Printable View
I don't know how I feel about making pot legal, but I do know that the smell of it INSTATLY makes me feel like I have to throw up. I'm seriously allergic to it and to cigarette smoke. It will give me a migraine for over a day. I don't smoke it.. this is all just from second hand stuff at concerts or city bus stops :rolleyes:
I think it's disgusting, just like cigarettes, and I think it's stupid to smoke it. But that's just me. As long as no one smokes it around me, I don't really care.
This is a great debate. Here's my opinion, FWIW.
I think some people are prone to addiction, be it alcohol, other drugs, food, the Internet...
There are others who think "everything in moderation, including moderation." I tend to be in that group. Life's too short not to indulge oneself occasionally.
Oh, and about legalization: I have a Libertarian mindset, not the extreme survivalist part, but the part that the government ought to be limited in what it can and cannot impose on the citizenry. I think there should be a strong line drawn between what may go on in one's home and what may go on in public. Personal responsibility must play a part. No one wants to be responsible for their own actions in the US anymore. Why else are there so many lawsuits?
The short answer: legalize and tax it. This may seem contradictory to the above, the US needs to wean itself off the huge deficit.
I'd rather Uncle Sam (or for non-US citizens, the equivalent) use the money for the people than have gangs and organized crime get it.
Most people in the US grow their own anyway, I think. ;)
Smokey, I'm so glad you replied to this thread!!! (seriously). I've been reading up on libertarianism (to impress a guy, yes I admit it!).... anyway. I'd love to hear more about your views if you were so inclined.
Believe it or not, one of the most eloquent arguments for legalizing all drugs was penned by William F. Buckley, Jr (the ultra-conservative who started "National Revew").
I'll see if I can find a link to it.
The voices of reason speak eloquently, thank you :cool:
CSPAN "Washington Journal" did a call-in show this morning, equal time for those who would or would not vote for a candidate for high office who admitted smoking marijuana.
One of their editors must read Pet Talk!:)
I found the following by doing a search on Legalizing Drugs/William F. Buckley. Not what I was looking for, but pertinent. (apologies for not locating the name of the author).
ANTIREEFER MADNESS
March 23, 1997
The success of medical marijuana initiatives in Arizona and California in last fall's elections prompted the predictable response from Drug Warriors. However, two mundane experiences from the real world demonstrate that these rantings amount to, as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, "sound and fury signifying nothing."
When I was in boot camp in 1983, I had my wisdom teeth pulled. The dentist, a Navy commander, gave me an industrial strength dose of pain killers. During the operation, and for about two hours afterward, I was barely able to speak coherently, let alone drive a car, fly an airplane, or operate a table saw.
I have a co-worker who is an active tennis and roller hockey player. By anyone's reckoning, he is in superb health. That is, except for his diabetes, for which he takes daily injections of insulin. From time to time, this insulin produces feelings of lightheadedness and, as he describes it, makes him "feel drunk."
Both novocain and insulin have characteristics which, under other circumstances, would cause them to be illegal. Republicans would argue that, because these drugs make you goofy, they should be outlawed. Democrats would argue that these drugs are not 100 percent safe and that they should, therefore, be outlawed. Doctors prescribe them routinely to countless people, many of whom would never so much as drink a beer or smoke a cigarette. There is no epidemic of novocain or insulin use, or any criminal subculture trafficking in these drugs.
Marijuana, on the other hand, does not have the blessing of the FDA, the DEA, the AMA or any of the other alphabet soup organizations which act as our medical gatekeepers. Even though many legal substances have the same effects as marijuana, a veritable propaganda jihad is being waged to make sure that marijuana remains illegal in all circumstances. This is happening despite the fact that marijuana has been shown to have very positive medicinal benefits for people suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, migraines, and other maladies.
Opponents of medical marijuana argue that there are already legal drugs which produce benefits similar to marijuana, and that medical marijuana is therefore not necessary. Medical evidence reveals that marijuana works faster than other drugs to relieve certain forms of suffering, and that dosages of marijuana are easier to regulate on a case by case basis. Marijuana is also less expensive than other remedies. The decision whether or not to use marijuana ought to remain between doctors and patients.
Some say that marijuana should remain illegal because it has never been tested medicinally. Well, gee, I wonder why. I mean, like, you could go to jail for doing studies with results which might, you know like, help people. Actually, there have been several tests of marijuana for medicinal proposes, which have discovered, among other things, that marijuana smoking can cure glaucoma. The whole business of outlawing even the testing of medical marijuana points up just one more unintended consequence of the Drug War.
Some say that marijuana should remain illegal in all circumstances because it is a "gateway drug", the use of which "leads to" the use of harder drugs. The huge majority of people who smoke marijuana never become potheads, much less go on to use anything stronger. Moreover, why do we draw the line with marijuana? Haven't most crackheads also used alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine? Why do not these drugs "lead to" crack addiction? Should we not, therefore, also outlaw these drugs? (William F. Buckley points out that all rapists have at one time or another masturbated. Is masturbation a "gateway " behavior, which should also be criminalized?)
Conservatives, who so rightfully inveigh against political correctness, have made drug prohibition the object of more political correctness than any other issue. Whenever someone raises the subject of ending the Drug War, or even legalizing medical marijuana, liberals and conservatives alike descend on that person as if they had suggested that the earth was flat. They are far more concerned with spouting the party line than they are with providing any kind of serious defense for their position.
If marijuana were 100 percent safe, it would be the only 100 percent safe substance on the planet. There are plenty of drugs available, which do wonderful things for countless people, in spite of their harmful side effects. Novocain and insulin are just two cases in point. I am allergic to a family of drugs known as sulfa drugs, which no doubt benefit numerous people. There are even people who are allergic to penicillin. I would not recommend getting behind a steering wheel immediately after a belt of Nyquil.
Even if you favor the Drug War, opposition to medicinal use of marijuana represents the same brand of fanaticism which, in the 1940s, led the United States to send thousands of Japanese-Americans to internment camps on the name of fighting Japan. Ironically, Japanese-Americans who were allowed to join the military were among the most decorated servicemen of World War II. Likewise, marijuana, if legalized for medical purposes, may prove one of the safest, most effective, and most inexpensive drugs available. The real crime is that the government, for no good reason, may jail you for even investigating this possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition 215, California's Medical Marijuana Initiative
I have to warn you: the story I'm about to tell you has no documentable provenance. But, I have heard that the criminalization of marijuana was pushed by, of all things, the forest product industry! The hemp plant is not just good for pharmaceuticals. Hemp fiber is one of the best sources of cellulose. There is a good reason why hemp rope was highly prized.
The FP industry wanted to use trees for paper, not easily grown "weeds."
Hemp grows 15 feet in a season. The cellulose yield is many times that of a tree stand.
Male hemp seeds are highly nutricious and have no active ingredient.
"Reefer Madness" is paper industry propaganda, nothing more!
As far as the wider issue of "legislating morality" that's a touchy thing. Those who are pro say that one's actions affect the society, i. e. taxpayers, so they should be regulated. These are Federalists, whether they are Democratic or Republican.
Libertarians are basically descended from Jeffersonian Democrats, no relation to today's party. Two more opposite philosophies you couldn't find.
L. Neil Smith is a Libertarian science fiction writer. He envisions a society which would be considered anarchy by today's standards. It's almost tribal, but mercantilism, not federalism, is the glue that holds it together.
So much for my Sunday soap box!
It is odd that our goverment would ban a farm crop which could thrive on marginal acreage, supplant cotton in particular.
And they know better. I went to college at U of Illinois when marijuana grew in every fencerow. The military grew hemp for rope during WW11 at Rantoul Air Force Base near there, and this common weed was a joke to us.
It had low THC, you could smoke a joint of it and all you got was a headache. It was called "dump dope" because it was so plentiful at the local landfill. Why not develop hybrid strains with zero THC, and allow it to be produced for fiber?
Thanks Smokey, for the tip on L. Neil Smith. Sounds like interesting reading.
My last word on this is, I cannot understand why people choose to take drugs when they donot need to, I have no choice but to take painkillers regularly and other medications for health reasons, I would prefer not to have to take them, as I donot know the long term effect, if I Choose not to , then my life would not be worth living., as the quality of life would be zero.
So for me smoking dope, is something I just cannot get my head around, why poisen your body and mind when you DONOT HAVE TO.
So would you approve of the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes?Quote:
Originally posted by carole
My last word on this is, I cannot understand why people choose to take drugs when they donot need to, I have no choice but to take painkillers regularly and other medications for health reasons, I would prefer not to have to take them, as I donot know the long term effect, if I Choose not to , then my life would not be worth living., as the quality of life would be zero.
So for me smoking dope, is something I just cannot get my head around, why poisen your body and mind when you DONOT HAVE TO.
In answer to your question YES I would, although this may sound contradictory I am not 100 per cent against legalisation , because many people have put forward valid reasons I agree with, it would cut down on the gang crime, which is rife here in NZ too, I Would however like to see it taxed to the hilt.
It is your choice to smoke or not to smoke, I just simply cannot understand it, I could choose to smoke dack if it were legal for pain relief, however i would choose NOT TOO, the pain relief I take now, does not alter my head in anyway, its mild, whether it will have some long term effect on my body, well I probably will never know.
Its just hard for me to get my head around it all, I would do anything in the world not to have to take pills of any kind, and yet other people, harm their lungs, their minds, simply for recreation, I can understand experienting, been there , done that, but as maturity sets in I just feel its plain dumb, just my very honest opinion, I have very stong views,I realise this, but thats just how I feel personally, each to their own I suppose.
I see. :)Quote:
Originally posted by carole
In answer to your question YES I would, although this may sound contradictory I am not 100 per cent against legalisation , because many people have put forward valid reasons I agree with, it would cut down on the gang crime, which is rife here in NZ too, I Would however like to see it taxed to the hilt.
It is your choice to smoke or not to smoke, I just simply cannot understand it, I could choose to smoke dack if it were legal for pain relief, however i would choose NOT TOO, the pain relief I take now, does not alter my head in anyway, its mild, whether it will have some long term effect on my body, well I probably will never know.
Its just hard for me to get my head around it all, I would do anything in the world not to have to take pills of any kind, and yet other people, harm their lungs, their minds, simply for recreation, I can understand experienting, been there , done that, but as maturity sets in I just feel its plain dumb, just my very honest opinion, I have very stong views,I realise this, but thats just how I feel personally, each to their own I suppose.
I wasn't really questioning you on it, I was just curious as it wasn't quite clear in your other post. But you made yourself clear now, thanks.
As for me I don't really care one way or the other.
No problem, just wanted to make myself clear.:)
frank sinatra was a pot head......
look at "strangers in the night"
Doobie doobie doo......
see, told ya!
I believe the lyrics from Blue Eyes went "Scooby, doobie, do...do,do,do,dee dah.."
Which might go a ways towards explaining that cartoon dude with the bleary disheveled appearance.
Everyone knows the Rat Pack were boozers!