[WolfCoder]

Legalizing and taking control of it by the government makes lots of sense to me, and that's my general stance. People who want it will get it, so the less bloodshed the better. However, there are perfectly valid problems you could use to say something against this:

- Will it work out much like lifting the prohibition on alcohol did?
- Since the government would control it, will this influence the anti-drug campaigns?
- What's going to happen if you start seeing ads for it, now that it would be legal?

[ccubed]

WolfCoder, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 12:01 AM, said:

Legalizing and taking control of it by the government makes lots of sense to me, and that's my general stance. People who want it will get it, so the less bloodshed the better. However, there are perfectly valid problems you could use to say something against this:

- Will it work out much like lifting the prohibition on alcohol did?
- Since the government would control it, will this influence the anti-drug campaigns?
- What's going to happen if you start seeing ads for it, now that it would be legal?

1) Do you honestly believe making it legal will make drug dealers disappear?

2) For the government to take control, they'd have to squash all other distributors and suppliers, which they can't. They couldn't even do that with alcohol during or after prohibition. Hell, there's still prohibition today in some counties.

3) Anti-Drug campaigns will continue to happen. It's not like making something legal changes whether or not someone believes it's morally right.

4) People will always complain about ads on certain topics.

5) I'd surmise there'd be more bloodshed. It's legal now, so gangs don't have to 'hide' their sales. Therefore, rival gangs don't have to 'find' them.

6) Sellers will always fight over distributors.

This post has been edited by ccubed: 13 December 2009 - 01:50 AM

[0xFF]

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 02:49 AM, said:

WolfCoder, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 12:01 AM, said:

Legalizing and taking control of it by the government makes lots of sense to me, and that's my general stance. People who want it will get it, so the less bloodshed the better. However, there are perfectly valid problems you could use to say something against this:

- Will it work out much like lifting the prohibition on alcohol did?
- Since the government would control it, will this influence the anti-drug campaigns?
- What's going to happen if you start seeing ads for it, now that it would be legal?

1) Do you honestly believe making it legal will make drug dealers disappear?

2) For the government to take control, they'd have to squash all other distributors and suppliers, which they can't. They couldn't even do that with alcohol during or after prohibition. Hell, there's still prohibition today in some counties.

3) Anti-Drug campaigns will continue to happen. It's not like making something legal changes whether or not someone believes it's morally right.

4) People will always complain about ads on certain topics.

5) I'd surmise there'd be more bloodshed. It's legal now, so gangs don't have to 'hide' their sales. Therefore, rival gangs don't have to 'find' them.

6) Sellers will always fight over distributors.

Well, after prohibition, what happened? Are we better off, or worse off today because it's legal? Ran the gangsters out of town. (Where I live) all outside vendors are non-existent from government control. I doubt that legalization will change the morality of it, but lets be honest, in a good number of social groups it's more acceptable to have 2 beers a day than smoke once a week. Also, gangs may not have to hide their sales, but they already don't. For example, the Mafia owns a lot of vending machines, car washes, and things like this (it's a good lace to launder money.

I'd argue that legal drugs would actually create quality control standards so we don't have kids who want a joint ending up with something soaked in bleach, paint or windex.

Why do gangs traffic it? It's illegal and the only place to get it. There's likely a bunch of farmers who would be easily capable of changing their crop to grow the drug, I don't see legal drugs sold in grocery stores helping out today's drug lords.

And just to point out, I'm not a pot head. I've never smoked pot.

[WolfCoder]

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

...
1) Do you honestly believe making it legal will make drug dealers disappear?
...

That's great, answering questions with questions.

[ccubed]

WolfCoder, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 08:35 AM, said:

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

...
1) Do you honestly believe making it legal will make drug dealers disappear?
...

That's great, answering questions with questions.

@Wolf: It's called the Socratic method. I hear they use it in a field called logic.

@0xFF: Okay, say I bite on the mafia. You realize they don't have mafia written on their shirts right? There's a reason that they aren't busted every day. The law agencies can only get them by proving they did it to begin with. So, the word hide still applies to them.

I'm also not going to argue the merits/demerits of prohibition. That's a purely subjective topic.

As for smoking, well, that's because smoking can cause lung cancer. Generally people are more okay with alcohol than inhaling lung cancer.

And no, there would be no quality controls. You realize the FDA can't even enforce quality controls properly on LEGAL drugs as it stands? Right, as if the legalization of an illegal drug will somehow make the FDA do its job.

Drug lords will always exist. They just won't have to be illegal anymore. It's called price wars and when drug lords with guns get into price wars, I don't have to spell out what is likely to occur. That and there will ALWAYS be distributors coming in and selling the stuff cheaper than the government controlled distributors. Look at Canadian medicine.

This post has been edited by ccubed: 13 December 2009 - 01:47 PM

[WolfCoder]

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 01:41 PM, said:

WolfCoder, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 08:35 AM, said:

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

...
1) Do you honestly believe making it legal will make drug dealers disappear?
...

That's great, answering questions with questions.

@Wolf: It's called the Socratic method. I hear they use it in a field called logic.
...

It's called not answering the question I was curious about. I was wondering on hearing why you think this would not work out just like prohibition.

And the Socratic method requires one of us to give answers while the other gives questions, not questions from both sides.

"If you ask a question or series of questions in which your prospect can readily agree, then ask a concluding question based on those agreements, you will receive a desirable response"

edit:

And no, I also wasn't trying to use it on you. I don't actually have a strong stance on this issue and would rather hear other people answer questions I have rather than me actually trying to defend some stance. I got sick of defending myself on this when we had to do controversial subject essays in the High School.

This post has been edited by WolfCoder: 13 December 2009 - 05:00 PM

[0xFF]

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 02:41 PM, said:

WolfCoder, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 08:35 AM, said:

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 01:49 AM, said:

...
1) Do you honestly believe making it legal will make drug dealers disappear?
...

That's great, answering questions with questions.

@Wolf: It's called the Socratic method. I hear they use it in a field called logic.

@0xFF: Okay, say I bite on the mafia. You realize they don't have mafia written on their shirts right? There's a reason that they aren't busted every day. The law agencies can only get them by proving they did it to begin with. So, the word hide still applies to them.

I'm also not going to argue the merits/demerits of prohibition. That's a purely subjective topic.

As for smoking, well, that's because smoking can cause lung cancer. Generally people are more okay with alcohol than inhaling lung cancer.

And no, there would be no quality controls. You realize the FDA can't even enforce quality controls properly on LEGAL drugs as it stands? Right, as if the legalization of an illegal drug will somehow make the FDA do its job.

Drug lords will always exist. They just won't have to be illegal anymore. It's called price wars and when drug lords with guns get into price wars, I don't have to spell out what is likely to occur. That and there will ALWAYS be distributors coming in and selling the stuff cheaper than the government controlled distributors. Look at Canadian medicine.

Bite nothing, it's the truth. When I worked for RBC we had mandatory AML training for all 50,000 employees. They explicitly discussed how criminals use turn-key operations such as car washes and vending machines. But yes, it's a lot harder to prove they are laundering funds through these businesses. That's the idea.

Why won't we discuss the merits/demerits of prohibition? It's analogous to the legalization of drugs. Drinking alcohol has been linked to a great number of diseases and other medical issues, if not more so than smoking pot. And I don't mean in the same room it's acceptable, but rather on a social level. I know I have friends who would be disowned if their habits were public knowledge and are terrified of their family, employers, even some friends finding out.

Do booze runners still exist like in the days of Al Capone? Leaving this to the market to deal with is probably going to end up better than before. Look at the booze industry in Ontario, we can only buy it from one of two stores anywhere, and we pay more, and we get less selection, and it's thriving.

[raziel_]

in my options Marijuana is the only drug that you cant die from overdose (you can die from overdose on alcohol). so why this is not legal but the others that you can die is?

This post has been edited by NoBrain: 14 December 2009 - 05:35 AM

[modi123_1]

NoBrain, on 14 Dec, 2009 - 06:35 AM, said:

in my options Marijuana is the only drug that you cant die from overdose (you can die from overdose on alcohol). so why this is not legal but the others that you can die is?

Failed argument. You can die from over consumption of water.

Studies show that approximately 4–14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC

[TriggaMike]

You can overdose on Weed, but it won't kill you. You start throwing up like mad and you don't have a very good time.

Also Modi that "Article" is a little slanted. First it states that the average user will test positive for THC days after they stop using it, and a chronic user may test positive for weeks. Honestly I'll ball park that more than 4-14% of everyone would have THC in their system at any given time, let alone while driving a vehicle. Essentially what those numbers say to me is that people who smoke weed are better drivers.

@Choscura: I'm pretty sure this forum has rules about flaming and calling people who smoke pot idiots that you want to rape for profit seems like a little bit of a flame. I'm just going to say watch yourself buddy, you can only tell so much about a person by their habits.

[0xFF]

NoBrain, on 14 Dec, 2009 - 06:35 AM, said:

in my options Marijuana is the only drug that you cant die from overdose (you can die from overdose on alcohol). so why this is not legal but the others that you can die is?

I've seen many a people who's lives are destroyed because they're heavily fried. They can't go half a week without needing to smoke up, they've built a dependency on it. I've seen much worse obviously, like the guy I worked with back in high school who smokes up probably 5 times a day. He drove a forklift into the wall and almost killed me in the process. Just because it's hard to die from smoking a few times in moderation doesn't mean it should be legal.

[333OnlyHalfEvil]

ccubed, on 13 Dec, 2009 - 12:41 PM, said:

As for smoking, well, that's because smoking can cause lung cancer. Generally people are more okay with alcohol than inhaling lung cancer.

And no, there would be no quality controls. You realize the FDA can't even enforce quality controls properly on LEGAL drugs as it stands? Right, as if the legalization of an illegal drug will somehow make the FDA do its job.

Drug lords will always exist. They just won't have to be illegal anymore. It's called price wars and when drug lords with guns get into price wars, I don't have to spell out what is likely to occur. That and there will ALWAYS be distributors coming in and selling the stuff cheaper than the government controlled distributors. Look at Canadian medicine.

Lung cancer from smoking mainly comes from the tar that results from the paper the substance (marijuana, tobacco, etc) is rolled with. The "lung cancer" argument isn't stopping cigarettes from being legal, why should it stop marijuana? People who smoke cigarettes are far more likely to get lung cancer than people who smoke marijuana.

No quality controls? Are you serious? Somehow i doubt marijuana soaked in bleach is going to get by the FDA. Also, capitalistic competition alone is enough of a quality control. Multiple competing "marijuana companies" trying to find the best possible plant to sell.

modi123_1, on 14 Dec, 2009 - 07:15 AM, said:

NoBrain, on 14 Dec, 2009 - 06:35 AM, said:

in my options Marijuana is the only drug that you cant die from overdose (you can die from overdose on alcohol). so why this is not legal but the others that you can die is?

Failed argument. You can die from over consumption of water.

Studies show that approximately 4–14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC

How is that a failed argument? He's saying you can't overdose.

And stop citing FAQ's from NIDA and post a legitimate study.

This post has been edited by 333OnlyHalfEvil: 15 December 2009 - 04:39 AM

[raziel_]

the point was why the only narcotic that cant kill you is illegal but so many others that can and are as much dangerous as it (and more as alcohol and most of the medical pills ) is legal ? still talking for overdose not about the danger on health because even a burger is dangerous for health.

This post has been edited by NoBrain: 15 December 2009 - 05:10 AM

[LoveIsNull]

This is the last time I am going to say this:
There is no direct link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. Any such purported link would be so weak a link that it could barely even be considered a link.
Humans have been consuming ganja by smoking it for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. More recently, in the past century we've been able to document our medical cases. In the past 60 years there have been great advancements in medicine and technology- as well as a great increase in the number of Americans who admit to having used cannabis (despite that the Drug War rages on). How many Americans?
About 70 million of them admit to having smoked ganja at least once, while at least 10 million do so regularly. And yet, in all this time, with all those people smoking pot...there is not a single documented case of lung cancer that can be attributed solely to cannabis. Not. One. For tobacco, on the other hand, the cases are countless. According to commonly available statistics about half a million people die each year due to tobacco related illness while not a single death can be attributed to cannabis.
How can this be?
If you listened to everything the government told you, then you might have heard things like "Cannabis contains over 400 chemicals and marijuana smoke contains many of the same components as tobacco smoke" or "One joint is equal to 10 cigarettes" or so on and so fourth. However, the differences between cannabis and tobacco are numerous.
For one thing, cannabis smokers typically don't consume any where near the same volume of smoke as tobacco users. Even if you believe the crap about today's pot being much more potent than your father's, couldn't we then logically conclude that today's pot smokers would smoke less? That would typically be the case as the more potent the herb is, the less needs to be smoked to achieve the same effect.
Now as for the chemicals present in cannabis smoke compared to those found in tobacco smoke, sure they are similar: there are the aromatic hydrocarbons, the benzene, toulene and what have you- all common by-products that result from the combustion of any kind of plant material.
But something is missing from cannabis smoke that is present in tobacco and that would be the polonium 210 that results from growing the tobacco with cheap phosphate fertilizers. You see, the fertilizer is mined from apatite rock, a mineral which also contains radium and traces of polonium 210 and lead 210. As the tobacco plants grow, the radioactive components get caught up in the sticky trichomes of the tobacco leaf. Here they stay while the leaf is processed until it is eventually smoked, passes through the cigarette filter and winds up in the smokers' lungs. Once in the lungs it is not easily removed and tends to accumulate in certain areas while it decays. Polonium 210 is radioactive, as I have mentioned, and has a half-life of about 138 days. It is what is known as an "alpha-emitter", this means Po210 is constantly throwing off tiny alpha particles (which wind up bombarding your lung tissues), until stabilizing into Lead 206. Polonium 210 is the only component of tobacco smoke that laboratory animal testing has demonstrated to cause cancer when administered independently.
Now, there are also chemicals present in cannabis smoke that are not found in tobacco smoke. These are, of course, the cannabinoids which includes Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol. What so many people are unaware of is the fact that various cannabinoids, both natural and synthetic ones, have been demonstrated to be powerful antioxidants with the ability to shrink and even eliminate tumors. The first research to determine this was conducted in the early 70's and was suppressed until much more recently. Since then various studies have been conducted to confirm these findings and a man named Rick Simpson has been manufacturing a kind of hemp oil that he distributed to terminally ill patients. Read all about his story, very recently his home was raided by the RCMP and he is refusing to return to Canada.

I wish only to enlighten and help others' set their minds' free as ignorance really isn't so blissful.

This post has been edited by LoveIsNull: 20 December 2009 - 01:16 PM

[Delta_Echo]

Legalize. SO BE IT!

Also, has anyone.... ever... anywhere overdosed on Indica or Sativa? Even if you were to achive a dose that you cannot handle its not going to kill you.... the closes you will come is freaking out at a certain level. (When i say freak out, i mean reality itself is bent.... like a mild halucination).

the first time you freak out it will be unpleasant but after that its all good.

I feel that no just government has the writ to dictate to its people what they can or cannot ingest.
Today they come for your weed. Tomorrow it will be your uncensored internet access.

why not?

This post has been edited by Delta_Echo: 23 December 2009 - 04:10 PM