Reefer Madness

[The Czech Republic 0]

The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded.

No, the ridiculous argument is to assume that legalization won't increase usage considerably.

 

It not being legal makes it more difficult to find than alcohol or cigarettes.

-=Mike

Apparently you don't buy much weed. It's not hard to get.

I was going to become a drug dealer because nobody would suspect me.

[I like Forums 0]

I am fully admitting that there will be more people smoking weed. I disagree that addiction as a whole will rise.

 

To Carnival: Someone who drinks and then starts to smoke on top of that was (hypothetically) already addicted in the first place.

 

Plus, you have to admit, just because somebody does a drug does not mean that we should assume they will become addicted. Some people just have a nature to self medicate with drugs reguardless of what drug.

 

It is possible that addiction 'could' rise but I would bet that the rise would be rather insignificant.

 

We are not talking about cocaine or heroin here, weed is not nearly as addictive. In this situation I would say that the problem here would lie with the individuals not marijuana, am I wrong?

[Crimson Platypus 0]

The whole "if marijuana was legal abuse would increase by 10x" arguement is flat out wrong. Does anyone who thinks this think that people who want to smoke pot don't do so because it's illegal? If you (whoever) really think that you are seriously deluded.

No, the ridiculous argument is to assume that legalization won't increase usage considerably.

 

It not being legal makes it more difficult to find than alcohol or cigarettes.

Apparently you don't buy much weed. It's not hard to get.

It's significantly harder to get than alcohol or tobacco.

Just because weed is more available doesn't mean that there will be more addicted people across the nation. If it isn't weed they are addicted to its likely it would be alcohol instead. Some people need to self medicate, reguardless of what is available they will become addicted to something. At least weed is the lesser of many evils.

 

Does it matter that more people are addicted to weed? The same number of addicts will remain the same, just different products.

Says who?

 

Giving more options for intoxication and addiction is not going to come without a price.

-=Mike

I wouldn't say significantly. Right now I could call up three people that would have however much I wanted to buy. Sure, I can't go to a party store and buy a dimebag, but it's not much different.

[Guest MikeSC]

Right now, I don't know anybody who sells drugs.

 

But that's because I don't use them. People who engage in the same vice tend to flock together (liars know lots of other liars, druggies know lots of other druggies).

-=Mike

[I like Forums 0]

I bet most people work with someone who would sell them weed if they asked.

 

... well in Canada at least.

[Vyce 0]

The best argument for legalization is that there is much evidence to suggest that marijuana is less harmful and more beneficial than the already legal drug of alcohol.

 

Oh man, you do not know how much I'd like for them to reinstitute prohibition. I'm like, all set up for bootlegging over here. I'd have that angle DOWN.

 

All I need to do is convince them to overturn that pesky little constitutional amendment......

[Carnival 0]

no you're not wrong.

 

And yes in the hypothetical the person is already addicted. But he's addicted to the beer, then smokes the weed. so weed addict +1, not addict in general.

 

And i agree weed is not very addictive to certain people. I quit very easily, cold turkey, and can be around people when they smoke it and have no desire to do it.

 

I wouldn't say significantly. Right now I could call up three people that would have however much I wanted to buy. Sure, I can't go to a party store and buy a dimebag, but it's not much different.

 

But crimson, that IS significant. i don't care about YOUR weed connections. i'm talking about joe blow who doesn't have fancy connections.

 

For 85% of the public it would be 100% easier, even for the people already into the scene or whatever it makes it way easier for them aswell. Then there wouldn't be a scene. Your connections would be useless, cuz you could buy a joint at wal-mart.

 

It's a VERY significant difference for the general population.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

You know, I bet it's easier for underage kids to buy weed then it is for them to buy smokes/beer, since they'd have to get carded for the latter, but a drug dealer isn't gonna ask for ID.

 

Unless they also know bootleggers, which is possible.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Just wanted to add that I haven't smoked weed in about 9 months and I don't plan on doing so anytime soon.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Right now, I don't know anybody who sells drugs.

 

But that's because I don't use them. People who engage in the same vice tend to flock together (liars know lots of other liars, druggies know lots of other druggies).

-=Mike

I used to hang out with potheads and drunks in high school, not because I engaged in their habits, but they could make me feel better about myself in a way.

[iggymcfly 0]

I still have yet to see a good argument against legalization. The fact is that marijuana is a drug that is neither harmful nor addictive. As a result, if the number of users rose, (and it wouldn't to any significant degree), it wouldn't be a problem anyway.

 

Now, for the reasons to legalize it:

 

The heart of the argument is that by making it illegal, you are punishing people with fines and jail time who are not infringing on the rights of others or hurting society. These people should have the right to do what they want to their own bodies as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. The argument that the state has to pay for them doesn't even hold any water in this case, because the effects of the drug are so few. Marijuana has no physically addictive properties, and even if someone uses it every day, they are perfectly capable of holding down a job, supporting themselves, an contributing to society.

 

Second, there is the gateway drug argument. This is often incorrectly applied in reverse, with the idea that if they "stop" people from using marijuana, they will not use other drugs. However, in reality, the fact that marijuana is illegal stops very few people from using it. Rather, it just crosses the mental block of "using an illegal drug" and also gets normal citizens acquainted with drug dealers. If people could buy a 20 sack of weed at the corner drug store, a very large portion of the population would have no need for drug dealers whatsoever, and would be much less likely to try hard drugs later on.

 

Finally, there is the cost to taxpayers that the "drug war" causes. The fact is that even though marijuana use does not infringe on anyone's rights, stopping it still uses up an extremely large portion of police resources. When you add on court costs, and the cost to imprison dealers, and repeat offenders, the "drug war" diverts a large portion of taxpayer money that could be used to pay off the deficit or simply not taken from taxpayers to begin with. Also, if marijuana was sold with a direct tax, similar to those on cigarettes and alcohol, rather than the indirect tax in raising the prices through the difficulty in transporting it, the substance could cause a nice tax revenue on its own.

[The Czech Republic 0]

If tobacco companies start producing marijuana, they'll find a way to make it just as poisonous and addictive as their tobacco.

[Carnival 0]

If tobacco companies start producing marijuana, they'll find a way to make it just as poisonous and addictive as their tobacco.

very true. they will find away to make it addictive. unless government legislation would stop them.

 

even so, the political backlash alone isn't worth legalizing it. considering how much of a fuss bitches are making over just some plain cigarettes now days, weed will never be legal.

 

If it was put on a national ballot. should weed be legal...yes or no.

 

It would FAIL miserably.

[Guest Brian]

I don't know. I was transporting at one point, but there were kids in high school who were well known as growing things out of their basement. Any frat or dorm at the UW has someone who knows some else. If you're interested at all, and even if you're not, there's probably some connerction open. Especially in the right age bracket.

 

Stuff grows wild, I don't see big tobacco controlling it unless they have an awful amount of legislation in place.

[NoCalMike 0]

I would definately argue that weed is "harder to find then alcohol" Seriously, what is more likely to be in a student's backpack at school or in his back pocket, a bag of weed or a 6-pack of beer?

 

Not only was weed much more available to students in highschool, but it was easier to move, easier to transport, and the thing that made more convenient is that you didn't have to go find someone that was 21 or over and convince them to buy you it. Of course there was always the "raid the parent's liquor" option, but that seemed to get old, fast.

 

Weed might be harder to access for someone who has no experience in ever getting it before, therefore coming off looking like a narc to fellow students, but I know for a fact that students were more likely to have weed in their pocket then beer in their car. Not saying it was "hard" to get alcohol most of the time, but it was definately a mission, and you had to hassle someone to do it, and it was NEVER a sure thing, unless you had a cool older brother or something.

[NoCalMike 0]

If tobacco companies start producing marijuana, they'll find a way to make it just as poisonous and addictive as their tobacco.

Correct, because they would NEVER just sell pure marijuana plant, they would nicotine to it most likely to make it PHYSICALLY ADDICTING.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, because NOBODY ever becomes addicted to marijuana.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I would definately argue that weed is "harder to find then alcohol" Seriously, what is more likely to be in a student's backpack at school or in his back pocket, a bag of weed or a 6-pack of beer?

If you wish to argue that, then you're delusional.

 

Go to your average dorm room. You'll see beer far more often than you see pot.

Not only was weed much more available to students in highschool, but it was easier to move, easier to transport, and the thing that made more convenient is that you didn't have to go find someone that was 21 or over and convince them to buy you it.  Of course there was always the "raid the parent's liquor" option, but that seemed to get old, fast.

 

Weed might be harder to access for someone who has no experience in ever getting it before, therefore coming off looking like a narc to fellow students, but I know for a fact that students were more likely to have weed in their pocket then beer in their car.  Not saying it was "hard" to get alcohol most of the time, but it was definately a mission, and you had to hassle someone to do it, and it was NEVER a sure thing, unless you had a cool older brother or something.

I will guarantee that you're absolutely incorrect.

 

Odd that when I was high school, getting kegs was never a problem.

 

Getting some pot was.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I would definately argue that weed is "harder to find then alcohol"  Seriously, what is more likely to be in a student's backpack at school or in his back pocket, a bag of weed or a 6-pack of beer?

If you wish to argue that, then you're delusional.

 

Go to your average dorm room. You'll see beer far more often than you see pot.

Not only was weed much more available to students in highschool, but it was easier to move, easier to transport, and the thing that made more convenient is that you didn't have to go find someone that was 21 or over and convince them to buy you it.  Of course there was always the "raid the parent's liquor" option, but that seemed to get old, fast.

 

Weed might be harder to access for someone who has no experience in ever getting it before, therefore coming off looking like a narc to fellow students, but I know for a fact that students were more likely to have weed in their pocket then beer in their car.  Not saying it was "hard" to get alcohol most of the time, but it was definately a mission, and you had to hassle someone to do it, and it was NEVER a sure thing, unless you had a cool older brother or something.

I will guarantee that you're absolutely incorrect.

 

Odd that when I was high school, getting kegs was never a problem.

 

Getting some pot was.

-=Mike

Dude, don't you live in South Carolina? That can pretty much explain it right there.

 

Also, I believe I was referring to highschool, which don't normally feature dorm rooms. You also aren't addressing the fact that you can get weed at school from fellow students, where as with alcohol, it is someone else getting it, therefore more effort, time and people are needed. Of course no one had a problem getting a keg, that wasn't what I was arguing, I even said it wasn't hard in my post to get beer perse, however the mere fact that I could buy weed off of another student between classes ON CAMPUS makes it more accessible.

[Guest MikeSC]

I would definately argue that weed is "harder to find then alcohol"  Seriously, what is more likely to be in a student's backpack at school or in his back pocket, a bag of weed or a 6-pack of beer?

If you wish to argue that, then you're delusional.

 

Go to your average dorm room. You'll see beer far more often than you see pot.

Not only was weed much more available to students in highschool, but it was easier to move, easier to transport, and the thing that made more convenient is that you didn't have to go find someone that was 21 or over and convince them to buy you it.  Of course there was always the "raid the parent's liquor" option, but that seemed to get old, fast.

 

Weed might be harder to access for someone who has no experience in ever getting it before, therefore coming off looking like a narc to fellow students, but I know for a fact that students were more likely to have weed in their pocket then beer in their car.  Not saying it was "hard" to get alcohol most of the time, but it was definately a mission, and you had to hassle someone to do it, and it was NEVER a sure thing, unless you had a cool older brother or something.

I will guarantee that you're absolutely incorrect.

 

Odd that when I was high school, getting kegs was never a problem.

 

Getting some pot was.

-=Mike

Dude, don't you live in South Carolina? That can pretty much explain it right there.

 

Also, I believe I was referring to highschool, which don't normally feature dorm rooms. You also aren't addressing the fact that you can get weed at school from fellow students, where as with alcohol, it is someone else getting it, therefore more effort, time and people are needed. Of course no one had a problem getting a keg, that wasn't what I was arguing, I even said it wasn't hard in my post to get beer perse, however the mere fact that I could buy weed off of another student between classes ON CAMPUS makes it more accessible.

To get pot, you need to know somebody who has it.

 

Which, believe it or not, a lot of people don't KNOW anybody who smokes pot.

 

Knowing somebody who drinks is a far better prospect.

 

Just because YOU knew tons of burn-outs doesn't mean most people do.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I would definately argue that weed is "harder to find then alcohol"  Seriously, what is more likely to be in a student's backpack at school or in his back pocket, a bag of weed or a 6-pack of beer?

If you wish to argue that, then you're delusional.

 

Go to your average dorm room. You'll see beer far more often than you see pot.

Not only was weed much more available to students in highschool, but it was easier to move, easier to transport, and the thing that made more convenient is that you didn't have to go find someone that was 21 or over and convince them to buy you it.  Of course there was always the "raid the parent's liquor" option, but that seemed to get old, fast.

 

Weed might be harder to access for someone who has no experience in ever getting it before, therefore coming off looking like a narc to fellow students, but I know for a fact that students were more likely to have weed in their pocket then beer in their car.  Not saying it was "hard" to get alcohol most of the time, but it was definately a mission, and you had to hassle someone to do it, and it was NEVER a sure thing, unless you had a cool older brother or something.

I will guarantee that you're absolutely incorrect.

 

Odd that when I was high school, getting kegs was never a problem.

 

Getting some pot was.

-=Mike

Dude, don't you live in South Carolina? That can pretty much explain it right there.

 

Also, I believe I was referring to highschool, which don't normally feature dorm rooms. You also aren't addressing the fact that you can get weed at school from fellow students, where as with alcohol, it is someone else getting it, therefore more effort, time and people are needed. Of course no one had a problem getting a keg, that wasn't what I was arguing, I even said it wasn't hard in my post to get beer perse, however the mere fact that I could buy weed off of another student between classes ON CAMPUS makes it more accessible.

To get pot, you need to know somebody who has it.

 

Which, believe it or not, a lot of people don't KNOW anybody who smokes pot.

 

Knowing somebody who drinks is a far better prospect.

 

Just because YOU knew tons of burn-outs doesn't mean most people do.

-=Mike

Can you define a "burnout" please, because I am not exactly sure that highschool kids have put in the time or the amount of weed to be declared burn-outs, unless to this day they are still smoking as much as they did then, and that of course I wouldn't know since I only have constant contact with three people from highschool.

 

I mean is it fair or accurate to say "Just because you knew a lot of DRUNKS"

In an effort to demonize one activity over another!?!

[Guest MikeSC]

I KNEW a lot of drunks. I freely admit it. If you think referring to my old high school friends as drunks will offend me, you'll be sorely mistaken.

 

I only knew burn-outs when I dated a burn-out and they simply lived up to every bloody stereotype of them out there.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I KNEW a lot of drunks. I freely admit it. If you think referring to my old high school friends as drunks will offend me, you'll be sorely mistaken.

 

I only knew burn-outs when I dated a burn-out and they simply lived up to every bloody stereotype of them out there.

-=Mike

I am not referring to anyone as anything, because clearly I did not know them, however I was just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you classify as a "burnout" rather then assuming you consider any marijuana user(no matter how much or little) , just as I would not consider a mere alcohol user a DRUNK. Use and Abuse are too different things.

[Guest MikeSC]

I KNEW a lot of drunks. I freely admit it. If you think referring to my old high school friends as drunks will offend me, you'll be sorely mistaken.

 

I only knew burn-outs when I dated a burn-out and they simply lived up to every bloody stereotype of them out there.

      -=Mike

I am not referring to anyone as anything, because clearly I did not know them, however I was just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you classify as a "burnout" rather then assuming you consider any marijuana user(no matter how much or little) , just as I would not consider a mere alcohol user a DRUNK. Use and Abuse are too different things.

The number of people who used pot without becoming dependant on it that I've known in my life can be counted on one hand.

 

And I am a rather significant percentage of the people who pulled it off.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

I would be very, very surprised if most people here when they were in high school, didn't know someone who smoked pot. Between school, a job, and however many people you hung out with, it's very likely you knew somebody with some kind of connection in the very least.

 

What defines a burnout? Because I knew people that smoked during their lunch and went into AP classes right after and got 4's. I know a guy who is probably one of the smartest people I know, full scholarship to Harvey Mudd, now at Oxford, and he came to middle school and high school smoked out. Still does whenever he wants to.

[Guest MikeSC]

And you ask them to think on their feet and you'll be wasting your time.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I KNEW a lot of drunks. I freely admit it. If you think referring to my old high school friends as drunks will offend me, you'll be sorely mistaken.

 

I only knew burn-outs when I dated a burn-out and they simply lived up to every bloody stereotype of them out there.

      -=Mike

I am not referring to anyone as anything, because clearly I did not know them, however I was just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you classify as a "burnout" rather then assuming you consider any marijuana user(no matter how much or little) , just as I would not consider a mere alcohol user a DRUNK. Use and Abuse are too different things.

The number of people who used pot without becoming dependant on it that I've known in my life can be counted on one hand.

 

And I am a rather significant percentage of the people who pulled it off.

-=Mike

The number of people I know that use(d) pot that became or are currently dependent on it is zero. Of course, my circle of friends is much smaller then it used to be, so whatever.

But I would like to know what exactly makes pot dependant. I mean, imagine waking up in the morning and NEEDING that joint in order to feel sleepy all over again!?!

[Guest MikeSC]

I KNEW a lot of drunks. I freely admit it. If you think referring to my old high school friends as drunks will offend me, you'll be sorely mistaken.

 

I only knew burn-outs when I dated a burn-out and they simply lived up to every bloody stereotype of them out there.

      -=Mike

I am not referring to anyone as anything, because clearly I did not know them, however I was just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you classify as a "burnout" rather then assuming you consider any marijuana user(no matter how much or little) , just as I would not consider a mere alcohol user a DRUNK. Use and Abuse are too different things.

The number of people who used pot without becoming dependant on it that I've known in my life can be counted on one hand.

 

And I am a rather significant percentage of the people who pulled it off.

-=Mike

The number of people I know that use(d) pot that became or are currently dependent on it is zero. Of course, my circle of friends is much smaller then it used to be, so whatever.

But I would like to know what exactly makes pot dependant. I mean, imagine waking up in the morning and NEEDING that joint in order to feel sleepy all over again!?!

No, not being able to act like a sane person and relax to ANY degree without that shit.

-=Mike

...Hell, I'd be TOTALLY gung-ho for legalization if I didn't loathe burn-outs so much...

[Guest Brian]

Well, I've never seen them have any problem with it. The guys I know hit up blunts right before tests. Helped some guys relax, think straight.

 

Anyways, vthe whole dependancy issue usually is dependent on the people. The only person I ever knew that was dependent was a complete depressent, even before she started smoking.

[NoCalMike 0]

I KNEW a lot of drunks. I freely admit it. If you think referring to my old high school friends as drunks will offend me, you'll be sorely mistaken.

 

I only knew burn-outs when I dated a burn-out and they simply lived up to every bloody stereotype of them out there.

      -=Mike

I am not referring to anyone as anything, because clearly I did not know them, however I was just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you classify as a "burnout" rather then assuming you consider any marijuana user(no matter how much or little) , just as I would not consider a mere alcohol user a DRUNK. Use and Abuse are too different things.

The number of people who used pot without becoming dependant on it that I've known in my life can be counted on one hand.

 

And I am a rather significant percentage of the people who pulled it off.

-=Mike

The number of people I know that use(d) pot that became or are currently dependent on it is zero. Of course, my circle of friends is much smaller then it used to be, so whatever.

But I would like to know what exactly makes pot dependant. I mean, imagine waking up in the morning and NEEDING that joint in order to feel sleepy all over again!?!

No, not being able to act like a sane person and relax to ANY degree without that shit.

-=Mike

...Hell, I'd be TOTALLY gung-ho for legalization if I didn't loathe burn-outs so much...

Ok, are you purposely ignoring my request to define what "burn-out" mean according to your own line of thinking?