Printable View
Today Russia has passed a new law decriminalizing drugs. It does not detain people who have under a certain amount (in grams) of a drug on them, but does penalize people who exceed this amount (over ten times as much) with a heavy fine (about US $1000) and depending on the circumstance they can even incarcerate the possessor.
Now what do you think of this? Discuss.
By "drugs", I'm assuming you're referring to cannabis and not to stuff even more dangerous.
Meh, it's up to them whether they want to decriminalise it or not. In twenty years time, all these former drug users will be trying to sue the state for not protecting them from lung cancer, though:p
There's still this silly notion in circulation that inhaling the waste products from incinerated plants won't harm you unless it's tobacco.
No Big D, I meant drugs in general, they decriminalized cocaine, marijuana, mescaline, hashish (derivative from marijuana), opium, methamphetamine, heroin and LSD to be exact.
I would like to add something to your comment about "damaging your lungs unless it's tobacco". You're absolutely right, in the case you stated, pot, if you smoke it you can be doing the same, less, or more damage to your lungs, but you don't necessarily have to consume pot by smoking it. It is the easiest way to do it, but you can also eat it (magical brownies) and that causes no harm to your lungs what-so-ever.
:D Take care
Uh, I don't agree with it, personally, at least not with the strong drugs.
As for marihuana and hachis, I'm all for legalization, frankly.
Russia's already a pretty messed-up country. I don't think drugs are gonna hurt or help them.
Wasn't it Stalin who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses?"
"Religion is opium for the masses." - Carl MarxQuote:
Wasn't it Stalin who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses?"
Thanks. I knew it was a communist.
Yay history class, not entirely useless.
Anyway i think its bad to let all drugs go....weed should be good enough.
Yay for Russia. It's sad that such an ass-backward country with such an oppressive heritage is growing a better concept of personal choice than the "Land of the Free."
I think letting all drugs be legal is taking it a step too far. Some of the drugs out there have no redeemable value whatsoever, and shouldn't ever have any place in society, but do anyway.
Perhaps, this is a ploy to stimulate their economy? Will Russia be taxing the drugs now?
Take care all.
Now that i think about it its a slippery slope you cant just have one drug, people will want more and argue, well if we can have this one...is this, this or this any worse? what about this one? Oh hey this one costs less can we get this? Oh this one is realy great why cant we have this one? And as soon as you know it all drugs are legal anyway..
Ok, I can see your points of view (Captain and others) but we are not talking about LEGALIZATION here, the matter at hand is DECRIMINALIZATION, the drugs are still illegal. What is legal is the consumption, not the selling or the buying of such drugs, that is still very much illegal (as far as I know), but if you are a drug user (and/or abuser/addict) you still have the right to be so, which I think is fine, as I may have stated before, you are free to do what you want with your life, wether it's for the best or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
You make a good point there TasteyPies, that's why I think this initiative is good. If you would have decriminalized just one drug, say cocaine for example, I'm sure many would think the way you state here, the endless debate would still rage on about wether it is "ok" for people to consume them. Now, they can focus their attention to more important things like the real drug lords, and who knows, maybe they can clean out drugs more efficiently?Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
One friend told me that maybe one of the "agendas" behind the decriminalization was that people would now consume the drugs more freely and, because the drug "business" increased, the sources would be more vulnerable and more dealers could be arrested.
It's a good thought, who knows if they (Russia) had this in mind, although I doubt it will accomplish this, it is still a probability.
I agree. I mean look at holland they have little problem with drugs since they don't have all the dealers and such. I think leagalizing some drugs would lower the crime rate in a country since as I stated above there would be less dealers and need to bring the drug into the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
If drugs were decriminalized here mormans = pissed....any mormans in russia?
Not that many mormons, but apparently lots of morons. That country already has a wide-spread alcoholism problem... sure, why not throw drugs there too. It'll be a laugh.Quote:
any mormans in russia?
Russia has such a serious problem that they have presented social Darwinism... it will also aid there cannabis crop...which was worth the most in the world during the cold war.
In reality cannabis is safer than alcohol - as nobody has died from cannabis. The problem with decriminalising is that it will force the supply schedule of cannabis and everyone will be smoking cheap dope and nothing will get done.
By that same logic, you could say that vans are safer than cars because less people die in van crashes. The real answer is that less people use them. Certainly, the direct effects of cannabis are less immediately fatal than alcohol; but allowing people to get wildly stoned all the time will have serious side-effects for a considerable period, i.e. years, until or unless responsible usage becomes the trend. Then there are all the long-term physiological and psychological consequences to worry about...Quote:
Originally Posted by Besimudo
I don't really have a problem with it. I choose not to do drugs not because it's illegal to do drugs, but simply because I don't like the effects they have on my body. If other people choose to act differently, it's their right to do so in my opinion. It costs resources (time, money, etc.) to enforce drug laws and, quite frankly, there are usually more important things to worry about.
Drug users consciously choose to harm themselves. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's their choice to make. As long as they don't harm anybody else, I'm fine with it. I would be in favor of laws limiting driving or doing other activities that could potentially hurt someone else while under the influence of various drugs.
"The real answer is that less people use them."
How vague! Did you know that 80% of Australia's Beer is consumed by 10% of its population.... So is that a case of your "less people using them"?
Additionally, the use of cannabis for thousands of years in Asia, Europe and Africa is also "less people using them." I think not!
Also the youths that abuse dope and “go off the track” also use alcohol, if not more than the dope. They simply blame “dope” so the magistrate feels sorry for them and puts them on a detoxification programme.
Finally:
"Certainly, the direct effects of cannabis are less immediately fatal than alcohol; but allowing people to get wildly stoned all the time will have serious side-effects for a considerable period, i.e. years, until or unless responsible usage becomes the trend. Then there are all the long-term physiological and psychological consequences to worry about..."
By simply changing ONE word the opposite argument applies:
"Certainly, the direct effects of cannabis are less immediately fatal than alcohol; but allowing people to get wildly PISSED all the time will have serious side-effects for a considerable period, i.e. years, until or unless responsible usage becomes the trend. Then there are all the long-term physiological and psychological consequences to worry about..."
Alcohol is worse short-term and long-term! So your whole argument makes little sense.
Maybe this will make life easier:
Short-term alcohol = alcoholic poisoning, death, vomiting.
Short-term dope = mild hallucinations, at worst time distortion.
Long-term alcohol = sclerosis of liver, hepatitis, marriage break-down, domestic violence.
Long-term dope = Start dressing like Bob Marley.
Just out of curiousity, but do you use any of the drugs in question Besimudo? It might better explain your point of view.
Take care all.
Less people smoke cannabis than drink alcohol in today's society, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Besimudo
I've noticed the pro-legalisation lobby always make comparisons to alcohol, yet ignore the more logical comparison with tobacco. Cannabis is far worse than tobacco, an unfiltered joint unleashing far more carcinogens and tar, leading to much more severe cardiovascular effects. Add to that the correlation between cannabis usage and certain neurological disorders in later life. A steady use of alcohol, in a daily but regulated amount, is beneficial to health, at the very least it's not permanently harmful. Regular doses of tobacco smoke or cannabis have lasting effects; tar and whatnot don't simply get circulated out of our systems.Quote:
Maybe this will make life easier:
Short-term alcohol = alcoholic poisoning, death, vomiting.
Short-term dope = mild hallucinations, at worst time distortion.
Long-term alcohol = sclerosis of liver, hepatitis, marriage break-down, domestic violence.
Long-term dope = Start dressing like Bob Marley.
The argument that "one is legal so the other one should be" doesn't hold water, either. Using that reasoning would eventually lead to all drugs legalised - "opium's hadly worse than cannabis, let's legalise it; heroin's practically the same as opium, time to stop the evil police state; cocaine's just a better alternative to heroin, plus it doesn't involve risky needles... lastly, methamphetamines were used in traditional Western remedies throughout the 20th century, let's honour our ancestors' traditions!"
Do you have any proof of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
I doubt it'll be easy to find true figures since one drug is legal and one is not.
Take care all.
Well at least when they are in a 24 hour state of stonage we can invade them and make Neo-USA
I like the cut of your gib.Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
Big D, I don't mean to be rude, but you need to get your facts straight. Let's start with the highlighted phrase "cannabis is far worse than tobacco". This may be true, as an "unfiltered" joint realeases more amounts of smoke, but you have to take into consideration that marijuana can be "consumed" in much healthier ways. How? well, eating and vaporizing cannabis (none of which will contain tar and smoke, things you cannot take out from tobacco).Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Next, your statement of "the correlation between cannabis usage and certain neurologic disorders" lacks evidence. Consuming marijuana has an instant side effect, which is paranoia, and although it causes this while you are high, you do not remain paranoid afterwards. "But I refer to long term usage" you might say, well, this hasn't been proved yet. You can find that almost everything (articles, tests, etc.) that suggests (I repeat again, SUGGESTS) this "link" between mental disorders and marijuana has to do with the government (any) and their "War on Drugs", which, by the way, does more harm to people than good (but that is another subject).
Then you say "a steady use of alcohol, in a daily but regulated amount, is beneficial to health, at the very least it's not permanently harmful". This, I believe, is true. I have known that drinking A GLASS (1) OF WINE a day may be beneficial to your health (don't know exactly what it does). Now, do you know that there is research being done that states that marijuana could stop the development of cancer? Did you know that marijuana can be used to alleviate nausea and some pain? Did you knwo that one drop of nicotine could kill you?Here are some useful links:
Mental Disorders & Marijuana
Marijuana & Cancer
EDIT: Don't have time to post more links, but I will do so ASAP.
The overwhelming majority of cannabis users smoke the drug. How does eating it reduce the level of toxins, anyway?Quote:
but you have to take into consideration that marijuana can be "consumed" in much healthier ways. How? well, eating and vaporizing cannabis (none of which will contain tar and smoke, things you cannot take out from tobacco).
You could argue that tobacco's no so harmful because it can be snorted as snuff. That simply doesn't happen in mainstream usage.That's why I said "correlation". I know that there has not yet been a proven link, hence my use of the word "correlation". I did not misrepresent any facts; it is known from studies that cannabis usage correlates to increased instances of certain neurological disorders in later life. People who smoke dope are more likely to get those disorders. This doesn't prove a causative link; it is still being investigated.Quote:
Next, your statement of "the correlation between cannabis usage and certain neurologic disorders" lacks evidence. Consuming marijuana has an instant side effect, which is paranoia, and although it causes this while you are high, you do not remain paranoid afterwards. "But I refer to long term usage" you might say, well, this hasn't been proved yet. You can find that almost everything (articles, tests, etc.) that suggests (I repeat again, SUGGESTS) this "link" between mental disorders and marijuana has to do with the government (any) and their "War on Drugs", which, by the way, does more harm to people than good (but that is another subject).
Yes, that's why I'm interested in the research being done into therapeutic, prescribed, regulated use of cannabis as a medical remedy. Curare, methadone and amphetamines have medical uses, that doesn't mean everyone should be able to buy them and use them as they wish.Quote:
Did you know that marijuana can be used to alleviate nausea and some pain?
It goes beyond that; even a daily shot of spirits (whisky, etc) reduces the ocurrence of heart disease and heart attacks. As with all things, though, any excess is dangerous.Quote:
I have known that drinking A GLASS (1) OF WINE a day may be beneficial to your health (don't know exactly what it does).
Curious, you dismiss the possible risks of cannabis and emphasise the possible benefits, but also downplay the possible benefits of alcohol. Not the most productive way to make a point. I prefer research and studies that are conducted in an objective manner, rather than beginning with a presumption and trying to find facts that fit it.
...And where I live, there is no "war on drugs", so the US government propoganda/campaigns/whatever are ineffectual here.
Whoopie lets all argue over the internet! mmm...naw lets just go to russia and get high.
Its gotta be good for Russian tourism....wait russia is cold and doesn't have tourism.. nevermind.
"Its gotta be good for Russian tourism....wait russia is cold and doesn't have tourism.. nevermind."
There's a reason alcohol is associated with Russia... keeps people warm and occupied through the winter, which lasts 11 and a half months seemingly over there.
Take care all.
"That simply doesn't happen in mainstream usage."
Well, if we're talking mainstream usage, between the amount of cigarettes vs. the amount of joints people smoke, cigarattes are much higher. They're both bad for you. The difference between them is negligable, as far as I'm concerned.
"I know that there has not yet been a proven link, hence my use of the word "correlation"."
Then you should look up the meaning of correlation. There is not a proven correlation. Meaning the experiments that have been done are either inconclusive, or not scientifically valid. This means they could've done literally anything to skew the results.
"People who smoke dope are more likely to get those disorders."
No. A few people who smoked dope had a higher chance of getting them than a few who didn't. That means NOTHING. It could be pure luck. I won't argue this further, because it's just not valid. If I smoke and my friend doesn't, and I get AIDS, is that a correlation? Of course not.
"I prefer research and studies that are conducted in an objective manner, rather than beginning with a presumption and trying to find facts that fit it."
You seem pretty biased against marijuana, just from reading your post.
And to your first post:
I think how harmful they are is irrelevant. If you're going to argue that, there's a hell of a lot of other things you should be up in arms against (like say, industrialization in general, and cars? Way more harmful chemicals than cigarettes).
Usage should be an entirely personal issue. If we can choose to damage ourselves with alcohol, why not anything else? Where do we draw the line? Why?
If you're for illegalizing all drugs (alcohol & cigarettes), why not caffiene? Just because it's usually done in small amounts? Why not other things that are disorienting and possibly harmful, like rollarcoasters? Again, where's the line drawn?
"The argument that "one is legal so the other one should be" doesn't hold water, either."
Of course it does. If one form is legal, the other should be too. All theft is illegal, not just theft on children or whatever. That's how laws work. The fact that you can use the same argument to say all drugs should be legal is completely irrelevant.
I thought this thread was about Russia and hence, comparing other societies against its policy on drugs. Why has it developed into preferential administration of the drugs?
According to the economics of social Darwinism.... All the abusers will surely die of an overdose and the uber mensch i.e. the guys who do not use drugs will survive... Thus Russia will be a better place.
Anyhow, Big D banning substances creates a black market and then we get the nasty gang-land violence we read about. Look at what happened when they banned alcohol. Additionally, I though atheists/modernists liked the idea of liberalisation - so why are you so anti-drugs? It goes against your apparent philosophy.
Uh no, you evidently didn't read the research that I'm thinking of. In the study that I saw reported, the results showed that test subjects who used marijuana had higher instances of the neurological illnesses in later life, compared to test subjects who didn't use marijuana. THAT is a correlation. In the test population, dope-smokers ended up with neurological illnesses more often than non-smokers. Not my fault if anyone doesn't like those results.[q=Besimudo]According to the economics of social Darwinism.... All the abusers will surely die of an overdose and the uber mensch i.e. the guys who do not use drugs will survive... Thus Russia will be a better place.Quote:
"I know that there has not yet been a proven link, hence my use of the word "correlation"."
Then you should look up the meaning of correlation. There is not a proven correlation. Meaning the experiments that have been done are either inconclusive, or not scientifically valid. This means they could've done literally anything to skew the results. But like I said, it shows a correlation - not a causal connection.
[/q]Either that, or all the drug users will block up the health system, and demand that the government be held accountable for "forcing" them into this situation, just some like alcoholics and tobacco-smokers in our society.What in the heck has that got to do with anything? You seem to be thinking that I'll shape my beliefs to match what someone says they should, to conform with a dogma or philosophy or whatever. I think what I think, end of story. Some of those ideas are based on what others say, some are my own opinions. I choose to believe each of them. What you just said would be kinda like me saying, "But Besimudo, you're a fundamentalist, therefore you should support the death penalty for drug users!"...Quote:
Additionally, I though atheists/modernists liked the idea of liberalisation - so why are you so anti-drugs? It goes against your apparent philosophy.
[q=Emerald Aeris]"The argument that "one is legal so the other one should be" doesn't hold water, either."
Of course it does. If one form is legal, the other should be too. All theft is illegal, not just theft on children or whatever. That's how laws work.[/q]They never taught us that in LAWS 101... there are enough harmful products in use in this day and age; why add more? Seems a waste, really. Banning everything we currently have would reduce rights that already exist, which is arguably a bad thing. However, choosing not to legalise another drug doesn't actively take anything away. Incidentally, there's a reason all theft is illegal: theft is a crime. If it can't be called "theft", then it's not illegal. If you take something, but think it's yours, you're not guilty of theft. The comparison is flawed.Irrelevant? Well, that's certainly convenient. Would you support the legalisation of opiates in Holland? How about lowering the drinking age?[q=Emerald Aeris]"I prefer research and studies that are conducted in an objective manner, rather than beginning with a presumption and trying to find facts that fit it."Quote:
The fact that you can use the same argument to say all drugs should be legal is completely irrelevant.
You seem pretty biased against marijuana, just from reading your post.
[/q]Of course. Freedom of opinion, and all that. I can think whatever I please. I'm biased against the idea of having a society with yet another group of money-wasting and idle addicts - the dark side of legalising any substance, as shown by alcohol. I hate dealing with certain types of drunk people; stoned people are even less predictable, so I'm biased. However, when I'm looking at research or studies - scientific undertakings - I don't like the idea of the research being done from a biased standpoint. If a bunch of stoners do a study and "prove" that cannabis is good for society because it makes them feel 25% more "whack", I'll snigger and ignore it. Likewise, if a crowd of stuffy, wishy-washy 'leaders of society' release findings saying that cannabis just isn't cricket because it's associated with young ruffians in patched jeans with no jobs, then my reaction will be the same. I'll pay attention, though, to a study that aims to determine whether there are any long-term effects, positive or negative, to the use of alcohol, or cannabis, or whatever.
Good for Mother Russia. Finally Vlad Putin does something useful.
I explained before why nobody has the right to outlaw something that only harms the user. And often, it doesn't even harm him more than inhaling the city pollution.
I smoke pot regularly, and tried a few real drugs on occasion. Never scrounged any money of the health service or dole, never missed a day of work, never run anyover over. Never even ate any babies like in Reafer Madness, which some people still seem to view as a documentary.
:D
If your posted location is where you're truly from, can I ask you, how long have drugs been legal in the Netherlands?
Take care all.
Yes, that's my real location.
'Soft Drugs' (marijuana and hashish) have been decriminalised here since the 1980s, I think. I haven't always lived here, so I'm not sure of the exact date.
Ah, I see. When this first occurred, if you know this, was there a rise in crime or any sort of obvious change in the culture? I figure that the same pattern would occur in Russia and looking back in the past might prepare us for any events that might take place in the near future.
Take care all.
From what people told me, there was a significant decrease in crime. It was so notable, even conservative Dutch politicians can't deny the comparison to the American time of alcohol prohibition. A lot of gangsters who were dealing dope on the street went out of business, because which smoker wouldn't prefer to buy his dope without having to watch out for the coppers?
Marijuana became more expensive because of that, since the Hashbars have to pay taxes. But I don't hear potheads complaining. I think legalisation really works here.
Hmm, most interesting. Hopefully, Russia won't have the opposite effect, where crime goes higher, and people are further oppressed. The problem could be that the Russian society has been so oppressive for such a long time, that giving new freedoms out may become easily corruptable, but we shall wait and see.
Thanks for the info, by the by.
Take care all.
You're welcome.
Russia actually had a huge alcohol problem for many years, so I don't think this law would make it worse. I remember stories of Michail Gorbachev trying to stop alcoholism with new laws. Anyone caught drunk driving, drunk at work, or drunk & disorderly, would be moved to the end of all waiting lists. In the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Block, there were may waiting lists for flats, cars, etc.. But even that didn't stop the drinking.
I've only got a little time to post, so I'll respond to the rest later.
"the results showed that test subjects who used marijuana had higher instances of the neurological illnesses in later life, compared to test subjects who didn't use marijuana."
I'm aware of that, and I said this to it: "No. A few people who smoked dope had a higher chance of getting them than a few who didn't. That means NOTHING. It could be pure luck. I won't argue this further, because it's just not valid. If I smoke and my friend doesn't, and I get AIDS, is that a correlation? Of course not."
See what I mean? That experiment only shows that it's worth further examination. There is no correlation - yet. There could be, but evidence has been inconclusive so far. The higher rate of disease could simply be that the smoking group they chose just happened to have a higher rate, since the rates for the nonsmokers wasn't 0. The fact is, they just don't know. There's too many variables in that experiment to say there's a correlation. It's bad scientific protocol to conclude anything from an experiment like that.
I did not dismiss anything Big D, I just wanted to show you my points of view and the things that I thought you dismissed. A simple misundertanding, I am glad this discussion is continuing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
You're lucky, that's a sure plus in my opinion, where do you live?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
EDIT:
Hey there Cap! Here's some info on the "Dutch Experiment" Haven't read it all yet (little time on my hands) but I assure you I will read it very soon.
Here's more info on the subject: Click here
Big D:
Regarding this:
Do you think this is not currently in your society? Do you think that "money-wasting and idle addicts", reffering to ANY drug addict (alcohol, caffein, marijuana, cocaine, etc.) don't already form part of whatever society you belong to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
The thing is, would you like to have this group be involved in criminal activity that can affect YOU or would you rather them minding their own bussines and not affect you in any way?
"Either that, or all the drug users will block up the health system, and demand that the government be held accountable for "forcing" them into this situation, just some like alcoholics and tobacco-smokers in our society."
Sure Big D, everywhere in the great wide non-OECD world has a brilliant legal system. Russia is known for shooting people who complain! Do you really think that the government OR the Russian lawyers (that almost sounded amusing) will represent a bunch of smack heads?
Just as an aside in the non-OECD world - In Malaysia, people who propagate stolen goods do not front up to the Court of Law... Big men armed with assault rifles turn up and warn them to shut down the operation. Where is your corporations act here?
"But Besimudo, you're a fundamentalist, therefore you should support the death penalty for drug users!"..."
At least I had the courtesy to recall you past posts from last year... How can you call a Catholic a fundamentalist? The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians.
Interesting opinion, indeed.
"the dark side of legalising any substance, as shown by alcohol. "
So the whole prohibition period where a ruthless black market emerged in the United States due to banning alcohol was a good thing... In my personal opinion I cannot see how.
Ok I smoke pot everyday and I used to smoke tobacco. I've noticed that my lungs feel more clear after smoking pot where as I feel like I cant breath when I smoke tobacco. Did you also know that if a person is having a asthma (spl) attack at a party you should have them smoke pot since it CLEARS out your airways.
I'm not quite sure about that. I believe smoking pot actually increases the toxins in your body and your lungs, even moreso than tobacco. Perhaps you have bionic lungs?
Take care all.
OOC: While we're on the topic of tobacco, I'd like to share a little anecdote on the side.
Last summer, I was right in the middle of the week-long hell march known as Combat Survival Training. It was me and three of my buddies stranded in the Rocky Mountains, many miles away from civilization with little more than a map, a compass, and an old parachute that could be made into a tent, while hundreds of other people were chasing after us. It was our first night out, and we were lucky enough to catch a wild rabbit. After thumping and skinning it (and using the skin as a hand puppet, but that's for another thread), we decided not to eat it right away, but instead we smoked it for jerky that night.
So two of us had to stay up and make sure none of our pursuers could see our fire while the other two slept. It was my turn to stay up - as I left the make-shift tent, one of my buddies tosses me a can of Copenhagen and says "this'll keep you awake." So I think, what the hell, there's a first time for everything, and I stuffed a little pinch of it in my lip.
Bad idea. I was tired, I was hungry, and the air was thin at 9,000 feet - it was a bad combination, and about thirty minutes later the rush hit me. I wasn't feeling too good - my buddy said I looked like a cat that had just fallen into a field of catnip. Fifteen minutes later I yuked up whatever bits of food I had leftover from that morning. Haven't touched a bit of dip since.
"pot since it CLEARS out your airways."
Sort of but the THC does not do that directly - THC has a simmilar effect as albuterol; which both act as a bronchodilator. It is better to administer it as a crystal (not a joint) so you do not get the polyaromatics etc. on the lungs. But if a joint is all you have then it is still pretty good.
P.S. it is good to see posts that I can answer in less than a minute ;)
*moves to Russia*
Yet another aspect from a different country supporting my theory on the USA and itsd so called 'patriots'. Go me! :D
But in all seriousness...personally, I think its a good choice. I think America should do it as well...and before you get any idea, no, I don't use any drugs. I don't even drink or smoke...how do you like that? I hate it all, but still, this is supposed to be "the land of the free", isn't it? Guess not...
And I still don't see why theres so many idiots who make comments like this...well actually I won't quote them because I don't don't feel theres a need for me to point out the primary idiot in this thread.
You obviously have no evidence to back this up, seeing as how tobacco is chemically altered and engineered to be far more potent than the natural plant from which it is "refined". Even a small amount of alcohol imbibed daily has (albeit small) lasting side effects, positive or negative. To say that smoking a joint is worse than smoking a cigarette, is completely unfounded. First, there is lot less pot in a joint than there is tobacco in a cigarette. Comparing the two is like comparing a mixing bowl of rat poison to a handful of pure cyanide capsules. Second, very few people smoke an entire joint to themselves, seeing as how a bowl (roughly a third of a joint, depending on the paraphanelia) is usually enough to get one sufficiently "high". These tests assume massive intake rates that most users simply don't follow. The most pot that I have ever smoked in a single sitting has been three ounces. A dimebag, which is sufficient to get me and two friends high three times throughout a day, is 1.75 grams, is what is more typical of your average smoker. Since these tests are meant to reflect the average smoker and the effects of their habit, they should be using the dosage an average smoker would use, not some arbitrary number pulled out of thin-air that's on-par with the amount of cigarettes your average smoker smokes in a day (a pack and a half).Quote:
I've noticed the pro-legalisation lobby always make comparisons to alcohol, yet ignore the more logical comparison with tobacco. Cannabis is far worse than tobacco, an unfiltered joint unleashing far more carcinogens and tar, leading to much more severe cardiovascular effects. Add to that the correlation between cannabis usage and certain neurological disorders in later life. A steady use of alcohol, in a daily but regulated amount, is beneficial to health, at the very least it's not permanently harmful. Regular doses of tobacco smoke or cannabis have lasting effects; tar and whatnot don't simply get circulated out of our systems.
Could you reference me to this research, it'd be greatly appreciated to see what corporation/"independant" study group performed this.Quote:
Uh no, you evidently didn't read the research that I'm thinking of. In the study that I saw reported, the results showed that test subjects who used marijuana had higher instances of the neurological illnesses in later life, compared to test subjects who didn't use marijuana. THAT is a correlation. In the test population, dope-smokers ended up with neurological illnesses more often than non-smokers. Not my fault if anyone doesn't like those results.
Could it have something to do with the FACT that prescribed drugs kill more people every year than all of the illegal drugs combined? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that Alcohol kills more people than all the prescribed and illegal drugs combined every year? You also have to remember that smoking pot, doing a line of coke, and then banging some heroin were once LEGAL things. It's not like these things have been wrong since the beginning of civilization, it wasn't until 1920s that people started getting anal about what people did with their own bodies. It's not that these people want new rights, it's that these want their rights BACK. Don't get me wrong, I think heroin is a horrible filthy thing and that 90% of heroin junkies should die, cold, hungry, and alone in a pool of their own filth, but since when was it my right to tell anyone what they can or can't do to their own body?Quote:
They never taught us that in LAWS 101... there are enough harmful products in use in this day and age; why add more? Seems a waste, really. Banning everything we currently have would reduce rights that already exist, which is arguably a bad thing. However, choosing not to legalise another drug doesn't actively take anything away. Incidentally, there's a reason all theft is illegal: theft is a crime. If it can't be called "theft", then it's not illegal. If you take something, but think it's yours, you're not guilty of theft. The comparison is flawed.
Just for the record, if you take something that isn't yours, even if you think it's yours, it's still theft, people are just more likely to drop the charges.
What's the difference between you buying a video game, and me buying a bag of pot? We're both sitting around, doing something that is completely unproductive, and wasting time. Hell, the internet, another complete waste of time where people swap porn and blather endlessly about things that don't even matter.Quote:
I'm biased against the idea of having a society with yet another group of money-wasting and idle addicts - the dark side of legalising any substance, as shown by alcohol. I hate dealing with certain types of drunk people; stoned people are even less predictable, so I'm biased. However, when I'm looking at research or studies - scientific undertakings - I don't like the idea of the research being done from a biased standpoint.
How many times have we seen people bum-rush a store for that new toy that's coming out? How many riots have there been because someone's team didn't win in some sporting event? Hell, have you ever been to a hippy concert after everyone left? Compare that to the aftermath of say a metal concert, or a rap concert. How many pot-riots have you seen? Hell, how many coke-riots have you seen? None? Wow, ain't that something...
To even insinuate that because someone does a drug of some sort, they instantly become worthless, is like saying that anyone who plays games is instantly worthless. I spend my time entertaining myself with pot, you spend your time entertaining yourself with whatever it is you entertain yourself with, and chances are, you spent more money on that, than I did on pot. Sure, your product may last longer, but you'll get bored with yours long before I, or any other pothead, get bored with pot.