Completely legalizing marijuana

[Jazzy]

What are your thoughts about completely legalizing marijuana everywhere?

 

[Lamb]

For recreation? I'm not really for it because I have friends who have been enjoying pot for most of their lives. What I've seen is that their reaction time is like that of some 90 year olds and their memory is about the same of that too.

 

[Faith]

What are your thoughts about completely legalizing marijuana everywhere?

I‘m against it. I used to smoke pot but didn’t much like the feel of being high. And in my case it brought on anxiety attacks sometimes. It impaired me more than alcohol.

 

[tango]

I think it should be legal. Sure, it may be harmful in large doses or after prolonged use but so are many other things. Cigarettes are legal, alcohol is legal etc. There's no law against eating deadly nightshade or poison ivy if people really want to harm themselves.

People who have been harmed by drug usage simply indicate that the current laws against them aren't really helping anyone. At least making drugs legal means that people who have been harmed by drugs can seek help without worrying whether the police will suddenly get involved.

 

[Albion]

I think it should be legal. Sure, it may be harmful in large doses or after prolonged use but so are many other things. Cigarettes are legal, alcohol is legal etc.

Cigarettes don't alter the user's perception, judgments, moods, and so on for days on end, though. Even alcohol's effects are worn off after a day or less.

The active ingredient in marijuana stays in the user's system for weeks, meaning that recreational users who buy some MJ at least every couple of weeks may never be free of the active ingredient.

There's no law against eating deadly nightshade or poison ivy if people really want to harm themselves.

Well, I suppose we can both agree that it would be almost impossible to ban every substance that could be used to harm one's self. Drano, for example, or bleach or anti-freeze. I think, therefore, that the "harm yourself" argument is a weak one.

And that's just about people harming themselves. What about the people they harm or threaten to harm? The number of people stopped by the police for impaired driving has reportedly risen significantly in states that recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

People who have been harmed by drug usage simply indicate that the current laws against them aren't really helping anyone. At least making drugs legal means that people who have been harmed by drugs can seek help without worrying whether the police will suddenly get involved.

And what percentage of the millions of people who have been customers of MJ dispensaries in the last few years as state after state has legalized recreational use...are hoping to be able to "seek help without worrying about the police?"

 

[tango]

Cigarettes don't alter the user's perception, judgments, moods, and so on for days on end, though. Even alcohol's effects are worn off after a day or less.

So what? Can't people decide for themselves what they want to ingest?

The active ingredient in marijuana stays in the user's system for weeks, meaning that recreational users who buy some MJ at least every couple of weeks may never be free of the active ingredient.

Maybe, but see above.

Well, I suppose we can both agree that it would be almost impossible to ban every substance that could be used to harm one's self. Drano, for example, or bleach or anti-freeze. I think, therefore, that the "harm yourself" argument is a weak one.

And that's just about people harming themselves. What about the people they harm or threaten to harm? The number of people stopped by the police for impaired driving has reportedly risen significantly in states that recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

So you pass laws about impaired driving. You're allowed to drink, and you're allowed to drive, but you're not allowed to drink and then drive.

And what percentage of the millions of people who have been customers of MJ dispensaries in the last few years as state after state has legalized recreational use...are hoping to be able to "seek help without worrying about the police?"

I believe the war on drugs overall is a waste of resources and think they should all be legalized, but if you disagree on marijuana you're not likely to agree with me on that one either.

 

[Albion]

So what? Can't people decide for themselves what they want to ingest?

Maybe, but your comparison of marijuana to cigarettes and alcohol was a mistake.

So you pass laws about impaired driving. You're allowed to drink, and you're allowed to drive, but you're not allowed to drink and then drive.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when pointing out that impaired driving endangers other people.

The argument you were making, that marijuana only harms the people using it, was shortsighted IMO.

I believe the war on drugs overall is a waste of resources and think they should all be legalized, but if you disagree on marijuana you're not likely to agree with me on that one either.

Oh, I don't know that you can conclude what you did there.

When people talk about "the war on drugs" they are referring to a particular government program to interdict the flow of illegal drugs, etc. etc. That policy is open to criticism, and if someone says that it has not worked well, or that it has not worked as planned, or that it's been a big waste of money and may even have fostered more corruption...then those arguments may have some validity.

HOWEVER, I have noticed that when advocates of fully legal hallucinogenic drugs start making their case for it, they usually do not go straight to their point by making clear that they are in favor of letting everyone get stoned without any restrictions and regardless of the harm that irresponsibly use can do.

So they instead say they are against "the war on drugs" since that is more easily defended than what it is that they really want.

 

[tango]

Maybe, but your comparison of marijuana to cigarettes and alcohol was a mistake.

Not really. If you want to view it through one very specific lens you get a different view to a more generic "my body, my choice" approach to what I choose to put into my own system.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when pointing out that impaired driving endangers other people.

You were perfectly clear. Drunk driving endangers other people, as does texting while driving and driving while barely awake.

The argument you were making, that marijuana only harms the people using it, was shortsighted IMO.

Me smoking marijuana doesn't harm anyone else. Activities involving things like driving while impaired (whatever causes the impairment) is a different proposition. This line of thinking creates laws against one thing because it can be dangerous if combined with another thing.

Oh, I don't know that you can conclude what you did there.

When people talk about "the war on drugs" they are referring to a particular government program to interdict the flow of illegal drugs, etc. etc. That policy is open to criticism, and if someone says that it has not worked well, or that it has not worked as planned, or that it's been a big waste of money and may even have fostered more corruption...then those arguments may have some validity.

HOWEVER, I have noticed that when advocates of fully legal hallucinogenic drugs start making their case for it, they usually do not go straight to their point by making clear that they are in favor of letting everyone get stoned without any restrictions and regardless of the harm that irresponsibly use can do.

So they instead say they are against "the war on drugs" since that is easily defended than what it is that they really want.

OK, let's be more explicit. I think we need to make illegal drugs legal. That's perhaps a discussion for another thread but if you want to cut references to "the war on drugs", there you have it.

 

[Albion]

Not really. If you want to view it through one very specific lens you get a different view to a more generic "my body, my choice" approach to what I choose to put into my own system.

What you insist upon "missing," though, is that this is not simply a matter of "My body, my choice." What a hallucinating individual can do to other people should concern you as well.

Then when you move beyond marijuana and say "I think we need to make illegal drugs legal," wow.

That means that we should make legal drugs that can kill (and do) when someone unknowingly ingests even a grain of the substance hidden in another substance. How can that be dismissed so easily in civilized society? Or should I ask how 100,000 deaths from such a drug last year by unsuspecting users should be approved of?

Me smoking marijuana doesn't harm anyone else. Activities involving things like driving while impaired (whatever causes the impairment) is a different proposition.

Yes, it is. But some actions have consequences, like it or not. Notice that I didn't say that alcohol should be made illegal because some people drive when they are intoxicated. But I have pointed out that marijuana is not cigarettes or beer. You never seem to take account of this fact, although it's quite obvious.

 

[tango]

What you insist upon "missing," though, is that this is not simply a matter of "My body, my choice." What a hallucinating individual can do to other people should concern you as well.

It's always good to assume your opponent in a discussion doesn't understand something, right?

How many fights have been started because someone was drunk? How much injury to others has been caused thanks to alcohol?

So, please do tell us how allowing a free use of hallucinogens is compatible with the safety of other people on the roads. And that's just one example of a person not in full control of his senses endangering others. We ticket or arrest people who are driving while drunk from alcohol. Should I take it from your remarks that you are opposed to all those laws as well?? "My body, my choice" after all.

Try reading my posts. Seriously. How many times do I have to differentiate between using a mind-altering product and driving while under the influence of a mind-altering product. Honestly, if you're going to misrepresent my comments to this extent there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[Albion]

It's always good to assume your opponent in a discussion doesn't understand something, right?

All we can do on discussion boards like this one is go by what the other person has written.

 

[Faith]

All we can do on discussion boards like this one is go by what the other person has written.

Let’s face it. There are too many stupid people in this country (world, really) to assume that they’d be consuming pot responsibly,if there even IS such a thing.

 

[Jason76]

We should legalize it, but that doesn't mean I approve of it. It's simply a waste of energy/money to fight it considering what it does. Aso, dumb convictions destroy the lives of many people.

As a side note, I think, theologically speaking, it is very evil. I think it and other hallucinogens an in-point for demons. However, people's religious lives are private as far as I am concerned.

 

[Stravinsk]

I have to shake my head at some of the responses in this thread. It just seems to me that part of the "no" responses are (whether it's admitted or not) tied to some people's inability to come to grips with the fact that "a law" doesn't equal "a moral directive". There's probably also some lingering pride in there that says "I was duped again? Not so!"

The fact is, Cannabis was widely used in medicines (to good effect) before it was banned. Today, as before, people are able to rid themselves of many expensive and dangerous pharmaceutical drugs by using Cannabis products. Obviously, they don't all get a person "high".

Cannabis can be used to make the best and most durable fabrics. Long lasting clothing that put cotton and other products to shame. That puts it in competition with inferior materials, materials that wear out faster and people have to keep buying over and over.

These 2 alone constitute large markets that some people would like other people to be enslaved to. Let's have at a few more:

Alcohol has a rather low LD50. This is the lethal dose it takes to kill a person. But this substance is widely available and legal for adults. Cannabis has an LD50 so high that the only way it could be used to kill monkeys was by pumping it into them constantly, and they died of suffocation due to lack of air, not the Cannabis itself.

Cannabis has a broad spectrum of uses that include industrial, building and textiles. It is also a fast growing plant that can out-compete others for uses in fuel.

-- To our Christian friends --

Cannabis is and was part of the holy anointing oil. Exodus 30:22-25. The word translated "calamus" is an incorrect translation of quaneh-bosem. Calamus is a poisonous plant while Cannabis has many documented medical benefits for mankind. It makes sense that it was included while Calamus is a mistake.

The human body has it's own cannabinoid system. This system is part of who we are as humans! Whether you like it or not, your body functions on compounds intimately related to the Cannabis plant. That doesn't mean you need the plant, as other foods do provide some cannabinoids, but it is a big indicator that the plant is and was here for a good purpose.

All this tells me this plant was put here for us. No one can tell me this was ever made illegal for moral reasons.

 

[Albion]

The fact is, Cannabis was widely used in medicines (to good effect) before it was banned. Today, as before, people are able to rid themselves of many expensive and dangerous pharmaceutical drugs by using Cannabis products. Obviously, they don't all get a person "high".

Cannabis can be used to make the best and most durable fabrics. Long lasting clothing that put cotton and other products to shame. That puts it in competition with inferior materials, materials that wear out faster and people have to keep buying over and over.

Cannabis has a broad spectrum of uses that include industrial, building and textiles. It is also a fast growing plant that can out-compete others for uses in fuel.

I noticed that you made a point of writing "Cannabis" instead of "Marijuana," in order to emphasize all the uses that this plant COULD be put to, and sometimes actually is, whereas the discussion had concerned its hallucinogenic qualities, especially now that this ingredient (THC) has been made significantly more potent that it was in days gone by, when, as you also said, it "was widely used in medicines...."

But the main point about Marijuana was missed in your post, IMHO. Of course, there are some positive characteristics along with the dangerous and destructive ones. That being the case, this item is no different from all sorts of other chemicals and natural ingredients that can be used for mankind's benefit as well as being misused, causing great harm. And hardly anyone is opposed to using this plant under certain conditions, by hospitals and textile factories, for example.

The controversy would be nothing if people using it and misusing it in ways that harm themselves and other people were not involved. Advocating the legalization of "recreational" use of MJ without simultaneously addressing the many dangerous uses of the product is something that cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Stravinsk]

I noticed that you made a point of writing "Cannabis" instead of "Marijuana," in order to emphasize all the uses that this plant COULD be put to, and sometimes actually is, whereas the discussion had concerned its hallucinogenic qualities, especially now that this ingredient has been made significantly more potent that it was in days gone by, when, as you also said, it "was widely used in medicines...."

The topic just asked whether people thought it should be illegal, but I do want to address your point here, which seems to be a broad misconception insofar as medicine is concerned.

I have, on my shelf, a tincture of cannabis. It will not get anyone high. Did the plant that it came from contain THC? Well, yes, in the form of THCa or the acid form. THCa is non-psychoactive. THCa is made active when it's heated and converts to THC. That said, even as I would heat the tincture to remove the alcohol, it still won't get me high. That's because I didn't de-carboxilate (or heat) the plant before making it a tincture. Do I know the plant's buds (that I used to make the tincture) contain a potentially psychoactive substance? Well, yes, they do...because if I smoke the same plant that I made the tincture from, it does, in fact get me high.

The point here is, non-pyschoactive medicines can be made from *any* strain of Cannabis, no matter if that strain has a high THCa level. If it's not decarboxilated prior to making a tincture, the THCa is never converted into THC and the person taking said medicine will get all the benefits of the plant without any psychoactive effects.

I know there are many Cannabis products on the market now that get people stoned. But it doesn't have to. There are just as many that people use that don't get them high at all, and many prefer that.

 

[Albion]

Edit. No message.

 

[Stravinsk]

Yes, but almost the same thing could be said of all manner of other dangerous items that society rightly thinks need to be controlled because of the great harm that they can do. Naturally enough, anyone wanting to own such material will say, as you (sort of) did, "But you can trust me--not those other people, but me--because I will use it carefully and properly, so it's not a problem."

Please illustrate the danger of broad spectrum Cannabis use today or when it was legal before it's prohibition as compared to the deaths, injuries and side effects of alcohol and many (legal and formerly legal) pharmaceutical drugs. In Statistics.

As far as consumption and finding a suitable product, this is just like anything else. If one finds a retailer they can trust, and they are after just CBD or a tincture that has un-converted THCa, what's the issue? Most retailers are seeking to get return business, so it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to mis-lable it. But really, if one is that concerned that the evil MJ pushers are hell-bent on getting you high whether you want to be or not (lol), it's an easy enough plant to grow. Take the buds off and without ever heating them, make a tincture from vinegar or alcohol. It won't have any psychoactive effects. I know this from experience and other people can to.

 

[Albion]

Please illustrate the danger of broad spectrum Cannabis use today or when it was legal before it's prohibition as compared to the deaths, injuries and side effects of alcohol and many (legal and formerly legal) pharmaceutical drugs. In Statistics.

I'm sure you know that it's far more popular these days, even if illegally so, and also that the effects are much more powerful.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm sure you know that it's far more popular these days, even if illegally so, and also that the effects are much more powerful.

Yes, it's more popular because studies have revealed it's medical benefits and reduced harms compared to other substances. Plus we have widespread internet use, which was not around (at least for the average person) when I was a teen/young adult.

No, it's incorrect to say it is "much more powerful". You probably aren't aware unless you've ever done some shopping for MJ, but there are different varieties available, with different plant characteristics, including THC/CBD ratio.

I happen to know (from growing a plant for personal use) how to manipulate that ratio at harvest time. The stuff I grew was no more and no less potent than the stuff I had as a teen(when smoked). Also, as I mentioned before, method of use also plays a role. Since this topic came up, I decided to drag out my old Green Dragon Tincture from 5 years ago, the bud of which I never de-carboxilated (heated) before making into a tincture and gently heated the liquid with a little water to dissolve the alcohol and mix it with my coffee this early afternoon. Not even a hint of psycho-active effect going on now.