Marijuana

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

This was especially to try and underline Quahom1's earlier statement of losing a good friend, killed over dealing

I dont mean to be insensitive, but I do feel compelled to point out that no one would ever be killed over dealing if dealing were not illegal.

[At_the_Wellspring]

Hey Everyone

Haven't closely followed all of this thread but will throw in my piee anyway...

I myself am not a smoker of pot or anything else. never tried it or any other variety of smoke and don't feel the urge to put some kind of smoke substance into my lungs... but anyway, not hugely against it for those who choose to use it. my boyfriend does smoke it every now and again, and it doesn't bother me in terms of it affecting him, only in that it is illegal.

Anyway, I think like all things, its about moderation. I don't think its healthy to be so utterly reliant on one thing or another that you couldn't cope or be the same person without it. So that could go for anything really, from pot to alcohol to just plain old caffeine. but I guess when something is so powerfully physically addictive such as hard drugs then better to steer clear altogether.

So I guess what I'm saying generally that i think someone shouldn't end up with a criminal record because of having a small amount.

But then I did watch a documentary a little while ago which was a little concerning. It said basically, for an adult brain marijuana is not really harmful. But it said for teenagers whose brains are still developing, - if they are heavy users then it can be very harmful. The people they had on there did not have epilepsy at all , but because of over-use of pot, they were having similar fits, hearing voices and seeing things, and having other psychological issues etc.

So maybe there's something we still dont know about?

So legalisation would have to come with an age-restriction of course. But does that make it even easier for under-agers whose 'brains are still developing' to access it and potentially do damage to themselves?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by At_the_Wellspring

So legalisation would have to come with an age-restriction of course. But does that make it even easier for under-agers whose 'brains are still developing' to access it and potentially do damage to themselves?

What like Alchol doesn't? Kids still get ahold of that and that damages their head and kidneys and such... Then so do cigarettes. Also what about glue? Age limit on that in parts of my country. ANYWAY! It makes it harder if you ask me... some joe on a street corner or in a park slinging herb will not be seen if the plant is legal because he cannot make any money on what he is doing... Unless he has insane prices. So I think it will cut the middle man so to speak out, and you go in a store or a special place that sells it and will need ID, no dealer I have ever heard of asks for ID...

[At_the_Wellspring]

Hi 17th Angel,


Yeah, you are probably right. Probably having it in the open more will cut out the middle man, it makes it easier to regulate age, and also makes it easier to have eduction about it openly, rather than having the appealing 'rebellion' aspect of using it (for young people anyway). It is afterall an educational and advertising campaign that has reduced cigarette smoking here. Starting 20 years ago or so with banning cigarette advertising and then up to last year banning smoking from all office/ restaurant/ bars/ pubs etc. Education is a key I think so people are making informed choices.

I was just wondering whether easier access for people who would otherwise not touch it would make a difference. Like here there has been these 'party pills' come in a year or two ago and receive a lot of media attention. They are legal 'herbal highs', and still age restricted, but some were worried because a lot of people who would otherwise not try anything are saying, "well, why not, its not illegal it must be safe..." and there was the concern that these might also act as a 'gateway' to using other drugs or substances or whatever.

So I was wondering if that would happen similarly with marijuana.
Legalisation may lead to a more relaxed attitude towards it, which could be both positive and negative.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by At_the_Wellspring

Hi 17th Angel,


Yeah, you are probably right. Probably having it in the open more will cut out the middle man, it makes it easier to regulate age, and also makes it easier to have eduction about it openly, rather than having the appealing 'rebellion' aspect of using it (for young people anyway). It is afterall an educational and advertising campaign that has reduced cigarette smoking here. Starting 20 years ago or so with banning cigarette advertising and then up to last year banning smoking from all office/ restaurant/ bars/ pubs etc. Education is a key I think so people are making informed choices.

I was just wondering whether easier access for people who would otherwise not touch it would make a difference. Like here there has been these 'party pills' come in a year or two ago and receive a lot of media attention. They are legal 'herbal highs', and still age restricted, but some were worried because a lot of people who would otherwise not try anything are saying, "well, why not, its not illegal it must be safe..." and there was the concern that these might also act as a 'gateway' to using other drugs or substances or whatever.

So I was wondering if that would happen similarly with marijuana.
Legalisation may lead to a more relaxed attitude towards it, which could be both positive and negative.

Here I haven't experienced the banning of smoking in pubs and offices and such, I also hope not to see this... You go to a pub and that is what you expect, smoke... Don't like it, simply dont go. And Office? I would end up commiting mass murder if they stopped me from smoking while I am in work. (I smoke a cigarette every 25mins just to put you in the picture of how many I have a day.) Restaurants maybe, anyway! we're talking about weed. There was a comedian (not sure If I have said this allready, but here goes) who said, "Soft drugs lead to hard drugs? If this is the theory then Masterbation should lead to sex.... *deep annoyed frown* And it hasn't bl**dy well worked yet.." The soft drug hard drug "theory" I wouldn't say is a fair overall look at society as a whole. Where do they get these statements?

From the people on hard drugs? "ugh, yeh, well mate... I started on weed... then went to harder things.." (done in an ozzy osbourne accent) lol. They never ask other people apart from the ones who are on hard drugs... And it has to be something individually inside them that craves harder substances. I myself have no intentions of trying any other drug. I do not see any joy from it... It is just a matter of the drug users opionion... I don't know I am still half asleep here, I hate mornings.

[InLove]

Hi guys--

I am neither endorsing nor condemning the use of marijuana; However, I am trying to gain some understanding on exactly why it is classified the way it is. I appreciate the listings that have been provided here on this thread, but I feel that these are incomplete listings, and possibly politically biased.

And Q, if marijuana played a part in the death of your partner, then I would be interested in the details, if you would like to tell them (If you already have, forgive my oversight and refer me to your words already posted.)

But I have a story, too. One wherein the legal restrictions on this substance prevented medical personnel from administering it when it was really needed--and as a result, my terminally ill partner suffered to an extent that was totally unnecessary.

I do realize that, like any other "drug" or "remedy", there are side-effects for people with different physical and emotional conditions. I know for sure that individuals with epilepsy are not candidates for cannabis(sp?)-based medicine. It is very dangerous for these individuals.

By the way, thanks, Awaiting_the_Fifth, for your concern. Things turned out okay for my family in Texas in the wake of Rita, which turned, and for my family in Florida in the wake of Katrina, which turned. I am very thankful--but wherever these storms turned, they hurt many people, especially Katrina. And so, while I am grateful that mine are safe--if I am truly "InLove", then aren't they all mine? Including the hurricane in Mexico and the earthquake in Pakistan--yeah, I know it will be difficult to believe, but I know folks in Pakistan. (Sorry to get off subject here, but please continue to lift them all up--I really am in a position to see just how much damage has been done. Guess I will address that somewhere else, more appropriate--another thread somewhere.)

Anyway, back to the conversation at hand....

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

clear your private msgs...InLove

[InLove]

I will, Q--it may take a while. They have been full for a while, and each time I clear them, they fill up right away.

Recently had some computer trouble...there are private messages I do not want to lose, so give me some time to get them into another program so I can save them.

I am always interested in your input.

Love you,

InLove

[InLove]

HI--

Well, although it is not entirely empty, I believe my PM box will accept messages now. I hope you are still interested in sending one, Q---

You know me by now, and surely know that I really do want to hear this, if it is not too hard to recount.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Hi Q--

I received your message, and I read it carefully. I responded sincerely, but I see no evidence that my message went through. I think all the stuff I said was lost. Will you let me know? I will respond again if you did not receive the first one.

InPeace,
InLove

[Spazola]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Nope - merely referring my earlier statement:

I disagree with your former statement. While it is always possible that thugs use Marajiuana, is rarely the case. The people I have met who are moderate weed smokers are very mellow, down to earth people. Two of them are a married couple, parents to three children. They are productive humans of society, and the father has a job that is very important to him. Their children have never been exposed to Marajiuana, but they have no plans to lie to them, either.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Spazola

I disagree with your former statement. While it is always possible that thugs use Marajiuana, is rarely the case. The people I have met who are moderate weed smokers are very mellow, down to earth people. Two of them are a married couple, parents to three children. They are productive humans of society, and the father has a job that is very important to him. Their children have never been exposed to Marajiuana, but they have no plans to lie to them, either.

My point was specifically at suppliers.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Brian, is this the earlier statement you refer to?

Also, Quahom raises a very good point is that is often overlooked, and that is that even if cannabis itself is seen as relatively less harmful compared to other drugs (ie, nicotine and alcohol), it still remains an important commodity for very violent criminal gangs.

If it is true that violent criminal gangs are making money from dealing in Marijuana, then surely this is a very strong argument for legalisation. This would remove the trade from the violent gangs and effectively place it in the hands of the supermarkets.

[I, Brian]

Indeed, it can certainly be an argument for legalising supply - but I believe my earlier comment was more directed at the claim that cannabis use is inherently harmless to society and the individual.

We live in a consumer society that is focused on the benefits to the consumer, not the cost - cannabis use has a cost in the supply to the consumer, and I would also argue that cannabis use can also have a cost in terms of personal health (I'm thinking more of mental health than physical issues based on tobacco use).

I wouldn't consider myself against cannabis - but when I used to be a complete pothead, I used to hear a lot of bullsh!t about how great cannabis is. I think that's going to be a situation that arises from any social group that uses any specific drug socially.

The whole cannabis issue really needs more balance, in my opinion, and that's what I've tried to contribute in this thread. Cannabis use is great for some people. That's great. But that can't be the end point of the argument, IMO.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Brian, is this the earlier statement you refer to?



If it is true that violent criminal gangs are making money from dealing in Marijuana, then surely this is a very strong argument for legalisation. This would remove the trade from the violent gangs and effectively place it in the hands of the supermarkets.

Up until 1935, it was legal in the US. They made it illegal for a reason. It slows down reaction time, causes the individual to not want to work, in short it screwed with production, and influenced bad accidents, which cost companies and families big losses.

Why not alcohol, you might ask. Well, alcohol is being frowned on more and more. Liquid lunches are no longer tolerated, companies offer medical help to rid employees of the habit, the military no longer tolerates the drunk soldier/sailor. And cops no longer give one a ride home...instead one gets a "ride" to jail.

I suppose if people could (at large) do imbibing in such things in moderation, and responsibly, this would not be an issue. But a significant minority can't. And as a result, people get hurt, or worse.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q