Cannabis

[Jazzy]

Do you support cannabis legalization? Why or Why Not?

 

[1689Dave]

Do you support cannabis legalization? Why or Why Not?

That's a hard one. I can see less crime if they legalize all street drugs. But along with that, tremendous medical burdens others would flip the tab for.

 

[Stravinsk]

Absolutely. Cannabis has been used medicinally for thousands of years. It is even mentioned in the bible as an ingredient in the Holy Anointing Oil (under the mistranslated Callimus). Up until the early 20th century, it was a regular ingredient in many medicines. Today, people are able to use it and get off of various dangerous and addictive pharma drugs. In concentrated form and raw it is a powerful anti-cancer agent. It is much more durable than cotton for clothing. For all these reasons and more it was outlawed. The reasons are simple. The governments can tax more transactions for 2nd rate drugs and clothing that doesn't last as long. They can get people addicted to harmful pharma drugs and treatments that don't serve humanity in the long run.

Cannabis can be used without the "high" - and in fact this is one of it's best uses for medicine. Just eat it, or preperations of it in raw/unheated form. THC is activated only when THCA (it's precursor) is heated. THCA is non-psychoactive. Both THCA and CBD/CBDA are powerful healing compounds that work with the human body's own innate cannabinoid system.

 

[Lamb]

Having a couple friends who have used pot since their teenage years, I wish there were more studies going into it for recreational habits.

The reason I say this is because the one friend can't remember anything from high school...not even her best friend from middle school!!

The other friend's reflexes are so slow that he's going to cause a huge traffic accident someday. He drives like an old grandpa.

 

[Forgiven1]

First off, are we talking about CBD or THC? CBD or commonly called Cannabis does not give the high that THC does.

 

[tango]

Do you support cannabis legalization? Why or Why Not?

I don't honestly think it's any of the goverment's business what substances I choose to consume.

By all means restrict combinations of activities - we have rules against drinking and driving even though both are legal in isolation - but I don't see why any drug should be illegal.

 

[Albion]

I don't honestly think it's any of the goverment's business what substances I choose to consume.

By all means restrict combinations of activities - we have rules against drinking and driving even though both are legal in isolation - but I don't see why any drug should be illegal.

Possibly because users of those drugs, not MJ, will and often do currently sell them to unsuspecting people or give them away, sometimes just for fun, as happens at Halloween 'trick or treating' time...and the recipients are killed.

I cannot easily dismiss this certainty any more than I (or you) can justify allowing people to drive on the public highways without there being any laws against speeding, careless driving, or whatever.

Some people will say that it's a matter of them risking their own lives, but straight-thinking people understand that everyone else on the road is threatened at the same time.

 

[tango]

Possibly because users of those drugs, not MJ, will and often do currently sell them to unsuspecting people or give them away, sometimes just for fun, as happens at Halloween 'trick or treating' time...and the recipients are killed.

I cannot easily dismiss this certainty any more than I (or you) can justify allowing people to drive on the public highways without there being any laws against speeding, careless driving, or whatever.

Some people will say that it's a matter of them risking their own lives, but straight-thinking people understand that everyone else on the road is threatened at the same time.

There's quite a difference between the choice to use a product myself and spiking what someone else is consuming with it.

I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make with regard to speeding. If I'm speeding on an empty road I'm only risking my life. If I'm speeding on a busy road I'm risking the lives of the people I'm swerving to avoid too.

As things stand you're allowed to drink 10 beers and you're allowed to drive. You're not allowed to drink 10 beers and then drive home. You're not allowed to give beer to children. I'm not sure why the existing rules about alcohol can't be applied to other drugs.

 

[Albion]

There's quite a difference between the choice to use a product myself and spiking what someone else is consuming with it.

There is indeed. However, it is quite unrealistic to maintain that if hard drugs are made easily and legally available, that there will not be consequences such as innocents, non-users, being hurt by those who obtain those drugs without prohibition. There is nothing peculiar or revolutionary about this, either.

We currently prohibit certain dangers, even if there are people who think they're just fine--making bonfires in residential areas, shooting weapons off within close proximity to other people's homes, or using poison next to waterways, for instance.

Just as with easily-obtained drugs, the user can say that he has a right to that activity and that he doesn't intend to hurt anyone, yet society knows that this is a danger to the safety of other people just the same.

I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make with regard to speeding. If I'm speeding on an empty road I'm only risking my life. If I'm speeding on a busy road I'm risking the lives of the people I'm swerving to avoid too.

You said you didn't have an objection to rules against driving while drunk but that you don't see any reason to outlaw "any" drug. Well, regulating drugs is for the same reason as having the laws against drunk driving.

As things stand you're allowed to drink 10 beers and you're allowed to drive. You're not allowed to drink 10 beers and then drive home.

Come again?

You're not allowed to give beer to children. I'm not sure why the existing rules about alcohol can't be applied to other drugs.

Perhaps because some of the drugs that are quite available (but were not so a few decades ago) are many times more potent than a few beers.

 

[tango]

There is indeed. However, it is quite unrealistic to maintain that if hard drugs are made easily and legally available, that there will not be consequences such as innocents, non-users, being hurt by those who obtain those drugs without prohibition. There is nothing peculiar or revolutionary about this, either.

There may be. There are innocent non-users who are hurt by those who obtain legal drugs as it is. We accept those risks.

We currently prohibit certain dangers, even if there are people who think they're just fine--making bonfires in residential areas, shooting weapons off within close proximity to other people's homes, or using poison next to waterways, for instance.

We prohibit the things that cause danger to others as things stand. Hence you're not allowed to drink and drive. We accept that there are risks associated with people driving in general but that the risks of people drinking and driving are too high.

Just as with easily-obtained drugs, the user can say that he has a right to that activity and that he doesn't intend to hurt anyone, yet society knows that this is a danger to the safety of other people just the same.

Unless activities are mixed inappropriately how is it a danger to society if someone is snorting crystal meth in their own home?

You said you didn't have an objection to rules against driving while drunk but that you don't see any reason to outlaw "any" drug. Well, regulating drugs is for the same reason as having the laws against drunk driving.

Except here you're mixing and matching. We have rules against drink-driving and we can have rules against drug-driving. The fact you're not allowed to drive drunk doesn't mean you can't drive or that you can't get drunk, just that you can't do them both together.

Come again?

I'm not sure what's unclear. You can drink, and you can drive, but you can't drink and drive. You have to choose one or the other.

Perhaps because some of the drugs that are quite available (but were not so a few decades ago) are many times more potent than a few beers.

Yes they are, but so is whisky and that's legal. You're allowed to buy enough whisky to literally kill yourself so it's not as if the potential fatality is the law's concern. If I buy a dozen bottles of whisky there's precisely nothing to prevent me from drinking the whole lot of it, or giving it to a child, or even forcing a child to drink it. We accept all these things despite the potential for death to result. What's the difference if it's a drug other than alcohol?

 

[Albion]

There may be. There are innocent non-users who are hurt by those who obtain legal drugs as it is. We accept those risks.

I've agreed to that.

Now, though, it sounds like you just don't want to admit to the obvious. We do tolerate all sorts of things that might bring danger or harm to other people, so long as it's unlikely or limited in scope.

However, we do not do that when the threat is really serious or might affect lots of people. A wide-open drug society is what you presented to us ("I don't see why any drug should be illegal").

Yes they are, but so is whisky and that's legal. You're allowed to buy enough whisky to literally kill yourself so it's not as if the potential fatality is the law's concern.

...and how many people drink the bottle down and kill themselves that way? Well, very, very few, and it's something few people can even accomplish. Or we may ask how many people simply drink a number of different drinks until their blood alcohol level is, say, four times the legal level? They'd be passed out before getting there and could recover.

Reportedly, about 100,000 people DIED last year from fentanyl, and it only takes 2 grains of it the size of grains of salt to be fatal.

According to the news, many of the victims, often children, had no intention of ingesting that fatal amount but it was what a dealer used in order to cut some other drug, or a colleague thought it wouldn't have the effect it does when suggesting to a friend that he try it.

If I buy a dozen bottles of whisky there's precisely nothing to prevent me from drinking the whole lot of it, or giving it to a child, or even forcing a child to drink it.

I suppose you could kill somebody by forcing him to drink anti-freeze too, but now your examples are becoming unrealistic. You know that "one size doesn't fit all" when it comes to safety regulations

 

[Stravinsk]

Having a couple friends who have used pot since their teenage years, I wish there were more studies going into it for recreational habits.

The reason I say this is because the one friend can't remember anything from high school...not even her best friend from middle school!!

The other friend's reflexes are so slow that he's going to cause a huge traffic accident someday. He drives like an old grandpa.

In High School I smoked pot nearly every day in my Jr/Sr years. It was always around with the crowd I hung out with. That's not an exaggeration, either. Every day around 3rd/4th period I would come down and sleep, if I could, during Biology class. The Biology teacher
finally wised up, but ironically, the day he acted was the one day I hadn't had any the morning prior. He took me into a private room and accused me of being stoned. All I could do was laugh because it was this one day only that I was sober when he made the accusation. He even had the police called and they did their own checks before letting me return to class!

Pot doesn't make anyone lose memories or slow them down later in life. If it did, there would be a definite correlation, as it's one of the most widely used substances in the world. I'm sure your friends had other reasons for being slow/losing memory if that was the case. I have scores of memories from High School.

 

[Stravinsk]

Possibly because users of those drugs, not MJ, will and often do currently sell them to unsuspecting people or give them away, sometimes just for fun, as happens at Halloween 'trick or treating' time...and the recipients are killed.

I'm curious what you think those specific drugs are? While there are some truly dangerous addictive drugs out there, many prohibited drugs are not dangerous or addictive at all. Cannabis is one of them. Cocaine is damaging/dangerous esp when routinely abused but not addictive (I know, I used to do it). Shrooms and LSD can either lead to a good or bad trip, but they aren't addictive and don't do any biological damage. Heroin is definitely addictive and dangerous but it's not something one can hide in a candy bar.