

    And finally, despite the length of this thread, I do believe that our country should address scores of more important issues, such as (but not limited to) world hunger, climate change, education, sensible gun legislation, immigration reform, privacy vs. national security, and last but certainly not least income inequality.

    But unlike those problems, decriminalizing marijuana seems “doable.”










    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../mustomj1.html

  2. #2
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,089
    Blog Entries
    72
    Here is some more material and links about the possible health risks/benefits of marijuana:

    Medical marijuana
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis


    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...s-cause-cancer
    Some evidence that THC, a chemical found in cannabis, can actually kill brain cancer cells.

    Prenatal exposure to marijuana smoke + leukemia in children/
    “glioma”
    A second cohort study by University of Hawaii researchers investigating the risk for malignant primary onset glioma (brain cancer) associated with cigarette smoking and other lifestyle behaviors did report an increased incidence risk for individuals who smoked cannabis at least once per month, after adjustment for sex, race, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and coffee intake. However, no dose-response relation was observed -- by contrast, drinkers of >7 cups of coffee per day had a 70 percent increased risk for glioma – and cannabis was only incidentally assessed as a potential confounding factor
    http://norml.org/component/zoo/categ...ssing-the-risk



    http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....idence-so-far/

    This is a personal anecdote from the O.P.: In the late 1970s we had a family friend who was a heavy pot smoker who died from a brain tumor and a decade later another acquaintance who had similar habits and died the very same way. I realize that some of the links above indicate that THC may help treat cancer cells, but I'm not sure the opposite isn't true. Again, these are just anecdotal.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,780
    Blog Entries
    7
    I approve of legalization. It doesn't make sense to allow alcohol but ban marijuana.

  4. #4
    All are at the crossroads qimissung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lost in the bell's curve
    Posts
    5,123
    Blog Entries
    66
    I'm for it. It can be addicting, but nevertheless terrible damage has been done over the years by making it illegal, and the punishments have been so inconsistent and punitive. Let's do this, and move on.
    "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its' own reason for existing." ~ Albert Einstein
    "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Bonzai
    "Some people say I done alright for a girl." Melanie Safka

  5. #5
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Marijuana is now likely linked to lower suicide rates and fewer road deaths: http://www.policymic.com/articles/81...-suicide-rates

    There is still work to be done on causation, but 17 years is a decent study on the suicide front, and the reduction is enormous.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  6. #6
    Registered User glennr25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    152
    Marijuana> Alcohol. Of course, if they do end up legalizing Marijuana in the U.S., how many pharmaceutical companies do you think will close down due to a drop in antidepressant sales? My guess: A lot.
    "When I understand my enemy well enough to defeat him, in that moment, I also love him." - Ender Wiggin

  7. #7
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Well, if that happened, it would be an enormous benefit.

    Another study I'd like to see is the affect of marijuana on violent crime. I suspect violence will drop where marijuana takes the place of alcohol.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  8. #8
    Registered User glennr25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    152
    An enormous benefit indeed.

    Half of the inmates in prisons would have to be released, drug enforcement operations would have to be halted, hundreds if not thousands of officers nationwide would probably be laid off. In short, the government will get a little smaller. Big government supporters would be tearing their last gray hairs out at the news.

    I would be sitting at home with a cup of joe and a big smile on my face.
    "When I understand my enemy well enough to defeat him, in that moment, I also love him." - Ender Wiggin

  9. #9
    A User, but Registered! tonywalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cayman Palms, Cayman Islands, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    6,458
    Blog Entries
    4
    I do not think there is a substantial increase in marijuana use, just an increase in support for legalisation of marijuana - and i for the record support the use and the legalisation. But as for why more people support legalisation: Because that's the general trend and "sheeple" follow whatever trend.

    Many people who do not smoke marijuana and formerly opposed it being legalised now supporting legalisation - as that is where 'everyone is going' In this case it's a good thing (for me). Thinking about it: It would be seen as borderline 'anti social' in most social settings to be vehemently opposed to legalisation of marijuana - so people do not say anything.

  10. #10
    Registered User Frostball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    165
    I am strongly in favor of marijuana legalization. I agree with pretty much every pro-legalization argument given, particularly the bit about it not being the government's place to tell us what we can and can't have in our bodies, and the fact that it is a victimless crime. It's possible that I am biased, as I am also a regular user. Regardless, the arguments in favor seem pretty overwhelming compared to the petty arguments against, at least in my view. As mentioned the ridiculous fact that cigarettes and alcohol are both legal, despite being apparently far more dangerous. It's true that research on marijuana is limited as of yet, but I still don't think we're likely to suddenly find out that alcohol is actually much healthier than marijuana.

    Many here likely agree with what I've said so far. But I also go much further. I think all drugs should be legalized, based on pretty much the same arguments. Drugs are a victimless crime, the government shouldn't be telling us what kinds of experiences we're allowed to have, and to the extent that a drug can make somebody do something violent or dangerous, that person should be punished for what they actually did, not for taking the drug that may have caused them to do it. This is exactly how we treat it when somebody commits a crime when they are drunk. We don't punish them for drinking, we punish them for the actual crime they committed. Being intoxicated does not abdicate personal responsibility, rather it is the user's responsibility to make sure they are in a safe place, and that they don't take too much, or that they have a babysitter to take care of them and dissuade them from doing stupid acts. Furthermore, sending a person to jail for a drug problem is a terrible way to fix the issue. If a person struggles with addiction, it should be a medical issue, not a legal issue. An addict needs help, not prison where they're likely to come out indoctrinated from the prison experience and thus become worse criminals than before.

    This last bit is definitely more controversial. I just thought I'd throw some arguments out there for the case of legalization for all drugs.

    (edit: I accidentally quoted tonywalt's post above originally, when I just meant to do a regular post.)
    Last edited by Frostball; 08-29-2014 at 04:17 PM.

  11. #11
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostball View Post
    I just thought I'd throw some arguments out there for the case of legalization for all drugs.

    .)
    The problem with this is that the public wants to be protected. Here are some disadvantages to legalizing all drugs:

    1) Anti-biotic use can lead to resistant strains of bacteria, particularly if the drugs are not used properly or are overused. Does Frostball think that nobody would self-medicate for every case of the flu or a cold, even though anti-biotics are useless against viral infections?

    2) Some drugs have horrific side effects that are discovered only through extensive testing. Thalidomide was very effective at treating morning sickness, but led to gruesomely deformed babies. (Thalidomide, by the way, was never approved by FDA. It was purchased overseas by women who then bore deformed children.)

    3) Many anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs can have dangerous side effects which are monitored when the patient is under the care of a doctor, but would not be if they were fully "legalized".

    Of course Frostball is probably referring to recreational drugs. However, I don't see any rationale to legalize valium, or opiates, or Prozac for "recreational use", while continuing to regulate their medical use. Marijuana is different because it is a non-processed plant that anyone can easily grow.

    Of course there are important issues with how we currently regulate drugs. Patented HIV treatments (for example) could be sold cheaply (and for a profit) in Africa, saving thousands of lives. However, drug companies are reluctant to do this because the drugs will then be "diverted" back to the West (undercutting the patent-protected price through which the drug companies make their money and fund their research).

    Obviously, recreational drugs are big business. However, their sales are minniscule compared to the sales of prescription and OTC drugs. How can Fostball deregulate the one without deregulating the other? Does he really think all prescription drugs (and all drugs under development and not yet approved even for prescription use) should be available on the open market? Should we deregulate advertising for these drugs as well?

  12. #12
    Registered User Frostball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    The problem with this is that the public wants to be protected. Here are some disadvantages to legalizing all drugs:

    1) Anti-biotic use can lead to resistant strains of bacteria, particularly if the drugs are not used properly or are overused. Does Frostball think that nobody would self-medicate for every case of the flu or a cold, even though anti-biotics are useless against viral infections?

    2) Some drugs have horrific side effects that are discovered only through extensive testing. Thalidomide was very effective at treating morning sickness, but led to gruesomely deformed babies. (Thalidomide, by the way, was never approved by FDA. It was purchased overseas by women who then bore deformed children.)

    3) Many anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs can have dangerous side effects which are monitored when the patient is under the care of a doctor, but would not be if they were fully "legalized".

    Of course Frostball is probably referring to recreational drugs. However, I don't see any rationale to legalize valium, or opiates, or Prozac for "recreational use", while continuing to regulate their medical use. Marijuana is different because it is a non-processed plant that anyone can easily grow.

    Of course there are important issues with how we currently regulate drugs. Patented HIV treatments (for example) could be sold cheaply (and for a profit) in Africa, saving thousands of lives. However, drug companies are reluctant to do this because the drugs will then be "diverted" back to the West (undercutting the patent-protected price through which the drug companies make their money and fund their research).

    Obviously, recreational drugs are big business. However, their sales are minniscule compared to the sales of prescription and OTC drugs. How can Fostball deregulate the one without deregulating the other? Does he really think all prescription drugs (and all drugs under development and not yet approved even for prescription use) should be available on the open market? Should we deregulate advertising for these drugs as well?
    You know, there are a lot of things you bring up that I've never thought about before. I can't think of satisfactory answers to your objections. I'm going to have to think about it, definitely.

  13. #13
    A User, but Registered! tonywalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cayman Palms, Cayman Islands, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    6,458
    Blog Entries
    4
    I don't disagree, but if one is battling depression - just how should he manage/treat it by marijuana (intake at nights, mornings? lunch time?). I've thought it through and wonder if you have?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,780
    Blog Entries
    7
    What difference would it make what time of day you smoke it?

  15. #15
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by tonywalt View Post
    I don't disagree, but if one is battling depression - just how should he manage/treat it by marijuana (intake at nights, mornings? lunch time?). I've thought it through and wonder if you have?
    The first step would be seeking advice from a professional. Hopefully, that person would be able to give you details on optimum dosage and timing.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •