|
On April 24 2011 06:50 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote:On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person!
I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
|
I really love Oklahoma (lived here all but 1 of my 27 years, the 1 was in Tokyo) but people here in general do have some backwards/close-minded/fear-based ideas, no denying that. I'll still take it over anywhere else I've been in the US. I can do what I enjoy with my free time, was able to buy a nice new house and 2 new cars within 3 years of graduating with a bachelor's from our largest university, which by doing some rudimentary practice and getting good ACT scores the state paid for in full (with extra every semester).
More on the topic, I personally feel people in general (and especially here) are much too afraid of marijuana, mostly because of fear campaigns that are not unique to our country. My wife from Japan thinks smoking pot makes you "go crazy" like freakout arms flailing type stuff...
This is not the only issue we could all benefit from understanding a little better before we make judgements about it.
|
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case?
Marijuana is not addictive. Habit forming, yes,but literally anything can become a habit. It does not cause cancer. There have been no scientifically acceptable studies that prove psychotic disorders. Inform yourself... look for information that isn't distributed by the US government or by some idiot pothead trying to campaign for his favorite recreational drug. I recommend erowid.org for all of your drug researching needs.
|
On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 06:50 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote:On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person! I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Wow. Are you trolling right now or do you really just hate personal choice and freedoms?
|
On April 24 2011 07:02 contraSol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Marijuana is not addictive. Habit forming, yes,but literally anything can become a habit. It does not cause cancer. There have been no scientifically acceptable studies that prove psychotic disorders. Inform yourself... look for information that isn't distributed by the US government or by some idiot pothead trying to campaign for his favorite recreational drug. I recommend erowid.org for all of your drug researching needs.
+1 on erowid. Hands down the best website for finding in-depth, accurate information about all sorts of abusable substances.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml
|
On April 24 2011 06:47 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote:
That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!? Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p
I love how americans talk about how they live in a free country, and they can't even drink beer with over 3.2% alcohol(I know this doesn't apply to all states). I live in a socialist country(almost communists!!!) and I drank a 12% beer last week. Fuck yeah 8)
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On April 24 2011 04:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote:
These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!" As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else? If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative!
Hey, I'm conservative and I'm quite strongly against the War on Drugs, at least against pot. That said, I also believe being high on marijuana while on driving should have equal penalties to DUI. Do whatever you want, don't do it in a way that can harm me, is my policy.
But I think a lot of conservatives do think that the decline in society has been in large part caused by drugs (crack cocaine was the most destructive thing to urban culture since LBJ's Great Society) and maybe generalize that to all things falling into that category? There's also a concern that "self-induced life ruining" is a drain on the taxpayer (I realize a good portion of potheads are productive members of society--nevertheless, there's a highly negative stereotype among the middle-class that they, in general, are not--productive meaning "tax-paying" in this case). "Do whatever you want, but don't ask me to subsidize your behavior once you fuck up your life," I think is the idea here. Now since its impossible to prevent the latter, you attack the former. Does this make any sense?
To put it into another context:
Can you think of any productive tweakers? Well -- they are certainly very rare. Yet society can't find itself to be heartless to these people, and deny them 'assistance payments'/welfare. So, society does the next most logical thing to do--prohibits the drug use.
(Note: I know that meth is very different from pot, but in theory, this is where the opposition to legalizing it comes from.)
PS. marijuana is quite closely connotated with hippies...and we are indeed quite anti-hippies.
|
It's like online poker, they can't get in on the action, they say it's illegal.
Cigarettes take that many more lives and they are acceptable..Yeah
Not a smoker myself, I think that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their time
|
Oklahoma has a lot of strange situations regarding sentencing. For example, in some parts of the state, the law allows for 'up to life' for indecent exposure...not that it ever happens.
Drugs in general are a widespread issue in the state...think they're hoping to get this out there in order to deter, rather than enforcing it directly. Interesting approach, but doubtful that it works.
Edit: You can get beer here with higher than 3.2% alcohol, but it has to be sold in a liquor store.
|
On April 24 2011 07:08 Arnstein wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 06:47 Valentine wrote:On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote:
That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!? Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p I love how americans talk about how they live in a free country, and they can't even drink beer with over 3.2% alcohol(I know this doesn't apply to all states). I live in a socialist country(almost communists!!!) and I drank a 12% beer last week. Fuck yeah 8)
you do realize anyone in the usa can drink a 12% beer?
|
hash is weed, except you take one small hit instead of 5 big ones and get super heeeeeeee. why punish health-conscious smokers.
|
That's absolutely disgusting. Life in prison for creating a substance that has been used safely as a recreation drug for thousands of years? I hate Oklahoma (being from Texas, that's a given). They have a history of this kind of non-sense. They're such a prudish state. Their beer and liquor laws are worse than anywhere except maybe Utah, and now their drug laws are clearly the worst in the nation. I wonder if this isn't also a racially charged decision. Everyone knows that hashish originates in the middle east. To me this reads "we associate recreation drug use with foreigners and we are taking a stance against both." So ridiculous. How many people even smoke hash? I hate meaningless legislation that is designed specifically as a way to assert a small group of peoples' radical values.
|
On April 24 2011 07:11 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 04:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote:
These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!" As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else? If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative! Hey, I'm conservative and I'm quite strongly against the War on Drugs, at least against pot. That said, I also believe being high on marijuana while on driving should have equal penalties to DUI. Do whatever you want, don't do it in a way that can harm me, is my policy. But I think a lot of conservatives do think that the decline in society has been in large part caused by drugs (crack cocaine was the most destructive thing to urban culture since LBJ's Great Society) and maybe generalize that to all things falling into that category? There's also a concern that "self-induced life ruining" is a drain on the taxpayer (I realize a good portion of potheads are productive members of society ~ nevertheless, there's a highly negative stereotype among the middle-class that they, in general, are not). Also, marijuana is quite closely connotated with hippies...and we are indeed quite anti-hippies.
The bolded part is the problem. Marijuana is considered by the DEA to be a Schedule I drug along with heroin, cocaine, and meth. This nonsensical association leads those with no experience with marijuana to come to inaccurate conclusions and make ridiculous statements. To the non-smokers out there: marijuana is NOTHING like other Schedule I drugs.
|
On April 24 2011 07:12 sc2isfun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 07:08 Arnstein wrote:On April 24 2011 06:47 Valentine wrote:On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote:
That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!? Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p I love how americans talk about how they live in a free country, and they can't even drink beer with over 3.2% alcohol(I know this doesn't apply to all states). I live in a socialist country(almost communists!!!) and I drank a 12% beer last week. Fuck yeah 8) you do realize anyone in the usa can drink a 12% beer?
Yeah right...
|
On April 24 2011 05:15 wwer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 05:07 plated.rawr wrote:
I don't really see the problem here. The article states that what the law will target, is the producers, not distributors and users, meaning that for the vast majority of those involved in MJ, only a small percentage will be affected.
Of course yea, targeting production means having a few private plants for own use will also be a lot more "dangerous", as well as local supply going down, but there's always import from other states, right? It's not like this law is adding extra punishment to the average users.
This law needs to be a part of a set of laws though, either against or for local MJ legalization. For; it could be used to stop private growing and help institutionalize governmnent controlled growning. Against; to clip the production and thus reduce the ammount dealers can access. If it's just a law standing on its own without any future addendums, then all this will do is force people to import more. Yes and this benefits large criminal organizations which have the resources to mass produce and transport hash by guaranteeing them more business. Does that not seem like a bad thing to you?
Larger organizations instead of unnumerable small ones are easier to keep track of, either for legal action or corporate takeover in case of legalization. Making drug production more visible isn't a bad thing.
|
The bolded part is the problem. Marijuana is considered by the DEA to be a Schedule I drug along with heroin, cocaine, and meth. This nonsensical association leads those with no experience with marijuana to come to inaccurate conclusions and make ridiculous statements. To the non-smokers out there: marijuana is NOTHING like other Schedule I drugs.
Cocaine is schedule 2.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
|
This new bill is completely ridiculous. The mere fact that Alcohol is legal in the United States and Marijuana isn't is a laughable joke at best. The amount of Alcohol related deaths to the amount caused or involving Marijuana are mind blowingly different. We spending millions if not billions a year in fees involving legal cases and Alcohol, yet it's still legal and Marijuana isn't ?
Troll on America, troll on...
|
I think that instead of increasing punishment for it, the government should make it legal, then tax the crap out of it. =/
|
It is kind of amusing to see this discussion about whether or not its unhealthy or unethical to take drugs. I think people should consider all the people that are victim of drug trafficing, smugling, extorsion, drug wars, and all other horrible stuff that happens because parents want to protect their kids from the reality. For every teenager saved from drug addiction in the west probably 100 kids died somewhere else. See Mexico.
I have no real oppinion whether or not it should be allowed. I don't do mariuana because I think its rather lame and alcohol do the trick for me. But please, if you want to discuss drugs, do it with a broader perspective than the consumer and those near him/her. It's a global issue, not local.
|
On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 06:50 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote:On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person! I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer).
Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
