Should weed be legalized?

[mike7816]

be legalized?
yes or no and why?

[Jack]

Yes. Drug laws are unenforcable as well as being moral laws which the government has no business enforcing, marajuana is no more harmful than cigarettes and alcohol which are both legal and the government has no obligation or right to control what I injest. I have no objection to laws that prohibit certain activities while under the influence, like driving, flying and performing surgery, but outlawing it is a waste of money, manpower and lives.

[Compugasm]

Yes. However it NEVER will be because you can't patent or label it. I don't smoke it myself. But it sure does provide a lot of jobs in trying to stamp it out.

[Matt W]

*sighs* Try doing a search before posting a topic, hmm?

marijuana

[gela]

no.
I see no reason to legalise it. There are no benifits to having weed legal.
Mabe it isn't as bad as alcohol and cigaretts.. that isn't a reason to introduce another drug.
Alcohol and Cigaretts cause enough health and social problems. The last thing we need is some other harmful drug to get addicted to.
Also, there are alot of links between skitsophrenia and marijuana use.
Skitsophrenia is a terrible disease. It attacks your mind - who you are as a person.
Bad skitsophrenia patients need a carer 24/7. This will cost tax payers in countries with health care, and would put unfair strains on families in countries without health care.

[G. Adams]

Yes. Each individual owns their own body, therefore the government should rightfully have no say over what you do to it.

Quote by: gela no. I see no reason to legalise it. There are no benifits to having weed legal. Mabe it isn't as bad as alcohol and cigaretts.. that isn't a reason to introduce another drug. Alcohol and Cigaretts cause enough health and social problems. The last thing we need is some other harmful drug to get addicted to. Also, there are alot of links between skitsophrenia and marijuana use. Skitsophrenia is a terrible disease. It attacks your mind - who you are as a person. Bad skitsophrenia patients need a carer 24/7. This will cost tax payers in countries with health care, and would put unfair strains on families in countries without health care.

There was no good reason to make it illegal initially. Bad laws should be removed from the books. The vast amount of money saved by law enforcement and the judicial system would be greatly beneficial, either as a cut in tax or re-spent more effectively.

As for the skitsophrenia point - The links between cannabis and skitsophrenia is not that it causes it, rather that it makes it worse. How many products are on the market place that make an illness worse? Should we make it illegal buy, sell and consume all sugary products because they make diabetes (which type i'm not sure) more difficult to control? In my experience, lime cordial has an adverse effect on asthmatics, should that be banned? Hell, what about nuts?

If a person has a mental illness and abuses a mind altering product, be it alcohol, cannabis or even just too much Red Bull, there can be problems. But just because one person, or even one category of people, fail to control themselves, is no reason to proscribe the activity from the rest of us.

[gela]

There was no good reason to make it illegal initially.

Probably true. I still don't see a reason to bring it back.

As for the skitsophrenia point - The links between cannabis and skitsophrenia is not that it causes it, rather that it makes it worse. How many products are on the market place that make an illness worse? Should we make it illegal buy, sell and consume all sugary products because they make diabetes (which type i'm not sure) more difficult to control? In my experience, lime cordial has an adverse effect on asthmatics, should that be banned? Hell, what about nuts? If a person has a mental illness and abuses a mind altering product, be it alcohol, cannabis or even just too much Red Bull, there can be problems. But just because one person, or even one category of people, fail to control themselves, is no reason to proscribe the activity from the rest of us.

Its debatable that cannabis only makes skitsophrenia worse.
Its more that genetically you are more likely to get skitsophrenia - but without weed or other substances you won't develop it - under this logic, weed has caused the skitsophrenia.

Also, skitsophrenia is very different to diabetes and asthma. For the reasons that I mentioned - skitsophrenia affects the mind - who you are (eg. a father and husband gets a voice in his head telling him to murder his family). Bad cases also require a carer 24/7.

Also, skitsophrenia can appear years after smoking cannabis. Any of us could develop skitsophrenia later in life. Its impossible to tell which of us shouldn't smoke and should smoke.


Anyway; skitsophrenia isn't my main point. My main point is that there is no benifit to having it legalised.
All I see are several health problems associated with it:

Long-Term Effects Long-term marijuana abuse has several negative impacts on the user, including:10 • Limiting the brain’s capacity to store and retrieve information • Damage to the brain’s memory functions, as well as math and verbal skills • Sexual dysfunction and reproductive problems, including irregular sperm and lowered sperm count in men and menstrual and ovulatory disruption in women • Weakening of the immune system • Increased risk of cancer and lung damage • Increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack • Loss of motivation and interest in everyday activities and future plans

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.pdf

If marijuana is supported simply because 'the government has no right to decide what gos into my body'
Then you also must support the legalisation of harder drugs.

[bombmaniac]

no! weed itself used recreationally may be fine. however, for most people, it doesnt stop at weed. more often that not, people who get involved in such things end up getting into far worse mind altering substances. besides, if anything its not beneficial, and is probably harmful especially if you have less control over your mind. therefore if its not legal fewer people will use it.

[Domino]

In some situations, having less control over your mind is beneficial. For example, we have a vast amount of weed-inspired art, as well as art developed under the influence of other drugs.

The notion that weed should be banned as a gateway drug is ludicrous. Spinning in circles was the gateway drug for us all, as children on the playground. Everyone learns early that it can be a lot of fun to alter your perceptions, and some people choose to pursue that path to happiness through increasingly effective means.

Really, next time you see a child spin around till he falls down, are you going to discipline him for impairing his judgment? If not, and he enjoys it, you're letting him grow up to be a drug user, once he finds out he can get better effects without getting tired.

[Halofan48]

First of all, weed isn't just harmful to the smoker, ever hear of second hand smoke? Also, weed can cause many accidents while being used, which would increase if we legalize it, and if someone has no health insurance, tax payers tend to pay.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Halofan48 First of all, weed isn't just harmful to the smoker, ever hear of second hand smoke? Also, weed can cause many accidents while being used, which would increase if we legalize it, and if someone has no health insurance, tax payers tend to pay.

On such grounds, you could sharply restrict sugar laden soft drinks as well. Also, when you ban a substance the public may still pay for the increase in law enforcement.

Grandpa h.

[atheist]

the govn't should take it off as a schedule 1 drug. because of this no *legal* testing in the US can be done on marijuana for even medical purposes, which is a real real pity, especially given that marijuana in its plant/huffed form is used medically by some cancer patients. just think of all the possibilities that could be done with marijuana in a research lab...too bad it ain't happening anytime soon.

Here's a cool question: would you rather find yourself in a car being driven by someone who has smoked a few, or by someone who is obviously drunk?

[Halofan48]

neither, cause anyone in their right mind wouldn't get in a car under those circumstances. I would rather call a friend or a taxi .

[xyzer]

Seems to me that it is a mind altering substance and those whom we elect in the USA have made it illegal? Against the law? (there has been a modification in Calif. to allow its sale for medicinal pruposes(glaucoma)

IMO it is better banned because I don't want people around me driving autos or making personal decisions while stoned. We have enough confusion of our hiways and byway already. In my experience one enjoys life while clearly in possession of all his/her unimpaired faculties and senses. When drunk or stoned one doesn't live in reality?

[Domino]

I don't want people driving while sleepy. It's easily as dangerous as driving drunk.

[Charlatan]

Is marijuana a drug? Yes it is, it has physical influence over you, so it is a drug that you can get addicted to, and causes altered judgement. So what do we do with it seeing as how there seems to be a demand for it? Like was said, it is much the same as alchohol in effects, so it is dangerous. Shouldn't alcohol be banned aswell? Well if they are dangerous, then why are they on the market? Why are guns on the market, they cause accidents too, so what do we do with all these bad things? Make them illegal of course, and confiscate wht little there is left. That would make for positive changes. If they have bad side effects, then why have them on the market? It is your body, but you are a citizen of the state, and as such abide by their rules, so if it is bad for you they should take it away, acting as a good parent, but this isn't the case.

What we get instead is them deciding what bad things we should have access to, and rule out anything that falls under the term 'drug'. So what we are left with is a high demand and a intolerance by the state, for something as harmful as alcohol. I think the image of the state was in mind when making that law, as smoking something is less tolerated than drinking something that has been around for years - I think it was because there would have been an outcry from the people in power and the voters, seeing as how they all wold like the option to drink alcohol, and think that dope sets a bad image. Dope has a bad image, and that is why the majority think it is bad, so rule it out of the reach of people.

Dope was misunderstood, in a way that avarage people that hadn't grown up with it thought that it was an antisocial activity, and so made it illegal before fully understanding it, and now that people want it legalised, and others don't, it will remain illegal no matter what a few people say, as the image of dope is one of antisocial behaviour, while it's effects are not worse than booze really. So it is the image that was made illegal, as the effects are, for lack of a better word, legal. It is legal to feel lazy, it is legal to have an altered perception on medicinal drugs, so why is the law made of the image of the item? Abortion is legal! Some say that that is murder, but it has a favourable image. The image is a pregnant girl with a runaway father, so the law works on that. Death penalty? The image is that of a person being executed, and not of the crime they did, so, law is superficial, and this one is, as I have argued, just that.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: bombmaniac no! weed itself used recreationally may be fine. however, for most people, it doesnt stop at weed. more often that not, people who get involved in such things end up getting into far worse mind altering substances. besides, if anything its not beneficial, and is probably harmful especially if you have less control over your mind. therefore if its not legal fewer people will use it.

I agree with you except on two points. First "more often that not", assuming you means "than not" I still disagree. More often than not it stops at smoking weed. But, surely, the drug is a gateway drug in the sense that its potency wares out on the user and they may look elsewhere to reinvigorate their high.
I also disagree that if it is illegal less people will use it. I think a safe system to acquire drugs in would generally keep drug users and bystanders safe from relating violently criminal enterprises engaged in by thieves or drug dealers.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: xyzer Seems to me that it is a mind altering substance and those whom we elect in the USA have made it illegal? Against the law? (there has been a modification in Calif. to allow its sale for medicinal pruposes(glaucoma) IMO it is better banned because I don't want people around me driving autos or making personal decisions while stoned. We have enough confusion of our hiways and byway already. In my experience one enjoys life while clearly in possession of all his/her unimpaired faculties and senses. When drunk or stoned one doesn't live in reality?

Most marijuana users are 100% competent to drive and operate EVERYTHING within their own lives at maximum capacity. I know lawyers who argue their cases stoned. I know football players and baseball players who get high before their games. It isn't performance enhancing but it is calming and can be very invigorating.

In California it is legal, for medical use, officially, but understand that to acquire a medical card only takes 100$ and a good excuse. High school and college kids have club cards. Its a joke, it isn't about medical only at all. There is a couple thousand clubs in the state, 400+ in Los Angeles alone. People buy weed from stores and resell the weed on the streets as well, its safer to acquire large sums that way, and just as profitable to resell. People wait outside cars while their one homie goes in with his card and money from 5 other people to buy weed.

I'm just saying, it isn't what you think it is. And if you dont like stoned drivers, DO NOT come to SoCal because there are a lot of us on the road.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: atheist the govn't should take it off as a schedule 1 drug. because of this no *legal* testing in the US can be done on marijuana for even medical purposes, which is a real real pity, especially given that marijuana in its plant/huffed form is used medically by some cancer patients. just think of all the possibilities that could be done with marijuana in a research lab...too bad it ain't happening anytime soon. Here's a cool question: would you rather find yourself in a car being driven by someone who has smoked a few, or by someone who is obviously drunk?

Smoked a few. Often enough it happens, and I don't feel more threatened or endangered. In fact, I've never been in an accident with anyone involving the use of marijuana. Though Ive been really screwed over by two dunk drivers

[Halofan48]

Look, yes alcohol and tobacco are legalized, along with fire arms. Why? Lobbyists and the like. Sure, there hasn't been many accidents where marijuana is involved, but that's because it IS illegal and not many people are going to go out while stoned due to the risk of getting caught. We suffer from so many alcohol related accidents due to the fact that it IS legal. Also, for the lawyers you claim have argued their cases while stoned, did they win those cases? also what were the cases about. Provide evidence supporting your claim that they were stoned too. Also, many people won't do something if it's illegal. That's why not as many people die from it. But if someone is able to buy as many joints as cigarettes without the risk of arrest, then the death tolls would sky rocket.