[AnthMUFC-Champs]

I can honestly say i dont smoke the stuff but in my opion i think it should, there is allot worse stuff out there and at the end of the day it is down to the person if they want to smoke the sh*t or not.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (TheCacti @ May 18 2011, 01:40)

There are grounds for a tax. It's a multi billion dollar industry and the more commerce it generates, the more society could benefit from even the smallest of taxes (e.g. schools, teachers' wages, parks, repairing roads, reducing the deficit, etc etc..)

And why is this our responsibility, specifically? If you feel that more money needs to be raised through taxation, then increase the sales tax, don't expect one group to pay disproportionate taxes.

QUOTE

Are you also anti-taxation of clothing and electronics, and perhaps every other commodity being sold at present? Can you tell me how their respective taxes are "interfering with supply/demand?"

If you're for legalising marijuana with tax, then you're for a marijuana tax on top of the sales tax. If you're just talking about sales tax, you don't need to explicitly state that you're in favour of it, all transactions require sales tax and weed would be no exception. I'm for treating it like a normal commodity.

QUOTE

Comedian David Cross had a very funny bit in one of his stand-up routines about this very subject, and he did a great impersonation of a surgeon hitting a bong before he began an operation on someone; and his whole point was that such a ludicrous situation should never be legally possible.

Well that relates to a specific workplace. Should it be illegal for a surgeon to get baked before going to work? Yes, but those aren't restrictions that would be apart of any bill for legalisation, it's something for hospital authorities to work out - a bill for legalisation wouldn't explicitly list everywhere it's okay to get high at. For a parallel, listening to music is 100% legal, but cops can't walk down the street with headphones in, that's a rule of their job, not a law.

Saying you're for legalising weed with restrictions implies that you're in favour of it not being allowed in public, or only allowing certain companies to produce it, or only letting individuals buy a certain amount at a time or some other arbitrary measures that do nothing positive. Legalise it without restrictions and the appropriate restrictions will appear where necessary, just like with literally everything else.

This post has been edited by Melchior on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 16:05

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10) Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things. Dear God, why?

Several reasons
1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.
2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care.
3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

[ajbns87]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 16:03)

QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33) QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10) Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things. Dear God, why? Several reasons 1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world. 2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care. 3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime. Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

Wise words.

to answer the question, personally I don't care, the laws in Holland seem a lot more relaxed, does it cause any harm there?

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 18 2011, 02:03)

People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.

And what are these negative effects, pray tell? Warlord already went over this, but weed has never been linked to lung cancer or schizophrenia as people love to claim.

But even if you were right, since when do we tax everything that's potentially harmful? I'm not aware of any special taxes for people with high stress jobs or poor diets (who are more prone to medical problems). I'm pretty relaxed, I'm not running the risk of a heart attack, so why should my tax dollars go towards the medical care of a stock broker who has a stoke because of stress, but knew his job was stressful when he took it? I never eat McDonalds, why should I pay to help someone who inhales Big Macs and gets a heart attack?

QUOTE

As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial.

The government needs money, yah. But why is it my responsibility as a weed user to pay more than any other group?

QUOTE

Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

I want it legalised so I can pay the market price, and get it whenever I want. If I'm not paying market price because of tax, and if the sale is restricted in any way, I'm better off continuing to go to a criminal.

QUOTE

Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

I've already addressed this: neither of these examples are parliament's responsibilities. A bill for legalisation wouldn't explicitly list everything it's ok to do while stoned, there are safety authorities who are responsible for people who operate machinery, and I imagine they already have regulations regarding intoxication. Same with driving: if it's a condition of driving on a public road that you be sober, that's got nothing to do with the legalisation debate.

[Warlord.]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 21:33)

QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33) QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10) Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things. Dear God, why? 1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world. 2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care. 3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime. Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

Studies have and are continuing to prove the harmless nature of ganja.

Anti-ganja organisations said ganja kills brain cells, now it's proven it causes neurogenesis, anti-ganja organisations said it causes cancer, today ganja is used to cure all types of cancer and prevent cancers, anti-ganja organisations said it causes schizophrenia, today it's used as a very effective medicine for schizophrenics with great results.

Ganja is harmless, this is a fact of the real world.

Oh and regarding the accidents you spoke of, there hasn't been a single driving accident or work related accident to this date by anyone who has had only ganja in their system. Not one.

Oh and btw Melchior, it's good to see another person who knows the truth about ganja around here.

This post has been edited by Warlord. on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 16:28

[goin-god]

Be it weed, alcohol, or whatever. If it is a drug that affects your state of mind, you shouldnt do anything potentionally dangerous while you are affected by say drug.

But this goes to alcohol and other sustances aswell. So it's not a reason to keep weed ilegal.

[Warlord.]

QUOTE (goin-god @ May 17 2011, 22:00)

Be it weed, alcohol, or whatever. If it is a drug that affects your state of mind, you shouldnt do anything potentionally dangerous while you are affected by say drug. But this goes to alcohol and other sustances aswell. So it's not a reason to keep weed ilegal.

The problem is that people seem to think that just because alcohol impairs one's mind, all substances that change the state of one's mind must do the same.

This cannot be further from the truth.

Tell me, are your senses not elevated when you smoke ganja? Do you not have a better sense of sight, taste, touch, hearing and smell?

How is this impairment?

There are countless people around the world who go about their daily lives stoned. When was the last time you heard of someone accidentally falling off a building because he/she was stoned, getting into a car accident with only ganja in their system or running over people because they were stoned?

This post has been edited by Warlord. on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 16:40

[rhyn]

There are different strains of weed. If you get a high Indica strain you are gonna feel groggy and reflexes will inevitably be reduced. I don't think driving stoned should be legal and I smoke weed almost every day.

[Wipex President Mike]

I think there are long term mental effects in different people if you smoke it alot, this is why I don't think they want it be legalized.
From smoking a hell of a lot back in the day, I can totally understand how weed could make someone completely flip out, I almost did, simply putting out there for ANYONE to pick up stores is very dangerous, so yes and no I think it should/shouldn't be legalized.

I think the doctors prescription legalization should be implemented everywhere,
BUT I don't think it should be legalized for commercial use, we'd have a generation of kids that don't do anything but sit on their arse too high to function.

[darthYENIK]

Yeah, I know I've smoked weed, that has completely immobilized me. Driving while high on any substance is not a good idea.

[sivispacem]

Warlord- we've discussed this before, and from memory it was just a list of claim and counter claim. I know you're a great fan of the stuff but having tried the stuff before (many times) in my student days, did my senses feel heightened? Not a chance. As for the "you don't crash when stoned" comment, well have a look at this peer-review report suggesting quite the opposite. I have absolutely no objection to people using it, I would be an utter hypocrite if I did, but there's a distinction between doing something and accepting risk, and totally denying the possibility that there is any...
Okay then.

Causing cancer (not just lung)-
This one
This one indicates it's a higher risk than tobacco
One on Reuters
Another one here

Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses-
Casual but tangible relationship in "vulnerable minority"
One here (though a smaller study
Another one


Vast majority of those are from legitimate peer-review journals.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 17:18

[Jake]

QUOTE (TUBBSthezombie @ May 17 2011, 02:01)

Legalize it and tax it. Its a $130 billion a year business (estimated of course). Tax it just 10% (sales tax in Washington state is 9%) and theres $13 billion a year profit. Plus the government is better at weeding (lol pun) out the laced stuff. Use similar rules as alcohol.

You would think it should be that simple. We all know how f*cking retarded the Government really is though.


And yes, my state gets taxed way too much.

[Darrel]

I cant think of any reason what so ever for it to be legalized. Its going to create more problems on top of problems

Moral - Not everyone who smokes marijuana will become a drug addict, but every drug addict has smoked marijuana before.

Its just asking for problems, period.

This post has been edited by Darrel on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 17:43

[Warlord.]

QUOTE (Wipex President Mike @ May 17 2011, 22:35)

I think there are long term mental effects in different people if you smoke it alot, this is why I don't think they want it be legalized.

Ganja has been proven to have no changes in brain structure, even with frequent use.

@sivispacem, Indeed we have, but as I told you the last time, don't just take studies for granted without looking at the experiences of people who smoke ganja. This goes for anything.

For example, during the early part of the 20th century there were a lot of 'studies' which claimed how ganja causes brain damage, etc and now independent studies have disproven all of these lies.

There has not been a single person who has developed schizophrenia, cancer or any mental illness because of ganja.

Even if we're going by studies alone, why is it that there are much more studies which speak of how ganja cures and prevents cancer as opposed to causing cancer and how ganja cures mental illnesses as opposed to causing them? Some examples:

How ganja cures all types of cancers:

Breast cancer:

1

2

3

Cervical cancer:

1

Colon cancer:

1

2

3

Brain cancer:

1

2

3

Leukaemia:

1

2

3

Lung cancer:

1

2

3

Smoking ganja does not increase risk of lung cancer:

1

Lymphoma:

1

2

Melanoma:

1

There are studies on testicular, prostate, skin and oral cancer as well. Let me know if you want to see them and I'll post them up.

Ganja is very effective at treating schizophrenia:

1

As for vehicle accidents, please name a single accident caused by a stoned driver. Remember, the person can only have ganja in his/her system.

Oh and everyone I know who smokes reports elevated senses when stoned.

This post has been edited by Warlord. on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 17:56

[sivispacem]

There's much focus on THC, which, yes, is the active ingredient in Cannabis. But it's not the only chemical in it. The idea that it speeds up cell death cycles and therefore prevents cancer spread is one that's been studied a lot, and does appear to be true, but if you read many of those reports carefully, they're discussing "cannaboid-related" or "cannaboid derived" substances rather than THC itself. There's a huge distinction between a study that shows that smoking cannabis is good for you, and one that shows THC-derived chemicals can have a positive effect.

One of the reports I posted goes into some depth about cannaboids ability to suppress production of the chemical that discourages the formation of tumours. So it's by no means a scientific consensus.

I do base my views on the experiences of people I know who have used it regularly for prolonged periods of time. In the vast majority of cases, they've had no more serious consequences than smokers such as myself. But similarly, they've not experienced any tangible benefit from it, either. Others have experienced serious side effects such as paranoia, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, Parkinson-esque jitters and other mental issues- in fact a friend of mine killed themselves in Berkshire a few years ago, having been in an out of various hospitals and organisations, with paranoia and psychosis that not only doctors, but also the sufferer, were convinced was from prolonged cannabis use in their youth.

See the report I posted for examples of elevated risk of car accidents.

Oddly, I don't know a single person who experiences heightened senses when stoned. Interestingly, in the UK, there was a fashion a few years back for regular cannabis users to indulge in disassociative anaesthetics like Ketamine on a regular basis. I can certainly see similarities in the experience, especially at non-anaesthetic doses. Personally, I think you'd struggle to argue that either has any positive effect on the senses- but then again, a perception of heightened senses is very different to the reality.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 18:07

[Mike Tequeli]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 17:06)

Warlord- we've discussed this before, and from memory it was just a list of claim and counter claim. I know you're a great fan of the stuff but having tried the stuff before (many times) in my student days, did my senses feel heightened? Not a chance. As for the "you don't crash when stoned" comment, well have a look at this peer-review report suggesting quite the opposite. I have absolutely no objection to people using it, I would be an utter hypocrite if I did, but there's a distinction between doing something and accepting risk, and totally denying the possibility that there is any... Okay then. Causing cancer (not just lung)- This one This one indicates it's a higher risk than tobacco One on Reuters Another one here Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses- Casual but tangible relationship in "vulnerable minority" One here (though a smaller study Another one Vast majority of those are from legitimate peer-review journals.

I will be the first to admit that burnt plant matter in the lungs is not good for you, although there is nothing inherently carcinogenic about THC, which I believe most of those studies state anyway, the first study indicates there is nothing mutagenic about THC. I've always had trouble with the whole joint = x amount of cigarettes nonsense because the number always changes, the amount of joints consumed is usually dramatically less than that of a cigarette smoker and any data on actual lung cancer being caused is often absent. The only study of yours that addresses actual marijuana induced lung cancer involves a very small sample size.

The jury is still out on whether there is a definite cancer risk and if so how much (if anything) this actually costs the government in terms of health care costs. The discrepancy between the anticipated cancer risk and the relatively little data showing people actually getting cancer from marijuana use might have something to do with anti-cancerous properties of THC itself.

There are lots of studies
Many of them contradictory
All of them peer reviewed
Too many to link, all saying the same thing.

Don't pretend your data is definite, I won't.

Use of a vaporizer could mitigate any potential risk anyway.

EDIT: Well it appears I've been beaten to the punch, but if you look at the studies you'll see some on THC as well as CBD and other cannabinoids.

This post has been edited by Mike Tequeli on Tuesday, May 17 2011, 18:09

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Mike Tequeli @ May 17 2011, 19:06)

I will be the first to admit that burnt plant matter in the lungs is not good for you, although there is nothing inherently carcinogenic about THC, which I believe most of those studies state anyway, the first study indicates there is nothing mutagenic about THC. I've always had trouble with the whole joint = x amount of cigarettes nonsense because the number always changes, the amount of joints consumed is usually dramatically less than that of a cigarette smoker and any data on actual lung cancer being caused is often absent. The only study of yours that addresses actual marijuana induced lung cancer involves a very small sample size. The jury is still out on whether there is a definite cancer risk and if so how much (if anything) this actually costs the government in terms of health care costs. The discrepancy between the anticipated cancer risk and the relatively little data showing people actually getting cancer from marijuana use might have something to do with anti-cancerous properties of THC itself. There are lots of studies Many of them contradictory All of them peer reviewed Too many to link, all saying the same thing. Don't pretend your data is definite, I won't. Use of a vaporizer could mitigate any potential risk anyway.

I'm not saying "SMOKE WEED AND YOU'LL GET CANCER". I accept that there are lots of other contributing factors, that the jury is still out and that due to the nature of the drug and the topography of its users its very difficult to do effective control group comparisons. My point was more that people can't just say "there's no risk of cancer/mental illness" because there's evidence suggesting they do have quite serious side effects...encouraging people to do their research and accept that there is a risk rather than point-blank denying it...

Mutagen =/ Carcinogen. Usually similar, but not necessarily the same. Alcohol is a carcinogen, but not a mutagen. Some of the dioxin-like compounds are among the most dangerous carcinogenic substances in the world, but aren't necessarily mutagens.

[Mike Tequeli]

You are saying that anything that has associated health costs should be taxed to cover the cost. The issue is that we haven't quite figured out what, if anything, is the nature of the long term health problems associated with marijuana use. Therefore any attempt to calculate the cost to governments like they have with tobacco would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. They're going to tax cannabis because they need the money, but I'm not going to accept any arguments that they are merely recouping money lost to the health problems associated with it.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Mike Tequeli @ May 17 2011, 19:18)

You are saying that anything that has associated health costs should be taxed to cover the cost. The issue is that we haven't quite figured out what, if anything, is the nature of the long term health problems associated with marijuana use. Therefore any attempt to calculate the cost to governments like they have with tobacco would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. They're going to tax cannabis because they need the money, but I'm not going to accept any arguments that they are merely recouping money lost to the health problems associated with it.

True, but any negative health effects from cannabis use are much more likely to be discovered and understood in the event of legalisation. Even if the number of users does not rise, it's quite tangible that further effort is going to be put into detailed examination of the side effects if it is legalised. There are also the potential increases in cancers and other illnesses from people who smoke it in combination with tobacco, as the majority of cannabis smokers mix the two and many of that number do not smoke cigarettes on the side.