[El Zilcho]

Legalizing it would not only reduce spending on fighting a war that will never end, it will produce new tax revenue, and reverse the punishment culture. If the government focused instead on rehabilitation, we'd all be better off for it. Such liberal policies work in the Netherlands, and their consumption is apparently lower than in the UK - it is so blatantly obvious that draconian methods get no where, I'm surprised we are still perpetuating such backward tactics.

Decriminalize, Liberalise, Educate. Don't punish people who possess it.

[tj11]

I don't smoke the stuff. But I think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to be telling us we can't smoke weed, while at the same time raking in billions in tobacco taxes.

[ThEtRuThSANANDREAS69]

I think beyond the harmful effects, and there is a legitimate reason for that. Everything around us, coffee, car fumes, cigarettes, second hand smoke, having a laptop on your lap, jet fumes, smog, cell phones, TV, almost everything we have created in this society is bad for us. But how many deaths have there been from marijuana? none, so why is it illegal??

It has nothing to do with "harmful" efftects or anything. It's because America is run by corporations, they have the money, they have the power. hemp is more efficient for paper than trees. So the paper industry would lose if marijuana was legalized. Hemp is more efficient for clothing than cotton, nylon etc. so the textile industry would lose if marijuana was legalized. Hemp can make concrete for houses that won't rot and keep heat inside the house. Hemp can make clean, efficient fuel. Oil industry loses if pots legalized. Hemp requires NO pesticides, and can create high quality protein for animal and human food. It is also a cash crop- hauling in more money than anything else americans harvest. Question to the TAX PAYERS: do you like billions and billions of your money wasted to stop harmless pot growers? Or to keep people in jail who got caught smokin a J and minding their own business? Because its happening, do the research. Instead that could be used to..idk..HELP the country? Plus add the money that pot would bring in, and we could be way closer to solving our economic issues, instead of giving banks...ALOT of money.

Hemp cultivation was banned in 1937 because it competed with the oil, chemical and timber industries, not because of drug abuse.

(I smoke weed, ALOT, and still go to a CC and play football and wrestle. i go to school high and concentrate better, i go to practice high and can go harder for longer. its only bad for you when sit around ALL day, EVERY day just smoking and eating.)

And so what if people smoke it now and then? if legalized, we wont have to worry about street pot dealers. no one will buy from some guy on the street when they can go get safe, dank cannabis cheap at a store (if legalized). There are ZERO recorded deaths related to marijuana, and its been in our history as long as..well, we have.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (ThEtRuThSANANDREAS69 @ Wednesday, May 9 2012, 19:52)

hemp is more efficient for paper than trees. So the paper industry would lose if marijuana was legalized. Hemp is more efficient for clothing than cotton, nylon etc. so the textile industry would lose if marijuana was legalized. Hemp can make concrete for houses that won't rot and keep heat inside the house. Hemp can make clean, efficient fuel. Oil industry loses if pots legalized.

I hear this argument a lot, but it doesn't make sense. The simple fact of the matter is that you can get hemp used for all these purposes, even in countries where cannabis is criminalised. There are at least four US states which have legalised the large-scale growing of hemp for the purposes of producing raw materials from, and at least one actively growing hemp despite protestations from the DEA. It's produced legally in many places- though often there are restrictions on the variety of plants that can be grown to stop profiteering from selling for narcotic purposes. Countries like France and Spain produce very large quantities of hemp, and even the UK grows some.

Also, hemp is no better for producing biofuel than any other plant; in fact, it's considerably worse than very high starch crops like wheat, switchgrass and corn.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Wednesday, May 9 2012, 20:18

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 9 2012, 13:10)

There are at least four US states which have legalised the large-scale growing of hemp for the purposes of producing raw materials from, and at least one actively growing hemp despite protestations from the DEA.

I live in one of those states!

and am very proud of it.

[Irviding]

But sivis, remember that the DEA still has the authority to go and arrest hemp farmers in states that legalize it if they want to.

[ThEtRuThSANANDREAS69]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, May 10 2012, 01:07)

But sivis, remember that the DEA still has the authority to go and arrest hemp farmers in states that legalize it if they want to.

aww, beat me to it. IDK how other countries work, but the "legalization" in america is BULLsh*t. Its a STATE law, so the local police dept. cant do sh*t to you (if you have all the permits and what not). But the FEDS can bust anyone, anywhere at anytime. it doesnt matter if you have your permits in California, the feds can f*ck you over whenever. And 4 states growing a small percentage of hemp doesnt mean we have access to it in the form of those materials (paper, clothes, etc.) in fact, the only way you can get hemp other than the internet is in head shops or glass shops or special clothing stores. and its expensive as f*ck, even though its easier and less harmful to produce products out of what resources we're using now. So no, the simple fact of the matter isnt we can get it.

i see this quote in this forum alot and its the DAMN truth
LEGALIZE
NOT LEGAL LIES
do the research, im tellin you, its worth it!

A friendly word of advice, keep the posts within house rules for the subforum please

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Thursday, May 10 2012, 06:54

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

Also, hemp is no better for producing biofuel than any other plant; in fact, it's considerably worse than very high starch crops like wheat, switchgrass and corn.

Can you provide stats to why it's not as good as corn? I'm not trying to be a punk and jab at you, I just feel different given my agriculturally experience growing up.

I grew up in farm land, not too far from where commercial corn fields are and absolutely where weed can be grown. I have to call it "weed" for a reason here, you can literally grow it like a weed in a lot of places around my stomping grounds.

I have not grown "weed" but I do know that it's pretty easy to grow (provided law enfacement isn't on your tail). Corn, I have grown, it's no a pain, but I must say, it's a lot of work and you don't get much other than food/feed stock. The yield is good for food/feed but other than that it's not a good biofuel stock compared to "weed" or algae.

Marijuana is also an excellent nitrogen fixer, it's great crop to help improve soil quality.

[sivispacem]

It does depend how you look at it. Un terms of production per acre, its way up there and there are advantages including the ease of growing. But it lags well behind grains, sugarcane and rapeseed in energy outputs. I found a good article on it (I'll post a link when I'm not on my phone) that claims natural grasses have the best balance between ease of growing and power output per kg.

[Noob_Noobersson]

All drugs should be legalised and regulated....criminalization of narcotics is not the answer....

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Noob_Noobersson @ Monday, May 14 2012, 18:39)

All drugs should be legalised and regulated....criminalization of narcotics is not the answer....

Care to quantify this in any way, or are you just going to make sweeping generalised statements without backing them up?

[Noob_Noobersson]

People will always use drugs....Always--this will not ever stop...ever...its in our genes.

Now....drug use can create some serious health risks, amongst many other social problems.

But I don't see how its a governments job to police what people choose to do with their bodies....I just don't see it.

The answer to the drug problem is not mass incarcerations.......Its decriminalization and then regulation.....

So people can buy their drugs from a dispensary. This can effectively minimize the social problems with drug use b/c more people would get information on addiction and treatment earlier. It would decrease the public stigma attached to addiction and drug abuse, and it would put the drug distribution into the hands of state run dispensaries.

It would render low-level street dealing obsolete, b/c it would no longer be profitable. It would reduce large scale operations b/c it would no longer be worth the risk.

Why make meth if you could go buy it discretely, cheaply, and be guaranteed a high quality product.

I believe that we would still incarcerate anyone selling drugs without proper state licensing, we would still spend money on anti-drug campaign and encourage people not to use drugs.

But if people choose to use---then we provide them with as safe an avenue for use as possible, all the while educating them about possible health risks, signs of addiction, and access to treatment facilities.

taxes on drugs would go to fund rehab centers, anti-drug programs, and education campaigns.

I believe that this plan would also go a long way to curb cartel violence across the world b/c cartel could incorporate and legitimize their drug sales. They would have to adopt actual civil, semi-ethical business practices to compete for large orders from world governments.

Prohibition did not work in the twenties and it led to organized criminal enterprise and escalating violence---and look at drug prohibition---it did the same thing....AMAZING!!!

Not to mention the soaring cost of incarcerating MILLIONS of low-level offenders.....people who get caught selling $200 worth of crack and we spend tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to lock them up for a few years. Then they get out, with no skills, no prospects, and see selling drugs as their most profitable avenue to enjoy a comfortable life---and they go back to prison again and again.

Bottom line. If you want to reduce the amount of non-violent lo-level drug offenders in teh prisons, and want to stop throwing money away on a losing war--then end the drug war, legitimize the drug trade, and decriminalize use and possession.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (Noob_Noobersson @ Monday, May 14 2012, 12:50)

But I don't see how its a governments job to police what people choose to do with their bodies....I just don't see it.

What if, for example, someone was having a bad trip on LSD and decided to go out and stab someone, unaware of what they were doing due to the influence of the drug?* The government has a duty to protect society at large (well, depending on your view), so if they can demonstrate Event A (taking the drug) can possibly lead to Event B (having a bad reaction a drug and causing harm to someone), then they're pretty much obligated to step in and prevent Event A from occurring.

In short, it's not so much that they're looking out for what you're putting in your body, but what could happen to the others around you if you decided to do so.

What I said, though, doesn't apply to marijuana (at least in my opinion). The worst I've seen from pot smokers is they'll eat your food without asking you.

*I'm not sure what it's like to trip on LSD, so this could be a terrible example. It's also a bit extreme, but hopefully the idea I'm trying to get across is there.

[EDIT] Changed the wording slightly.

This post has been edited by Icarus on Monday, May 14 2012, 22:22

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Noob_Noobersson @ Monday, May 14 2012, 18:50)

People will always use drugs....Always--this will not ever stop...ever...its in our genes.

How the f*ck is drug use in our genes? I think it's more about the society that we live in.

[Noob_Noobersson]

LSD is not going to make you go out and stab someone....If you do--then you should be arrested similarly to like you would be if you were drunk driving and killed someone.

I've eaten LSD literally hundreds of times and I never thought it would be a good idea to stab someone....it doesn't work like that.

You may be high, but anyone with an ounce of sanity is not going to think inflicting bodily harm on someone else is a good idea.

We allow alcohol--and by that--we should allow other drugs. Its completely hypocritical to allow one but not the others.

If you want to increase penalties for doing stupid things under the influence---I would be fine with that (within reason), but I don't see drug use amongst mature adults (21+) as a necessarily dangerous thing..i.e. a danger to the publics well-being.

to Butters: Geneticists have discovered certain genetic factors that lead people to be more prone to substance abuse/misuse/dependence. Going back all through history, people have sought out new experiences, and ways to alter perception---its a very human thing. We are sort of build to have this innate curiousity about our perceptions and we seek out ways to alter those perceptions from a very very young age.

One could point out children spinning around in a circle until they fall down as a very simple example of how, from a very young age, we are searching our environment for ways to feel different, alter our senses.

You could examine many ancient cultures use of alcohol, and intoxicating herbs in ancient ceremonies to show that human history has always placed a certain value on shifting our perception....

Its all very human, its part of us.

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Noob_Noobersson @ Monday, May 14 2012, 22:48)

to Butters: Geneticists have discovered certain genetic factors that lead people to be more prone to substance abuse/misuse/dependence. Going back all through history, people have sought out new experiences, and ways to alter perception---its a very human thing. We are sort of build to have this innate curiousity about our perceptions and we seek out ways to alter those perceptions from a very very young age. One could point out children spinning around in a circle until they fall down as a very simple example of how, from a very young age, we are searching our environment for ways to feel different, alter our senses. You could examine many ancient cultures use of alcohol, and intoxicating herbs in ancient ceremonies to show that human history has always placed a certain value on shifting our perception.... Its all very human, its part of us.

I'm still not agreeing with the point you are trying to get at. Kids spinning around in a spot and whatnot is due to them learning new things and trying it out, not to do with the fact that they are prone to try drugs out when they grow older. Yes, people are always aiming to try something new out, but why does this have to come down to drugs? Why isn't it just the fact that people want to try a new experience because that's what life is about? Some idiota may have 'proved' this in some test, but I just call it utter bullsh*t. People try drugs out because it's a choice thye make in their life, whether it be to hide from the problems they face in their life, to fit in with society, or to just try the experience out. Kids spin around because they want to see what happens...people take drugs because they want to see what happens...

[Noob_Noobersson]

So you don't buy that human being are curious and we find ways to explore our environment searching for stimuli to alter our senses....or you do buy that but you refuse to acknowledge drugs as an example of exploring our environment?


The spinning doesn't make kids prone to drug use...its an example of how we are curious---from a young age, about ways to feel different.

Genetic predispositions is another argument altogether.

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Noob_Noobersson @ Monday, May 14 2012, 23:48)

So you don't buy that human being are curious and we find ways to explore our environment searching for stimuli to alter our senses....or you do buy that but you refuse to acknowledge drugs as an example of exploring our environment? The spinning doesn't make kids prone to drug use...its an example of how we are curious---from a young age, about ways to feel different. Genetic predispositions is another argument altogether.

You're missing my point entirely though. What you said in your post was that it's in our genes that we will do drugs, not that it's in our genes to try out new experiences. Yes, drugs give you a new perspective and alterations, but the same thing can be said about anything that we do in our life. Life is about living and exploring everything to it's fullest, so as I said, yes, trying drugs is a new experience and whatnot, but it's not in our genes that we will do drugs. You need to word stuff properly next time.

[Noob_Noobersson]

Scientists have found evidence that drug dependence can be linked to the presence of certain genes in humans....so it is in our genes.

Also....the fact that humans are built the way we are is due to our genetic make-up...so therefore, our curiosity and our ability to explore the world in a way unique from all other species---this allows us to use drugs unlike any other animal.....Drug use is uniquely human--therefore, in our genes.

[Rown]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Monday, May 14 2012, 16:19)

QUOTE (Noob_Noobersson @ Monday, May 14 2012, 12:50) But I don't see how its a governments job to police what people choose to do with their bodies....I just don't see it. What if, for example, someone was having a bad trip on LSD and decided to go out and stab someone, unaware of what they were doing due to the influence of the drug?* The government has a duty to protect society at large (well, depending on your view), so if they can demonstrate Event A (taking the drug) can possibly lead to Event B (having a bad reaction a drug and causing harm to someone), then they're pretty much obligated to step in and prevent Event A from occurring. In short, it's not so much that they're looking out for what you're putting in your body, but what could happen to the others around you if you decided to do so. What I said, though, doesn't apply to marijuana (at least in my opinion). The worst I've seen from pot smokers is they'll eat your food without asking you. *I'm not sure what it's like to trip on LSD, so this could be a terrible example. It's also a bit extreme, but hopefully the idea I'm trying to get across is there. [EDIT] Changed the wording slightly.

See if you played Mass Effect and expanded the Codex's secondary entries enough to learn about Turians you'd find out this (not a spoiler):

QUOTE (Codex)

Turians enjoy broad freedoms. So long as one completes his duties, and does not prevent others from completing theirs, nothing is forbidden. For example, there are no laws against recreational drug use, but if someone is unable to complete his duties due to drug use, his superiors step in. Judicial proceedings are "interventions". Peers express their concern, and try to convince the offender to change. If rehabilitation fails, turians have no qualms about sentencing dangerous individuals to life at hard labor for the state.

So yeah I subscribe to that.

Rown