Jump to content


Legalization of Marijuana

Started by Guest_crazy mike , Feb 26 2006 12:33 AM

  • Please log in to reply
590 replies to this topic

#426 Guest_entheo_djinn

Guest_entheo_djinn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:13 PM

DMT requires that you take another drug simultaneously to experience the full effect, from what I remember.

It's only necessary to eat an MAOI when you plan on eating DMT as well. Smoking DMT bypasses 1st metabolism and does not require that you inhibit any enzymes.

Also, DMT is, if I'm not mistaken, a drug that can initiate lucid-dreaming. LSD is an hallucinogen; whereas DMT has various other characteristics.

LSD and DMT both bind to the same neurotransmitter in the brain, 5-HT2A. They act on others as well but this where their primary activity is and this is what classifies them both as "psychedelic drugs".The only real "hallucinogens" are anticholinergics aka deliriants.(http://en.wikipedia....Anticholinergic)

Oh, and LSD is NOT the most potent. That's a plant. The plant, like DMT however, does not last anywhere near as long as LSD.

Yes, lsd is the most potent psychedelic drug known to man.http://www.erowid.or...ask.php?ID=2830What's a plant btw? I'm not sure what you mean.EDIT for Pirate :

There's the problem, the real thing is muuuuch better, but doesn't last long. Isn't synthetic DMT like 2CI somewhat? Oh, and Salvia is also quite strong (the 40 and 80x at least), too bad it only lasts like, 10 minutes.

They're chemically identical. I had the option of getting organic DMT but it was extracted from a plant...mimosa bark I believe, anyway my point is DMT wouldn't have been the only thing in that extract, there would have been other alkaloids lingering in there.2c-i is a completely different chemical altogether I've tried it and it's not for me. Tryptamines>Phenethylamines XD...of with of course the exception of mescaline which I've yet to try. 2c-e is quite nice though.

One could argue that you have to be in a proper setting and frame of mind to avoid a bad trip, personally I've really hadn't had a problem with 'em, though mst people seem to at times.Then again, I haven't done LSD in about 3 years.

Yes, set and setting are extremely important and are often the cause of bad trips.

DMT can be described as an out-of-body experience, but has never happened to me. Then again I never took it with anything else (well, other things have been in my system, but from hours before)

This is how I understand it to be. The 5 minutes or so seems to last forever :)I didn't breakthrough when I smoked it though.edit - fixed link :awesome:

Edited by entheo_djinn, 09 December 2008 - 10:43 PM.

  • 0

#427 Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G

Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:24 PM

Wikipedia says smoking DMT and ingesting it orally with MAOI are different experiences. Meh, I don't know. Never done any drug other than ethanol, and I can't say it was all that enjoyable. The only drugs I'm interested in trying are LSD, and those that induce lucid dreaming.Oh, and that plant: A friend of mine who's likely been doing this as much, or more than you, regularly does LSD, and he only tried that plant once. He explained it to me as basically an entire LSD trip in one hour rather than twelve. Somewhat more intense than he bargained for.Edit:If you mean by per milligram, obviously LSD is the most potent - but you can't, as far as I know, achieve that same effect without killing yourself on LSD.Ah, it's salvia divinorum. The plant is actually quite legal in many countries. It's somewhat controversial whether it's more powerful than LSD or not; I only know what my friend told me.

Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 09 December 2008 - 10:33 PM.

  • 0

#428 Guest_fnderguitarist

Guest_fnderguitarist
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:34 PM

I'm tired of people ridiculing marijuana and the people who smoke it illegally. Weed is relatively harmless. It is near impossible to overdose, and there is no scientific evidence showing the smoking it causes cancer (only the butane from the lighter). Honestly, I firmly believe the marijuana should be classified as a recreational drug like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Heck, these three legal drugs can be more dangerous than weed. There are no known cases in which a user of marijuana becomes physically addicted (only psychologically). Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine all carry multiple cases of dependence. As a person who has alcoholism lurking in his family, I just don't understand why weed is considered more dangerous. The only thing marijuana does on the brain is make it relaxed, happy, and lazy. And that is why I think the government has classified marijuana as an illegal narcotic, not because it is dangerous to our health, but because marijuana use promotes laziness, and laziness interferes with an capitalistic based economy.
  • 0

#429 Guest_entheo_djinn

Guest_entheo_djinn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:37 PM

Oh, and that plant: A friend of mine who's likely been doing this as much, or more than you, regularly does LSD, and he only tried that plant once. He explained it to me as basically an entire LSD trip in one hour rather than twelve. Somewhat more intense than he bargained for.

I'm still not quite sure, if you mean dmt then no, dmt is not a plant, it is however synthesized in many species of plants as well as the human brain.**edit - oh I just saw your edit. Check that link I posted eariler, it mentions salvia in relation to lsd.I've smoked salvia as well and it's not like lsd at all. In fact the active compound in salvia, salvinorin-a, is not even in the same class of drug as lsd. Salvinorin-a is a dissociative anesthetic, and it binds to the NMDA receptor.

Edit:If you mean by per milligram, obviously LSD is the most potent - but you can't, as far as I know, achieve that same effect without killing yourself on LSD.

1 milligram(mg) = 1,000 micrograms(μg). An average dose of lsd is ~100μg so 1mg of lsd is roughly 10 doses. 10 doses is obviously a very intense trip more than the average person would care to ingest but it certainly wont kill you.Only drugs that act similarly in the brain should be compared in terms of effects.

Edited by entheo_djinn, 09 December 2008 - 10:45 PM.

  • 0

#430 Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G

Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:47 PM

I'm still not quite sure, if you mean dmt then no, dmt is not a plant, it is however synthesized in many species of plants as well as the human brain.**edit - oh I just saw your edit. Check that link I posted eariler, it mentions salvia in relation to lsd.I've smoked salvia as well and it's not like lsd at all. In fact the active compound in salvia, salvinorin-a, is not even in the same class of drug as lsd. Salvinorin-a is a dissociative anesthetic, and it binds to the NMDA receptor.

I've done some checking. Apparently LSD isn't the only incredibly powerful psychedelic out there. The plant isn't comparable to LSD (in potency), but the substance that induces the effect however, is... Somewhat more powerful than you might be aware.

Salvinorin A has been reported to be the most potent naturally occurring hallucinogen, with an effective dose in humans in the 200- to 1,000-μg range when smoked (1, 3). Salvinorin A thus rivals the synthetic hallucinogens LSD and DOB in potency.


  • 0

#431 Guest_entheo_djinn

Guest_entheo_djinn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:53 PM

Salvinorin A has been reported to be the most potent naturally occurring hallucinogen, with an effective dose in humans in the 200- to 1,000-μg range when smoked (1, 3). Salvinorin A thus rivals the synthetic hallucinogens LSD and DOB in potency.

That's still less than a threshold dose of lsd, which could show activity as low as 10-20μg if injected. DOB shows oral activity around .2mg or 200μg.edit - Ah, I see. Yes, salvinorin-a is the most potent naturally occuring dissociative. :\ But since it is a dissociative http://en.wikipedia....ssociative_drug, it really shouldn't be compared to lsd, which is a "true" psychedelic. Some of the subjective effects may seem similar, but what's actually going on in the brain is comeptely different.

Edited by entheo_djinn, 09 December 2008 - 11:00 PM.

  • 0

#432 Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G

Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 11:06 PM

Ah, sorry, I mixed the terminology. I meant hallucinogen, not psychedelic.Note: effective dose, not threshold dose. Not to mention that this is if you smoke it, not if you shoot it up (though, LSD might be far more potent orally, I don't know).It can be compared in terms of hallucinogens, but I'd say you're right in that it can't be compared to LSD otherwise. The experience is different (as my friend said; it was far more intense, and not at all pleasant for him, so he didn't even consider taking it again). Somewhat cool is that its bizarre qualities make it a potential rehab-drug for people who've been hooked on cocaine and similar.Plus, it's legal in a whole ton of countries. Including mine. Now to find a way to slip it into my city's drinking water...
  • 0

#433 Guest_entheo_djinn

Guest_entheo_djinn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 11:18 PM

Ah, sorry, I mixed the terminology. I meant hallucinogen, not psychedelic.Note: effective dose, not threshold dose. Not to mention that this is if you smoke it, not if you shoot it up (though, LSD might be far more potent orally, I don't know).It can be compared in terms of hallucinogens, but I'd say you're right in that it can't be compared to LSD otherwise. The experience is different (as my friend said; it was far more intense, and not at all pleasant for him, so he didn't even consider taking it again). Somewhat cool is that its bizarre qualities make it a potential rehab-drug for people who've been hooked on cocaine and similar.Plus, it's legal in a whole ton of countries. Including mine. Now to find a way to slip it into my city's drinking water...

Well, "effective" by your standards may not be by mine or someone else's. A "threshold" dose is defined as what's necessary to show activity.You're right though, most drugs than can be smoked/vaporized are more active when consumed in such a way. Drugs taken orally are subject to 1st pass metabolism and a higher dose is thus necessary. Lsd's actually a very fragile compound, and trying to smoke it would destroy it.The reason I mentioned IV was because drugs are 100% bioavailable when IVed, so this is the standard when it comes to figuring out doses.A side note - salvia was placed in schedule I here in Illinois making it illegal not too long ago :awesome:

Edited by entheo_djinn, 09 December 2008 - 11:21 PM.

  • 0

#434 Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G

Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 09 December 2008 - 11:22 PM

You could, you know, just, leave the state.I suspect we might be docked points if we keep going like this.So far we have on the "YES" side:Marijuana does not cause addiction in most people.Marijuana does not destroy people's livers.Marijuana can be beneficial for cancer patients.Marijuana does not make you violent."NO" side:Marijuana is bad because we say it's bad. Question us and die.

Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 09 December 2008 - 11:24 PM.

  • 0

#435 Guest_adonai p

Guest_adonai p
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:08 AM

cada um usa o que quiser...POINTS were deducted for this post by KHRSPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
  • 0

#436 Ragamuffin

Ragamuffin

    Old Man Internet

  • Dragon's Sentinel
  • 637 posts
Offline
Current mood: Chatty
Reputation: 232
Perfected

Posted 10 December 2008 - 02:26 AM

Ah, it's salvia divinorum. The plant is actually quite legal in many countries. It's somewhat controversial whether it's more powerful than LSD or not; I only know what my friend told me.

Yes, it's legal here for "religous" purposes, for some reason that makes it okay. Though honestly anyone can buy it, I have many times.And I don't think we'd be docked any points, since we're acually having an intellectual discussion about not only marijuana. but drugs in general, I for one find this very interesting, though admittedly I don't know as many of the scientifics of LSD and such as you and djinn seem to.Anyhow, America was partially built on hemp. George Washington himself said "Sow the hemp seed, and plant it everywhere." With not only marijuana legal(or decriminalized with the growing of hemp legal/whatever), there would be a plethora of uses for the hemp stalk, another reason to re-legalize it here in America. may even help out suffering economy a wee bit.
  • 0

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#437 Guest_emilygrace

Guest_emilygrace
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 10 December 2008 - 03:16 AM

well from one angle, if it was legalised, the price would dramatically decrease, i mean anyone could grow it in their backyard. so who knows what kind of effect that would have on the economy, but i know it would for sure put some dealers out of business. tho people are going to smoke and grow it anyways so just legalise it
  • 0

#438 Guest_DeinKonig

Guest_DeinKonig
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 10 December 2008 - 04:21 AM

well from one angle, if it was legalised, the price would dramatically decrease, i mean anyone could grow it in their backyard. so who knows what kind of effect that would have on the economy, but i know it would for sure put some dealers out of business. tho people are going to smoke and grow it anyways so just legalise it

Umm well I'd start by taking an economics class if I were you. If it were legal, the price would drop like a stone (as, like you said, more and more people grew it) until the government started attempting to tax it (which would be a fail because, again, it can be locally grown) and it would probably end up being illegal again. So yeah, just a comment on your argument.
  • 0

#439 Guest_الِش

Guest_الِش
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 10 December 2008 - 04:42 AM

(which would be a fail because, again, it can be locally grown)So then require people who sell weed to have permits, same with alcohol and certain pharmaceuticals...
  • 0

#440 Ragamuffin

Ragamuffin

    Old Man Internet

  • Dragon's Sentinel
  • 637 posts
Offline
Current mood: Chatty
Reputation: 232
Perfected

Posted 10 December 2008 - 07:00 AM

Umm well I'd start by taking an economics class if I were you. If it were legal, the price would drop like a stone.

Not true, at least not in states where it can be purchased legally. In San Francisco, where the legalization of marijuana first started, the dispensaries buy off of the growers in Humboldt and Menicino counties (mostly), and charge an arm and a leg for it. Now, those same growers who sell to dealers and hippies, are able to sell the exact same buds for about half the price, even with those middlemen in place. From the farms themselves, it's suprisingly cheap.Now, if it was made legal entirely, regardless if it was for medicinal use or not, then the government would likely have a hold on it, and tax the hell out of it (part of the reason why dispensaries charge so much, the legit ones anyway), putting many millions in thier pockets each year (a reason why I'm for decriminalization rather than legalization).BTW it is legal to grow cannabis in Alaska, two plants per household if I'm not mistaken, and doesn't require any sort of card or licence like the other weed-friendly states (yes, you can get a licence to grow weed, even if you yourself has no medical need for it).
  • 0

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

#441 Guest_DeinKonig

Guest_DeinKonig
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:27 PM

(which would be a fail because, again, it can be locally grown)So then require people who sell weed to have permits, same with alcohol and certain pharmaceuticals...

It's a lot easier to grow a plant than to procure the chemicals necessary for pharmaceuticals, and alcohol isn't really expensive enough for people to bother with moonshine (although when it wasn't possible to get it, they did. See: Prohibition). I wasn't talking about the dealing end of it anyway, I was talking about the potheads themselves. They would really only need to get hold of a couple plants and then they could grow it themselves, doesn't sound like much revenue for the government eh? I think the government would end up having to have a much lower tax rate on it than anybody's anticipating for that very reason.

Not true, at least not in states where it can be purchased legally. In San Francisco, where the legalization of marijuana first started, the dispensaries buy off of the growers in Humboldt and Menicino counties (mostly), and charge an arm and a leg for it. Now, those same growers who sell to dealers and hippies, are able to sell the exact same buds for about half the price, even with those middlemen in place. From the farms themselves, it's suprisingly cheap.

Then why bother switching over to the legal marijuana? They aren't exactly going to be taking your joints and tracing them back to the source.
  • 0

#442 Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G

Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:57 PM

(1)It's a lot easier to grow a plant than to procure the chemicals necessary for pharmaceuticals, and alcohol isn't really expensive enough for people to bother with moonshine (although when it wasn't possible to get it, they did. See: Prohibition). I wasn't talking about the dealing end of it anyway, I was talking about the potheads themselves. They would really only need to get hold of a couple plants and then they could grow it themselves, doesn't sound like much revenue for the government eh? I think the government would end up having to have a much lower tax rate on it than anybody's anticipating for that very reason.

1. It is a lot harder to grow a plant successfully than mass-produce pharmaceuticals. Growing your own cannabis is far more difficult than you might imagine (especially if they are, you know, potheads, who have virtually no attention span or ability to concentrate). Besides, you are only taking potheads into the account. I know lots of people who would have no qualms doing it a few times a year, and they would no doubt prefer to buy from official vendors rather than some seedy farmhouse or street-dealer.

(2)Then why bother switching over to the legal marijuana? They aren't exactly going to be taking your joints and tracing them back to the source.

2. He does not desire a 'switch', he desires decriminalization (meaning: that he does not want the government to be able to charge him for buying from his dealers, or to be able to charge his dealers or their growers, for that matter).

Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 11 December 2008 - 10:57 PM.

  • 0

#443 Guest_killerwinker91

Guest_killerwinker91
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 December 2008 - 02:13 AM

i think that it should be legalized! especially with the finacial crisis we are in. think about it we legalized weed and now we can tax it meaning the govt gets more $$$. also the sales for paper for rolling goes up and more food stores will begin to rise. the govt gets taxes from all of these things. and also its not like suddenly every1 will b smoking it. it will b like alcohol, it will be frowned upon and ppl wont like it we u do it.POINTS were deducted for this post by -Mario-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
  • 0

#444 Guest_entheo_djinn

Guest_entheo_djinn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 12 January 2009 - 03:51 AM

1. It is a lot harder to grow a plant successfully than mass-produce pharmaceuticals. Growing your own cannabis is far more difficult than you might imagine (especially if they are, you know, potheads, who have virtually no attention span or ability to concentrate). Besides, you are only taking potheads into the account. I know lots of people who would have no qualms doing it a few times a year, and they would no doubt prefer to buy from official vendors rather than some seedy farmhouse or street-dealer.

Are you crazy? Growing a single cannabis plant is easy(having done so myself, years ago). Growing it right may be more difficult, but simply keeping it alive is child's play.Mass producing pharmaceutical grade compounds requires a seriously advanced understanding of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and pharmacology. It also requires some very expensive analytical equipment the avergage person wouldn't even be able to pronounce, let alone know how to operate.I'm an amateur chemist and pharmacologist at best and I wouldn't dare attempt to synthesize even some of the most basic pharmaceuticals.
  • 0

#445 Guest_Kaoji

Guest_Kaoji
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 26 January 2009 - 08:38 PM

The only reason it's not legal in the first place is because it's a natural product and it can't be taxed. Cigarettes are laden with chemicals, alcohol is refined and processed. They have become man made products. This is why they can be taxed, sold, and legal. Marijuana is no worse than alcohol, tobacco, wormwood, or any other types of legal substances. In fact, Marijuana promotes muscle growth, eases pain, and pretty much stops A.D.D. in it's tracks. Hemp can become rope, soap, lotion, medication, jewelry, and a laundry list of other things. Marijuana impairs you less than alcohol, it's less addictive than the nicotine in cigarettes, and has been proven to fight the pain and suffering of Cancer victims worldwide.Legalize it? I don't know. If it became legal the government would tax it, sell diluted strains of pot because it will be "safer", add chemicals to increase addictiveness or aroma, they'd box it sell it, and it's become our next greatest export. Instead of one of our most useful and underrated illegal imports.I say leave pot alone and chase down the crackheads, heroin fiends, and dope smugglers. The people providing meth, crack, heroin, and other opiates should be the ones we're after. Kim Jong-Il. Moussef achmedsomethingsomethingistan, Prime Minister from Iran. These are the people to crack down on. Not AMERICANS!=)
  • 0

#446 Guest_entheo_djinn

Guest_entheo_djinn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:54 PM

The only reason it's not legal in the first place is because it's a natural product and it can't be taxed. Cigarettes are laden with chemicals, alcohol is refined and processed. They have become man made products. This is why they can be taxed, sold, and legal. Marijuana is no worse than alcohol, tobacco, wormwood, or any other types of legal substances. In fact, Marijuana promotes muscle growth, eases pain, and pretty much stops A.D.D. in it's tracks. Hemp can become rope, soap, lotion, medication, jewelry, and a laundry list of other things. Marijuana impairs you less than alcohol, it's less addictive than the nicotine in cigarettes, and has been proven to fight the pain and suffering of Cancer victims worldwide.Legalize it? I don't know. If it became legal the government would tax it, sell diluted strains of pot because it will be "safer", add chemicals to increase addictiveness or aroma, they'd box it sell it, and it's become our next greatest export. Instead of one of our most useful and underrated illegal imports.

Your argument dosen't hold, tobacco was taxed long before it had an additives in it. Simply because something is natural dosen't mean anything. Vegetables are natural and they were taxed.I'd like to see a source to prove that cannabis promotes muscle growth in humans, because as far as I know cannabis only supports neurogenesis in mice, which would be growing neurons, not muscle."Hemp" can not become medication, as hemp is used primarily for it's fiber.

I say leave pot alone and chase down the crackheads, heroin fiends, and dope smugglers. The people providing meth, crack, heroin, and other opiates should be the ones we're after. Kim Jong-Il. Moussef achmedsomethingsomethingistan, Prime Minister from Iran. These are the people to crack down on. Not AMERICANS!

America has no right to "crack down" on these countries. If they ask us for help that's another story, but we have no right to enter their country and do anything.
  • 0

#447 Guest_G.O.D.

Guest_G.O.D.
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 18 June 2009 - 03:51 AM

Disclaimer: First, I understand that this is an international website so please try to understand that I will speaking from the point of view of the American society. This is not to say that an international point of view would not be appreciated.Second, this is a topic that I feel very strongly about so anyone posting anything stupid will be reported immediately.That means no: I like to smoke pot. or Weed is great.There are two ways to approach this discussion. The first is the "Why shouldn't marijuana be legal?" point of view. The second is the "Why should marijuana be legal?" point of view.I believe that marijuana should not be illegal because (to quote a cliche of this topic) alcohol is far worse than pot. Yes, marijuana is addictive, but only in a neurochemical way. After prolonged and habitual marijuana use the brain can forget how to produce certain neurotransmitters resulting in the feelings of depression or "withdrawals", which symptoms include restlessness, loss of appetite, irritablity, etc. Conversely, the withdrawal from long term alcohol use (which is a physical dependance) can go as far as seizures or death, hence the strict detox methods of alcohol rehab. the number of alcohol related deaths in the U.S. was 22,073 in 2006 according to the CDC (and that is excluding the amount of alcohol related homicides). The number of alcohol related liver disease deaths in the same year was 13,050, the number of drunk driving deaths was 15,829.Compare that with the amount of marijuana related deaths which is.... well..... 0. The number of marijuana related traffic fatalities was...well...0. And the numbers there really speak for themselves. Yet, a person can walk into a million different establishments and purchase a million different alcoholic beverages, most often with the understanding that they will probably be driving away from said establishment.Having said that, I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALCOHOL SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. We tried that once and it didn't go so well. All I am saying is that something so dangerous and costly to society can be easily and legally obtained and used, whereas the lesser of two evils will land you in jail.I believe that marijuana should be legal because of the countless benefits of commercial distribution of the plant and the drug. The plant itself has medicinal properties, makes cheap high quality paper, is a great fuel source for burning, and has one of the highest photosynthesis rates on the planet. It is also one of the last "free-money enterprises" left. The growth and distribution of marijuana would cost next to nothing while generation an outstanding source of tax revenue (with the right tax plan). Meanwhile, privately contracting to struggling farmers would cause an agricultural revolution. The government could profit immensely from this idea and use the profits to fund programs that we all us. Also, consider the tax dollars that the government could save on useless law enforcement, and possibly put to good use fighting the drugs that actually are detrimental to society (i.e. crack, meth, coke, etc.).Just remember that not once in the history of mankind has there ever been a drug-free society. From primates eating fermented fruit off the ground, to the ancient lotus eaters, to modern society, man has always found a way to get high and will continue to do so. Shouldn't we put our money in the least dangerous possible avenue?
  • 0

#448 Guest_Phenomenonsense

Guest_Phenomenonsense
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 18 June 2009 - 04:12 AM

I'm not so sure that legalizing Mary Jane is a great idea for a few reasons. The most troubling of which is the "against" the law feeling young people get from doing it. Much the same as drinking Alcohol before the legal age. I might be a bit more worried that, if pot were legalized in America, that it may lead to trying other, more addictive drugs for that same "high." Of course you could counter this by saying "Just make the legal age 21." I don't know, just things to think about.
  • 0

#449 Guest_G.O.D.

Guest_G.O.D.
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 18 June 2009 - 04:16 AM

Agreed, and there is always the thrill of turning 21 and holding your head up high when you walk into a liquor store and do it legally. Making the legal marijuana age 21 would be a completely agreeable tactic, as long as it is understood that it will be about as effective as the drinking age. And being legal age does not stop smokers from using tobacco nor alcoholics from getting drunk. And the solution to the "gateway drug" problem is to stiffen the penalties for other substances to seemingly unreal levels. For example: 5 years for a first offense with crack or meth. It would in no way eradicate the problem (what law ever does) but most people wouldn't even want to bother with it if the penalties were that stiff.

Edited by G.O.D., 18 June 2009 - 04:24 AM.

  • 0

#450 Guest_locallegend

Guest_locallegend
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 18 June 2009 - 04:41 AM

I'm not so sure that legalizing Mary Jane is a great idea for a few reasons. The most troubling of which is the "against" the law feeling young people get from doing it. Much the same as drinking Alcohol before the legal age. I might be a bit more worried that, if pot were legalized in America, that it may lead to trying other, more addictive drugs for that same "high." Of course you could counter this by saying "Just make the legal age 21." I don't know, just things to think about.

The idea that the high kids are looking to get from weed is caused by knowing it's illegal is the funniest thing I have ever heard. It is nice to know that some of the only arguments against weed are as laughable as this. And even if they institute an age based limit on legalized weed I'll smoke a bowl for the lovely THC, not the thrill of an MIP. And the idea that weed is a gateway drug is old, outdated, and disproved rhetoric. There will always be people that are looking for a high of one kind or another to escape life and responsibility, but the rest of us are responsible smokers. One more old, biased, bullsh_ _ idea is that weed, or other drugs for that matter, will cause dangerous erratic behavior. Such exaggerated claims about the harmfulness of cannabis arose out of Establishment wariness of the values of a ‘permissive’ society. In the willingness of the young to use cannabis, many saw a challenge to traditional values: pot smokers were seeking immediate experience, and they were not enthused by the ethics of competition or the impulse to acquire material wealth. This jolted the puritan conception of the place of pleasure in a decent society.marijuana is less toxic than tobacco and is milder than booze yet there is the adult with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other telling the child "you cannot". The first concern when thinking of removing criminal sanctions from cannabis is the effect on criminal behavior. The clear conclusion that has emerged is that, while alcohol is universally agreed to contribute to violent crime, cannabis has no such consequences. And where alcohol releases impulses and lowers the inhibitions which restrain aggressive behavior, cannabis tends to lower aggression and increase passivity.Either way it doesn't matter to me. I will continue smoking whenever I feel like it and if you guys don't want to regulate my bags or tax my joints then all the better for me.

Edited by locallegend, 18 June 2009 - 04:43 AM.

  • 0
Back to Debates


  1. DGEmu.com
  2. → DGEmu Social
  3. → Dragon's Den
  4. → Debates
  5. Privacy Policy
  6. Forum Rules ·