Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

seensensee

penguin88 wrote: »

I really wish people looking for the legalisation/decriminalisation of cannabis would stop jumping on the campaign for the medical use of cannabis. These are two distinct causes, one does not follow on from the other. To be honest, I actually think the case for medical use is actually damaged by the association with pro-legalisation groups.

Sorry your wish cannot be granted, many of us campaign for all the causes. Would you care to elaborate on how pro-legal groups damage the medical cause?

Kurtosis

seensensee wrote: »

Sorry your wish cannot be granted, many of us campaign for all the causes. Would you care to elaborate on how pro-legal groups damage the medical cause?

I think many people would take quite a negative view of pro-legalisation groups (the stereotypical stuff to be honest, "stoners" etc.) and so by associating the legalisation cause with the medical cause, people may apply the same view to the latter. I think each should be judged on its own merits because they are not connected. Giving support to the case for medical use in no way legitimises the campaign for legalisation.

I_AmThe_Walrus

penguin88 wrote: »

I think many people would take quite a negative view of pro-legalisation groups (the stereotypical stuff to be honest, "stoners" etc.) and so by associating the legalisation cause with the medical cause, people may apply the same view to the latter. I think each should be judged on its own merits because they are not connected. Giving support to the case for medical use in no way legitimises the campaign for legalisation.

That's a valid point and it's clear how you've come to that conclusion but as seensensee touched on beforehand, I think a majority of people who are sitting on the decriminalization bench, see the benefits of the wider spectrum and not solely for medical usage.

I think it would do us all a great deal of good to accept the fact that those in favour of it's medical use and the decriminization of the substance itself cannot all be categorically classed as "stoners". It's a terrible stereotypical viewpoint of an ignorant and regurgitating individual.

I'm sure there are many people in here who have never and don't desire to consume Marijuana, yet they are pro-legalization because they've done enough research on their own to make an educated decision. The two may not be linked but both are sought after by the groups, one no less important than the other.

Saying it has medical benefits is one thing for people to become accustomed to accepting it's place in the medicine world, but I think they need to be educated of the other pro's it has to offer. People who don't reason, cannot reason or dares not to reason are slaves.

Concerning this poll, the majority of the people are in favour of the regulated legality prospect. It just astounds me that we call ourselves a democracy.

seensensee

penguin88 wrote: »

I think many people would take quite a negative view of pro-legalisation groups (the stereotypical stuff to be honest, "stoners" etc.) and so by associating the legalisation cause with the medical cause, people may apply the same view to the latter. I think each should be judged on its own merits because they are not connected. Giving support to the case for medical use in no way legitimises the campaign for legalisation.

Yes I tend to agree with what you have stated. It also goes to show how many people fail to distinguish the difference between an individual who requires cannabis based medicine in contrast to an individual who wants get high using cannabis and relax with friends.

It"s not surprising though, our government ensures that there is an unhealthy link between a lot of cannabis users and criminal gangs, consequently the media broadcast a lot of negativity on the subject... danger, cannabis = criminal activity.
What many people fail to understand is that pro legalisation groups actually demand an end to criminality, they want a civil society free from persecution and are happy to pay their taxes. They don't want to enrich criminal gangs through cannabis dealing.
Many people have been misinformed.

Kurtosis

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

The two may not be linked but both are sought after by the groups, one no less important than the other.

I have to disagree with you here. I think providing people who suffer from serious and debilitating diseases with treatment that could improve their quality of life/survival prospects is more important than providing recreational users with easier access.

Concerning this poll, the majority of the people are in favour of the regulated legality prospect. It just astounds me that we call ourselves a democracy.

You have to consider though that boards is not a great representation of the general population. Also the option are very limited, you haven't differentiated with reclassification for medical use and legalisation.

Kurtosis

seensensee wrote: »

Yes I tend to agree with what you have stated. It also goes to show how many people fail to distinguish the difference between an individual who requires cannabis based medicine in contrast to an individual who wants get high using cannabis and relax with friends.

Agree 100%. My major problem is not with people who fail to differentiate because of ignorance of the issue or being misinformed. The people I have a problem with are those who knowingly fail to distinguish the two in an effort to further their own agenda (as some other posters on this thread have demonstrated).

clived2

When kellogs dropped Michael Phelps because they seen a video of him
hitting a bong, Joe Rogan wrote Kellogs a letter, In it he answers the main reason marijuana is illegal along with some other points,
This is that letter,






Dear Kellogg’s,

I’m writing this letter to express my disappointment in your company in firing Michael Phelps as a spokesperson for your products because he was photographed while enjoying some marijuana.
I respectfully would like to communicate my opinion on this matter because I think it’s of great public interest.

First of all, although it is true that Mr. Phelps broke the law, I think any reasonably intelligent person would admit that it’s one of the most ****ed up and corrupt laws that we have today in this country. Marijuana is relatively harmless and certainly far less dangerous than a host of other things that are not only legal but also readily available, like alcohol and prescription drugs. The only reason it remains illegal to this day is because it’s a plant and you can’t patent it and control it’s sale, and because if it were legal it would greatly affect the demand for a host of prescription drugs that rake in billions of dollars each year for pharmaceutical companies.

That’s it.

Marijuana has never killed anyone EVER in over 10,000 years of use. We’re not protecting people from themselves, we’re not saving the children - it’s just a horribly illogical law that is in place because of corruption and propaganda.

The fact that it’s against the law is just a disgusting reminder of how retarded our system is, not a reasonable reaction to a proven threat to society.

I have to say, this whole thing saddens me, because I personally would like to think that as Americans we’re better than this. These television news anchors will shake their heads at the thoughtless mistake Mr. Phelps had made by “smoking dope,” and then without even the tiniest sense of irony they will cut to a beer commercial.

This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, right? We’re not supposed to be a nation of little bitches giving in to the whims of corrupt politicians and the pharmaceutical companies who’s interests they’re representing.

It’s 2009, and in this day and age with the incredible access to information that we have available there’s no ****ing way that we should be allowing human beings to tell other human beings that they can’t do something that they enjoy that hurts no one including themselves.

THAT is madness. THAT is ignorant, and THAT is completely ****ing un-American.

I don’t want to hear any of that, “he’s setting a bad example with the children” nonsense either, because we all know if he had a gin and tonic in his hand instead of a bong this would never have been an issue, even though every single study ever done has shown that marijuana is FAR less dangerous than alcohol.

Marijuana laws are a horrible waste of resources and law enforcement, and especially in this day and age with our economy in such horrible shape I believe the last thing we need to be doing is wasting tax payers’ money on any of this victimless bull****.

I find your reactions to Mr. Phelps situation both ignorant and short sighted.

I think what would have been a far better response from Kellogg’s would be to support Mr. Phelps, and perhaps point out that maybe we as a society should take a closer look at the evidence and possibly reconsider our position on this misunderstood plant that so many of our productive citizens find useful.

Now, I’m sure if you really were running Kellogg’s and you were still reading my bull**** all the way down to this, you must be thinking, “Why the hell would we stick our necks out like that for pot smokers?”
And of course the answer to that question would be, because we buy your ****, mother****er.

Do you guys even know your consumer statistics? Well, let me fill you in on some of my own personal scientific research on the subject, because I have been closely studying my own purchases for over 20 years, and I can tell you that I’ve been high 100% of the time I’ve bought your ****.

I mean, do you guys ever think about what you sell?

Pop tarts? Are you kidding me? I would be willing to bet that 50% of the people buying pop tarts are stoned out of their ****ing minds.

Just to be perfectly clear on my position, I would like you to know that I enjoy your products. I think many of them are quite tasty, but lets be honest; you guys sell sugar-drenched **** that’s horrible for your body - in fact, it’s actually way worse for your body than pot - and you market this **** specifically to children.

You ****s go as far as putting lovable cartoon characters on the boxes just so that kids will beg their parents for it.

Now, I don’t want you to misunderstand my point, because I in no way want anything bad to happen to your company. Like I said, I genuinely enjoy your products.

There’s nothing quite like being stoned out of your mind at 2am watching a Chuck Norris movie and eating a bowl of fruit loops. Your company and its products have been a part of some very pleasurable moments in guilty eating, and I’m glad you’re around.

All I’m saying is that it’s high time (no pun intended) that you mother****ers respect the stoner dollar. There’s WAY more of us than you might think, and we tend to get upset about dumb **** like this. There are millions of us, and if we decide that we don’t like a company, they’re going to feel it.

I think if you looked into it carefully, you would be surprised at how many undercover potheads there are out there. Pot smokers don’t all fit into the obvious, negative stereotypes; we come in all shapes and forms - including by the way, the form of the greatest ****ing swimmer who ever lived, EVER.
Think about THAT **** for a second..

So in closing, I would like to ask you nice folks to please smarten the **** up.

I would request that you check the calendar and note that it’s 2000 and ****ing 9, and next time you think about getting all uppity about pot you might want to do a quick google search on the facts.
It’s 4:40am here in LA, and I’m going to wrap up this blog and to celebrate its completion I’m going to enjoy one of my personal favorite Kellogg’s products: Eggo waffles.

I’m gonna pop 4 of them bitches into the toaster, and then I’m gonna stuff the bong with some fine, American grown “Train Wreck” and sacrifice the sacred plant to the fire gods in tribute to the unjustly persecuted 8 time Olympian hero. Then I’m gonna get some butter, and I’m gonna smear it on those Eggos, I’m gonna cover them with maple syrup, and I’m going to eat the ever loving **** out of them.

Good day, sirs.

Yours truly,

Joe Rogan.

Doc

seensensee wrote: »

All due respect to you doc but it appears your research is totally inconclusive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/303438.stm

The above links provide some indication that in fact cannabis is being used in the treatment of mental illness.

It appears that in an illegal environment there is no quality control regarding the production and distribution of cannabis, therefore the users are subjected to unknown chemical consumption.
It has been discovered that cannabis with a high THC content but lacking in CBD can exacerbate symptoms of mental illness for some people, however in the legal environment studies are conducted and results show that even schizophrenics benefit from an appropriate cannabis based medicine.

It's a complex subject, but keeping cannabis illegal ensures a potentially hazardous supply, it can be a bad strain mixed treated with any old toxic crap, is that what you want?

To be fair I have read a lot more then just the research I posted and know that there is contradicting research however through what I have read and my own personal experiences I have come to my own informed conclusion and I believe it dose act as a trigger to some mental illnesses.

I have given up trying to change peoples opinion on it but I think people who wish to use Marijuana should be aware of any potential risks to there health.

moonpurple

in reply to OP

it is a gateway drug
it causes lung cancer (bob Marlay)
medical specialists describe often how it causes psychosis and other problems for some people
how would you feel if the pilot of the plane told you and 234 other passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."

Strange Loop

moonpurple wrote: »

it causes lung cancer (bob Marlay)

Bob Marley died of cancer to the toe, which untreated went on to cause a brain tumour.

nix

moonpurple wrote: »

passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."

Id be very angry to tell the truth, i mean the ****ing nerve if that were to happen....Why would the pilot be allowed to smoke and the rest of us would get arrested??? I would be perfectly fine with a stoned pilot, not a completely baked one that just hit the guts of a bong, but no big whoop if it was just a doob, would have worn off mostly anyway before he lands, and thats the hard part

And no it is not a gateway drug, I'm sorry but your wrong. If anything is a gateway drug, its alcohol. I can gurantee the majority of drug users started off on alcohol Gateway drug is such a lame term too, just humans blaming something for there own lack of will power, if someone is drinking, smoking shooting up, its because they want to, they made the choice.

Society may have pushed them to that choice, so lets put the focus on that

If they didnt have access to weed they would be drinking and probably heavily too, is that the vice we want? more drunks causing havoc on the streets? No thanks, gimme mellow stoned content people floating about the streets incapeable of causing any harm...


And the research regarding psychosis is on subjects who have smoked excessively and the research is still hit and miss and there is no proof that the issues weren't there prior to the testing. If you abuse anything its going to have repercussions, wheter its smokeing, alcohol, eating, heck even too much exercise can be damaging to your health :rolleyes:

It should be legalised and it should be taken in moderation, not to be abused. But then again its our choice at the end of the day.. oh wait no its not, its someone elses who is basing judgement on ignorance

tadcan

According to wikipedia, even in the US the ban on growth of industrial hemp is being challenged.

Perhaps in our lifetime we could see a significant change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Industrial_growth_under_licence

Paparazzo

ScumLord wrote: »

I was watching one of the cannabis documentaries that said the cannabinoid receptors have been with us since we where fish.

You thought you were a fish? PM me your dealers number.

Fukuyama

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Conservatives?? What conservatives?

I see what you are saying, problem is, alocohol and cigarettes are socially acceptable, well smoking is not as much anymore, but you know what I mean. Marijuana is not socially acceptable and no number of positives will change the legality of it whilst the majority of people don't care or don't want it.

I'd say MJ is pretty socially acceptable. If someone told you they have a few spliffs on the weekend would you never talk to them again?

Its a plant... Some of the greatest minds that ever was have smoked weed. It causes less problems than alcohol and doesn't split up families, lead to fighting etc...

PS. I dont actually smoke weed (have tried it once or twice) its just my opinion of it.

Fukuyama

moonpurple wrote: »

in reply to OP

how would you feel if the pilot of the plane told you and 234 other passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."

I thought about that for a few minutes and I'd probably feel better than if he told us he'll take off in a minute once he finishes this JD and Coke.

The Mad Hatter

clived2 wrote: »

Dear Kellogg’s,

I’m writing this letter to express my disappointment in your company in firing Michael Phelps as a spokesperson for your products because he was photographed while enjoying some marijuana.
I respectfully would like to communicate my opinion on this matter because I think it’s of great public interest.

First of all, although it is true that Mr. Phelps broke the law, I think any reasonably intelligent person would admit that it’s one of the most ****ed up and corrupt laws that we have today in this country.

Uh-oh, I'm not going to get far in this.

Marijuana is relatively harmless and certainly far less dangerous than a host of other things that are not only legal but also readily available, like alcohol and prescription drugs. The only reason it remains illegal to this day is because it’s a plant and you can’t patent it and control it’s sale, and because if it were legal it would greatly affect the demand for a host of prescription drugs that rake in billions of dollars each year for pharmaceutical companies.

Because the sale of plants can't be controlled. Like tobacco. Or vegetables.

That’s it.

Marijuana has never killed anyone EVER in over 10,000 years of use.

That's it, I'm done.

Seriously, I'm all for legalisation, even if I don't use it myself, but you need some better spokespeople.

clived2

moonpurple wrote: »

how would you feel if the pilot of the plane told you and 234 other passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."

Are you serious, This is your argument, think about it for a second,

now replace joint with whiskey, now so whiskey is legal but i still dont want my pilot drinking before any flight, so where does that leave your point,

Fallen Buckshot

Strange Loop wrote: »

Bob Marley died of cancer to the toe, which untreated went on to cause a brain tumour.

I believe was the result of an untreated football injury .. that means we should make football illegal because it "could" cause cancer

clived2

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Uh-oh, I'm not going to get far in this.


Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions



Because the sale of plants can't be controlled. Like tobacco. Or vegetables.

Fair point, But he refers mainly to the patent and also alot of people would grow their own pot as it is relatively easy to do so,
And yes i know people could grow tobacco and vegatables, but they consume those in large quantities and this would take alot of time and space,



That's it, I'm done.

Seriously, I'm all for legalisation, even if I don't use it myself, but you need some better spokespeople.
Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions

,

The Mad Hatter

*sigh* Really?

Fine.

Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions

I have to explain why I'm going to be disappointed by a letter that leads with "any reasonably intelligent person would admit that it’s one of the most ****ed up and corrupt laws that we have today in this country"? That's not an argument. It's just a leading statement, provided with no evidence. It's a dismissal of any possible counter-argument before those arguments are made.

Fair point, But he refers mainly to the patent and also alot of people would grow their own pot as it is relatively easy to do so,
And yes i know people could grow tobacco and vegatables, but they consume those in large quantities and this would take alot of time and space,

Most people wouldn't bother, any more than people bother to grow their own vegetables. And if people did, then what difference would it make? Who does he think is objecting to this? Where is his evidence that he's right? It's a poorly thought-out and poorly presented argument.

Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions

Marijuana has never killed anyone? In ten thousand years? Never? Not a single anapholactic reaction? Not a single corrupt leaf leading to poisoning? Not a single dizziness-causing-someone-to-tumble-off-a-cliff? Where's his evidence? His only "support" for this claim is to write the word "ever" in all capital letters.

As I said, there are good arguments to be made, but these ones are very poor. There's nothing that's been said in the first three paragraphs of the letter that makes me inclined to read any further.

clived2

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Marijuana has never killed anyone? In ten thousand years? Never? Not a single anapholactic reaction? Not a single corrupt leaf leading to poisoning? Not a single dizziness-causing-someone-to-tumble-off-a-cliff? Where's his evidence? His only "support" for this claim is to write the word "ever" in all capital letters.

I am pretty sure he is refering to Overdosing, please cite your example,

Also I heard some guy died while being distracted on a mobile and walked off a cliff, Lets ban phones!!!

I will contiune this discussion later, Have to go

The Mad Hatter

clived2 wrote: »

I am pretty sure he is refering to Overdosing, please cite your example,

Then he should use the word he means. I'm not making a counter-argument here, I'm just saying that he has no evidence, and as he has no evidence, he shouldn't make the claim.

Strange Loop

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Then he should use the word he means. I'm not making a counter-argument here, I'm just saying that he has no evidence, and as he has no evidence, he shouldn't make the claim.

How is he going to produce evidence of all the people who haven't died of a marijuana overdose?

There are no recorded cases in history.

Odysseus

Come on lads, be fair. The OD issue is complex. It would be next to impossible to OD whilst smoking it, eating a large quantity maybe. The distraction examples in some cases, maybe the person was smoking a spliff; when I used to work on sites years ago I seen people using all types of dangerous machinery whilst stoned not a good idea. A pilot cannot fly if he has taken any alcohol for a set amount of hours before the flight, so that is a dead issue.

The issue for me around deaths would revolve around being stoned whilst using machinery driving included. I ride a motor bike I see plenty of people stuck in traffic with a spliff in their mouth. That and the mental issues it can cause on some people, which may be a factor in certain cases of suicide

The Mad Hatter

Strange Loop wrote: »

How is he going to produce evidence of all the people who haven't died of a marijuana overdose?

Precisely.

There are no recorded cases in history.

This is what he should have said. Evidently he thought it would be a stronger argument to write "ever" in capital letters.

Mahatma coat

Odysseus wrote: »

Come on lads, be fair. The OD issue is complex. It would be next to impossible to OD whilst smoking it, eating a large quantity maybe. The distraction examples in some cases, maybe the person was smoking a spliff; when I used to work on sites years ago I seen people using all types of dangerous machinery whilst stoned not a good idea. A pilot cannot fly if he has taken any alcohol for a set amount of hours before the flight, so that is a dead issue.

The issue for me around deaths would revolve around being stoned whilst using machinery driving included. I ride a motor bike I see plenty of people stuck in traffic with a spliff in their mouth. That and the mental issues it can cause on some people, which may be a factor in certain cases of suicide

Yeah but that becomes less of an issue if its Legal, cos at the moment people 'turn a blind eye' sometimes, often for overall fear of bigger problems arising if they mention it out loud.

if weed or speed and pills were legal its still a bit stupid to operate heavy machinery Stoned/Drunk/tired anyway

TPD

Odysseus wrote: »

Come on lads, be fair. The OD issue is complex. It would be next to impossible to OD whilst smoking it, eating a large quantity maybe. The distraction examples in some cases, maybe the person was smoking a spliff; when I used to work on sites years ago I seen people using all types of dangerous machinery whilst stoned not a good idea. A pilot cannot fly if he has taken any alcohol for a set amount of hours before the flight, so that is a dead issue.

The issue for me around deaths would revolve around being stoned whilst using machinery driving included. I ride a motor bike I see plenty of people stuck in traffic with a spliff in their mouth. That and the mental issues it can cause on some people, which may be a factor in certain cases of suicide

Yup, I'm pretty sure you'd die of asphyxiation before ODing on cannabis smoke. And I think you would get sick from overeating before ODing when eating cannabis.

I'm only speculating here, but I'd imagine the number of indirect deaths resulting from cannabis consumption are far lower than those of alcohol.

Coconut Joe

I don't think there's any empirical reason for keeping it illegal, just apathy and ignorance at this stage. Smokers for the most part just let it slide (perhaps out of fear of prosecution if they draw attention to themselves) and non smokers for the most part either have greatly exaggerated fears (I'm not for a second saying there are problems associated with it) or just don't give a **** as it's not banning something they use. Also for some reason when it comes to drugs people seem to confuse use and abuse, I'm sick of hearing these annectodal stories of my buddy x smokes weed all day every day and now he's not the same person, of course he's not, he's abusing a psychoactive drug. To me it's all about personal liberty, If i want to put something into my body in the privacy of my home the burden of proof lies with the legislators to show how my actions threaten society so much that's it's acceptable to lock me away.
And all of this ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work and feeds criminal gangs (it really is the easiest money they'll ever make). I do think the tide is changing though, I don't think the California legalisation will pass this time (it's pretty much neck and neck at the moment, unfortunately it's all too easy to frighten someone so I can only see the numbers going one direction as it gets closer) but the fact that big pharma and the agribusiness our hedging their bets and buying up land in the emerald triangle gives me hope.

DepecheHead101

The "War on Drugs" is a colossal failure and supporting it blindly should no longer be tolerated. Any politician who throws around politically expedient lines about being "Tough on Drugs” needs to explain why. They need to be told it is no longer acceptable in 2010 to ignore the facts that they get presented with on a regular basis. It’s no longer acceptable to overlook the dozens of newspaper articles that are published every week. The evidence is in and it’s reported on everyday. Banging on about “sending the wrong message” or being "Tough on Drugs" just doesn’t cut it anymore. In fact, it is dumb.

Manic Moran

There are no recorded cases in history.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

This is what he should have said. Evidently he thought it would be a stronger argument to write "ever" in capital letters.

Bit of a debate going on over on the US Politics thread on the issue. At least two coroner's inquests in the UK have recorded 'cannabis toxicity' as the cause of death. It is being argued that the inquests concluded incorrectly, which is possible, but it is also possible that they were correct.

I think it is very fair to say that death by OD is highly unlikely, but I've been around long enough to know that you shouldn't ever say 'impossible'.

Of course, all this is really pedanticism, a couple of cases doesn't indicate that something is excessively dangerous.

NTM