Is Legalizing Marijuana Worth the Risks?

[humanino]

If you drink during the day or while you are working or driving, you are considered to have a problem. Smoking marijuana is no different.

When in Amsterdam, you can encounter at 9am a bank officer guy well dressed and carrying an expansive suit case, probably full of several 0s numbers, yet smoking pot.
I wish if this guys misplaces a zero, that is in advantage to the the customer

 

[Evo]

When in Amsterdam, you can encounter at 9am a bank officer guy well dressed and carrying an expansive suit case, probably full of several 0s numbers, yet smoking pot.
I wish if this guys misplaces a zero, that is in advantage to the the customer

Their accuracy might not be affected, it just takes them twice as long to figure it out.

Some people say it just makes them feel "mellow", well I'm looking at them and they may feel "mellow" but they appear to be "sloooow". I'm always asked "how can you tell I've been smoking?" Believe me, it's not hard.

 

[Loren Booda]

I scored a perfect 800 on my Math SAT while stoned back when they were more difficult (1976), but I also did poorly on my Advanced Placement tests under the influence. I was an addict. SATs were rote tests, while APs (even math) required an essay.

 

[humanino]

You know what : last year of high school in France, last trimester did not matter for my admission. I knew I would get in, I only needed to get my baccalaureat (which is did with honor). Anyway, I wanted to experiment that "under weed, your imagination is multiplied". So I wrote my three last philosophy dissertations stoned. I got three 17/20, and I think the teacher never gave beter. When I reread those today, not only is this great, I used words I don't even know and when I check them in the dictionnary, not only do they mean something really, they exactly mean what I wanted to express at this point. Yet there is a flaw. Those dissertations, I had to rewrite them after the weed effect was gone, because they were full of orthographical mistakes. Even though it liberates ones imagination, to me it illutrates the fact that ones attention is down.

 

[Kerrie]

Alcohol slows you down and impairs one just as much, if not even more so. More people die from the effects of alcohol or admitted to the hospital then by marijuana (drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, violence activated by drunkeness). I really don't think we can pass a harsher judgement on it when a LEGAL substance can and does far more damage. If it's legal, it should be regulated definitely as much as alcohol with age restrictions, taxes, and places to purchase. Also, there are many marijuana users arrested and clogging up the jail systems, and your tax dollars are paying for it. Do we continue down our path costing all this money for a "problem" that will most likely never go away? Or do we get smart, legalize it, make some money and utilize tax dollars for crimes that deserve more attention and money?

 

[Evo]

Loren & humanino, yes, I have also noticed it has no adverse affects on knowledge/intelligence. For me alcohol is the same. Some of my most brilliant presentations were done while I was intoxicated, although I wouldn't have been able to pass a field sobriety test.

 

[Evo]

Alcohol slows you down and impairs one just as much, if not even more so. More people die from the effects of alcohol or admitted to the hospital then by marijuana (drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, violence activated by drunkeness). I really don't think we can pass a harsher judgement on it when a LEGAL substance can and does far more damage. If it's legal, it should be regulated definitely as much as alcohol with age restrictions, taxes, and places to purchase. Also, there are many marijuana users arrested and clogging up the jail systems, and your tax dollars are paying for it. Do we continue down our path costing all this money for a "problem" that will most likely never go away? Or do we get smart, legalize it, make some money and utilize tax dollars for crimes that deserve more attention and money?

I agree, it should be treated like alcohol.

 

[Gokul43201]

Some of my most brilliant presentations were done while I was intoxicated, although I wouldn't have been able to pass a field sobriety test.

Wooohoooo ...who'd have thunk !

'Evo the Wise', the mentor formerly known as Wild Thing !

 

[humanino]

Does that mean a mentor position is now available ?
Well, not for me in that case.

 

[ray b]

the real effects of the pot are way less
then the real effects of the laws against it

btw stupid laws against pot have not had any real effect
on limitimg its use by kids

with stupid laws like 3 strikes
people are doing life for pot

just laws are needed to promote respect for justice
decriminalization is the ONLY rational option
and very far over due

drug tests are a violation of rights
esp in pot cases as there is no relationship to imparement
as no known test will tell if someone is high
just that they smoked sometime in the past month or more

 

[nrqed]

I don't think marijuana is necessarily bad for you if you do it once in a while. I smoke marijuana almost once every couple of days, and it doesent really effect me at all. I have grades in the 80% range, and will be going to university next year for engineering, i also have a <A TITLE="Click for more information about job" STYLE="text-decoration: none; border-bottom: medium solid green;" HREF="http://search.targetwords.com/u.search?x=5977|1||||job|AA1VDw">job</A>, and it doesent effect me there either. It really let's me relax, clear my mind up, ease the tension, you know...just letting go of reality for an hour and zooming off elsewhere, the high is just temporary, and your back to your normal self in an hour or 2, this is one of the main reasons why so many people choose cannibus over other drugs, its cheap, safe, effective, and the best part, its not even very addictive!

You prove once more how self centered and "blip blip blip" (I am censoring myself) marijuana users are.

Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.

We keep reading stories around here about farmers who live in fear because of drug traffickers using their properties to grow drugs. But marijuana users are so ******* self centered that they don't give a damn about where their money goes. They just think about themselves.

It's hard to imagine someone who is more of an ******* than a recreational marijuana user who puts money in the pockets of organized criminals.

When confronted with this, they are too hypocrites to admit how selfish they are. They change the subject by saying "but that's why we should decriminalize".

If marijuana users were the least honest (I know, I can keep dreaming!). they would say "yes, I give money to criminals because I enjoy it. And, by the way, we should decriminalize because I think I deserve to be rewarded for doing what I do". But they are way too hypocrites to admit that.



Pat

 

[Kerrie]

You prove once more how self centered and "blip blip blip" (I am censoring myself) marijuana users are.

Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.

We keep reading stories around here about farmers who live in fear because of drug traffickers using their properties to grow drugs. But marijuana users are so ******* self centered that they don't give a damn about where their money goes. They just think about themselves.

It's hard to imagine someone who is more of an ******* than a recreational marijuana user who puts money in the pockets of organized criminals.

When confronted with this, they are too hypocrites to admit how selfish they are. They change the subject by saying "but that's why we should decriminalize".

If marijuana users were the least honest (I know, I can keep dreaming!). they would say "yes, I give money to criminals because I enjoy it. And, by the way, we should decriminalize because I think I deserve to be rewarded for doing what I do". But they are way too hypocrites to admit that.



Pat

marijuana users wouldn't be giving money to criminals if it was legal and regulated either. i have known many people who use alcohol that were also dishonest, selfish and self centered.

 

[Zantra]

You know as a smoker (of ciggarrettes) I've had to explain my habit a billion times, especially living in California. But you know what? I don't make excuses. I don't dodge the facts or truth of what I'm doing, or the dangers I'm risking by smoking. I'm aware of it and I proceed in spite of it. But I don't dodge, lie, or pretend ciggarrettes are something they aren't, which a lot of smokers do. And pot smokers. My view on it is if you do, cool- peace and love and all that jazz, but don't try and sell me on it like I'm a congressman trying to pass anti-drug legislation. It is what it is, and the facts aren't really in dispute. So just shut up, fess up, do it, and move on. Otherwise you end up sounding like a crackhead trying to explain why they "need" their next fix.

Personally, I wouldn't smoke it even if it was legal.

 

[Gokul43201]

Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.

And the common folk who don't switch off lights at home every possible chance, and drive instead of walking, cycling or riding a bus, are people who don't care if they are making the big, energy executives rich, because they care only about themselves.

 

[gerben]

You prove once more how self centered and "blip blip blip" (I am censoring myself) marijuana users are.

Recreational marijuana users are people who don'tt care if they are making drug traffickers rich because they care only about themselves.

What is bad about that? If you buy something from someone you make the seller a little richer. That is the way trading works...

We keep reading stories around here about farmers who live in fear because of drug traffickers using their properties to grow drugs. But marijuana users are so ******* self centered that they don't give a damn about where their money goes. They just think about themselves.

Who do you think the farmers are affraid of? They are affraid of drug squads, policemen! They are not affraid of drug users, often the farmers could not even live decently if they did not grow it.
(By the way those farmers are not often growing marihuana, but more often coca)

It's hard to imagine someone who is more of an ******* than a recreational marijuana user who puts money in the pockets of organized criminals.

When confronted with this, they are too hypocrites to admit how selfish they are. They change the subject by saying "but that's why we should decriminalize".

That is not changing the subject, that is pointing out what the problem is. The problem is that some people want to use marihuana and that others say "No, you are not allowed to!". Prohibition causes all the problems.

If marijuana users were the least honest (I know, I can keep dreaming!). they would say "yes, I give money to criminals because I enjoy it. And, by the way, we should decriminalize because I think I deserve to be rewarded for doing what I do". But they are way too hypocrites to admit that.
Pat

They just want to use marihuana, they do not want to give anyone money and it should be decriminalized because it is ridiculous to deny people the use of some plant.

 

[Zantra]

And the common folk who don't switch off lights at home every possible chance, and drive instead of walking, cycling or riding a bus, are people who don't care if they are making the big, energy executives rich, because they care only about themselves.

See that's just it. The issue isn't about who makes the money, it's about the kids using drugs before they are old enough or mature enough to make an informed decision. Or using it solely due to peer pressure. Sure if you're 30 years old and a pothead, more power to you, but if you're 15? how about 12? 9? What age is too young? Any substance that alters your sense of reality is affecting your brain in some way, no matter how much potheads try and deny it. And if you're smoking pot at 10, by 15 you'll be using mescaline, pcp, heroin or crack. And you can't say "oh they know better" because if the kid doesn't have the brains to say no to pot, then he's only one step away from snorting stuff because he doesn't want his friends to think he's "a tard" or "lame"

question to all you smokers: one day you'll have kids- you going to let them smoke pot? if not, are you going to hide your use from them? If so, why? I guess I just see things a little differently since I'm a parent.

 

[Zantra]

They just want to use marihuana, they do not want to give anyone money and it should be decriminalized because it is ridiculous to deny people the use of some plant.

Some people might say it's ridiculous to have to risk at the very minimum, lung cancer, mood swings, low sperm count,jail time,job loss, and spend enough money to make ciggarrettes look like a cheap habit- just to TEMPORARILY solve your woes or for kicks Not to mention the fact that like any substance, the more you use it, the less potent to your body it beconmes, as it adapts, so you have to spend even MORE money just to get the same benefit (and I know this as I know some people who spend gobs of money to get very expensive, very potent stuff just to feel normal, because dirt weed won't cut it anymore)..But that's just some people I guess...

 

[decibel]

Any substance that alters your sense of reality is affecting your brain in some way, no matter how much potheads try and deny it. And if you're smoking pot at 10, by 15 you'll be using mescaline, pcp, heroin or crack.

hmmm...That IS true, but only for some people, for me, no. I'v been smoking it for 5 years, and the only "drug" i'v ever tried and will try is marijuana, nothing else, never. I would NEVER EVER do anything like heroid or crack, that's just not cool.

 

[hypnagogue]

Sure if you're 30 years old and a pothead, more power to you, but if you're 15? how about 12? 9? What age is too young?

Sounds like a great reason to legalize marijuana, so its distribution can be regulated and restricted to adults only.

And you can't say "oh they know better" because if the kid doesn't have the brains to say no to pot

Choosing to smoke marijuana is not a matter of not having brains-- when's the last time you chided someone who went to a bar for not having brains? Alcohol is potentially physiologically addictive, after all, while I don't believe marijuana has ever been shown to be anything more than psychologically addictive.

In fact, if there's any drug habit you could say requires a complete failure of rational brain operation, it would have to be smoking cigarettes, not smoking marijuana or even drinking alcohol. (Don't take offense, I'm hooked on 'em too.) At least with marijuana you get some interesting benefits to go with the costs. In general, I think the only drugs that should be strongly discouraged are the physiologically addictive, highly destructive kind-- heroin, cocaine, and yes, tobacco. On the other hand, a lot of people might benefit from exploring the subjective spaces opened up by limited use of non-addictive drugs, such as marijuana or even (gasp) mescalin.

I can't speak for 10 year olds, but I know more than a few people who were apparently brain-deficient enough to try marijuana at around 14 or 15. I don't know anyone who ever even considered doing something like heroin or crack. Contrary to sensationalist caricatures, even young teenagers tend to have some sense of what they can get away with trying and what is best to avoid like the plague.

 

[Smurf]

In a society where the government doesn't pay for your medical costs in any way, that'd be true, but in the USA, the govt pays for a lot of your medical care, so every person who fuks up their own body is an expense to the govt, and every tax-paying citizen, who funds the government.

Or even worse, in a country with Socialized Medicare, like Canada.
but I hear this same arguemnt daily about Tobaco and Alcohol. I think there need to be restrictions that say they won't pay for self-inflicted illnesses.

 

[check]

Or even worse, in a country with Socialized Medicare, like Canada.
but I hear this same arguemnt daily about Tobaco and Alcohol. I think there need to be restrictions that say they won't pay for self-inflicted illnesses.

I’m going to have to strongly disagree with this, Smurf. For example: If someone develops lung cancer, the gov’t could claim that it’s because they smoke and thus, not pay for treatment. Although smoking does significantly increase the risk of lung cancer, it might not have been the cause in all instances even if the person who has developed lung cancer is a smoker.

The better alternative is to charge taxes on things like tobacco products and (unfortunately) alcohol that would cover the cost of treating diseases linked to the use and abuse of these substances. Though this would, in effect, ‘punish’ people who don’t develop any illnesses from the use of these substances, it doesn’t prevent people from receiving treatment.

Now, I know that there are already huge taxes on cigarettes. They’re at almost $8/pack I think in Ontario… however, I’m pretty sure income from these taxes doesn’t all go into the healthcare system (or anti-smoking campaigns). There needs to be a reform of how that revenue is spent.

 

[Evo]

I have to side with Zantra here.

Make two columns. One with the positives of smoking marijuana and one with the negatives.

Which column has more entries?

 

[Gokul43201]

Make two columns. One with the positives of smoking marijuana and one with the negatives.

Which column has more entries?

Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.

 

[hypnagogue]

Make two columns. One with the positives of smoking marijuana and one with the negatives.

Which column has more entries?

For sustained / long term / heavy marijuana use, the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. For infrequent / moderate / responsible use, depending on the mentality of the user, it is likely that that the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

[decibel]

Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.

good point although i think the marijuana column would be more of even on both sides considering that it is used for medicinal purposes, and there hasent been one case ever documented of someone dying of marijuana.

 

[check]

For sustained, long term marijuana use, the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. For infrequent use, depending on the mentality of the user, it is likely that that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Does this mean that if I'm not smoking weed now, I should start?

 

[Smurf]

I’m going to have to strongly disagree with this, Smurf. For example: If someone develops lung cancer, the gov’t could claim that it’s because they smoke and thus, not pay for treatment. Although smoking does significantly increase the risk of lung cancer, it might not have been the cause in all instances even if the person who has developed lung cancer is a smoker.

The better alternative is to charge taxes on things like tobacco products and (unfortunately) alcohol that would cover the cost of treating diseases linked to the use and abuse of these substances. Though this would, in effect, ‘punish’ people who don’t develop any illnesses from the use of these substances, it doesn’t prevent people from receiving treatment.

Now, I know that there are already huge taxes on cigarettes. They’re at almost $8/pack I think in Ontario… however, I’m pretty sure income from these taxes doesn’t all go into the healthcare system (or anti-smoking campaigns). There needs to be a reform of how that revenue is spent.

your right that's a much better idea. make it 10$ a pack

 

[Smurf]

Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.

...watching porn? are there any proven negative effects for that?

 

[Evo]

Do the same with smoking, drinking, watching porn, etc.

Very good, except watching porn may vary greatly depending on the psychological makeup of the individual.

Where it may satisfy the needs of one, it may only fuel the desire of another.

 

[hypnagogue]

Does this mean that if I'm not smoking weed now, I should start?

I don't see any reason why a responsible, well-informed adult without an addictive personality shouldn't try it (presuming that adult has the opportunity to take it legally). If used responsibly, there are no significant long term effects, and there are no physiologically addictive properties to make such responsible use unrealistic.

Thus, it is possible for the right kind of person in the right kind of situation to keep the negative effects to a negligible level, while simultaneously experiencing a potentially deeply rewarding exploration into what consciousness can be. Sometimes it's pleasant, or intellectually stimulating, or emotionally helpful, or even spiritually enlightening, to view the world through qualitatively different kinds of glasses.

As long as utmost care is taken in such pursuits, I see no reason why such activities should not just be allowed but actually enthusiastically endorsed. It's just like any other potentially dangerous but potentially rewarding activities: do it safely and reap the benefits. We let people experience the rush of jumping out of a plane, but only after extensive training and preparation, under proper supervision, etc. Why couldn't the same be done with the suitable kinds of psychoactive drugs? Personally, I think it's a shame that so many people go through life never experiencing anything outside of waking, dreaming, and perhaps drunkenness. There are many other wonderful fruits hiding in the untapped branches of the mind, if only we could learn and teach how to scale the heights safely rather than fear and forbid them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Very good, except watching porn may vary greatly depending on the psychological makeup of the individual.

Where it may satisfy the needs of one, it may only fuel the desire of another.

Agreed. I was merely trying to raise the point that while the goods and bads are "fairly" agreed upon, this thread is about the benefits/drawbacks of legalizing pot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As an aside; three pot parties.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45244

 

[gerben]

Some people might say it's ridiculous to have to risk at the very minimum, lung cancer, mood swings, low sperm count,jail time,job loss, and spend enough money to make ciggarrettes look like a cheap habit- just to TEMPORARILY solve your woes or for kicks Not to mention the fact that like any substance, the more you use it, the less potent to your body it beconmes, as it adapts, so you have to spend even MORE money just to get the same benefit (and I know this as I know some people who spend gobs of money to get very expensive, very potent stuff just to feel normal, because dirt weed won't cut it anymore)..But that's just some people I guess...

That may seem ridiculous to some. But that is no valid reason to prohibit it. This prohibition leads I think to far worse situations (as a very minor example would you like your children to be send to jail and get a criminal record because they smoked a joint). It would be better to just allow it and to inform people of all the dangerous consequences, which are now very unclear, mainly because of totally unbelievable propaganda.

 

[Zantra]

Sounds like a great reason to legalize marijuana, so its distribution can be regulated and restricted to adults only.



Choosing to smoke marijuana is not a matter of not having brains-- when's the last time you chided someone who went to a bar for not having brains? Alcohol is potentially physiologically addictive, after all, while I don't believe marijuana has ever been shown to be anything more than psychologically addictive.

In fact, if there's any drug habit you could say requires a complete failure of rational brain operation, it would have to be smoking cigarettes, not smoking marijuana or even drinking alcohol. (Don't take offense, I'm hooked on 'em too.) At least with marijuana you get some interesting benefits to go with the costs. In general, I think the only drugs that should be strongly discouraged are the physiologically addictive, highly destructive kind-- heroin, cocaine, and yes, tobacco. On the other hand, a lot of people might benefit from exploring the subjective spaces opened up by limited use of non-addictive drugs, such as marijuana or even (gasp) mescalin.

I can't speak for 10 year olds, but I know more than a few people who were apparently brain-deficient enough to try marijuana at around 14 or 15. I don't know anyone who ever even considered doing something like heroin or crack. Contrary to sensationalist caricatures, even young teenagers tend to have some sense of what they can get away with trying and what is best to avoid like the plague.

no offense taken- I've heard far worse-I'm actually I'm my 3rd week of quitting ciggs(again) But I always tell people that they shouldn't smoke. My point was that a child uses weed a lot of times initially for peer acceptance, but then they get "hooked' psychologically, and continue to use it. My view may seem extremist to you, but it's been scientifically proven through many studies that weed is a gateway drug. So someone who's prone to addiction will continually use progressively stronger and more addictive substances.

As far as legalizing it, that wouldn't make it any better. It would make it more accessible, if anything. With risk of reprecussions reduced, you'd see kids hanging outside of 7-11's asking people to buy a dime bag for them instead of a case of beer. And for every case of someone who knew when to stop, I can give ou 10 who didn't.

I have this friend who I've known since we were kids. He's always been a pretty smart guy. We used to play chess and he'd beat the pants off me every time. Well he's been a regular user for probably the last 8 or 9 years. Recently we sat down to a game of chess for the first time in a long time after a few beers (2 wild and crazy guys huh?). Well I beat the pants off of him. It wasn't even close..And he's the kind who hates to loose, so I know he was trying. Weed does affect the brain people.

 

[Zantra]

Thus, it is possible for the right kind of person in the right kind of situation to keep the negative effects to a negligible level, while simultaneously experiencing a potentially deeply rewarding exploration into what consciousness can be. Sometimes it's pleasant, or intellectually stimulating, or emotionally helpful, or even spiritually enlightening, to view the world through qualitatively different kinds of glasses.

If there was a drug that only killed some people with some of the wrong qualities some of the time under the right conditions, should it be sold by drug companies? I'm guessing the families of the people it DID kill would mind. Cocaine at one time was sold as a presciption drug for certain ailments. That doesn't mean it was intended for mass consumption. X is perfectly safe if you use it infrequently, not mixing it with alcohol or other drugs. And if used safely by adults under the right conditions can be safely ingested- should we legalize that too? My point is the line has to be drawn somewhere. Pot users want to draw the line on one side of weed, non users draw it on the other. So that infers that weed smokers are trying to justify their use.

Let's look at what weed does exactly- it slows down motor response, impairs higher brain function and logical deduction. It doesn't have the same affect on your brain as alcohol exactly, but it's similiar. I'm not a chemist ,so I don't know exactly what area of the brain it surpresses (maybe someone more knowledgeable about chemistry can add that in) but prolonged use of it dulls the synapses, slows higher brain function over a period of time, and affects short term memory retention. And this is a healthy drug to use? Personally I'd like to go out of this world with as many wits as I came into it with.

I'd also like to add that in the short term it may not have immediate affects, but long term frequent use does affect the brain. So if you're using it regularly you may not see any affects for the first few years, but eventually it catches up with you like anyhting else.