SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Prop 19 Proposes the legalization of marijuana in the USA.

It has it's pros and cons, and I want to hear from you guys what you all think. I'll try and keep track of some of the pros and cons you all post in this thread, to prevent the same ideas from being over-debated.


Pros:

-Fewer people in jail
-Higher quality weed (safer)
-Tax revenue
-Job creation
-Famous as well as smart people have done/ do it
-It doesn't affect your mind when you are not under the influence

Cons:

-"slow donuts" (high people??) will be everywhere -noidea

Pros:

Less people will use it (especially teens)
Less people in jail due to it
Less confusion to the general public about health risks
Less people thinking that it's worse than cigarettes or alcohol
Less criminal activity
Less tax money going to pseudo-criminals in jail
Less sketchy dealers, some of which could have glass and other lethal things to weigh it down (grit weed)
Less drug deals
More knowledge (hopefully) about it
More hemp use, which is much more Earth-friendly (and in some cases better productivity/functionality of the products)
More money for the government for whatever (taxes)
More health benefits (treatments and what not)

Cons:

There are still stupid people that will do stupid things like they do with alcohol
Stupid people will possibly think they can do it all they want now because it's legal

I really can't think of any cons at all.. It's ridiculous to me that it's still illegal (decriminalized in some states).

Also, both of the cons are only because people are freaking retarded. So really, if people weren't idiots, there would be no cons.

Why do you say that less people will use it? I'm not disagreeing, I just want some support for your argument.

Otherwise, I completely 100% agree. Especially economically, it's an incredible move. The government will gain revenue from taxes, spend less money prosecuting/catching people who use/ deal, and also provide jobs for loads of people.

In Amsterdam after it was decriminalized and it was more accepted (sold in businesses and what not) the use actually went down.

It makes sense, because a lot of kids my age (I'm 16) do it just to be rebellious. I know I definitely have some subconsciously rebellious reason to do it (my parents are drug and alcohol counselors and I'm the youngest out of the kids etc. (psychology and shit)) but I generally just do it because I find it enjoyable. However, I mostly do it because I'm very interested in biology and chemistry. I can read and understand drugs by reading about them, but I can't relate to the effects of them without doing them. So I smoke every once in awhile just because I find it interesting, really.

But the point about being rebellious is they think it's bad, they think it's different and unique if they do it, so they smoke specifically for those reasons, sometimes they don't like it at all. It's not a cry for help in most cases, but it is in some.

Also, a few more pros, there would be less dealers getting people to use worse drugs (dealer's out of weed when someone stops by, but they have some crack or meth or pcp or benzos or opiates or whatever they have, and the person buys the worse drug and starts doing that instead. It does happen); and uhh.. can't remember the others (just woke up :p).



More cops after people who do illegal things and drug sales relating to things like heroin and meth and stuff and less cops spending ridiculous amounts of time after people who smoke some weed.

Okay, I gotcha :)

A lot of the Pros have a ton of overlap, so Im not going to post many more.

Just in response to your statement about it lowering the use of other hard drugs, I disagree. Whether it's legal or not, it's still a gateway drug, because someone is always going to be looking for a better high. Now, it might lower the use of hard drugs because it will become more available/cheap.

Everything luffs has said so far. There are just too many pro's for the whole situation to be ignored.
+ Cali will get possibly billions in tax revenue as a result. Less money spent on trying to 'catch' the growers and dealers that are 'criminals' at the moment, as well as less money spent in the prison system because hopefully all the incarcerated as a result of cannabis will be released etc.

Its interesting to see that what happens in the next few days will probably be the deciding factor of whether or not marijuana will /ever/ be legal in the US (also sad to see that).

People already incarcerated won't be released, but it will affect future potential "criminals."

I kinda want someone against prop 19 to post so we can have a *polite* debate :)

I'm against it! LMAO j/k.

A friend of mine said that he saw some dude that I bought off of once in a while grind up sugar to make the weed weigh more. Is that deadly? JW

Weed is great. I love everything about it. After I turned 18, I started smoking blunts everyday. That is my favorite way to smoke it. A green game and a gram of weed keeps me happy for the whole day.

I'd assume smoking sugar would be bad for you.. >_>

And I disagree about the gateway drug theory. The drug itself does not make one want a "better" high or anything, it's the user who wants it. So I don't think it's fair to say it's a gateway drug, just that people naturally want to escape reality and weed is just easy to get.

From: i luffs yeww
I'd assume smoking sugar would be bad for you.. >_>

And I disagree about the gateway drug theory. The drug itself does not make one want a "better" high or anything, it's the user who wants it. So I don't think it's fair to say it's a gateway drug, just that people naturally want to escape reality and weed is just easy to get.

No, thats not what I meant. I meant that once you're exposed to being high, some people want more. Your average person is content with weed, but some poeple experience a high and get bored with it, so they go looking for more.

From: i luffs yeww
I'd assume smoking sugar would be bad for you.. >_>

And I disagree about the gateway drug theory. The drug itself does not make one want a "better" high or anything, it's the user who wants it. So I don't think it's fair to say it's a gateway drug, just that people naturally want to escape reality and weed is just easy to get.

There are actually a couple of studies that prove that cigs are more of a gateway drug than reefer

From: noidea
There are actually a couple of studies that prove that cigs are more of a gateway drug than reefer

But either way, it still IS a gateway drug
(for the record, im pro prop 19 and all)

Yea. I don't think it's a gateway drug. This is what I think:

If you get bored with a weed high, your going to do one of three things:
1: Take a break from it.
2: Quit.
3: Start doing a different drug that gets you higher.

In my honest opinion, people who choose number three, have no self discipline. Weed is for relaxing and having a good time.

:p I know you are.

But still, I don't think weed is a gateway drug.

Feels good man :garfield:

From: Runescape Pro
Yea. I don't think it's a gateway drug. This is what I think:

If you get bored with a weed high, your going to do one of three things:
1: Take a break from it.
2: Quit.
3: Start doing a different drug that gets you higher.

In my honest opinion, people who choose number three, have no self discipline. Weed is for relaxing and having a good time.

Lol, #3 = definition of gateway drug, luffs :P

SRL party when prop 19 passes?

Pass the pixel joint to the left? :P

Meh, i am opposed to smoking weed, (i dont like it because i have other ways to deal with my stress, seems like such a waste of money, and other reasons)

but honestly, if this were to pass, this country would have a shitload more money, and that is not a bad thing at all.

EDIT: Inb4 i have 20 people arguing with me about my reasons to not smoking it

I hate people that only view one side of the argument, there are MANY cons, and if you fail to see any than you're blindly cheering for one side; now if you're interpreting my post as anything apart from what I said, go ahead and re-read it, since it states exactly what I mean to say.

I'm personally voting yes, but honestly I'm indifferent on weather it passes or not, people are making it out to be much bigger than it really is… cops(cops that are haters, nice cops probably won't as I've had experience in the past) will still bust you and take your weed if you live in California(they will have every right to do so, it's still illegal by federal law even if it passes), they will have the full right to do so, it's just now you won't get that felony for major possession or misdemeanor for minor possession… unless it goes to fed court of course.

Anyways it's far too great of a debate to discuss it on SRL-Forums so I'll just leave this here… For those of you that are going to vote for prop 19 you should check out a website called "www.norml.org" if you haven't done so already, it's the website that made it possible for you to do so.

From: Feroc1ty
I hate people that only view one side of the argument, there are MANY cons, and if you fail to see any than you're blindly cheering for one side; now if you're interpreting my post as anything apart from what I said, go ahead and re-read it, since it states exactly what I mean to say.

I'm personally voting yes, but honestly I'm indifferent on weather it passes or not, people are making it out to be much bigger than it really is… cops(cops that are haters, nice cops probably won't as I've had experience in the past) will still bust you and take your weed if you live in California(they will have every right to do so, it's still illegal by federal law even if it passes), they will have the full right to do so, it's just now you won't get that felony for major possession or misdemeanor for minor possession… unless it goes to fed court of course.

Anyways it's far too great of a debate to discuss it on SRL-Forums so I'll just leave this here… For those of you that are going to vote for prop 19 you should check out a website called "www.norml.org" if you haven't done so already, it's the website that made it possible for you to do so.

I'm interested to hear what con's you have! (Not flaming, I'm serious)

If I could vote, I would say yes. I think this has been a long time coming, but I am really curious about the cons. I don't see them, but many others apparently do.

The generation gap is very obvious on this issue. The older people get, the more opposed they are. When you consider that many of today's 60+ year old voters grew up during the 1960's, it's not from a lack of understanding, or a lack of familiarity.

I think that as people get older, they realize that they did a lot of stupid things when they were young. Mistakes they don't want their own kids or grandkids repeating.

Decriminalization is based on the premise that the biggest downside to smoking weed is the possibility that you might get caught. The reality is that the biggest downside has to do with use of the drug itself.

I've watched people destroy their lives over drugs, with weed acting as the gateway to harder stuff. They did jail time as well, but it wasn't the jail that destroyed them it was the drugs.

There was a study that just came out saying that while heroin and meth were the most destructive for individuals, alcohol was the most destructive drug for society. But it has become such a large part of society that prohibition would do more harm than good. If we can prevent the use of weed from rising to that same level of societal acceptance and destruction, we should do so.

From: Feroc1ty
I hate people that only view one side of the argument, there are MANY cons, and if you fail to see any than you're blindly cheering for one side; now if you're interpreting my post as anything apart from what I said, go ahead and re-read it, since it states exactly what I mean to say.

I'm personally voting yes, but honestly I'm indifferent on weather it passes or not, people are making it out to be much bigger than it really is… cops(cops that are haters, nice cops probably won't as I've had experience in the past) will still bust you and take your weed if you live in California(they will have every right to do so, it's still illegal by federal law even if it passes), they will have the full right to do so, it's just now you won't get that felony for major possession or misdemeanor for minor possession… unless it goes to fed court of course.

Anyways it's far too great of a debate to discuss it on SRL-Forums so I'll just leave this here… For those of you that are going to vote for prop 19 you should check out a website called "www.norml.org" if you haven't done so already, it's the website that made it possible for you to do so.

Please post some cons! Also, you'll find that we aren't "blindly" looking at one side here, as I've been asking people to explain their pros.

Also, it's definitely possible for us to discuss this on SRL. We're capable people of having a fair and healthy discussion. If you feel we can't do it, you dont have to participate

@Feroc1ty, I know where you're coming from (@Random acts of kindness thread; I don't really want to contribute anything if people don't really know what they're talking about), but I think this is a topic that you're underestimating our understanding of.

Of course there are cons, and I stated a few. I just couldn't think of any at the time.

I'd like to know some cons you're talking about.

My main arguments for legalization are pretty simple. Having it a schedule I drug is absolutely ludicrous, and I'd be fine with it at least being a less serious felony or anything; Having cops spend their time dealing with people who have a little bit of weed on them is also ridiculous, they should be spending time on much more important and possibly dangerous matters; It costs too much money with no government gain to have it illegal, it could be taxed for a lot of money for whatever is needed (there was talk about it going to rehab, which would be good imo); and uhh.. I dunno. I'll wait for more responses I guess. :)

Weed is a drug.

Weed (marijuana) is a plant, actually. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is a drug. :)

I still don't see what that changes? Ethanol is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Ibuprofen is a drug. Caffeine is a drug. Dextromethorphan is a drug. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride is a drug. All of them are legal, but they're still drugs..

From: dervish
weed is a drug.

ohnoe! :)

E:

At the risk of being a nub at my 3500th post, I will explain:

Lots of stuff is a drug. Advil, caffeine, etc. What ian said :)

I am pro dope though, like everyone in Canada pree much. Except Cali has the same amount of people as Canada haha

Exactly. And those drugs are WAY more dangerous if theyre abused :)

Pure THC actually REDUCES tumor size
It's the act of smoking marijuana that can cause lung issues

According to this video, Weed is actually a gateway drug.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWEEvc5Cmqc&feature=grec_index





The gateway to awesomeness!

I just want to see the reaction the rest of USA will have if CA does pass this.

Prop. 19 is loosing with 42%.

It all seems… faked to me. Look at how much the tobacco companies are paying to stop this from happening…

We'll see.

I think that if it doesnt pass this year, it will within the next 5. It's gotten a ton of press, and a lot of support. Even if it is losing by 42%, or whatever the statistic is, it's going to come through eventually in some form.

Marijuana has been decriminalized in loads of states (up to 1 oz possesion), the next logical step is legalization

From: blulightning
I think that if it doesnt pass this year, it will within the next 5. It's gotten a ton of press, and a lot of support. Even if it is losing by 42%, or whatever the statistic is, it's going to come through eventually in some form.

Marijuana has been decriminalized in loads of states (up to 1 oz possesion), the next logical step is legalization

Do you know what decriminalized means? It in no ways means that you wont get in trouble.

From: noidea
Do you know what decriminalized means? It in no ways means that you wont get in trouble.

Actually, I do. I never said you don't get in trouble. Decriminalization, for those of you who DON'T know, means that it is not 'criminal,' and instead you are fined for possesion and not sent to jail.

As you can see by this staggering graph.
The result of the poll will most likely be true. From this we can certainly tell that the topic in itself has skyrocketed as a google index.

…
… …

Really tho. I am not certain where I stand on this. Also,

From: Dervish
Prop. 19 is loosing with 42%.

It all seems… faked to me. Look at how much the tobacco companies are paying to stop this from happening…

Where did you get your stats? - not that I am doubting you, I am just curious myself to see real numbers.

Also : imagine a society full with these slow thinking doughnuts everywhere, nothing would ever be done. Add that to your con list OP.

From: anonymity
As you can see by this staggering graph.
The result of the poll will most likely be true. From this we can certainly tell that the topic in itself has skyrocketed as a google index.

…
… …

Really tho. I am not certain where I stand on this. Also, Where did you get your stats? - not that I am doubting you, I am just curious myself to see real numbers.

It was probably done from one of the polls done in the last couple of days. There will be no info about the actual amount of votes for a while.

From: Dervish
Also : imagine a society full with these slow thinking doughnuts everywhere, nothing would ever be done. Add that to your con list OP.

Where did you get that info? Some of the smartest in the world have done it, do it, will do.
Alcohol actually makes you think just as slow, if not slower, (at time of intoxification) because it is a depressant.
No, it will not make you slow over time.
Add that to your list of Pro's, OP.

From: noidea
It was probably done from one of the polls done in the last couple of days. There will be no info about the actual amount of votes for a while.




Where did you get that info? Some of the smartest in the world have done it, do it, will do.
Alcohol actually makes you think just as slow, if not slower, (at time of intoxification) because it is a depressant.
No, it will not make you slow over time.
Add that to your list of Pro's, OP.

In all seriousness… Everyone whom have smoked weed I've talked to while under the effects had a reaction time of 5 seconds if not more.

IMO only kids who want to act cool smoke weed unless its really dependent adults..

From: Dervish
In all seriousness… Everyone whom have smoked weed I've talked to while under the effects had a reaction time of 5 seconds if not more.

IMO only kids who want to act cool smoke weed unless its really dependent adults..

You can't become physically dependent on weed…
And I don;t think its really your place to judge why people do it. It's prescribed medically. Some people do it because they enjoy it. Others do it to rebel.

The 42% thing is stupid. No actual numbers will be presented to the public until everything's counted.

Anyway, Dervish, obviously you know nothing about marijuana. Of course there are people who are stupid because of it, but those are the people who will stop once it's legal. Reaction time is slowed because the people who you see use it are stupid, not because of weed itself. I can function just fine if I'm high, even if I take a long tolerance break. It's the user who ultimately can do things or not, and it's their responsibility to know that if they need to do shit, they need to do shit.

However, most people don't smoke if they need to focus or pay attention or vividly remember things. They are mostly responsible. You tend to be focusing on the idiots who don't even know about weed at all, they just smoke it to smoke it. It's some crazy number like 80% or something (I'm not saying it IS that amount, just that it IS a high percentage) of adults in America have tried weed. We still function. We still have jobs and lives. It's not an uncommon thing to smoke weed.

I don't even know why I'm trying to explain this to you because obviously your opinion won't change.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/individual/#CAI01

"22% of precincts reporting"

That's surprising to me.

Even if it doesnt pass, it shows ~50% of California's population agree the other ~50% should be put in jail. Ha

Not 50%. 11% say that 11% should be in jail. (ish)

California Proposition 19:
Legalizing Marijuana

No
1,804,719
56%

Yes
1,427,564
44%

24% of precincts reporting

From: i luffs yeww
Not 50%. 11% say that 11% should be in jail. (ish)

The people who say No say the people who say Yes should be in jail. That's assuming only stoners vote Yes though. Regardless its a pretty big divide I guess..lol

I was just pointing out that only about one in four people actually voted on it (well.. from what I've seen so far, but they're still counting I guess).

Prop 19 lost, not going to be passed.

Really??? :(
Link pl0x?

Yea, I have heard that it was denied also. I have no definite numbers or link. But lots of the same hearsay.

E: / Fail… thanks luffs.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/individual/#CAI01

^ The Claw posted that a few posts up.. >_>

I must agree with feroc1ty and tarajunky, the cons are definatly not being discussed, however I do see more pro's than con's

Although it is true that there are definatly some pros that I agree with such as clearing out the jails and freeing up cops time to deal with more important things. Using hemp for paper products is also a great thing and of course people enjoy using it recreationally.

Now of course people compare weed to alcohol all the time saying how it is less damaging to your health than alcohol is, how its not "addicting" and what not. So here are some cons:

The gateway drug theory I believe has some validity to it but maybe not as bad as some people try and portray it to be. The key isnt to look at how many people can smoke weed and just stick to smoking weed, but look at how many drug addicts and dealers there are in the US alone and believe me, they didn't get that way overnight. It was gradual and marijuana probably had its role in it. The big question is will leagalizing it make it have less potential of leading to harder things for some of these drug addicts? I know most drug addicts I've met drank at a younger age too so potentially alcohol could be thrown in as a gateway drug as well.

I also feel that marijuna has some addictive qualities as well, maybe not so much physically as mentally. The OP's statement on how marijuana has no effect on your mind when you are not under the influence is extremely false. Marijuana has been scientifically proven to lower your motivation even while you are not using it and these effect can last sometimes a lifetime depending on how much you smoke/smoked. I am a recovering drug addict and even after a year clean of all mind altering substances I still experience less motivation than I used to have before I was chronically smoking marijuana daily for years. It can also be mentally addicting as I have also witnessed first hand. I had tried quiting everything but marijuana before I got clean and only smoking marijuana did not help my life out any more than it had when I was mixing it with everything else.

However alchohol is legal and we see many alcoholics in the US yet over in germany where the drinking age is less there tends to be less alcoholics. The post that gave the example of the Amsterdam situation also has a valid point. As a recovering addict I do feel that marijuana should probably be legalized becuase it will help free up jail space which I think is a big issue. It might possibly be safer to use but think about tobbacco. I'm sure tabbacco products used to be a lot more potent than they are today. How would you like the tobbacco companies to sell you weed with all the scrap they put in their cigarettes?

It could be a double edged sword but I feel it might possibly be more slightly beneficial in the long run.

From: Dervish
IMO only kids who want to act cool smoke weed unless its really dependent adults..

Well that suits your age then. You'll soon find out that once people get a bit older they will not desperately try to be cool and instead live their lives. Whilst living their live, they'll smoke weed if they enjoy it. It has nothing to do with being cool or dependant. Incidentally, the people who want to act cool are very dependant.

From: doublex8
The gateway drug theory I believe has some validity to it but maybe not as bad as some people try and portray it to be. The key isnt to look at how many people can smoke weed and just stick to smoking weed, but look at how many drug addicts and dealers there are in the US alone and believe me, they didn't get that way overnight. It was gradual and marijuana probably had its role in it. The big question is will leagalizing it make it have less potential of leading to harder things for some of these drug addicts? I know most drug addicts I've met drank at a younger age too so potentially alcohol could be thrown in as a gateway drug as well.

Every drug used for recreational purposes is a gateway drug, which is why I don't take the "gateway drug theory" too seriously. It can be kinda thought about algebraically; 5/6 + 7/6 = 12/6 is the same thing as 5 + 7 = 12. You simply eliminate the denominator because it is the same throughout. The gateway drug theory applies to every recreational drug, so it isn't a valid point to have one illegal while using that theory as an argument.

From: doublex8
I also feel that marijuna has some addictive qualities as well, maybe not so much physically as mentally. The OP's statement on how marijuana has no effect on your mind when you are not under the influence is extremely false.

Marijuana is not physically addictive, as it has no addictive traits. One can only be addicted to it if they are mentally attached, which is very uncommon, and usually only happens to those who have had trauma happen in their life or some sort of brain damage has happened.

From: doublex8
Marijuana has been scientifically proven to lower your motivation even while you are not using it and these effect can last sometimes a lifetime depending on how much you smoke/smoked.

For awhile marijuana had a long-term symptom of something called "de-motivational syndrome" which was also deemed "medically correct." I have no proof of it being or not being medically accepted, but it would be silly if it were. There are studies done that contradict that "syndrome," and there is much more proof against it than for it.

I would not take the long-term affect of it lessening motivation seriously by anyone; it is simply not true.

From: doublex8
I am a recovering drug addict and even after a year clean of all mind altering substances I still experience less motivation than I used to have before I was chronically smoking marijuana daily for years. It can also be mentally addicting as I have also witnessed first hand. I had tried quiting everything but marijuana before I got clean and only smoking marijuana did not help my life out any more than it had when I was mixing it with everything else.

Marijuana, again, is only mentally addicting. It is not physically addicting. To be less motivated at times is to be human. We sometimes get lazy; it has nothing to do with the fact that you smoked weed at one point in your life. And since you had an addiction to marijuana, it is safe to say that you have had life problems, so the loss of motivation most likely comes from past events in your life, unrelated to your use of cannabis.

From: doublex8
However alchohol is legal and we see many alcoholics in the US yet over in germany where the drinking age is less there tends to be less alcoholics. The post that gave the example of the Amsterdam situation also has a valid point. As a recovering addict I do feel that marijuana should probably be legalized becuase it will help free up jail space which I think is a big issue. It might possibly be safer to use but think about tobbacco. I'm sure tabbacco products used to be a lot more potent than they are today. How would you like the tobbacco companies to sell you weed with all the scrap they put in their cigarettes?

For one, thank you. :) I found the Amsterdam point interesting (I posted it). Second of all, tobacco potency, nor THC potency, for that matter, hasn't "changed" due to tobacco companies; they just add chemicals to make it more addictive and cheaper. However, tobacco companies wouldn't be running the growth of marijuana, and joints and bud would be sold. Bud would be visibly easier to see if it was manipulated with, but of course there is still a risk (grit weed, which is very common in the UK, Scotland, Ireland, and other places that I don't know of, is a huge problem). But, thinking about business practice, the best sale benefits both parties. The user will get a good product, so they will come back or tell others about it, and the company gets payments. Tobacco companies have bad business tactics, which is why I'm sure they will eventually fail (hopefully.. It's hard because nicotine is so addictive).

From: doublex8
It could be a double edged sword but I feel it might possibly be more slightly beneficial in the long run.

I still see no very valid cons or arguments against legalization.

Here's my two pennies on the whole motivation thing:

I don't think it's weed that makes you lazy. It's your choice/personality.

My dad is a very hard working man, the head of an apartment complex(Maintenance supervisor). He works his ass off, fingers to the bone, and NEVER slows down. I'm not exactly sure how much he smokes weed, but I know he does at least 2 times a week. He's a perfectionist, most of the time doesn't even take a break from work to eat, and is constantly working.

Idk what that means to ya'll but I honor him and feel like he's the definition of a man.

I honestly don't blame him for smoking. Sometimes you need to just chill and relax. I don't see any problem with him smoking to relax. He still gets everything that needs to be done, done and MORE.

I know two people who are quite successful who both smoke weed all the time, are very smart (one of them has worked with computers since they came out and did programming stuff for OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry) before anyone had a computer) and are great people. They work all the time. And I went to school from 7:45 (basically from 7:00) to 2:30, then got to work at 3:00 (mobile software development) and worked until about 10:00-11:00 and got home a half hour later and then did homework and personal projects or more mobile stuff until about 2:00-5:00 in the morning and I smoke daily.

I luff yews, if you could read what your were quoting I said marijuna is a mental addiction if anything, never said it was a physical addiction, which can a lot of the time be worse than a physical addiction. Meth Addiction is also mostly mental and don't tell me thats not real.

I am not saying everyone is affected the same. I have met many people that were in my situation and have had very simlar results with less motivation. Doctors have told me that it does. I am not saying that I am the most lazy person on earth but the first year I was clean I did have to work harder to motivate myself to do things than I had when I was in highschool and did not use as much drugs. I'm not saying it's something permanent, but if you are using it chronically it definatly shows, I've met plenty of dead beat stoners that still live with their parents and don't have jobs.

I have experienced this first hand so I know it is true. Marijuana wasn't the only drug I was abusing but I was abusing it daily for 3 years. At one point it was every thirty minutes during the day. If you are someone that uses it to relax then technically you are depending on it if you can't relax without it. I'm not saying there is a problem with that I am sure your father is a hardworking man and can manage his life while using marijuana, but like I said you can't just sit here and point out all the instances where people can manage their lives with drugs because THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AS WELL. A surprising amount of people.

Also any drug used recreationally is a gateway drug? Have you met anyone that just decided to pick up a needle and bang heroin or meth right off the bat? For that matter do you know anyone that shoots herion or meth recreationally? I sure as hell don't. Most people start drinking or smoking pot, you can't deny that.

You don't have to inccur some great trauma in your life to become a drug addict, I've met many addicts that led pretty normal lives before starting to use myself included. It is they way some people are wired.

Tobacco can be way more potent that it is now, why do you think tobbacco companies make it so that a nicotine buzz lasts five minutes after you smoke it, SO YOU WILL SMOKE ANOTHER ONE SOONER AND THEN RUN OUT FASTER TO BUY MORE. Trust me they will be all over marijuna once its legal, Marborrol already has a marketing plan for it.

Now once again I have nothing against weed and it probably needs to be legalized, but I'm just saying that weed doesn't make everything better for everyone and legalizing it doesn't mean the whole country is gonna sit back and relax, and burn one down. There are going to be some consequences but in this instance the benefits probably out weigh them.

From: doublex8
Tobacco can be way more potent that it is now, why do you think tobbacco companies make it so that a nicotine buzz lasts five minutes after you smoke it, SO YOU WILL SMOKE ANOTHER ONE SOONER AND THEN RUN OUT FASTER TO BUY MORE. Trust me they will be all over marijuna once its legal, Marborrol already has a marketing plan for it.

Now once again I have nothing against weed and it probably needs to be legalized, but I'm just saying that weed doesn't make everything better for everyone and legalizing it doesn't mean the whole country is gonna sit back and relax, and burn one down. There are going to be some consequences but in this instance the benefits probably out weigh them.

Please listen to this.
Tobacco companies cannot even go near the Marijuana industry.

I don't wanna take the time to respond to what you said, so whatever. If you've proof of anything that you said (not just "oh, I saw a guy and he was this way," but actual research that's valid), I'd love to see it. :)

But for now, believe what you may; whatever floats your boat.

I believe what I see. I have also read research articles on this myself but just like you don't feel like responding to all my stuff I don't feel like finding all the articles again. Hmm lack of motivation? lol I havn't seen you post any valid research either and your post before that was pretty much a "I know this guy" post so please don't critcize me for something you just did yourself.

EDIT: O and about the tobacco companies, of course they arn't interested in doing it right now with california, there is waaaaayyyyy too much risk due to the fact that it would still be illegal federally. Once its legal country wide though, I wouldn't be surprised if SOMEONE, maybe not the tobacco companies, decided to do to marijuana what tobacco companies have done with tobacco. Not everyone that is involved with the pot industry is a peace lovin hippie. Believe it or not there are people out there that don't give a crap about anything except making money no matter who it hurts.

I brought that up (grit weed). And it's not that I don't have the motivation, just that I have better things to do. George Carlin or someone commented on that. Something about weed not making you not motivated, just that it makes you realize that some things are pointless and so you don't do them or something. :p

And I probably will respond later, I just have homework to do for now.

You don't have to post back, I realize what point you are trying to make. I'm just saying that even though mostly good will come out of it, I don't feel it will completely solve all of the problems you say it is going to solve. It isn't a simple matter of just making it legal and everything will be fine and dandy.

I know that. I mostly have problems when people say it's a substitute for medical-related problems. Of course it's not. It can help, but you still need to see a doctor. :p

But anyway, I do need to work on homework for a bit.

Since you guys brought up Amsterdam, you should know that they are now reconsidering their "tolerance policy".

It seems that a lot of those "cons" that some here say don't exist actually DO exist, and are making the Dutch begin cracking down.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2cc0e802-d2fb-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.html

Dutch look at weeding out cannabis cafés

By Stanley Pignal in Amsterdam

Published: October 8 2010 17:49 | Last updated: October 8 2010 17:49

Coffee shops legally selling cannabis have been a feature of Amsterdam’s streets for more than 30 years,
both a magnet for younger tourists and a symbol of the Dutch brand of liberal exceptionalism.

But the fragrant haze found in the city’s 200 or so establishments could be dispersed under plans by the 
incoming government, which is looking to roll back the “tolerance policy” that has allowed such coffee shops
to operate since 1976.

Coinciding with a tightening of laws around prostitution – another tolerated industry – the authorities’ new 
stance on cannabis is raising questions as to whether Dutch society is moving away from laisser-faire 
traditions, which have included some of the earliest gay-friendly policies in Europe and the provision of free
contraception to teenage girls.

Certainly the outlook for coffee shops is bleak. Among the few policies that the three parties in the new 
coalition agree upon is the need to cut back on, if not entirely abolish, coffee shops. The governing agreement
released last week laid out plans that will force them to become member-only clubs and shut down those 
located within 350 metres of schools.

They are also advancing the idea of prohibiting the sale of cannabis to non-Dutch residents, which 
amounts to a death knell for many coffee shops, particularly in Amsterdam, the Netherlands’ biggest city.

“It’s a head-on attack,” says Gerrit Jan ten Bloemendal, vice-chairman of the Netherlands Cannabis Platform, 
a lobby group opposing the proposal, and himself a coffee-shop operator.

The coffee-shop crackdown comes as part of a broader law-and-order drive promoted in particular by Geert 
Wilders, the anti-Islam firebrand whose far-right Freedom Party (PVV) made the biggest gains in the June 
elections. 
Though the PVV is not formally part of the incoming coalition, it helped draft parts of the legislative 
programme as part of a deal to support the government.

The new stance comes after years of gradual tightening of the rules governing cannabis sales and
a 2007 ban on the selling of alcohol in the coffee shops. After proliferating in the 1980s and early 1990s, 
their number in the Netherlands has halved from a peak of 1,400 in 1995 to just over 700 today.

“For sure, if the reforms go through it will impact business,” says Maciej Truszkowski, owner of the 
Sevilla coffee shop, a small, dimly lit venue just off one of Amsterdam’s concentric canals. There are 
no displays of hemp leaves or any other sign that cannabis is for sale, in line with strict advertising rules, 
though multiple portraits of Bob Marley hint at Sevilla’s core business.

On a quiet weekday lunchtime recently, a couple of locals walked in to the Sevilla and asked for a 
cannabis menu. 
But British and US university students made up the bulk of the clientele. According to Mr Truszkowski, 
foreigners provide half his business, a figure he thinks is much higher for coffee shops nearer the 
red-light district, a 10-minute walk away.

Mr Truszkowski argues that if he cannot sell cannabis to foreigners, someone else will. “Even without coffee 
shops, Amsterdam will be known for its cannabis. One way or another, the business will go on.”

The more stringent legislative tack being embarked on echoes a tightening of rules around the sex industry 
and measures to halve the size of Amsterdam’s red-light district.

For Paul Schnabel, director of the Social and Cultural Planning Office, a state advisory board, the move 
reflects a growing view that the tolerance policies have not achieved their aims of controlling the ills
associated with drugs and prostitution, rather than a recasting of Dutch liberalism.

“There’s a strong tendency in Dutch society to control things by allowing them. It’s always been there, a 
pragmatic tradition, typical of a trading nation. We look for better alternatives to problems that we 
know exist anyway,” he explains.

But, he adds, “Dutch society is less willing to tolerate than before. Perhaps 30 years ago we were a more 
easy-going society.”

The equation that led to the policy of tolerance has changed in the past decade, as large-scale crime 
around both coffee shops and the legal sex trade became more visible. In particular, the absence of legal 
means for coffee shops to acquire the cannabis they sell has highlighted its association with organised 
criminality.

But the open-minded instincts that helped foster the tolerance policies in the first place have also come to 
be questioned. And it is not just the far-right that is opposing coffee shops. The traditional parties of power
on the centre-right, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal VVD party, have also moved against the 
tolerance policies they once promoted.

“Definitely there has been a moralisation of the state in recent years, and that has contributed to the 
coalition’s stance on coffee shops,” says André Krouwel, a political scientist at the Free University in 
Amsterdam.

“The liberal consensus that helped create those policies – that’s gone now. The pragmatism has been 
replaced by increasingly moral politics, in a way which is reminiscent of what happened in the United States 
with the ‘moral majority’ in the 1980s.”

Coffee-shop owners, meanwhile, hope that local officials will continue the tolerance policies even in the 
face of central government pressure, or that any new law will be repealed by a more liberal government before 
being implemented. But at the very least, another dramatic reduction in the number of authorised outlets 
is seen as inevitable.

Lucky its being propagated by a far-right wing fascist. Who would listen to him, right?

Mr Truszkowski argues that if he cannot sell cannabis to foreigners, someone else will. “Even without coffee
shops, Amsterdam will be known for its cannabis. One way or another, the business will go on.”

Done

"Dutch look at weeding out cannabis cafés"

:p I :)'d.

hmm sadly the only con they mentioned was hightened crime around coffee shops. Other than that they didnt seem to mention any other negative impacts. Perhaps the whole closing them down within 350 feet of schools is a hint at something?