I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: » Firstly, I want to express the fact that I am not a regular user of the drug itself, nor am I condoning it - I am just interested how society has labeled it negatively when they are unwilling to educate the ill-informed about the benefits. 1) It is not in any way, shape or form, addictive, mentally or physically. 2) It has unlimited and legitimate medical uses. 3) It is not a "gateway" drug. 4) If it was legal, organised crime would fall. 5) Government can tax it and give tourism a boost. The funny thing about this whole farce is, Marijuana has been legal in the Netherlands since the 30's and according to the consumption stats, the Dutch use the recreational drug the least. Not one recorded fatality has occurred from the use of marijuana, yet alcohol and tobacco are severe killers and they're still available. What are you thoughts? Should it be available for purchase, legally?
seensensee wrote: » Hiya Buckshot, I beg to differ, apologies for appearing pedantic but what you have linked to is "why weed was made illegal" in the first place, the reason "why weed is'nt legal" is something else altogether, after all many countries have reversed the illegality in recent decades.
tadcan wrote: » Emm, that was the OP's question, why is the drug illegal.
Doc wrote: » This is somthing for personal reasons I have done quite a bit of research on I have read a lot on the subject and I do believe it is trigger for mental illness.
ScumLord wrote: » In a minute amount of the general population cannabis can trigger mental illness if it's taken under the right circumstances. But are these not the kind of warnings we read about in the side effects for common legal drugs prescribed to us by our doctors also? I've been smoking for a bit more than ten years and know smokers that have smoked for longer. Any person that both drinks and smokes will tell you drink is by far and away the more harmful drug in every possible way.
I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: » Now, you're just being silly. Google is your friend if you want to know the truth. Not one recorded fatality has resulted in the consumption of marijuana.
thetonynator wrote: » Maybe not from the consumption ( although i doubt it . . .over consumption can lead to a lot of the same effects of smoking, but people never blame it on the marajuana. Also, how many people have died from walking out on a road or doing something ridiculously stupid cos they were so stoned out of their mind to realise what they were doing???
Odysseus wrote: » You have a fair point, but the difference is they are controlled to various degrees and not prescribed for recretational use, in most cases;)
ScumLord wrote: » True, but it put's the warnings into context. Everything on the planet no matter how benine to mos the population is goin to have an adverse effect on a small proportion of people. Even things like milk and dispren can kill certain people. We can't judge the thing on the adverse reaction a small number of people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. These are all fairly minor harmful side effects and even all put together don't justify criminalising cannabis users and funding organised crime.
I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: » This issue must be openly debated using only the facts. Groundless claims, meaningless statistics, and exaggerated scare stories that have been peddled by politicians and prohibitionists. ANNUAL DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS. TOBACCO …………………… 400,000 ALCOHOL …………………… 100,000 ALL LEGAL DRUGS ……… 20,000 ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ……15,000 CAFFEINE ……………………. 2,000 ASPIRIN ……………………… 500 MARIJUANA …………………. 0 —————————————-
I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: » Firstly, I'm not here to convince you of why it should be legal like all the other threads.
Doc wrote: » Researchers at Cardiff University (Stanley Zammit and colleagues) found a connection between frequent pot smoking and psychosis, schizophrenia, hearing voices and hallucinations. People who haven't smoked pot are less likely to display the same psychotic illnesses. The researchers were clear that it's not that marijuana causes psychosis. Rather, marijuana triggers mental illness if the individual already has a predisposition to that illness. So if your family has a history of schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses, smoking pot now could predispose you to struggle with mental illness later in life. The British researchers concluded that "there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that cannabis use will increase their risk of psychosis." The effect of marijuana on psychotic illnesses may vary from individual to individual. Hallucinations, hearing voices, psychotic delusions and schizophrenia could be triggered by many things – and pot smoking may be one of them. It also depends on how much pot you smoke. The British study found that frequent pot smokers (daily or weekly marijuana users) were 50 to 200% more likely to experience psychosis. Your age and genetics also affects whether marijuana will trigger a psychotic illness. This is somthing for personal reasons I have done quite a bit of research on I have read a lot on the subject and I do believe it is trigger for mental illness.
D.R cowboy wrote: » I will if you take back your thread, drugs destroy peoples lives every day and make it hell for people likes us, who have to live with those people in our society. If everyone was high, nothing would get done.
seensensee wrote: » All due respect to you doc but it appears your research is totally inconclusive...
TPD wrote: » Cannabis being illegal is the only way in which it acts as a gateway drug. Because it is illegal, it needs to be bought from drug dealers, who also sell harder drugs. .
Odysseus wrote: » To be fair, I think we will be waiting a very long time for the research that totally proves either viewpoint one way or another.
seensensee wrote: » Fair comment but one must recognise that cannabis is being used as a legal medicine despite the risks. In addition to it's medical value more than 6 EU countries have decriminalised it for recreational use, It begs the question are those societies attempting to sabotage the mental health of their citizens?
TPD wrote: » I've read through the thread and don't think I've seen a real counter to the 'gateway drug' thing. Maybe that's because nobody really sees this as a viable argument against cannabis legalisation any more. In case anyone still does, here goes: Cannabis being illegal is the only way in which it acts as a gateway drug. Because it is illegal, it needs to be bought from drug dealers, who also sell harder drugs. In the same way a legal off license doesn't influence people towards trying illegal cannabis, a legal cabbanis retailer wouldn't influence people towards trying harder, illegal drugs.
Odysseus wrote: » This gateway issue, I have I guess taken over 10,000 drug histories during the course of my career. Now in a high proportion of cases no stats but a educated guess at my own experience 80-90% of those first drug is cannabis somewhere between 11-15 years old. In a drug history for various reasons alcohol is ont noted as a drug, though in a most cases it does predate the use of another substance. However, I don't just to get bogged down in that. Most people moved to different drug for a different reason than the dealer trying to offer it to them. Now I mostly see those for whom it has become a problem, if it is not a problem for a person, they rarely see the inside of my facility, that has to be factored in. So trying cannabis do not mean you will try other drugs but it is often the first port of call for people who become addicted to more problematic drugs. However, I don't think the "dealer" is too much of a factor in it.
TPD wrote: » It's the first port of call if you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and shout 'LALALALA' when drugs like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are mentioned. If cannabis was viewed in the same light as alcohol, this thread would be about legalising ecstacy and you'd be saying that ecstacy is the first port of call for many harder drug users. It's a weak drug, if you use stronger ones you'll likely have tried weaker ones. Nobody gets hammered on Absinthe their first night drinking.
Odysseus wrote: » Interesting viewpoint, what do you think on the "sabotage" issue?
Odysseus wrote: » You making a big presumption, if cannabis was legal why would you assume that it would be E that would people would use. We record other drugs that are legal, for example some people start of by using their partent's benzo's, so it would not be a case of E being the one people would start on, why not speed?
Odysseus wrote: » This gateway issue, I have I guess taken over 10,000 drug histories during the course of my career. Now in a high proportion of cases no stats but a educated guess at my own experience 80-90% of those first drug is cannabis somewhere between 11-15 years old. In a drug history for various reasons alcohol is ont noted as a drug, though in a most cases it does predate the use of another substance. However, I don't just to get bogged down in that. Most people moved to different drug for a different reason than the dealer trying to offer it to them. Now I mostly see those for whom it has become a problem, if it is not a problem for a person, they rarely see the inside of my facility, that has to be factored in. So trying cannabis do not mean you will try other drugs but it is often the first port of call for people who become addicted to more problematic drugs. However, I don't think the "dealer" is too much of a factor in it. Edit: to be fair, I just had a think on it I think 10,000 is a subjective quickly and wrongly thought out number. I think around 5,000 over the past 13 years would be more correct, as a rough quess.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3ddfd076fd3c000cfcddbf88e991f27f.svg)
