EDIT: WTF? Bah link http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
Dr Faust ****IT: I'd probably just hunt those useless to my mad designs
Dr Faust ****IT: the stoners, the drunks\
Those are two lines from a recent 'gem' posted by judge. They ****ed me off a little, since I'm tired of hearing that anyone who does drugs is a worthless stoner loser dropout.
I enjoy alcohol, and have ni the past enjoyed pot. I also work 50+ hours a week and will be attending school full time in the fall AS WELL AS continuing to work full time. Occasional recreational drug use doesnt make a person a worthless idiot, nor does it mean that they cant be a normal functioning member of society. Can someone, anyone, give me any reason as to why they think tha tbecause I occasionaly enjoy getting hammered or stoned that I am somehow less worthwhile?
For the record as far as the 'legalize drugs' thing goes, I thought the whole fun of drugs was that it was illegal. :-/
As far as occasional use I have no problem with it. But heroin addicts commiting crimes to feed their addiciton I can see the problem with.
Obviously I know what the affects are, but I meant I thought people got into it and really enjoyed it because it was naughy :):):)
There is a difference between heorin addicts stabbing for money and a guy smoking pot once. I can see that but if there really are people who cant tell the difference that is very worrying.
Welcome to america, where even being in a car with someone who was busted for pot can completely ruin your chances at being anything other than a janitor for the rest of your life.
The war on drugs is one of the most retarded and worst thought ideas in americas history.
EDIT: WTF? Bah link http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
You know what? **** it. Marijuana debaes are bushleague stuff. Legalise heroin. The big problems with heroin are the crime, the unbreakable nature of the addiction, and the health issues, and all three can be solved with a laxer attitude to the drug.
First, crime: Crime is a by-product of the effects of prohibition. Supply is limited and controlled by a monopoly of dealers, prices are very high. Legal opiates, or even just govt-supplied fixes in clinics, would instantly break that monopoly and massively reduce the automatic link between crime and heroin.
Second, addiction: Opiates are different from other drugs in that the addiction is very physical and physiological, not psychological. It's much more like nicotine than, say, marijuana or cocaine. You basically never quite get over the addiction, and withdrawals can kill you. This means that junkies are particularly beholden to the stuff and makes them much more exploitable and vulnerable to dealers. The solution? Break the dealers' monopoly over supply.
This is the inescapable logic of methodone clinics and I would go further and say that the Swiss model of stabilising opiate habits is a good thing (abstinence is considered less important than getting one's life back on track, which sometimes means continued use).
Third, health: Simple link here. Junkies afraid of the government and such means they're less likely to seek healthcare until it's too late. Additionally, they use dirty needles and stuff. Being able to seek health services (and other things such as police, for that matter) without fear of arrest can only be a good thing. Finally, related to the price issue, cheaper heroin from an end to criminalisation means larger quantities can be had, and thus smoking rather than injecting becomes a more viable option. Which is also healthier.
Legalise heroin. Bring back opium dens.
occasional recreational drug use does not make one a stoner. Occasional drinking does not make one a drunk.
I hate drunks and stoners.
keep them illegal. Do whatever it takes to keep people afraid of it. Curtail any possible future heroine addicts. **** catering to their needs.
That hasn't worked despite decades, billions of dollars, and the eroding of your justice system.
You can't legalize heroin. Thats f*cking retarded. Heroin kills people. Don't you read the papers? Locally we've had like 4 dozen people die due to heroin and we're not a big drug area. Heroin is more than your weed which kills lots of brain cells (which will generally make the drug users more retarded). I know plenty of people on weed alone just to know how big of a dumbass you must be to use weed. I don't hate them but i've noticed a few of my friends who got into drugs are about as intelligent now as a mule. I've seen the best and brightest turn into the worst and scummiest.
Welcome to the real world. Drugs can never be legalized.
And Sapphire made a post while I was so I didn't get to see it but I agree with you.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sapphire Rose again.
=(
I guess I can't disagree with Spam however. Though i'm not for drugs I do know one friend who does it occasionaly and he's probably one of the brightest people I know. Now however I do know many who drugs have ruined their life, I guess once in a while isn't so bad. I still say keep it illegal because it does hurt people and many are addicts. It really varies on the user. Not everyone who does drugs is useless but yet there are a lot that they've let it ruin their lives.
drugs are bad for you
lol had to say that
think about it tho
if we make drugs legal then all the people that are drugies would get so much drugs and die keeping the mild users and people who dont use them alive and in my opinion bett
i got alot of stoner friends but they dont smoke 24/7 or do anything else illegal
I don't believe that recreational drug use makes someone a horrible hopeless burden upon society, but on the other hand I don't think it's a very wise choice. Making drugs legal isn't going to help.
Example: Speeding. I don't do it because it's illegal, I just do it because I want to. Raising the speed limits won't help; it'll just encourage me to push harder. And you know what? Because most people don't know what they're doing, this makes it much more likely for an accident to occur. Same thing with drugs. People don't do them because they're illegal, they do it because it makes them feel good. And when it's easier, and more acceptable to "feel good," they'll push themselves until they ruin their lives completely.
The war on drugs is stupid, but making all drugs legal is pretty stupid too. It's not the same as the prohibition of alcohol.
For the record, though, I don't see why marijuana can't be legalized. It doesn't seem much different than alcohol in what it does, long term affects, and behavioural effects. Other drugs aren't so kind.
it's funny because Arwon's largely right about how government prohibition of narcotics dellude the stuff so a great amount of the problem lies in that it isn't regulated, so you're putting your life in the hands of drug dealers, pimps, etc. He's not. . . a complete moron in that sense. The fact that you've done drugs and they've messed you up doesn't DISPROVE his point. If they are legalized, taxed, and regulated via FDA,then less harmful versions of them will come thorugh (think of it as another medicine, another alcohol, another can of beans after Milton's "the jungle" etc).
My thing is that I don't think the government should ease up at all in defense of druggies' health. I don't care how much money's been spent on it, and the eroding of my justice system? Care to elaborate (no spin prz)? That whole "if you can't beat em, join em" **** doesn't entirely fly, and I feel that suddenly catering to the addictions of others isn't on MY agenda.
Can people stop using the word 'addicting' now? The correct word is 'addictive'.
There might be a few people who can control themselves enough to only take it occasionally, but many people will be unable to control their addiction, and will just take more drugs, until they die of an overdose, or they have to be taken to hospital, sometimes draining government funds which could be used on something else.
If drugs re legalised, there will be easier access to drugs, meaning that many more people may take them. Many of these peopel may become permanently addicted after taking drugs only one or a few times.
Yes, if wqe were to legalize it, taxes would be somewhat helpful, and it would be less dangerous than buying it from the streets. The bottom line, though, still remains that it is a drug that damages us. Yeah, we can tax it, but it would probably end up costing us more in the long run. If alcohol started off illegal, do you think it would have been legalized? We may get money from it, but think about how much it costs us, too. Drunk drivers cause quite a bit of damage. It costs us lives, it costs us money in the justice system, and it costs us in the material damage they often cause. You can bet if herion was legalized, we would get the same crap with it.
I dont think a lot of the people here are thinking it through all the way.
If it were legalised, there would be entire new industries sprining up around it. It wouldnt just be safeer through regulation, the magical hand of the free market would act to make sure that it was as safe as possible for as many people as possible in order to make as much money as possible. There would be more research and education, so that people knew what to expect and teh warning signs of impending problems; there would be more marketable, versions after a while that would most likely cause less problems, and there would be entire industries waiting to catch people who fall to it... for a rpice, of course.
And as for kodachi, I think you're completely missing the point about lowering crime.He wasnt simply stating that making it legal reduces crime by saying that theres one less law to break. He was getting at the fact that the entire illegal culture that surrounds it would dissappear. There would be no strung out dealer in a dark alley that pulls out a nine when he thinks you're a cop, gangs that fought over turf for dealing would suddenly have one less reason to shoot each other, and a whole myriad of side crimes would be wiped out, just because of the fact that John Q. Taxpayer can walk into a corner store and buy a dimebag or score an eightball.
It sounds like most of you have been too brainwashed by the idiocy that gets pumped out by the current propaganda machine to really think this through, which was exactly what I was complaining about in the first place.
I, sir, was in no way brainwashed seeing as how I've lived through this. And you know what? Even if there was a safe way to do drugs, I'd still not want it done. The addiction, possibility of an overdose, and overall danger is still there. They ruined my life, once. And I'll be ****ed if such a product will be easily bought and manufactured. And you must realize. Thousands of underage drinkers out there, right? Think of how many kids would have an even easier access to drugs thanks to the morons who would just go and buy this **** for them. That is one of the things that scare me the most.
Once again, regulation and education can go a LONG way to solving that. As it is now, there is no education on the effects of herion or anything else besides pot and alcohol. If you sit a group of kids down and let them know what happens when you do it, you'd get the same reaction that you get now. most avoid it, some try it and never do it again, some try it, keep it under control and continue, and then some go off the deep end. Right now, there is NO education about it. The only way you hear anything negative about it is if you know somebody who has done it and got burned.
Legalization would allow the topic to eb discussed openly and fairly, which would cause most not to try it in the first place. Its not like I'm talking about handing out 8balls to 1st graders or anything. And besides, alcohol and cigarettes already ruin peoples lives now, so obviously the government doesnt care about people staying healthy if theres money to be made.
Oh, and I'm not a huge fan of the "tax and regulation" option for ending the Drug War. I'd mainly just like to see greater tolerance of the end-user, decriminalisation of use and possession... an end to punitive policies that don't work, and have massive collateral damage on society. Sort of a grudging tolerance as long as people aren't hurting anyone. Much easier to fudge in a Westminster-based common-law context but can certainly be achieved in the US through changed policing attitudes.
Certainly don't allow commercial production and promotion of any of these things, and crack down on people involved in producing or trafficking such substances. There are things we don't allow to be produced, sold, marketed, etc, but don't crack down on people merely for having them, and presently illicit substances should fall into this category.
Also, BJ. Eroding of the justice system. Mainly a US argument. I'm gonna pull the "quote the Economist" trick because they put it best:
[quote]THE most conspicuous victim of the war on drugs has been justice, especially in America, where law enforcement and the legal system have taken the brunt of the harm. But all over the world there are human victims too: the drug users jailed to punish them for the equivalent of binge drinking or smoking two packs a day—except that their habit is illegal. Many emerge from prison more harmed, and more harmful, than when they go in.
The attack on drugs has led to an erosion of civil liberties and an encroachment of the state that alarms liberals on America's right as well as the old hippies of the left. At the Cato Institute, a right-wing think-tank in Washington, DC, Timothy Lynch is dismayed by the way the war on drugs seems to be corrupting police forces. Not only does it breed what some might see as excusable dishonesty: “testalying”, or lying on the witness stand in order to put a gang behind bars. It also breeds police officers who, says Mr Lynch, “use the powers of policing to put a rival gang out of action”.
The drugs war perverts policing in other ways too. For example, the police can keep property seized from a drugs offender, which may be giving the wrong incentives. Another undesirable effect has been the militarisation of America's police forces. Some 90% of police departments in cities with populations over 50,000, and 70% of departments in smaller cities, now have paramilitary units. These Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT, teams are sometimes equipped with tanks and grenade launchers. In Fresno, California, the SWAT team has two helicopters complete with night-vision goggles; in Boone County, Indiana, an amphibious armoured personnel carrier. Set up initially to deal with emergencies such as hostage crises, such teams increasingly undertake drugs raids. Inevitably, from time to time they raid the wrong premises or shoot the wrong suspects.
Civil liberties also suffer because there is usually no complaining witness in a drugs case: both buyer and seller want the transaction to take place. The police, says Mr Lynch, therefore need to rely on informants, wire-taps and undercover tactics that are not normally used in other crimes. The result is “a cancer in our courtrooms”, as he puts it, that proponents of America's drugs war rarely acknowledge as one of the costs of prohibition.
To these intrusions should be added many smaller ones. All manner of benefits have become conditional on a clean drugs record. Employers routinely test staff for drugs: in the mid-1990s, 14% of employees said their bosses tested people when they hired, and a further 18% said they subsequently conducted random tests. Access to student loans, driving licences and public housing are all now jeopardised by taking drugs. Since traces of cannabis stay in the urine longer than those of more dangerous drugs, the greatest threat to such privileges comes from the mildest offence.
But by far the worst consequence of the war on drugs is the imprisonment of thousands of young blacks and Hispanics. Of the $35 billion or so that the American authorities spend each year on tackling drugs, at least three-quarters goes not on prevention or treatment but on catching and punishing drug dealers and users. More than one in ten of all arrests—1.5m in 1999—is for drug offences. Some 40% of those drug arrests were for possessing marijuana. Fewer than 20% were for the sale or manufacture of drugs, whether heroin, cocaine or anything else. The arrests also sweep up a distressingly large number of teenagers: 220,000 juveniles were picked up for drug offences in 1997, 82% more than in 1993.
Many of those arrested receive mandatory minimum sentences of five or ten years for possession of a few grams of drugs, a dire punishment rushed through Congress in 1986 amid hysteria about crack cocaine. Eric Sterling, now head of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a campaigning group, worked in Congress on drugs policy at the time. He recalls that Congress set small quantities for no better reason than ignorance, politicking and “a lack of fluency in the metric system”.
Because congressmen did not know their grams from their kilos back in 1986, America's prisons are crammed with drug offenders, who now account for roughly one in four of those in custody, and more than half of all federal prisoners. Most of these drug offenders are locked up for non-violent crimes: in only 12% of cases was any weapon involved. Almost all are from the broad bottom end of the drug-dealing pyramid. America's imprisonment rate for drug offences alone now exceeds the rate of imprisonment in most West European countries for crimes of all kinds.
Disturbingly, even though drug use is spread fairly evenly across different racial groups, three-quarters of those locked up are non-white (see chart). For example, most users of crack cocaine are white, but 90% of crack defendants in federal courts are black or Hispanic. White people, being generally richer, do their deals behind closed doors, whereas blacks and Hispanics tend to trade on the streets, where they can be caught more easily. A report by The Sentencing Project, a group lobbying for criminal-justice reform, notes that black people account for 13% of monthly drug users; 35% of those arrested for possessing drugs; 55% of those convicted; and 74% of those sentenced to prison.
Thanks to the war on drugs, says JoAnne Page, head of the Fortune Society, which campaigns on behalf of ex-prisoners, there are now more young black men in prison than in college. “The consequences are devastating,” she says. “We are taking a whole generation of young black and Latino kids and teaching them a set of survival skills that allow them to live in prison but get them fired from any job.” A recent study by Human Rights Watch reports that 20% of men in prison are victims of forcible sex. “The rage that these people come out with affects their relations with their families,” says Ms Page.
If they go to prison without a drugs habit, they may soon acquire one. “I've seen heroin, marijuana, cocaine in prison,” reports Julio Pagan, a former convict who is now a counsellor. “I've seen people injecting drugs.” Those who inject in prison are at extreme risk of contracting HIV, because they are far more likely than users outside to share needles. Dr Alex Wodak, director of an alcohol and drugs unit at St Vincent's Hospital, in Sydney, Australia, calculates that at least half the inmates in Australia's prisons are injecting drug users, half of whom continue injecting in jail, where they might typically share needles with 100 people in a year.
This risk is unique neither to Australia nor to the rich world. Dr Wodak cites disturbing evidence that the sharing of needles by injecting drug users in prisons in Thailand has been the origin of that country's terrifying AIDS epidemic. Locking up drug injectors and failing to provide them with clean needles may thus be one of the biggest threats to global public health.
These immense costs to society must, of course, be set against the benefits gained from banning drugs. But there is another, more mundane cost that should be taken into account: the loss of potential revenue. One of the main reasons Prohibition eventually came to an end in America was that it yielded no tax revenues. Likewise, prohibition of drugs hands over to criminals and rogue states a vast amount of revenue—say $80 billion-100 billion a year, based on the gap between rich-world import prices and retail prices—that governments could otherwise tax away and spend for the common good.
That about covers it.
it's funny because after every paragraph I read in that reply, Arwon, all I hear is a resounding "So what?"
I mean, seriously, that reply is just utterly effing horrible. It's the worst case of rhetoric I've ever heard of (seriously). This is that magazine you're always busting a nut over? jesus christ.
People come out of jail harmed. . . so what? Should we make rape legal? Legalize theft? Arson? Fraud? All because people get raped in prison and develope rage issues? You do something illegal, you go to jail. Period. Point moot.
second paragraph-huge so the **** what Police fight gangs. Big effing deal.
third paragraph- so the **** what. You mean the United States has police departments in metropolitan areas with guns and tanks and whatnot? Holy ****, is that anything like in Europe where the airport security has mp5s, grenade launchers and intercontinental ballistic missles? Big effing deal.
Blacks and hispanics go to jail. Big deal. Your blind defense of minorities is cute and all, but I'm not that naive. The figures aren't going to make me give a ****, frankly. If you are black and deal drugs. You're still dealing drugs. I don't care what color their skin is. If they do something illegal I feel they should be imprisoned. Watch me not give a ****. Once again, my father works in a prison and sure rape and **** happens, but ya know what, he's not encouraging it. They try to stop it, but frankly it's not exactly easy or foolproof.
I don't know what kind of penal system Australia has (hah, irony) but here it isn't THAT easy to be a drug user in jail. Sure, weed and crack on occasion, but injected drugs are very very scarse. But hell, two guys' theories in Australia about how things work here gotta be right. They're the experts on penal systems, right? (ohhh, history jab)
Thailand? Who cares?
The last paragraph makes some sense.
Other than that, horrible article. I give it a D for effort. I suggest they stick to local problems and let us worry about ourselves.
So, anyone wanna grab a nice cold one later? ;)
I would also like to point out that ending prohibition didn't end gang or mafia violence as well
The point BJ, is that there's lots and lots of problems associated with the present policy, which consists of locking up hundreds of thousands of simple low-end drug users. Stacked against this, there's no demonstrable benefits to these punitive policies. It's expensive and destructive for at least half a dozen reasons. The harmfulness of prison isn't so much a problem for the individual as a problem for society later on, when these people get out and are utterly messed up for no good reason. This policy is creating criminal problems.
So if it's expensive and harmful why bother persisting with the policy of locking up low-level drug offenders at such massive rates?
I must say I'm surprised that you don't care about the loss of civil liberties associated with the drug war, I thought you were more of a libertarian. The fact that cops more or less lie on the stands to stitch people up, the increasingly pervasive surveilance, and so forth, these things bother me, because I can't see what benefit there is to their goal, which is to stitch people up for basic possession and use, most of the time. What about the encroachment of idiotic p!ss-tests into so many areas of life? What benefit exactly is worth the trade-off for that sort of undignified treatement?
And seriously, the fact that "black people account for 13% of monthly drug users; 35% of those arrested for possessing drugs; 55% of those convicted; and 74% of those sentenced to prison" doesn't bother you? Doesn't this tell you that the law and justice system isn't doing its bloody job properly?
[quote]If you legalise drugs, there will be more access to drugs, and more people will be addicted.
Prove it. The link isn't automatic. In fact, marijuana usage is lower in the Netherlands than the US. Who ever says "gee I'd like to take drugs but they're illegal so I won't"? I think you'll find that the sort of people who use drugs are not particularly deterred by the penalties.
Besides which, we're not talking about unrestricted availability here, we're talking about an end to punitive policies for use and possession of these restructed substances. Legalisation of possession but not of trade. Very different. When I'm being serious this is what I advocate. I can see that full legalised trade would definitely increase usage but I can't see that mere decriminalised possession and use would do much to usage levels. Certainly not enough to outweigh the benefits of not criminalising thousands of people for committing victimless crimes.
As far as I can see, there's three reasons that drug usage would potentially rise if we legalised trade as well as possession. The first is price--cocaine would drop to about a 20th of its price apparently, and marijuana would sell like tea. The second is that with quality assured through legalised trade and legal liability for health risks, the risks would be reduced and more people would dabble. The third is the reduced social stigma that'd lead more people to doing so.
The question though, is whether usage would rise substantially, and if so, whether the harm of this wider usage to society would be equivalent or greater to the harms of leaving the trade to unregulated criminals. I'm not sure of the answer there and you'd be lying if you said you were. Anyways, what's the goal... is it merely lower levels of drug use regardless of the consequences of pursuing this goal, or is it that total drug use does less overall harm?
As for personal harm, well, why should the government prevent us from doing some purely self-destructive things and not others?
[quote]Though locking up drug users might not be very effective, making drugs legal won't help very much either. There will be a larger number of people taking drugs, becoming addicted, and causing problems in the health system.
If that's the best you've got as a reason for a continued ban on possession and usage, with punitive enforcement, then I can pretty much rest my case.
Even if we assume the assertion that decriminalised personal use and possesssion will lead to massively greater usage, and I don't know what evidence there is to back that up, what "problems in the health system" do you mean? Surely removing the ban on possession would make it easier to regulate drug quality (meaning less health problems from that problem) and to treat the health effects of overuse, since people would be more willing to actually seek healthcare without fear of arrest. Oh, and to only punish drug-users only if they commit crimes against people or property... you know, crimes with actual victims.
...
Again, you say "the simple solution is to not take drugs in the first place" but that's an individual moral argument with no practical application. That works for you, it works for me (assuming we don't count pot and alcohol as drugs), but some people always slip through the cracks. The fact is, a certain percentage of the total population will be taking drugs and we are talking about the best policy to minimise the harm that does.
There's nothing wrong with occasionally shooting someone. I mean, can anyone give me one reason why killing someone every once in a while would stop me from being a functioning member of society?
[spoiler]sarcasm lol[/spoiler]
Get out of this thread if you're going to make awful, awful analogies.
Lord of Spam, what's wrong with you? How could you possibly support something like marijuana. Don't you know all the problems it causes? One of the worst being that marijuana causes white women to sleep with negroes! But besides that, it will cause you to go completely insane. People have jumped off buildings because they were SO HIGH on marijuana, that they thought they could fly! Even worse, marijuana leads to death and MURDER. Didn't you hear about the young lad who killed his entire family with an axe while under the influence of marijuana? How can we allow something this threatening to be legal?
..Yes, these were all actual arguments against marijuana throughout the 1920s and 30s. The comment about white women sleeping with negroes? By none other than Harry J. Anslinger, the first drug commissioner of course. He claimed that jazz music and marijuana use caused white women to "seek sexual relations with negroes." These were the kinds of
Hey... Only legalise for above 21!? **** you you fascist!
Fun Fact: pot is more resctricted (i.e. has a higher drug schedule level according to the FDA, the one reserved for drugs with NO medicinal benefit and huge health risks). cocaine is a step down, with the drugs that DO have some medical benefits.
The reasoning? Pot is easier to come by, and makes it easier to get into harder drugs... like cocain. Think about that one.
I did and it didnt' phase me
I've seen first-hand what pot can do to you. Unlike alcohol, doing a little each day has negative long-term effects (a little alcohol each day is actually good for you).
I think either all drugs should be legalised or tobacco should be criminalised. There's no real reason for pot to be illegal and tobacco not to be, especially since it's not directly lethal.
Drugs are gay, anyway. I prefer to keep my mind sharp and responsive.
[quote]I've seen first-hand what pot can do to you. Unlike alcohol, doing a little each day has negative long-term effects (a little alcohol each day is actually good for you).
Yeah, alcohol never hurt anyone. I like how with pot it's what "pot can do to you" but with alcohol it's not "what alcohol can do to you". Since they both mess people up.
Then in the very next paragraph you argue for consistancy between approaches to different drugs.
[quote=Arwon]Yeah, alcohol never hurt anyone. I like how with pot it's what "pot can do to you" but with alcohol it's not "what alcohol can do to you". Since they both mess people up.
Then in the very next paragraph you argue for consistancy between approaches to different drugs.
Read my post again, jackass.
A glass of wine a day is good for you, a joint a day has negative long-term effects.
I never said there's nothing bad about alcohol, just that extremely casual use of alcohol is better than the same amount of pot.
Alcohol will screw you up more in the short-term than pot if you take heavy doses, however. You can't overdose on pot, you can (very quickly) on alcohol. That doesn't make pot a magical drug with no bad effects whatsoever either.
In my opinion, and based on first-hand evidence, people who smoke weed every day and binge drink often are idiots, or at the very least irresponsible. They both wreck your body and they're both far too socially acceptable.
Man, it sure is a good thing that the discussion was about frequent, once a day use and not anything like light, casual, infrequent use.
[quote]In my opinion, and based on first-hand evidence, people who smoke weed every day and binge drink often are idiots, or at the very least irresponsible. They both wreck your body and they're both far too socially acceptable.
So? Do you think your personal tastes should carry the force of law?
I dont know if any one knew about this but fore some time mexico was thinking about making marjana legal. The average citizen would be able to carry around 2 ounces of marjana legaly,but they decided against it.
[quote=higbvuyb]No. Wine is healthy due to antioxidants it contains, not due to its alcohol content. It would be healtheir with the ethanol removed. Alcohol, like all other mind-affecting drugs, will damage your brain. It is only because alcohol is taken in small doses that it does not damage your brain much.
Alcohol thins the blood, too, apparantly. Regardless, a casual spliff is worse than a casual drink.
[quote=higbvuyb]No. Tobacco is different to other drugs. It does not make you feel better in any way, is highly addictive, and does far more damage than drugs do.
...that's why I said there's no reason for pot to be illegal and tobacco to be illegal. Tobacco is worse than pot, in my opinion.
[quote=Arwon]So? Do you think your personal tastes should carry the force of law?
About as much as you do, really.
[quote=Lord of Spam]Man, it sure is a good thing that the discussion was about frequent, once a day use and not anything like light, casual, infrequent use.
Heh, until about 4 seconds ago I didn't even realise the post at the top of this page wasn't actually the first post. I clicked the link on the main page. I was replying to Phil's rant.
As for super casual use, I view it the same way I view binge drinking on a friday night. It's stupid, unhealthy, unconstructive and expensive waste of time.
i meant casual as infrequent, not casual like OH HEY ITS 500pm LETS TOK UP OLL OH HEY NOW ITS 600 BREAK OUT THE PIPES ROFL