Written by Arian Totalis on 11.06.2008 at 08:40

I'm with Cursed and the KapN, I believe that Marijuana should be legalized, and for a number of reasons, Both societally and economically. Other drugs, with the exception of only a few (specifically, alchahol and mushrooms) should be made illegal.

THC, the primary intoxicating agent found in Marijana, not only is not bad for you, but it actually has positive and rejuvinating effects. It helps balance seratonin levels, for instance. So if you or someone you know suffers from clinical depression, maybe tokin' up is a good supplement to other treatment and therapy. Agents in marijuana are also known to preserve someones physical structure, slowing the exterior aging process. And lastly, there's the ever renown ability to fight off cancer in the eyes and breast.

Myths about Marijuana
Cause of Sterility- Marijana does not make one steril and unable to reproduce. It may temporarily lower sperm count, but after a month or so of abstinence from use of marijuana, sperm count will be up to a normal count once more. None of the lowering of sperm count is permenent, and even could be looked at as a good idea in the aidning of birth control (not a complete method of birth control)

Marijuana exaserbates the act of violent crimes- Bullshit. People who recreationally smoke marijuana, and even people who sell it, usually do not commit violent crimes over it. As a matter of fact, weed smokers the world over are just ordinary, working people, who abide by the law with the one exception that they smoke weed. You don't hear of a guy smoking a joint and then consequently killing people because of it, unlike Meth, Crack, or Coke.

You can overdose on Marijuana- It makes me laugh that people actually believe that. I shouldn't have to explain this, but scientists have proven that you CAN NOT, repeat CAN NOT overdose on THC. You could smoke three blunts and eat a whole trey of Dro brownies, and you won't die. You might be so high that you feel that way, but you won't, I promise.

Other drugs tend to cause violent crime, robbery, and general decay of society. Especially Crack, Cocaine, Heroine, and crystal meth. Thee drugs are incredibally physically as well as psycologically addictive, and addicts for these drugs will litterlly do anything to obtain them, even if it means to rob, rape, beat, maim, or kill. Don't get me wrong, addicton to any drug can fuck up your life, but these drugs up the anty by an immeasurable count. I am in blatent and strong moral opposition to their production, distribution, and just general use.

Has anyone ever seen Reefer Madness? It's a 1937 film about pot, that depicts marijuana causing violence and causing one man to go insane.

The war on drugs has been a complete failure. Our prisons are overflowing with non-violent drug users who were locked up for simple possession. Add to that that a drug conviction means being banned from most jobs paying anything over minimum wage, denial of all business and professional licenses(an ex-convict can't even be a barber or beautician in most states), being turned down for most jobs housing discrimination, and denial of most if not all educational loans or grants. In fact, many states don't even allow ex-convicts the right to vote. All too often then, for a person convicted of a drug offense, their only options are minimum wage(if they're lucky), public assistance(if their conviction doesn't render them ineligible), panhandling, or more crime.

Written by animal on 17.07.2008 at 14:39

Written by Arian Totalis on 11.06.2008 at 08:40

I'm with Cursed and the KapN, I believe that Marijuana should be legalized, and for a number of reasons, Both societally and economically. Other drugs, with the exception of only a few (specifically, alchahol and mushrooms) should be made illegal.

THC, the primary intoxicating agent found in Marijana, not only is not bad for you, but it actually has positive and rejuvinating effects. It helps balance seratonin levels, for instance. So if you or someone you know suffers from clinical depression, maybe tokin' up is a good supplement to other treatment and therapy. Agents in marijuana are also known to preserve someones physical structure, slowing the exterior aging process. And lastly, there's the ever renown ability to fight off cancer in the eyes and breast.

Myths about Marijuana
Cause of Sterility- Marijana does not make one steril and unable to reproduce. It may temporarily lower sperm count, but after a month or so of abstinence from use of marijuana, sperm count will be up to a normal count once more. None of the lowering of sperm count is permenent, and even could be looked at as a good idea in the aidning of birth control (not a complete method of birth control)

Marijuana exaserbates the act of violent crimes- Bullshit. People who recreationally smoke marijuana, and even people who sell it, usually do not commit violent crimes over it. As a matter of fact, weed smokers the world over are just ordinary, working people, who abide by the law with the one exception that they smoke weed. You don't hear of a guy smoking a joint and then consequently killing people because of it, unlike Meth, Crack, or Coke.

You can overdose on Marijuana- It makes me laugh that people actually believe that. I shouldn't have to explain this, but scientists have proven that you CAN NOT, repeat CAN NOT overdose on THC. You could smoke three blunts and eat a whole trey of Dro brownies, and you won't die. You might be so high that you feel that way, but you won't, I promise.

Other drugs tend to cause violent crime, robbery, and general decay of society. Especially Crack, Cocaine, Heroine, and crystal meth. Thee drugs are incredibally physically as well as psycologically addictive, and addicts for these drugs will litterlly do anything to obtain them, even if it means to rob, rape, beat, maim, or kill. Don't get me wrong, addicton to any drug can fuck up your life, but these drugs up the anty by an immeasurable count. I am in blatent and strong moral opposition to their production, distribution, and just general use.

Has anyone ever seen Reefer Madness? It's a 1937 film about pot, that depicts marijuana causing violence and causing one man to go insane.

The war on drugs has been a complete failure. Our prisons are overflowing with non-violent drug users who were locked up for simple possession. Add to that that a drug conviction means being banned from most jobs paying anything over minimum wage, denial of all business and professional licenses(an ex-convict can't even be a barber or beautician in most states), being turned down for most jobs housing discrimination, and denial of most if not all educational loans or grants. In fact, many states don't even allow ex-convicts the right to vote. All too often then, for a person convicted of a drug offense, their only options are minimum wage(if they're lucky), public assistance(if their conviction doesn't render them ineligible), panhandling, or more crime.

Yes, I've seen reefer madness, and it is the biggest piece of bullshit propaganda I have ever seen. Seriously, it makes me laugh, the level of ignorance that it contains. "The reefers made me do it!"

I agree completely about how unfair the justice system is on a drug charge. It's just utterly rediculous and unfair.

Written by Ragana on 16.07.2008 at 03:14

Coffee is not a drug otherwise I'm drug-addicted and that sounds quite funny for me.

I just don't see the worth of drugs:
1) costs a big money
2) you may die
3) they may ruin all your life.

Yes, and I don't use them.

Just stop drinking coffee for a while and check how your behavior can change. Cafeine addiction exists, even if it sounds funny to you, the effects aren't just really obvious in comparison to heroin or tobacco.

Apart from that, you're really generalizing. You don't know anything about it.
I suggest you should search for different drugs and read about their effects, some aren't dangerous AT ALL.
Let me rephrase that:
Unless one uses ridiculous amounts of drugs, no one will EVER die from drugs.

On psychonaut.com someone said something that really fits well:

Quote:
Evolution has given people a knee jerk reaction to protect their kids, and rightly so, but in this instance, I sum up the tactic as:

Heroin = BAD
Heroin = Cannabis
Cannabis = BAD.
Choosing to do cannabis makes YOU BAD, now let us look after your freedom.

This, of course, caused most people to think that cannabis has the same effects as heroin and should therefor be avoided and destroyed.
But in fact, the effects are totally different.

Written by Twilight on 19.07.2008 at 20:51

On psychonaut.com someone said something that really fits well:

Quote:
Evolution has given people a knee jerk reaction to protect their kids, and rightly so, but in this instance, I sum up the tactic as:

Heroin = BAD
Heroin = Cannabis
Cannabis = BAD.
Choosing to do cannabis makes YOU BAD, now let us look after your freedom.

This, of course, caused most people to think that cannabis has the same effects as heroin and should therefor be avoided and destroyed.
But in fact, the effects are totally different.

Indeed, its funny to see people going on their anti drug crusades when the only thing they can refer to as drugs are things that the media and the government has taught them to hate.

They don't stop to think how much drugs actually go in to helping people. Can you imagine how much unnecessary pain people would go through if there wasn't any drugs around?Have you ever thought that amphetamines were used in inhalers for asthmatics or that hemp can prove to be a valuable asset in producing energy or even possibly, food? What about the ritalin that your psyche prescribes to you? They never ask these questions...

Written by Arian Totalis on 17.07.2008 at 18:54


Yes, I've seen reefer madness, and it is the biggest piece of bullshit propaganda I have ever seen. Seriously, it makes me laugh, the level of ignorance that it contains. "The reefers made me do it!"

I agree completely about how unfair the justice system is on a drug charge. It's just utterly rediculous and unfair.

I've never actualy seen the film, but I can imagine a movie with that name coming out in 1937 to be quite a niave piece of propoganda however, people who say maurijuana is not harmful to people's psyche are also fairly ignorant. It can be broken down as follows:

1. The majority of people are able to enjoy the odd joint now and then without any harmful effects, in fact it may even be good for them, should they choose to do so.

2. Some people (quite alot of people actualy) are capable of smoking on a regular basis and still be perfectly functional, should they choose to do so.

3. Some people can smoke excessive amounts and still be functional in their chosen area of society, should they choose to do so.

4. Certain people can devote their entire lives to it and find an area of society to suite their chosen course of life. Good for them!

This is where it gets slightly tricky.

5. Certain people smoke excessively (now and then is simply not enough) and become unable to adjust their lives to suite their chosen course of life and this may lead to depression resulting in a complete failure or resorting to harder drug usage.

6. In certain people maurijuana can actualy trigger deep rooted depression or psychological distrubances due to its sutained use and its effect on one's mental workings. Causing long term psychological damage.

7. Some people enjoy the escapism of intoxicating substances and although they would never try harder drugs, once they become accustomed to the feeling it loses its thrill and harder drugs are sought.

8. In extreme cases, severely disturbed people may even lose complete touch with reality after even only the smallest maurijuana usage and again this can cause long term damage as well as short term insanity.

Points 5-8 occur very rarely and are not seen by the majority of people who indulge in this drug because they are generaly experienced by a unique type of person however, they do actualy happen. I am not anti-maurijuana by any stretch of the imagination, but legalizing it denies that these detrimental effects can occur. The only possible way that it could be legalized if each and every person who wanted to smoke it had to obtain a license. You'd have to go through a psychological evaluation, at your own expense, and be above a certain age. This is of course not practical. I am against legalisation for these reasons, although I firmly believe that maurijuana generaly can be used by the majority of people without any negative side effects and in fact can help people enjoy life in a different way which can be really good. In an ideal world there would be the resources to make all drugs, including heroin, available to those who it could be used in a positive way but we don't live in an ideal world and you governments cannot allow psychoactive drugs to be legal when there can be negative consequences. the point being that nobody knows which category an individual will fall until they try it.

Bloody hell I am rambling now!

Written by Stuart on 25.07.2008 at 21:42

Points 5-8 occur very rarely and are not seen by the majority of people who indulge in this drug because they are generaly experienced by a unique type of person however, they do actualy happen. I am not anti-maurijuana by any stretch of the imagination, but legalizing it denies that these detrimental effects can occur. The only possible way that it could be legalized if each and every person who wanted to smoke it had to obtain a license. You'd have to go through a psychological evaluation, at your own expense, and be above a certain age. This is of course not practical. I am against legalisation for these reasons, although I firmly believe that maurijuana generaly can be used by the majority of people without any negative side effects and in fact can help people enjoy life in a different way which can be really good.

All the same could be said of alchohol.

...I'm just saying...

Written by Gordon Freeman on 25.07.2008 at 21:48

Written by Stuart on 25.07.2008 at 21:42

Points 5-8 occur very rarely and are not seen by the majority of people who indulge in this drug because they are generaly experienced by a unique type of person however, they do actualy happen. I am not anti-maurijuana by any stretch of the imagination, but legalizing it denies that these detrimental effects can occur. The only possible way that it could be legalized if each and every person who wanted to smoke it had to obtain a license. You'd have to go through a psychological evaluation, at your own expense, and be above a certain age. This is of course not practical. I am against legalisation for these reasons, although I firmly believe that maurijuana generaly can be used by the majority of people without any negative side effects and in fact can help people enjoy life in a different way which can be really good.

All the same could be said of alchohol.

...I'm just saying...

Very true... in some ways, but alcohol is an ingrained piece of society, socially acceptable. just because it bares similarities to other damaging substances does not mean that they should also be made legal or alcohol illegal. (although the government is resorting to excessive alcohol taxation to stop people drinking, at least here in UK)

I'm not denying harmful effects of marihuana, but what you say about the amount of people really have trouble with it is tiny.
So I agree with you.
What your idea about a license isn't actually that bad. Many people (At least here in Holland) came up with the idea of a license. But more in a way that the shops who would sell it can control the amount that can be sold to an individual.

It's a bit of a miscommunication that legalisation in the case of drugs would mean that everything can be bought with no apparent control or monitoring. But the same is done with alcohol in most countries, it has an age limit.
People would say that kids would be able to get it anyway, but that's just because many shops who sell liquor don't really care.

Written by Twilight on 26.07.2008 at 01:16

I'm not denying harmful effects of marihuana, but what you say about the amount of people really have trouble with it is tiny.
So I agree with you.
What your idea about a license isn't actually that bad. Many people (At least here in Holland) came up with the idea of a license. But more in a way that the shops who would sell it can control the amount that can be sold to an individual.

It's a bit of a miscommunication that legalisation in the case of drugs would mean that everything can be bought with no apparent control or monitoring. But the same is done with alcohol in most countries, it has an age limit.
People would say that kids would be able to get it anyway, but that's just because many shops who sell liquor don't really care.

I wouldn't call the amount tiny, i know i said rare occurences in my earlier post, but its not that simple there are many more factors which come into play. If it were legal and its taboo was slowly reduced people would smoke it more. The thing with maurijuana is the more prolonged and regular it is being smoked the greater possibility a person could develop negative side effects. Without the added deterent of it being against the law the likelihood of people smoking for greater periods of their lives is increased. So many people who would happily smoke the occassional joint now and then without any problems could possibly develop problems because of their increased consumption due to this newfound legality. Also making it legal will definitely encourage more people to experiment which will result in X amount of people developing these issues which they may never had they not experimented.

Now I know the Netherlands is supposed to be the country that proves this theory wrong. maybe that says something good about Dutch culture more than anything else (just a humble shot in the dark), unfortunately I'm pretty certain in many other countries this would not be the case and the above theory would in fact occur. I've never actualy studied mental illness statistics of the Netherlands though...

There would obviously need to be limitations and controls if it is legal. But then that brings up an entirely new issue, if you limit how much you can sell to an individual, is that to prohibit distribution further afield? I hope so because if it is to restrict the amount for personal consumption then that is limitation of freedom of choice, "its legal but you are only allowed so much and we decide how much that is".

BTW my earlier post was aimed more at the people who tried to dispel the myths about maurijuana earlier in the thread as they did not seem to have much of an understanding of the drug whatsoever, i've never heard the myth you can OD on maurijuana, thats just silly. that myth doesn't exist, you're dispelling a mythical myth.

Also I don't know a single person who thinks that effects of heroin and maurijuana are the same, not even a complete idiot would think that, so I don't where that came from. I mean I'm sure even religious american mid-western soccer moms know the difference.

I think it quite possibly a great amount of drug consumption will occur when it is legalized.
But I think that will decrease after this big wave. It's a simple consequence of legalizing something that a lot of people are curious about.
I don't have any statistics but so far I've enjoyed the semi-legal marijuana here it seems that it's like a part of life here. And I don't mean that it necessarily dominates people's lives (Which no doubt it does for some), I mean that it's considered as usual as alcohol nowadays.
Of course there are still a lot of people who don't know enough of it and don't want anything to do with it, that's ok for me.

The thing about heroin and marijuana I mentioned in an earlier post is a bit how the American government wanted to scare people and prevent them from using marijuana years ago. More and more people probably know more about the difference nowadays, but you'd be surprised about how many people still have this irrational fear for drugs.
Nice example

I agree that limitations and control bring up another issue. It sure isn't easy to come up with the best possible solution for drug regulation (or legalization). There are many ways to prevent possible accidents with drugs, but it just isn't possible to get the drug abusers out of the way for 100%. They will always be there just like alcoholics. I suppose you agree with me on that.
What definitely is needed is more care and more information for people who are interested. Giving care to addicts or people who got negative experiences is a much better way than to put them in prison or to just ignore them.
Recognizing the presence of drugs is also recognizing that people will have a chance to get a bad experience with it.

I said semi-legal in the Netherlands because it is legal when you buy marijuana in coffeeshops, but coffeeshops need to buy it all in an illegal way. This is quite a good example of hypocrisy, because it's apparent that marijuana is used in a responsible way, most of the time. Yet, coffeeshops can't buy their 'goods' legal from producers, while it is legal for them to sell it.

@Stuart: Well, I'm quite aware that weed is capable of destroying people's lives. You're right about people loving the feeling of escapism and endulging in it, and that happens to alot of people who do it. That's where the psychological addiction kicks in; while they might not be physically addicted, they still feel that it's an embedded necessity in their lives and HAVE to smoke whenever possible, or at least make sure that they always have a stash ready and smoking devices on hand. I should know, because i've seen it happen, and it's happened to people that I care about. It's like they can't let it go, and is a primary driving factor in their lives. I wouldn't say it's destroyed their lives yet, but it definitly seems to be something they are unable to live without. I personally haven't smokes since april 4th, and i'm glad that I haven't, because it's helped me open my eyes to what's happening around me. I'm the type that could be a controled smoker, know when to stop, and not have to endulge in it to escape from the reality of my life. But I very well could fall down that slope if the wrong thing happened to me. That doesn't mean that I still don't believe it should be legalized, because there are still useful and therapudic uses for it, hell, even recreationally it isn't neceserrily a bad thing. BUT, like alchahol or any other drug, people abuse it, and part of the reason why it's considered a drug is because people become addicted to it, plain and simple. Any drug can destroy your life, whether the addiction is physical, psychological, or both, the fact is; addiction is addiction and it controls you.

I think you guys are still slightly missing my point.

The point being that maurijuana, or any drug, has a psychoactive effect to which everybody reacts differently. You don't find medication for schizophrenics easily available. Why, because it needs to be carefuly prescribed to a person with the right mental makeup. The same goes for maurijuana, it is dangerous for the wrong kind of people. It cannot be legalized for this reason. This is a point often not given due attention.

I do get your point.

But there is a minority for every substance that isn't able to keep it under control.
I know what you're saying, but then I want to know what you see as legalization. Do you mean regulation or just prohibiting it?
I mean the majority isn't getting negative effects, plus the plant itself is very useful for medication as well as for some other purposes.
It would be nonsense to ban something like that just because a few people won't be able to handle the effects.
You can ban mushrooms and alcohol for the same reasons.
What people need is the right information and advice if they are in doubt.
I know people with psychological problems that stay away from it because they know it won't give them the effects that people talk about.

Written by Twilight on 27.07.2008 at 23:38

I do get your point.

But there is a minority for every substance that isn't able to keep it under control.
I know what you're saying, but then I want to know what you see as legalization. Do you mean regulation or just prohibiting it?
I mean the majority isn't getting negative effects, plus the plant itself is very useful for medication as well as for some other purposes.
It would be nonsense to ban something like that just because a few people won't be able to handle the effects.
You can ban mushrooms and alcohol for the same reasons.
What people need is the right information and advice if they are in doubt.
I know people with psychological problems that stay away from it because they know it won't give them the effects that people talk about.

I would definitely ban mushrooms. I have already stated my reasons for alcohol above.

OK, please can you provide statistics as to what percentage of the population is susceptible to the negative effects of maurjuana? You seem very confident that the figure is too small for it to validate prohibition. You have already agreed that they do in fact take place, the next logical step is to provide evidence that the problems caused are not widely spread enough to warrant prohibition. Otherwise the entire conversation is rendered meaningless.

The fact is people are stupid, merely offering them the right advice as you put it, will make virtualy no impact. The right advise is out there now and people ignore it. Hell, I ignore good advise all the time. Also the effects I speak of are not always instantaneously recognizable, they can take years to come to the fore so again it is something that is difficult to analyze. 90% of serious maurjuana smokers that I know over 40/50 all have serious mental issues.

I have also already stated the only possible way that it could be made legal, in my opinion, and again this is not practical. Please don't think I'm anti-drug, because I'm not, its a subject I have studied at great length and this is the conclusion I have come to. By legalising maurijuana (even with ridiculous control measures) governments are admitting to the harmlessness are of the it. Which is simply not the case.

My practical solution, keep it illegal, but make the penalties light (same for mushrooms, acid etc...). A token gesture if you will. It will keep its taboo enough to discourage some people from experimentation and yet still not cause a great impact on a person who wants to smoke and the illegality of it makes them aware of the dangers.

Hmm, you do have a point there.
Anything's better than people who aren't really interested in drugs experimenting with drugs.

I don't have research results about the health risks of marijuana right here.
But I'll try to look for it in my spare time.

I'll also try to bring up your idea about the whole thing to some friends of me who share my ideas.

It's coincidence that just today I found this news article, which doesn't prove you wrong or anything. It doesn't cover it all, but it is interesting:

Quote:
Claims Linking Health Problems And The Strength Of Cannabis May Be Exaggerated

Claims that a large increase in the strength of cannabis over the last decade is driving the occurrence of mental health and other problems for users are not borne out by a study of the worldwide literature, say researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) and the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), both from Australia.

Their conclusions, published in this month's issue of ADDICTION, are that increased potency has been observed in some countries, but there is enormous variation between samples, meaning that cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation in the strength of the cannabis they use in a single year than over years or decades.

Cannabis samples tested in the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Italy have shown increases in potency over the last decade, but no significant growth in other European countries or in New Zealand has been found during the same period.

THC is the active ingredient in cannabis, which produces the strongest psychoactive effect. In the United States, the level of THC in confiscated cannabis was 8.5% in 2006, up from 4.5% in 1997. Recent Dutch data show that the THC of cannabis sold in coffee shops more than doubled between 2000 and 2004, but has since levelled off.

THC content varies according to the part of the plant that is used, the method of storage, and cultivation techniques. Popular belief is that hydroponic or other methods of indoor cultivation produce higher concentrations of THC than occur naturally, but the jury is still out on this issue.

The ability to control the indoor environment means that plants can reach their full potential, which includes reaching the maximum level of THC. The increase in market share of indoor-grown cannabis seen in Australia as well as North America and Europe may have led to a more consistent product which could explain the potency increases reported in some countries.

While some public debate has linked large increases in cannabis potency to increased mental health problems, there are currently insufficient data to justify this claim, and care ought to be taken when considering policy decisions on this basis. Importantly, further research is required to understand whether cannabis users can, or do, alter their intake in response to a change in potency.

In their discussion of potential health risks, the authors point to studies that observe that some cannabis smokers, when faced with a 'strong' product, act rather like tobacco smokers and adjust their dose by increasing the interval between puffs, or holding smoke in their lungs for a shorter period of time. This behaviour may reduce possible harms caused by increased potency.

The authors also discuss the health risks of contaminants. Possible contaminants include naturally occurring ones such as fungi; growth enhancers and pesticides; and substances added for marketing purposes to 'bulk up' the weight. Lack of systematic monitoring for contaminants makes an assessment of risk difficult; it is important to learn more about the health risks of cannabis of ingesting contaminated cannabis - for example, moulds are known to cause respiratory problems and lung disease.

The authors say "Given the relatively high prevalence of cannabis use it is important we have current, accurate information to help users make informed decisions about their use, and that policy development and media debate about the health harms associated with its use are guided by research evidence rather than rumour."

I agree totaly with that article, basicaly a person smokes until they reach the point they want to be at, whether they smoke 3 joints of maurijuana thats not so strong or 1 joint of stronger stuff, they stop when they reach the point they want to be at or until they can't smoke anymore. Strength is irrelevant in terms of health risks. I won't get into how different types and strengths cause different "highs" as that is irrelevant to this conversation.

I think the key to what I'm saying is "mental health risks" and the possibility of it leading to harder drug usage, every junkie I have ever come across started out by smoking maurijuana. I don't really care about physical damage as I don't think its relevant or even actualy takes place. You should know by now that no matter what discussion you're having there are always plenty of experts for both sides of the argument. The key in this type of decision is if there substantial doubt, it means that the possibility of harm is there and allowing legalization is out of the question.

The main problem with drugs is that people are too caught up in their own drug experiences that they fail to see the bigger picture or effects on people who's mental makeup is very different to their own. Also I don't think accurate statistics exist... but it has been proven that maurijuana can trigger (not necessarily cause) certain mental disturbances such as schizophrenia etc... this is fact.

Written by Stuart on 29.07.2008 at 20:50

I think the key to what I'm saying is "mental health risks" and the possibility of it leading to harder drug usage, every junkie I have ever come across started out by smoking maurijuana.

That is because when you have to go to a DRUG DEALER to get pot you are exposed to the harder stuff they are also selling. There are also "droughts" of marijuana where for a while it will be hard to find, and some people turn to harder stuff because they are bored. This would be eliminated through legalized, consistent production.

Written by Stuart on 29.07.2008 at 20:50

The main problem with drugs is that people are too caught up in their own drug experiences that they fail to see the bigger picture or effects on people who's mental makeup is very different to their own.

Very True. Thus there are different reasons why people drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes also. But those are legal drugs.

Written by Stuart on 29.07.2008 at 20:50

Also I don't think accurate statistics exist... but it has been proven that maurijuana can trigger (not necessarily cause) certain mental disturbances such as schizophrenia etc... this is fact.

You kind of contradicted yourself there
Plus you didn't include a link to any study that shows this FACTUAL evidence. (I'm sure the U.S. government funded the study.)
I have some studies for ya: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html

Written by Twilight on 29.07.2008 at 12:09

Quote:
Claims Linking Health Problems And The Strength Of Cannabis May Be Exaggerated

Claims that a large increase in the strength of cannabis over the last decade is driving the occurrence of mental health and other problems for users are not borne out by a study of the worldwide literature, say researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) and the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), both from Australia.

Their conclusions, published in this month's issue of ADDICTION, are that increased potency has been observed in some countries, but there is enormous variation between samples, meaning that cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation in the strength of the cannabis they use in a single year than over years or decades.

Cannabis samples tested in the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Italy have shown increases in potency over the last decade, but no significant growth in other European countries or in New Zealand has been found during the same period.

THC is the active ingredient in cannabis, which produces the strongest psychoactive effect. In the United States, the level of THC in confiscated cannabis was 8.5% in 2006, up from 4.5% in 1997. Recent Dutch data show that the THC of cannabis sold in coffee shops more than doubled between 2000 and 2004, but has since levelled off.

THC content varies according to the part of the plant that is used, the method of storage, and cultivation techniques. Popular belief is that hydroponic or other methods of indoor cultivation produce higher concentrations of THC than occur naturally, but the jury is still out on this issue.

The ability to control the indoor environment means that plants can reach their full potential, which includes reaching the maximum level of THC. The increase in market share of indoor-grown cannabis seen in Australia as well as North America and Europe may have led to a more consistent product which could explain the potency increases reported in some countries.

While some public debate has linked large increases in cannabis potency to increased mental health problems, there are currently insufficient data to justify this claim, and care ought to be taken when considering policy decisions on this basis. Importantly, further research is required to understand whether cannabis users can, or do, alter their intake in response to a change in potency.

In their discussion of potential health risks, the authors point to studies that observe that some cannabis smokers, when faced with a 'strong' product, act rather like tobacco smokers and adjust their dose by increasing the interval between puffs, or holding smoke in their lungs for a shorter period of time. This behaviour may reduce possible harms caused by increased potency.

The authors also discuss the health risks of contaminants. Possible contaminants include naturally occurring ones such as fungi; growth enhancers and pesticides; and substances added for marketing purposes to 'bulk up' the weight. Lack of systematic monitoring for contaminants makes an assessment of risk difficult; it is important to learn more about the health risks of cannabis of ingesting contaminated cannabis - for example, moulds are known to cause respiratory problems and lung disease.

The authors say "Given the relatively high prevalence of cannabis use it is important we have current, accurate information to help users make informed decisions about their use, and that policy development and media debate about the health harms associated with its use are guided by research evidence rather than rumour."

Could you please provide a link to it? On what webpage was it posted? Who is the auother of text?


I'm not a drug user. In fact, the strongest I use is tea. But i like to keep an open mind of things. Frankly, I don't have a clue what is the best thing to do. Drugs have done enormous harm, being the reason for thousands of human tragedies and it has also burned a big whole in the world's pocket. On the other hand, drugs has been an invaluably tool in the fields of medicine and pshycaitry, curing thusands of people or atleast have reduced thier suffering. The question is how do we reduce the negative aspects while lift up the positive aspects?

I think that varies from country to country. You can't compare The Netherlands with Sweden, as they differ to much politicly. What you can do thoughis to compare simular countries. We can take Finland, who reduced their high taxes on alcohol for a short time. What happened was that alcohol became the leading cause of death in Finland and the binge-drinking along with the following alcohol-costs accelerated remarkibly fast after the tax-cut. In conclusion, it would be unwise to reduce the high taxes of alcohol in Finland as well as the other scandinavian countries do to their extemley simular political system. How things would be in the other countries, or legalising drugs in the northern countries. Only extensive research and comparement of simular political models could predict the outcome.

OMG I cant read all post but i dont think alcohol are drugs alcohol are think what we use when eating :p

About war against drugs IMO its wastless time and money, easyer are stop people useing it, whit terible punishments even death penalties how stop drugs, till people will use it you wont stop it
I havnt try them and dont wanna, those who want tahy will find a way get them even it takes his own and 10 000 other lifes

Written by Introspekrieg on 29.07.2008 at 21:08

That is because when you have to go to a DRUG DEALER to get pot you are exposed to the harder stuff they are also selling. There are also "droughts" of marijuana where for a while it will be hard to find, and some people turn to harder stuff because they are bored. This would be eliminated through legalized, consistent production.

As per usual an american thinks that because things work a certain way in america that's the way it works everywhere else. WRONG! most maurijuana dealers where I grew up had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything else... In fact they were completely and utterly against harder drugs and would tell you so! Also there has never ever, ever been a drought of good weed anywhere I have ever lived... Again this may be something unique to where you are from. So your above comment is completely void and meaningless as it is only your superficial findings based on your unique circumstances, the kind of thing i mentioned before.

Written by Stuart on 29.07.2008 at 20:50

The main problem with drugs is that people are too caught up in their own drug experiences that they fail to see the bigger picture or effects on people who's mental makeup is very different to their own.

Written by Introspekrieg on 29.07.2008 at 21:08

Very True. Thus there are different reasons why people drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes also. But those are legal drugs.

You again have failed to grasp the greater picture of what I was saying... the reasons people decide to smoke maurijuana is only a very small part of what I was saying... what I was saying was the effects it has on one mentally subsequent to making the choice, there is also the indication you have not read the whole discussion.

Written by Introspekrieg on 29.07.2008 at 21:08

You kind of contradicted yourself there
Plus you didn't include a link to any study that shows this FACTUAL evidence. (I'm sure the U.S. government funded the study.)
I have some studies for ya: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html

I did not contradict myself at all, I said there were no accurate statistics as to how many people are susceptible to the harmful mental effects (if you're not gonna read the entire thread and see the discussion we have been having up till now, do not bother responding to something out of context). It is a fact that schizophrenia can be triggered by maurijuana, google schizophrenia and maurijuana and you will come up with hundreds of articles I'm sure. (No doubt you will choose to only read the ones written by potheads who claim it is false). Again you are caught up in your americanism. The studies are widespread not american government propoganda as most young american potheads would have you believe. Your articles are meaningless because as I quite clearly stated I do not think the physical effects of maurijuana bare any relevance on whether it should be legal or not, so why aim them at me? because its the same age old pothead argument and its all you know.

Finally I ask that you read what I have been saying from the beginning before you come up with another silly, uninformed comment.

Written by Torelli on 29.07.2008 at 21:44

Could you please provide a link to it? On what webpage was it posted? Who is the auother of text?

There you go: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111707.php

Quote:
Drugs have done enormous harm, being the reason for thousands of human tragedies and it has also burned a big whole in the world's pocket.

You could point to the drugs if you're looking for the guilty. But I think it's more the mistake of the Western governments and their fear of losing control on the masses that led them to banning drugs the past 100 years in a very fast pace.
I know, drugs do have risks, but it really wasn't because of these risks that they were banned. In fact, they hadn't even studied all the effects around that time.

Written by Stuart on 29.07.2008 at 21:59

As per usual an american thinks that because things work a certain way in america that's the way it works everywhere else. WRONG! most maurijuana dealers where I grew up had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything else... In fact they were completely and utterly against harder drugs and would tell you so! Also there has never ever, ever been a drought of good weed anywhere I have ever lived... Again this may be something unique to where you are from. So your above comment is completely void and meaningless as it is only your superficial findings based on your unique circumstances, the kind of thing i mentioned before.
You again have failed to grasp the greater picture of what I was saying... the reasons people decide to smoke maurijuana is only a very small part of what I was saying... what I was saying was the effects it has on one mentally subsequent to making the choice, there is also the indication you have not read the whole discussion.
I did not contradict myself at all, I said there were no accurate statistics as to how many people are susceptible to the harmful mental effects (if you're not gonna read the entire thread and see the discussion we have been having up till now, do not bother responding to something out of context). It is a fact that schizophrenia can be triggered by maurijuana, google schizophrenia and maurijuana and you will come up with hundreds of articles I'm sure. (No doubt you will choose to only read the ones written by potheads who claim it is false). Again you are caught up in your americanism. The studies are widespread not american government propoganda as most young american potheads would have you believe. Your articles are meaningless because as I quite clearly stated I do not think the physical effects of maurijuana bare any relevance on whether it should be legal or not, so why aim them at me? because its the same age old pothead argument and its all you know.

Finally I ask that you read what I have been saying from the beginning before you come up with another silly, uninformed comment.

Ok, I apologize for not reading the entire thread and being unintentionally closed-minded, but for your info I am not a young american pothead.
I tried to jump in on an exciting discussion, was being a little bit of a troll, and ended up with my foot in my mouth.
I rarely even smoke pot anymore but have always questioned in criminalization. Ok to actually attempt to add something to the discussion:
In a free market economy NOTHING that makes real money should ever be illegal. Why turn over the big bucks to organized crime?

Written by Twilight on 29.07.2008 at 22:30

Written by Torelli on 29.07.2008 at 21:44

Could you please provide a link to it? On what webpage was it posted? Who is the auother of text?

There you go: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111707.php

Quote:
Drugs have done enormous harm, being the reason for thousands of human tragedies and it has also burned a big whole in the world's pocket.

You could point to the drugs if you're looking for the guilty. But I think it's more the mistake of the Western governments and their fear of losing control on the masses that led them to banning drugs the past 100 years in a very fast pace.
I know, drugs do have risks, but it really wasn't because of these risks that they were banned. In fact, they hadn't even studied all the effects around that time.

Interesting though how Britain subdued China partly through introducing Opium on a mass scale. I think you will find drugs were outlawed because of its addictive qualities, as to whether governments differentiated between soft and hard drugs back then, I doubt it.

BTW, if anyone is interested in reading a fascinating book about drug addiction back then (although still relevant today). I would highly recommend Aleister Crowley's "Diary of a Drug Fiend" novel. It is a tremendous read, it explains heroin addiction like no other book and it actualy speaks of the positive conclusions to drug addiction. I know its a little off topic, but its a great book. I think everybody with even only the vaguest interest in drugs should read as mandatory education.

EDIT:
@Intro, no problem.
I don't accept the economy argument, should we legalize hitmen because we can tax them? or child pornography to avoid the money going to organized crime. I think not. maybe its extreme to compare drugs to child pornography and murder, but heroin addicts cause others much suffering. you'd have to make it dirt cheap to avoid crime being commited to obtain it thus leading to a far greater number of addicts and useless members of society.

Written by Stuart on 30.07.2008 at 01:08

@Intro, no problem.
I don't accept the economy argument, should we legalize hitmen because we can tax them? or child pornography to avoid the money going to organized crime. I think not. maybe its extreme to compare drugs to child pornography and murder, but heroin addicts cause others much suffering. you'd have to make it dirt cheap to avoid crime being commited to obtain it thus leading to a far greater number of addicts and useless members of society.

This is what I have always had trouble grasping, where do you draw the line? Even though prostitution could make millions in tax dollars I do not agree that it should be legal. It is extremely difficult to justify legalization on these grounds, which may be why there is such controversy, a lot of gray area.
Even if cannabis was legalized, I'm sure most people would just grow their own, thereby negating the possible tax revenue. I'm not entirely sure how this situation is handled in decriminalized countries, like a limit on the number of plants you can grow, etc. Anyone from the Netherlands that can shine some light on this?

Written by Introspekrieg on 30.07.2008 at 01:36

Even if cannabis was legalized, I'm sure most people would just grow their own, thereby negating the possible tax revenue. I'm not entirely sure how this situation is handled in decriminalized countries, like a limit on the number of plants you can grow, etc. Anyone from the Netherlands that can shine some light on this?

The limit for homegrowth is 5 plants, I presume per house, not per person and above 18. (Otherwise a married man with 2 children could have 20 plants, you see.)

You are allowed to carry up to 5 grams of weed per person, naturally above the age of 18 as well. This instantly means that coffeeshops can only sell 5 gram each, a time.

You are allowed to smoke it in coffeeshops and inside your own home, outside the rules are a bit dodgy. I believe it is normally accepted/ignored, unless it is a special non-weed-rule zones. These zones are usually on places where the police/city authority expects drug dealing or other criminal activities.

Anyway, i have to admit i'm no expert on it either. Obviously, im a minor and my parents arent too fond of drugs. Which means i'll have to get most of my information from the net, which can be contradicting. But i do think what i just told you is 99% true, perhaps the actual rules on the last point might differ a little. hope it helps.

btw, i think that when you will legalize weed most people wont suddenly start growing it by themselves. it involves work, time and dedication and why would you do that if you can buy it (for a good, low price) in your own city? prices range between 5 to 12 euro a gram.

Written by Stuart on 30.07.2008 at 01:08

Written by Twilight on 29.07.2008 at 22:30

Written by Torelli on 29.07.2008 at 21:44

Could you please provide a link to it? On what webpage was it posted? Who is the auother of text?

There you go: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111707.php

Quote:
Drugs have done enormous harm, being the reason for thousands of human tragedies and it has also burned a big whole in the world's pocket.

You could point to the drugs if you're looking for the guilty. But I think it's more the mistake of the Western governments and their fear of losing control on the masses that led them to banning drugs the past 100 years in a very fast pace.
I know, drugs do have risks, but it really wasn't because of these risks that they were banned. In fact, they hadn't even studied all the effects around that time.

Interesting though how Britain subdued China partly through introducing Opium on a mass scale. I think you will find drugs were outlawed because of its addictive qualities, as to whether governments differentiated between soft and hard drugs back then, I doubt it.

I know about the opium war in China and what Britain did to make the Chinese addicted to it.
That's why I said it wasn't because of the risks.

I have read a book about the drug prohibition too, although it is in Dutch it's by Egbert Tellegen called 'Het Utopisme van de Drugsbestrijding' (The ideal/utopism of the War on Drugs, not sure if the word 'utopism' exists in English but I think it's clear)
It mentions a lot of things why the prohibition on drugs isn't working, why there are so many people 'fighting' against drugs and the possible solutions that in theory might work better.

Written by Lucas on 30.07.2008 at 02:34

Written by Introspekrieg on 30.07.2008 at 01:36

Even if cannabis was legalized, I'm sure most people would just grow their own, thereby negating the possible tax revenue. I'm not entirely sure how this situation is handled in decriminalized countries, like a limit on the number of plants you can grow, etc. Anyone from the Netherlands that can shine some light on this?

The limit for homegrowth is 5 plants, I presume per house, not per person and above 18. (Otherwise a married man with 2 children could have 20 plants, you see.)

You are allowed to carry up to 5 grams of weed per person, naturally above the age of 18 as well. This instantly means that coffeeshops can only sell 5 gram each, a time.

You are allowed to smoke it in coffeeshops and inside your own home, outside the rules are a bit dodgy. I believe it is normally accepted/ignored, unless it is a special non-weed-rule zones. These zones are usually on places where the police/city authority expects drug dealing or other criminal activities.

Anyway, i have to admit i'm no expert on it either. Obviously, im a minor and my parents arent too fond of drugs. Which means i'll have to get most of my information from the net, which can be contradicting. But i do think what i just told you is 99% true, perhaps the actual rules on the last point might differ a little. hope it helps.

btw, i think that when you will legalize weed most people wont suddenly start growing it by themselves. it involves work, time and dedication and why would you do that if you can buy it (for a good, low price) in your own city? prices range between 5 to 12 euro a gram.

As far as I know what you said is quite accurate.
And I agree with the rest what you said.

Written by Introspekrieg on 30.07.2008 at 01:36

Written by Stuart on 30.07.2008 at 01:08

@Intro, no problem.
I don't accept the economy argument, should we legalize hitmen because we can tax them? or child pornography to avoid the money going to organized crime. I think not. maybe its extreme to compare drugs to child pornography and murder, but heroin addicts cause others much suffering. you'd have to make it dirt cheap to avoid crime being commited to obtain it thus leading to a far greater number of addicts and useless members of society.

This is what I have always had trouble grasping, where do you draw the line? Even though prostitution could make millions in tax dollars I do not agree that it should be legal. It is extremely difficult to justify legalization on these grounds, which may be why there is such controversy, a lot of gray area.

I have the same thing. This 'drawing the line' is very hard with subjects like this.
Yet, alcohol is legal and millions of people in the world can buy their alcohol for a reasonable price in shops and are able to stay addicted this way, while damaging the area around them in (guess) half of the cases.
Of course heroin has a much greater impact on a person's health, but these addicts do need to break in and rob people of their money to buy new heroin. I'm not saying it should really be legal because of this. But it just doesn't seem right.

Written by Twilight on 31.07.2008 at 17:24

I have the same thing. This 'drawing the line' is very hard with subjects like this.
Yet, alcohol is legal and millions of people in the world can buy their alcohol for a reasonable price in shops and are able to stay addicted this way, while damaging the area around them in (guess) half of the cases.

I wouldn't call alcohol being sold at a reasonable price, where I live it is extortionate. Again I say alcohol is an integral part of society and has been around for so long now banning it would effect society to such a great degree it would completely change the face of the world. You cannot compare alcohol to any other drug for this reason.

Written by Stuart on 01.08.2008 at 01:21

Written by Twilight on 31.07.2008 at 17:24

I have the same thing. This 'drawing the line' is very hard with subjects like this.
Yet, alcohol is legal and millions of people in the world can buy their alcohol for a reasonable price in shops and are able to stay addicted this way, while damaging the area around them in (guess) half of the cases.

I wouldn't call alcohol being sold at a reasonable price, where I live it is extortionate. Again I say alcohol is an integral part of society and has been around for so long now banning it would effect society to such a great degree it would completely change the face of the world. You cannot compare alcohol to any other drug for this reason.

i was really asking myself the question: what is worse: weed or alcohol? where i live if i want to, i can get a decent 100 ml bottle of cheap brandy, for only about 1 pound, and yes it tastes decent. and i can get 1 gram of weed for 10 pounds. so i could take 10 bottles of that thing or one gram of marijuana. which would fuck you up more? needless to say, i'd probably be at least in a coma after such a huge amount of brandy. lol come to think of it 2 bottles would be more than enough to get me drunk .

i think alcohol is sold too cheap, especially here, for the dangers it implies. weed is almost harmless compared to how easy and cheap it is to get alcohol over here.