Reefer madness....

[kapkomet]

Just pass the crap on around, will ya?

[DABearSoX]

Just pass the crap on around, will ya?

 

to the left hand side

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree, i think there would be a huge spike in usage for quite some time

I'm still trying to figure this post out (no, I'm not high. )

 

Is this a good thing because there will be more tax dollars to spend? Or do you think it's a bad thing that usage of pot will, IMO, temporarily increase due to people trying it out because it's legal, people doing it because it will likely become a fad by some hollywood type, or that current pot smokers will admit to smoking it with out feeling embarrased or insecure.

[Sonik22]

Freddy is apparently interested in getting traded to the Rockies.

[samclemens]

I'm still trying to figure this post out (no, I'm not high. )

 

Is this a good thing because there will be more tax dollars to spend? Or do you think it's a bad thing that usage of pot will, IMO, temporarily increase due to people trying it out because it's legal, people doing it because it will likely become a fad by some hollywood type, or that current pot smokers will admit to smoking it with out feeling embarrased or insecure.

 

i meant that usage would increase, and it would not be good. if you are claiming that usage would eventually decrease to current levels after a spike if its legalized, i cant agree with you. i think usage would stay higher permanently. and i think thats a bad thing.

[Balta1701]

Freddy is apparently interested in getting traded to the Rockies.

The Rockies might have problems with that for other reasons...

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i meant that usage would increase, and it would not be good. if you are claiming that usage would eventually decrease to current levels after a spike if its legalized, i cant agree with you. i think usage would stay higher permanently. and i think thats a bad thing.

Why would it be a bad thing?

 

How did the prohibition with alcohol work out?

 

This was brought up in another thread, but the original poster never responded to the comment, is anyone concerned about stoned drivers.

 

I'm certainly not advocating driving stoned, if I had a choice to remove all of the drunk drivers in the world with a stoned driver, I'd do in a heartbeat. IMO legalizing pot would result in less alcohol abusers, less drunk driving, less accidents, and a lot less vehicle related-deaths.

 

There has been a lot of research on stoned driving, and the results are interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=15094417

Respondents were interviewed and asked for a urine sample. If no urine sample could be collected, a blood sample was requested. All blood and urine samples were tested for alcohol and a number of licit and illicit drugs. The main outcome measures were odds ratios (OR) for injury crash associated with single or multiple use of several drugs by drivers. The risk for road trauma was increased for single use of benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 5.1 (95% Cl: 1.8-14.0)) and alcohol (blood alcohol concentrations of 0.50-0.79 g/l, adjusted OR 5.5 (95% Cl: 1.3-23.2) and >or=0.8 g/l, adjusted OR 15.5 (95% Cl: 7.1-33.9)). High relative risks were estimated for drivers using combinations of drugs (adjusted OR 6.1 (95% Cl: 2.6-14.1)) and those using a combination of drugs and alcohol (OR 112.2 (95% Cl: 14.1-892)). Increased risks, although not statistically significantly, were assessed for drivers using amphetamines, cocaine, or opiates. No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis. The study concludes that drug use, especially alcohol, benzodiazepines and multiple drug use and drug-alcohol combinations, among vehicle drivers increases the risk for a road trauma accident requiring hospitalisation.

Note the bolded part.

Edited August 11, 2006 by santo=dorf

[samclemens]

santo,

 

i completely agree with you on the research you are citing. i would replace all drunk drivers with stoned drivers too. and the same goes for violent crime. the correlation is unbeleivable, last i heard it cited it was like 80% of rapes and higher for murders involve booze.

 

at the same time, i am against legalizing pot. some people deny the "gateway" theory, but i think its true because i have seen it happen to many people around me. there are very few stoners out there who havent used other, more dangerous drugs. weed is a gateway drug to harder drugs. at least thats what i think, though i can totally see where you are coming from.

Edited August 11, 2006 by samclemens

[santo=dorf]

So the first drug your friend(s) did before the "hard" stuff was pot? They didn't drink alcohol (which is illegal if you are under 21,) or smoke a cigarette (Illegal if you are 18?)

 

Weird. Your friend(s) make up 1% of anyone who has ever smoked pot. (From P&T Bulls***.)

 

Personally I feel if people really wanted to mess with their bodies and alcohol and pot were legal, they wouldn't need the harder, illegal stuff.

[Texsox]

So the first drug your friend(s) did before the "hard" stuff was pot? They didn't drink alcohol (which is illegal if you are under 21,) or smoke a cigarette (Illegal if you are 18?)

 

Weird. Your friend(s) make up 1% of anyone who has ever smoked pot. (From P&T Bulls***.)

 

Personally I feel if people really wanted to mess with their bodies and alcohol and pot were legal, they wouldn't need the harder, illegal stuff.

 

I believe the gateway comes into play more on the method of purchase. What is the hardest drug the local convinience store sells? The one he bought the cigarettes from? What is the hardest drug the liquor store sells? Now what is the hardest drug that the guy who is supplying his pot sells?

 

If you legalize pot, I don't think it will cause more people to try harder drugs. In fact. I think it would cause less people to. But I do agree it is a gateway. The user accepts illegal activity, they now have access to illegal drugs, the user now has everything necessary for harder drug use.

[YASNY]

I believe the gateway comes into play more on the method of purchase. What is the hardest drug the local convinience store sells? The one he bought the cigarettes from? What is the hardest drug the liquor store sells? Now what is the hardest drug that the guy who is supplying his pot sells?

 

If you legalize pot, I don't think it will cause more people to try harder drugs. In fact. I think it would cause less people to. But I do agree it is a gateway. The user accepts illegal activity, they now have access to illegal drugs, the user now has everything necessary for harder drug use.

 

Which, basically, is one arguement for the legaization of pot. If you eliminate the need to go to dealer to get pot, then user acceptance of illegal activity is no longer part of the equation.

[samclemens]

So the first drug your friend(s) did before the "hard" stuff was pot? They didn't drink alcohol (which is illegal if you are under 21,) or smoke a cigarette (Illegal if you are 18?)

 

Weird. Your friend(s) make up 1% of anyone who has ever smoked pot. (From P&T Bulls***.)

 

Personally I feel if people really wanted to mess with their bodies and alcohol and pot were legal, they wouldn't need the harder, illegal stuff.

 

Of course they drank before they were 21. i did, you probably did, and 99% of people do. in my experience, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol was not what brought harder drugs into the frey. it was pot, eventually. theres a huge difference between a teenager stealing booze from their parents and a teenager hanging around with drug dealers. drug dealers will always push something harder.

 

you are referring to cigarettes and alcohol as drugs. alcohol i agree, but cigarettes, no- and both are not illegal.

 

i cant beleive that the people i know are 1% of all people who smoke weed. the normal progression of drug use has touched every single person who smokes weed (smoke for a while, maybe years, until something else is comes around, be it mushrooms, acid, eventually coke- and thats what got the people i know), unless they have a great amount of self-discipline. weed is just another drug generally used to escape- that is why making the jump to something harder is not a big deal to some people. they are just looking for the next high.

 

its unrealistic to say that 99% of people who smoke weed never make the jump to a harder drug. at least, i think thats what you are saying.

[StrangeSox]

Of course they drank before they were 21. i did, you probably did, and 99% of people do. in my experience, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol was not what brought harder drugs into the frey. it was pot, eventually. theres a huge difference between a teenager stealing booze from their parents and a teenager hanging around with drug dealers. drug dealers will always push something harder.

 

So wouldn't legalizing it, thereby removing it from drug dealers' hands, decrease the likelyhood of it being a "gateway drug?" If it were available on the shelf next to cigarettes and vodka, it'd be no more of a "gateway" than those drugs.

 

you are referring to cigarettes and alcohol as drugs. alcohol i agree, but cigarettes, no- and both are not illegal.

 

But why should alcohol be legal and marijuana shouldn't?

Edited August 11, 2006 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Which, basically, is one arguement for the legaization of pot. If you eliminate the need to go to dealer to get pot, then user acceptance of illegal activity is no longer part of the equation.

great point.

[samclemens]

you all make a valid point about dealers. i cant say putting it on shelves would eliminte the gateway effect comepletely, but it would certainly decrease it substantially.

[Texsox]

But why should alcohol be legal and marijuana shouldn't?

 

Many scholars and legal experts would agree that the reason is partially or mostly racist. Minorities (blacks primarily) smoked pot and nice WASPs drank gin.

[kapkomet]

Many scholars and legal experts would agree that the reason is partially or mostly racist. Minorities (blacks primarily) smoked pot and nice WASPs drank gin.

This is true, if you go back to the early 20th century. A lot of those laws had influences back to those times. Prohibition, notwithstanding.

[Soxbadger]

Marijuana was the drug of mexicans and blacks.

 

Opium was the drug of Asians.

 

Alcohol was the drug of Europeans.

 

Tobacco was the drug of Europeans.

 

As for the gateway affect, honestly I do not believe it. Marijuana is not the gateway, underage drinking is. If you meet some one who has not yet drank, it is almost impossible to get them to smoke. But once you get them to drink, then getting them to smoke is so easy.

 

Why?

 

Trust. When teenagers drink and dont die, or there are no ill effects, they trust the people who told them, "Dont worry drinking wont really do that much." Then when that same person says "Dont worry taking a hit wont hurt you either", they believe them. They dont believe their parents or television, because teenagers can see when they are just selling them a bunch of lies.

 

You want to really attack drugs, get scientific research that shows how taking that drug will shorten your life. We may never get rid of cigarrettes, but science is making many people think twice about their habit. Because the govt wants to just use propaganda on the war on drugs, and not do actual research into the effects of marijuana it will always be the top illegal drug. The govt wont do the research because there is a risk if they do it, like Laguardia, they will find out marijuana has almost no health risks, and if that is the case how can they keep it illegal?

 

If the govt truely wants to battle addiction, it needs to take the approach that, people are going to do drugs no matter what. The only way to change most people's minds, is to give them the information and let them make the choice.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course they drank before they were 21. i did, you probably did, and 99% of people do. in my experience, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol was not what brought harder drugs into the frey. it was pot, eventually. theres a huge difference between a teenager stealing booze from their parents and a teenager hanging around with drug dealers. drug dealers will always push something harder.

 

you are referring to cigarettes and alcohol as drugs. alcohol i agree, but cigarettes, no- and both are not illegal.

 

i cant beleive that the people i know are 1% of all people who smoke weed. the normal progression of drug use has touched every single person who smokes weed (smoke for a while, maybe years, until something else is comes around, be it mushrooms, acid, eventually coke- and thats what got the people i know), unless they have a great amount of self-discipline. weed is just another drug generally used to escape- that is why making the jump to something harder is not a big deal to some people. they are just looking for the next high.

 

its unrealistic to say that 99% of people who smoke weed never make the jump to a harder drug. at least, i think thats what you are saying.

No, no, no.

 

I'm saying 99% of pot smokers used alcohol or tobacco before moving onto pot or harder stuff. (at least that was from the show.)

 

I ahve friends in the same situation as you, but it ALL started with alcohol. They drank when they were 15. Didn't like spending so much money on alcohol and hated the after effects of its abuse, so they started smoking pot. Once they started hanging out with the wrong people, they started the other stuff. Those other people brought into their lives by buying drugs.

 

If pot was sold legally in a store, I doubt my friends would have ever started hanging around those people and not gotten themselves into the situations they are in now. To be fair, they do drugs, but they work for a living and have a good time. They pay their taxes, they don't harm other individuals, and most of the time do their things at their apartment or whatever.