marijuana- should it legal????

[tucker342]

What's everyones opinion on the subject

[Easy Mac]

you mean i've been breaking the law?

sweet! Dude! sweet! Dude!

[bbor]

Only if they tax it....so long debt

[Barkeep49]

A gateway drug despite the rhetoric otherwise but the cost of enforcement is just too high.

[Draft Dodger]

I do not think it should be legal

[thesurreallife]

Only if I'm arrested

[astralhaze]

Seems to be working in Holland. And it sure works for me....

[McSweeny]

you mean it's not legal? sure seems like it

[vex]

I agree, it might as well be legal. However, I voted no.

[Lathum]

Why not police it like tobacco and alcohol?

[JeeberD]

I'm on the border here. I've had several friends start smoking and then start doing badly at school, stop going to work, etc. But then again, the same thing can happen with alcohol. I guess I wouldn't be upset if it was legalized. That would create a lot of money for the govt that could be used for other things. But I really don't have any use for the stuff. All the buzz I need comes from a sixer of Shiner Bock.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Barkeep49
A gateway drug despite the rhetoric otherwise but the cost of enforcement is just too high.

There are no credible studies showing use of marijuana causes users to try harder drugs. Think about it - a significant portion of the U.S. population has tried marijuana, while a very small percentage uses cocaine, heroin, etc.

Proponents of the "gateway" theory like to point out that most people that have used "hard" drugs started using marijuana first. All that shows is a correlation, not causation. The far more relevant stat is how many users of marijuana also use hard drugs, and the answer there is a very small percentage - some studies show as little as less than 1%. This hardly seems to be evidence of marijuana acting as a "gateway".

What is actually happening here is that those people that are prone to using and abusing hard drugs are very likely going to start their illicit drug use with the most common and easiest to locate drug, which is marijuana. Once they reach a comfort level with acquiring and using an illegal drug, they then move on the the harder stuff that intrigues them.

For most users of marijuana, harder drugs don't hold any appeal and they either continue using only marijuana or quit altogether.

I'm not a huge fan of marijuana - it just tends to make me sleepy and out of it, and I generally prefer beer or wine. There are occasions where it's nice, like if you really want to focus on a cool piece of music you like and you want to get lost in it, but for the most part I pass. That said, I don't see much difference in impact between it and alcohol, and I don't see where the health risks are any worse than with tobacco. I find it odd the distinctions this country makes between acceptable drugs and unacceptable, and think we'd save a lot of money in jail time, enforcement and prosecution by just legalizing marijuana, not to mention the potential boon of tax money the sale of it would generate. Make it subject to a large sin tax like alcohol and tobacco, earmark a certain percentage for drug education and for rehab, and quit overcrowding our prisions and court systems with dope dealers.

What is criminally ridiculous is this country's prohibition on growing hemp. It's perhaps the most versatile and useful plant in nature, and yet because it's related to cannibis no one is allowed to grow it in this country. Never mind that the THC content in hemp is so low that you'd get sick smoking it before you ever got high. What a tremendous job the pulp and paper industry and chemical industry lobbyists have done in keeping this growing ban in place.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by JeeberD
I'm on the border here. I've had several friends start smoking and then start doing badly at school, stop going to work, etc. But then again, the same thing can happen with alcohol. I guess I wouldn't be upset if it was legalized. That would create a lot of money for the govt that could be used for other things. But I really don't have any use for the stuff. All the buzz I need comes from a sixer of Shiner Bock.

Dola, just to counter your example I have a number of friends that are very successful professionals that also are semi-regular users of marijuana and have been for years - both successful professionals or students and regular marijuana users. Whether a person becomes a lazy, aimless stoner when using marijuana has far more to do with their personality and situation than any effects from the drug itself.

[Barkeep49]

Dawg I would refer you to the study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Assocation that starts to paint a firmer picture about the idea of it as a gateway drug.

Read about it here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/21/marijuana.study.ap/)

[Alf]

marijuana and Easy Rider : a must !

[dawgfan]

Did you read the article yourself? There's nothing in there that shows causation, simply more evidence of corellation. The researcher quoted in the article admits as much:

"It is often implicitly assumed that using cannabis changes your brain or makes you crave other drugs," said lead researcher Michael Lynskey, "but there are a number of other potential mechanisms, including access to drugs, willingness to break the law and likelihood of engaging in risk-taking behavior."

Lynskey and colleagues acknowledged the study has several limitations, including relying on participants' reporting of their own experiences.

In an accompanying editorial, Denise Kandel of Columbia University's psychiatry department said the study does not explain "whether or not a true causal link exists" between marijuana and hard drugs.

"An argument can be made that even identical twins do not share the same environment during adolescence," she said.

I reiterate - there are no credible studies showing use of marijuana causes users to move on to harder drugs.

Since you seem to believe that marijuana is a "gateway" drug, then explain to me why so very few people who use marijuana go on to use harder drugs.

[dawgfan]

Dola - this article is a fantasic example of how the media commonly distorts scientific studies and paints false or misleading impressions of the results and what they signify.

By reading the headline and the lead paragraph, you'd think this study had shown definite proof that marijuana use causes users to move on to harder drugs. Yet, if you read the whole article you realize that no such conclusion can be drawn from the study, and the researcher quoted in fact mentions many other possibilities of what the causes of the findings might be.

Very poor journalism on the part of CNN.

[ACStrider]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone mind you...just would like to know...I'm against legalizing marijuana. I've heard arguments from both sides and I think that both make legitimate points. There is one factor that I want considered before I will consider thier opinion valid. For the person for legalizing marijuana, have you ever used marijuana? If the answer is "yes", I think the argument is tainted. If the answer is "no", I'm willing to listen. Anyone willing to sound off? I'd like to hear.

[cthomer5000]

Can anyone make a convincing argument that alocohol should remain legal, but pot stay illegal?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by ACStrider
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone mind you...just would like to know...I'm against legalizing marijuana. I've heard arguments from both sides and I think that both make legitimate points. There is one factor that I want considered before I will consider thier opinion valid. For the person for legalizing marijuana, have you ever used marijuana? If the answer is "yes", I think the argument is tainted. If the answer is "no", I'm willing to listen. Anyone willing to sound off? I'd like to hear. Strider:

I'm close. I've never used the stuff, and doubt I ever would if it were legal, but I am close to the point of believing that legalizing all drugs would be the best thing for our society. I already firmly believe that doing so would be more consistent with the principles of liberty than our current laws are. The only thing that holds me back from thinking it is the best thing for society is the "trickle-down" effect on our nation's young people. What I mean by that is that cerrtainly there would be an "age of legality" for drugs. However, between fake ID's and adults who are willing to provide, drugs would flow easily to the young, who are clearly not ready to make those sort of decisions with wisdom. I also still wrestle with is the "coming out" effect that would happen immediately after legalization--meaning the initial celebration-with-reckless-abandon that would surely happen. I think we'd see a short-term spiking of drug use/abuse, and then a settling in (and of course a drastic reduction in crime). My concern is for those caught up in the short-term spiking. It is early, so I'm not sure all of that was 100% lucid, but there it is.

--Ben

[Fritz]

you will be able to find a post almost exactly like this anytime this subject comes up anywhere.


Originally posted by dawgfan
There are no credible studies showing use of marijuana causes users to try harder drugs. Think about it - a significant portion of the U.S. population has tried marijuana, while a very small percentage uses cocaine, heroin, etc.

Proponents of the "gateway" theory like to point out that most people that have used "hard" drugs started using marijuana first. All that shows is a correlation, not causation. The far more relevant stat is how many users of marijuana also use hard drugs, and the answer there is a very small percentage - some studies show as little as less than 1%. This hardly seems to be evidence of marijuana acting as a "gateway".

What is actually happening here is that those people that are prone to using and abusing hard drugs are very likely going to start their illicit drug use with the most common and easiest to locate drug, which is marijuana. Once they reach a comfort level with acquiring and using an illegal drug, they then move on the the harder stuff that intrigues them.

For most users of marijuana, harder drugs don't hold any appeal and they either continue using only marijuana or quit altogether.

I'm not a huge fan of marijuana - it just tends to make me sleepy and out of it, and I generally prefer beer or wine. There are occasions where it's nice, like if you really want to focus on a cool piece of music you like and you want to get lost in it, but for the most part I pass. That said, I don't see much difference in impact between it and alcohol, and I don't see where the health risks are any worse than with tobacco. I find it odd the distinctions this country makes between acceptable drugs and unacceptable, and think we'd save a lot of money in jail time, enforcement and prosecution by just legalizing marijuana, not to mention the potential boon of tax money the sale of it would generate. Make it subject to a large sin tax like alcohol and tobacco, earmark a certain percentage for drug education and for rehab, and quit overcrowding our prisions and court systems with dope dealers.

What is criminally ridiculous is this country's prohibition on growing hemp. It's perhaps the most versatile and useful plant in nature, and yet because it's related to cannibis no one is allowed to grow it in this country. Never mind that the THC content in hemp is so low that you'd get sick smoking it before you ever got high. What a tremendous job the pulp and paper industry and chemical industry lobbyists have done in keeping this growing ban in place.

[ACStrider]

Skydog--

Thanks for the input...yeah that's actually a reason I've been mulling over. I think before I can seriously consider the possibility of legalizing marijuana, I need to, ironically, hear opposition from those who are against smoking cigarettes. The amount of toxins in marijuana is drastically higher then that which is in tobacco and cigarettes, but it seems that the greatest proponents for marijuana legalization are from those who oppose tobacco corporations. It just seems hypocritical to me. If that hurdle gets crossed, I could legitimately consider pot legalization.

Fritz --

Your parallel to alcohol is humerous but legitimate in its own right. It does seem like a double standard to be against marijuana because of the intoxicating effects but still be for alcohol being legal. Good point.

[Braggadocioussss]

All of you people wanting it to be legal wouldn't think so highly about it after some stoned-out-of-his-mind pothead slams into your 8 year old son with his car. Oh, but it's not a gateway drug, so we should legalize it. I can see that logic. Gimme a fucking break.

Pot affects people 50 times worse than alocohol. If you say any differently you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Either that or you are completely blinded by your addiction.

[Bee]

I say legalize it and treat it like alcohol. I don't use it and I wouldn't if it were legal.

[ACStrider]

Like I said, I'm against legalizing it. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not completely informed on the issue (particularly the effects in comparison to other substances). My postion right now would be to recognize it as having narcotic effects and limiting it for medicinal purposes for terminally ill people. My biggest reluctance for completely legalizing it is for issues that SkyDog listed. It seems that it may also be even more problematic once you open the door. You think it is difficult to handle marijuana useage now, imagine trying to limit it to people only over a certain age. I guess when you start talking along these lines, incidents that Bragg brings up tend to fade into the background rather easily. I've never used marijuana, never plan on using it, and until I'm convinced otherwise, I'll be against any measure that proposes legalizing it.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by ACStrider

Fritz --

Your parallel to alcohol is humerous but legitimate in its own right. It does seem like a double standard to be against marijuana because of the intoxicating effects but still be for alcohol being legal. Good point.


Huh? I didn't post anything like that.

[ACStrider]

Oops...my bad Fritz...I was scrolling up and remembered that someone made that parallel.

It's CTHomer500 that I was refering to.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Can anyone make a convincing argument that alocohol should remain legal, but pot stay illegal?

Have you ever had a pot and tonic? The little leaves all float at the top and get stuck between your teeth.

[Bee]

And don't forget about the munchies. :D

[BFleming]

Personally, I agree with whoever said legalize it, then tax the hell out of it...I still would never do it, nor have I ever used any form of tobbacco, but as long as the two are taxed similarly, the nation could stand to make a significant amount of profit...However, any mistakes, such as disproportionate pricing will lead to your average joe continuing to seek alternative outlets to buy his pot...it would certainly lead to the need for much more effort on the enforcement side, and would have to be done quite carefully, but I believe there is potential...now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to watching Half Baked...lol

[GrantDawg]

I say legalize it. It is not any worse than alcohol (and Brag, I can find 400,000 examples just like yours just by changing pothead to alcoholic. Alcohol has done more damage to lives than pot ever has), it is non-addictive and if you take the illegality out of the equation it would be no more a gateway drug than alcohol.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I say legalize it. It is not any worse than alcohol (and Brag, I can find 400,000 examples just like yours just by changing pothead to alcoholic. Alcohol has done more damage to lives than pot ever has), it is non-addictive and if you take the illegality out of the equation it would be no more a gateway drug than alcohol. Hehe...the two Southern Bible-thumpers seriously considering legalizing pot. They'd try to run Grantdawg and me right out of our jobs if they only knew. :D

[Fritz]

I am very near to Skydog on this issue. However, socialist programs like govt. funding for healthcare are incompatible with liberty.

If you set aside the paternal aspect of controlled substance legislation there is still the taxpayer burden associated with health (and other) effects. For this reason I am receptive to making tobacco a controlled substance.


Here are my concerns with legalization of marijuana:

People wrongly equate "legal" with OK, healthy, moral, ethical, and the like. Legalizing pot would be seen as an endorsement from the govt. I worry that any restriction of its use would be challenged as an affront to freedom.

It has become damn near impossible for parents to lay down "family rules" that exceed the law. I am concerned for the youth who would not use it that might once legalized.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Hehe...the two Southern Bible-thumpers seriously considering legalizing pot. They'd try to run Grantdawg and me right out of our jobs if they only knew. :D

No kidding. I was thinking the same thing. I think you and I agree on a more libertarian approach to government though. This is one issue that I think more freedom might do less damage than the restriction.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Can anyone make a convincing argument that alocohol should remain legal, but pot stay illegal?

I don't think I can. But I CAN say that if alcohol had been illegal from day one, then we would be much better off.

[cincyreds]

No!

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Can anyone make a convincing argument that alocohol should remain legal, but pot stay illegal?

All i can say is drinking makes me do much worse stuff and impares me far more(usually) than weed does. I smoke before i drink because of that mainly.

[MizzouRah]

Can anyone make a convincing argument that alocohol should remain legal, but pot stay illegal?



Nope.

In fact, the government makes money off of pot everyday.

All of you people wanting it to be legal wouldn't think so highly about it after some stoned-out-of-his-mind pothead slams into your 8 year old son with his car.

Alcohol has 10x the accidents, spousal abuse, addictions, road rage, etc... Arguments can be made anyday on both sides, but I say legalize it.


Todd

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Braggadocioussss
All of you people wanting it to be legal wouldn't think so highly about it after some stoned-out-of-his-mind pothead slams into your 8 year old son with his car. Oh, but it's not a gateway drug, so we should legalize it. I can see that logic. Gimme a fucking break.

Pot affects people 50 times worse than alocohol. If you say any differently you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Either that or you are completely blinded by your addiction.

Do we allow people under the influence of alcohol do drive?

[Honolulu Blue]

Good points made in this thread, as usual.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but part of the reason why marijuana is a "gateway" drug is because the "gatekeepers" are so, um, unscrupulous. Because you can't buy it at the corner store, you're forced to deal with people who are unsavory and often would be more than happy to sell more profitable, more addictive drugs.

I have little use for artificial happiness stimulators (this includes alcohol and caffiene, BTW), but I don't judge people who do. I generally feel that government should stay out of the business of telling people what they can and cannot do.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Fritz

It has become damn near impossible for parents to lay down "family rules" that exceed the law. I am concerned for the youth who would not use it that might once legalized.


There are laws in place regarding Alcohol that prohibits the sale of it too minors, hence it is illegal for minors to drink. I think we can make the assumption that if it was legalized, things like driving under the Influence and sale to minors would not be legal

[Airhog]

People say how the government would make a killing off taxing pot sales. Probably so, but think about all those big businesses that would lose money.

1. Private corporations that own jails, prisons, drug boot camps, etc.

These people make a nice living off pot-heads and mandantory sentancing.

2. Companies that produce products that could be improved by making paper.

Could we grow enough hemp to provide paper for the paper industry? Probably not, but it would cut into sales. Hemp is a much more durable thread than cotton or any other type of thread. You make a shirt out of hemp, and you can hand it down to your grandkids to wear.

Then you would have to figure all of the companies that profit from the war on drugs. All those people would be against legalizing pot.


Even though there is overwhelming proof that hemp would be a benefit too our society. It is a great resource of biomass, and is better than any other crop. It's seeds contain oils and protein found in fish and could be used to feed poor countries.


It is really sad that cannabis was intially made illegal by Dupont and some large timber companies in the east. It shows that throughout the USA's history, big companies have the power to enfore their own will upon the people.

[ShovelMonkey]

Originally posted by Braggadocioussss
Pot affects people 50 times worse than alocohol. If you say any differently you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Either that or you are completely blinded by your addiction.


Fifty times worse than alchohol? You give me a break. If you have proof of this I'd like to see it.

I can function when I partake in a few left handed cigarettes. When I drink, however, I can't. I've paid the price for drinking and driving(I didn't get a DUI, but I did total my car and clip someone else. Not sure how I got away with it but I did learn my lesson.)

I've also driven stoned, and while this was also a result of my foolish youth and not something I'd recommend, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as driving drunk out of my mind.

I believe pot should be legal. As someone else said, if it was legal it would also be illegal to drive under it's influence. There would also be laws attempting to protect minors. I say attempting, because how many of us here have been guilty of underage drinking?

It should also be legal because the government simply does not have to right to tell us what is bad for us and what isn't. In my mind it's having the same effect that the prohibition had. That being none what so ever to stop usage, and a whole lot of crime being created.

[ISiddiqui]

YES,

but then again I'm a libertarian and believe ALL drugs should be legalized :D.

[Draft Dodger]

to each his own, I guess.

I could never even do simple things like order a pizza stoned. I won't drive after more than 1 drink now, but in my youth I (allegedly) drove more than a few times drunk, and more than a few times stoned. I never had any business being behind the wheel on ANY of those occasions (allegedly) - I was too impaired with either booze or pot.

and I don't buy the tax thing - the illegal pot business isn't going to go just go away.

[sabotai]

I've been high. I've been drunk. And NO WAY is being high 50x worse than being drunk. And for the sound of it, Braggg, you haven't been high, so how can you tell us that we are the ones that don't know what we're talking about?

People who are drunk can barely even walk, let alone do anything else. I've yet to see someone high who could barely stand up. Yet I've seen plenty of people who were drunk who could barely stand.

Exactly how do you know that being high is being worse than being drunk?

And blinded by our addiction? Please. I'm willing to bet that most of the people on here, like me, haven't touched it in years.

[Iceberg]

Im 18, a senior in high school. I dont smoke weed but my friends who do say that as the law stands now it is much easier to aquire weed than alcohol. Also if legalized there wouldnt be so many kids dealing it. Kids dealing drugs usually only leads to more trouble.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Airhog
There are laws in place regarding Alcohol that prohibits the sale of it too minors, hence it is illegal for minors to drink. I think we can make the assumption that if it was legalized, things like driving under the Influence and sale to minors would not be legal

I think it is safe to say to many, perhaps most, Americans take the drinking laws seriously only to avoid penalty.

Many parents who have a favorable view of drinking do not have an unfavorable view of their underage child "having a sip" or "having a beer with dad."

Another thought: There is no second-hand effect with booze. Dad can have a beer and not get his 5 year old son drunk.


----------
Question: I know you can drink at a volume where the effects are negligible. Can you do this with pot?

[sabotai]

Fritz, yeah. There have been times where I've taken a few drags off a joint, and never really felt anything.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
Question: I know you can drink at a volume where the effects are negligible. Can you do this with pot? Interesting question there. The obvious difference would be the question: "why would you?" I've never been mind-altered to any degree whatsoever by alcohol, because I use it in serious moderation--a glass of wine with dinner from time-to-time. I can't imagine anyone using pot to a degree less than that which causes mind alteration. Why would you?

[Craptacular]

Do you think maybe the reason that alcohol is involved in more problems (car accidents, etc) is that it's a little easier to obtain??

[korme]

Weed is so easy to get, they misewel make it legal.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Bee
I say legalize it and treat it like alcohol. I don't use it and I wouldn't if it were legal.

I concur.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sabotai
Fritz, yeah. There have been times where I've taken a few drags off a joint, and never really felt anything.

Is this a common reaction? I know it was not for me.


One problem with regulating pot is measuring how much "high" power would come in a smoke, and how "high" you could be to operate machinery and such. How "high" would be "high in public?"

---------

Question:

Why do so many people who want to legalize pot bring up the hemp issue?

If commercial grade hemp is not capable of producing buzz grade pot then it seems that one issue may be damaging the other.

[McSweeny]

well Fritz, my dad is a regular user of pot and has been for as long as I can remember. I never ever saw or felt the effects of what he was doing. Hell, I didn't even know until i was like 14. So i think it would all come down on the parents responisbility. It's the same way with booze too. A person who drinks regularly can still be a good father while another person may be just the opposite and have mood swings and beat his family or whatever.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by McSweeny
well Fritz, my dad is a regular user of pot and has been for as long as I can remember. I never ever saw or felt the effects of what he was doing. Hell, I didn't even know until i was like 14. So i think it would all come down on the parents responisbility. It's the same way with booze too. A person who drinks regularly can still be a good father while another person may be just the opposite and have mood swings and beat his family or whatever.

Oh, for sure. I was not meaning to imply that pot users could not be good parents. But second-hand smoke is an issue.

[sabotai]

Weed is so easy to get....extrememly easy.

Skydog, I wonder why people drink when they don't want to get drunk...anyway, you do have a point. But I would say the only time is when you're at a party and you have to drive. Some people still have a glass of wine, or just one or two beers. Someone else might just take a few drags.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Do you think maybe the reason that alcohol is involved in more problems (car accidents, etc) is that it's a little easier to obtain??

Depends on how you look at the question.

If you're talking people under age, tehn no, weed is far easier to obtain, and under age people get in far more car crashes drunk than high. It took me and my friends 5 minutes to get weed, and half the time we couldn't get alcohol.

If we're talking older people I can't say.

[sabotai]

Fritz, it's kind of the same as alcohol. With some people, 3 beers get them buzzed, with others, a full six-pack. A few drags might make someone feel high, with others, they feel nothing.

And being high seems to be like a binary thing. Either you're high or you're not. I've never been "a little high".

I think the Hemp issue is more of them pointing out how "frightened" the government is of pot. They're just saying "This won't even get you high and it's outlawed. It'd insane." Kind of like that, I guess.

[korme]

The reason you might not feel anything sabotai is because a lot of people actually don't smoke it to the best effect. When you hit it, when all the smoke is in your mouth, swallow/inhale it. You'll probably cough mass, but after 3-to-4 hits of decent weed, you'll be high off your ass.

[sabotai]

Shorty, beleive me, I know how to smoke it. :)

And you're right, some people don't smoke to the "best effect". But you touch on something else. The quality of the weed matters too.

[Craptacular]

Well, underage people shouldn't be getting either of them.

As for "adults", I think it's just a tad easier to get alcohol than weed.

[Craptacular]

By the way, does anyone else think dawgfan is really Woody Harrelson?

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Craptacular
By the way, does anyone else think dawgfan is really Woody Harrelson?

Cool we have a celebrity on the website!!!

[cthomer5000]

I honestly think everything should be legalized, and 18 should be the age for all adult rights.

If people want to, they should have the right to ruin their life any way they wish. Freedom of choice.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I honestly think everything should be legalized, and 18 should be the age for all adult rights.


A single age of majority (18) would be my number 1 domestic goal if I were a national figure.

Originally posted by cthomer5000
If people want to, they should have the right to ruin their life any way they wish. Freedom of choice.

The flaw with this thinking is that currently we expect the govt to pick people up when their lives fall apart.

[Joe Canadian]

It should be legal. It is not a gateway drug. It should be sold and taxed as tobacco and alcohol are. Why waste millions of dollars trying to arrest people when the government could be taxing it like tobacco and alcohol and making millions instead. Throwing people in jail for smoking weed is pretty much useless.

For those who have taken any introductory economics class, studies have shown that taxing is a far better way to decrease usage then making it an illegal substance.

It's a pointless argument really. The American government is dead set against legalizing or decriminalizing the substance. Canada however seems to have the more educated stance on the subject :). Although they are talking about decriminalzing it here, I really hope that leads to legalzing the substance.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
...Canada however seems to have the more educated stance on the subject :).

Did I just see "Canada" and "more educated" in the same sentence? :D

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by ACStrider
Did I just see "Canada" and "more educated" in the same sentence? :D

Yeah, they don't know the difference between bacon and ham.:rolleyes:

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sabotai
Skydog, I wonder why people drink when they don't want to get drunk...anyway, you do have a point. But I would say the only time is when you're at a party and you have to drive.I know LOTS of people who drink alcohol fairly regularly, but who never get even a little tipsy. My in-laws have a glass of wine at dinner nearly every single night, for example. My father used to nurse a single drink of bourbon through an entire 3-hour Braves' game, and I never could tell any effect on him.

She Who Must Be Obeyed will go to the grocery store after work today and buy food and beverages for the weekend. She will probably buy a bottle of Kendall Jackson or Clos du Bois chardonnay (if either is on sale for less than $12.00, a bottle we usually make the purchase). That single bottle will last us through dinner Friday AND Saturday night, and we'll have a little left over on Sunday. (No alcohol sales in Georgia on Sundays. :D That one always nails the newcomers on Super Bowl Sunday. I enjoy going to the grocery store after church on Super Bowl Sunday and spotting the newcomers in the beer section. Boy are they disappointed when they get up to the checkout line!)

[vtbub]

I think there is a missing option on the list. Pot is a medicinal drug, much like claritin or a morphine. I have no trouble at all with pot being a legal perscription drug. I do not think that it should be legalized for recreational use. Unlike drinking, there are some nasty side affects such as second hand smoke. Like other drugs, it does impare your abilities.

I don't use it, I've never used it, and if it was legal, I wouldn't use it. I do believe that the laws should be changed so that someone who is found growing weed for themselves in their own backyard should not receive the same punishment as a dealer found with a ten pound brick of it. Growing your own should be looked the other way and not prosecuted.

The real problem with pot is trusting where you got it from and what it's cut with.

Just my .02

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by vtbub
I do believe that the laws should be changed so that someone who is found growing weed for themselves in their own backyard should not receive the same punishment as a dealer found with a ten pound brick of it. Growing your own should be looked the other way and not prosecuted.

The real problem with pot is trusting where you got it from and what it's cut with. You're unwittingly making just about all of the arguments for legalizing it. :D If it were legal, there would be no drug dealers any more. You'd go to the local convenience or grocery store and buy it from behind the counter, and legalization would cause it to be a heck of a lot cheaper, since many people would just grow it themselves. Drug-related crimes would just about disappear if you legalized them all. People would never worry about trusting where you got it and what its cut with, because everything would be regulated.

[McSweeny]

you think liqour laws are bad in atlanta? up here in connecticut they stop selling booze at 8PM and don't sell it on sundays. And none of this going to a gas station to pick up a case of beer

[sabotai]

SkyDog, I know lot so fpeople who do to...I just don't see the point. :) I personally don't liek the taste of alcoohol. It was just a lame attempt at a joke. Please forgive me.

[vtbub]

Sky,

All good points but then you run into the gray area of when and where it could be used. It's not something you can do in a bar. Certainly not something that could be tolerated by driving or working. Even if it was legalized, it's use would be heavily regulated.

[McSweeny]

you can smoke cigarettes in a bar, so why not pot if it was legal? i assume that a standard would have to be set on how much you could smoke before driving. And lots of people have a drink or 2 at lunch while working, so why not a smoke?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Airhog
Do we allow people under the influence of alcohol do drive?

Without taking a stance on either side of the debate, it's worth pointing out that there is a signficant difference between driving drunk and driving high. Alcohol can be detected with a simple breathalyzer test. As far as I'm aware, there's no (empirical) way to determine whether someone has smoked up, short of a urine or blood test.

So unless you want to give the police the right to demand your blood, or make you pee in a cup for them, you're looking at a problem that will need to be solved before a lot of people will get onside with legalization.

[vtbub]

Because of the second hand smoke effect. My wife is allergic to pot smoke, if we are in a restraunt which doubles as a bar, it would make her quite sick to breathe that in. If I have a drink and she doen't then she's not really affected by my drinking.

Since smoking will be eventually banned from bars anyway within the next 10 to 15 years, it's a moot point.

[McSweeny]

lots of people are allergic to cigarrete or cigar smoke and it has been proven to be hazardous to your health, yet it is still allowed in bars and other public places. so if you wanted to ban smoking pot from a bar or a club you'd also have to ban tobacco smoke

[korme]

Driving high is much safer than driving drunk, says I. I don't drive, but my friends always talk about how they could never drive drunk, yet driving high isn't that different.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by McSweeny
lots of people are allergic to cigarrete or cigar smoke and it has been proven to be hazardous to your health, yet it is still allowed in bars and other public places. so if you wanted to ban smoking pot from a bar or a club you'd also have to ban tobacco smoke

that is poor logic

[QuikSand]

My libertarian sensibilities say that ideally we shouldn't have our government telling us what products we, as consenting adults, might choose to consume. If we do things that are injurious to society (e.g. driving under the influence) - then by all means, make those things illegal. But the purchase or consumption of a product simply ought not be the government's business. For that reason, I voted "yes" on the poll.

On the other hand, it's folly to think that such a new policy would have no effect. Legal but regulated (and even taxed) drugs of any kind would almost certainly mean that more people would consume - including more children, and more people who do not have the good sense to consume properly. There would almost certainly be more children who find it as a "gateway" to other more serious drugs, and there would almost certainly be more unfortunate usage-related incidents in society generally as a direct result. I realize that the true believers among the legalization crowd don't want to recognize these are valid arguments, but they are essentially undeniable.

I think Fritz, who is also guided by libertarian sensibilities, has nonetheless raised a number of the reasonable and practical objections to this issue.

There's more to the story, of course. There's a lot of bad that comes from the fact that there exists a demand for this product, legal or not. And therefore, you have substantial commitments of law enforcement resources to the problem, along with the downsides of such a lucrative illegal business (unregulated black market companies don't play by the same rules as "ordinary" ones)- so much of our street violence is the direct and obvious result of the lucrative drug trade. Convert that market to one where law-abiding, regulated businesses can lawfully conduct their transactions in the open, and you cut out much of the ruthlessness and territorialism that pervade the black market. You'll probably have more drug addicts, but fewer drug murders.




For me, a surprising parallel is that with mandatory seat belt laws. There is no evidence whatsoever that a person not wearing a seat belt poses any additional danger to society. (Though there is a subsidiary argument that such a person is more vulnerable to serious injury, and therefore a potential cost to the government or even other insured citizens for medical care) In such a case - you have a classic quandary of "proper role of government" versus "the greater good." If we pass laws to require seat belt use, more people will wear them, and fewer people will die or get seriously hurt. We know this is true. The test is: is that societal gain worth the imposition on our civil liberties, and is it worth having government intrude into your personal decision-making?

It's a fascinating public policy dilemma for those who take these issues seriously, I think.

[McSweeny]

hmmm maybe... maybe there'd have to be smoke houses or something like that, where people can go get stoned and watch the game

[Fritz]

Originally posted by McSweeny
hmmm maybe... maybe there'd have to be smoke houses or something like that, where people can go get stoned and watch the game

There is something like this already. I think they call it Holland.

[vtbub]

It should be consumed at home or at a buddy's where nobody is driving. NO PUBLIC USE.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by McSweeny
hmmm maybe... maybe there'd have to be smoke houses or something like that, where people can go get stoned and watch the game

They do that in Holland and Vancouver.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree with the opinions of many people on this board who try to look at the issue as one of costs. The true costs of keeping it illegal (cops, arrests, drug crime, etc.) are hard to quantify, and each side can use their own numbers to support their argument. The true costs of making it legal (worse health problems, more driving fatalities, second hand smoke damages, publicly funded rehab (either through the government directly or through a rise in health insurance rates for everyone)) are even harder to quantify, and each side can use their own numbers to support their argument.

In my more creative moods, what I would like to see is for the Federal government to step out of the way and let each state decide if the substance is legal or not and make laws regulating it. Each state would then come up with its own crazy system (like GA and Sunday booze laws. When I was in college in GA, I was one of those people about whom SkyDog spoke who was really confused in the Kroger trying to buy beer on a Sunday). After a decade or two, we would have a better sense of what the true costs on each side really are.

Ultimately, though, I think that such a system would create more chaos than it is worth (with all of the money and time that would be spent campaigning on various initiatives and the issues of transportation through states, etc. that would arise) and could lead to a Prohibition like situation if the Fed ever decides to weigh in on the issue again.

Personally, I am against legalizing because I saw too many HS friends get baked out of existance by the stuff. But there are a lot of larger, civil liberties reasons for legalizing it with which I sympathize. So I would not be too upset if the front page of tomorrow's Post had a picture of GW smoking a bit of the "nefarious demon weed" (as a tounge-in-cheek professor of mine used to call it) while singing a legalization bill into law.

[Qwikshot]

Are we winning the war on drugs?

Now we have estacy, let's face it, in future years, there may even be more addictive, dangerous designer drugs out there...

How dangerous is pot compared to other drugs...yes people have been baked out of their minds and lost the desire to work, go to school etc...but people have gotten drunk out of their minds too, and done the same...or people have smoked packs and packs of cigarettes a day and killed themselves...what makes pot so different from tobacco, or alcohol?

[Fritz]

Quikshot:

What tests would apply to drugs that could lead to leagalizing them? Would you suggest a danger scale and determine some means to measure various substances against this scale?

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Fritz
Quikshot:

What tests would apply to drugs that could lead to leagalizing them? Would you suggest a danger scale and determine some means to measure various substances against this scale?

What I want to know is what tests prove that alcohol and cigarettes are safe/more dangerous than pot? Anyone...

I can see that estacy is bad because it ages the brain, bores holes in it.

I can see that LSD is bad because bad acid leads to bad trips which one could die, or be stuck in a trip, or flashback, and go insane.

I can see that cocaine is bad because it speeds up the heart (ask John Entwhistle), it's highly addictive, and if you buy it from disreputable (and who is reputable in this anyway) you could be snorting drain cleaner.

I can see why heroin is bad, highly addictive and as you progress you need to take more and more, leading to deadly overdoses.

I can see why angeldust is bad, leads to massive hallucinations, and a feeling of invinsibility...fries the brain up pretty bad.

I'm just asking how did our government say okay, beer/wine/hard alcohol okay.

cigarettes/cigars okay

pot, nope?

That's what I'm curious about? I'm not really for or against, I don't think pot is anymore harmful than cigarettes or beer...but I can see where other drugs are more dangerous...

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
Driving high is much safer than driving drunk, says I. I don't drive, but my friends always talk about how they could never drive drunk, yet driving high isn't that different.

I wouldn't get into their car in either case.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Craptacular
I wouldn't get into their car in either case.

I agree, my friends have done it for long trips, these are the same guys who fall asleep after one toke, I shake my head...but if that's what they want to do with their lives, I'm not going to stop them, I just not going to get into that car either...

[John Galt]

On the other hand, it's folly to think that such a new policy would have no effect. Legal but regulated (and even taxed) drugs of any kind would almost certainly mean that more people would consume - including more children, and more people who do not have the good sense to consume properly. There would almost certainly be more children who find it as a "gateway" to other more serious drugs, and there would almost certainly be more unfortunate usage-related incidents in society generally as a direct result. I realize that the true believers among the legalization crowd don't want to recognize these are valid arguments, but they are essentially undeniable.

QS, "undeniable" seems a bit strong. I think, in recent years, the gateway argument favors legalization. The argument for a reverse-gateway goes like this:

As long as we have some legal and some illegal drugs, the gateway is already created. Kids or adults try alcohol, cigarettes, aspirin, ibuprofen, sudafed, etc. They then move from those drugs to other "hard drugs." The key, then, is to create a sensible line dividing more harmful and less harmful drugs. Otherwise, people try an illegal, less harmful drug (like pot), discover it isn't that bad, and then question what the government has been telling them. Pot is less harmful than alcohol in every way. By making it illegal, people who try it become more distrustful of the government propoganda and thus, rationalize the move to other drugs.

To me then, the "gateway" is a reason to legalize pot.

For the rest of you arguing about driving - a study under the Nixon administration designed to prove pot's danger actually showed that an average "dose" of pot/THC was equivalent to a single beer in terms of driver impairment. If you want to stop drug-caused reckless driving, then you should prohibit alcohol and not pot.

[Qwikshot]

I wouldn't get in a car with a drunk drive or a pot head...

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
On the other hand, it's folly to think that such a new policy would have no effect. Legal but regulated (and even taxed) drugs of any kind would almost certainly mean that more people would consume - including more children, and more people who do not have the good sense to consume properly. There would almost certainly be more children who find it as a "gateway" to other more serious drugs, and there would almost certainly be more unfortunate usage-related incidents in society generally as a direct result. I realize that the true believers among the legalization crowd don't want to recognize these are valid arguments, but they are essentially undeniable.

Here's an area where we disagree Quik. I don't doubt that pot use would increase noticably right after legalization, but I have a strong suspicion that long-term, usage would not be signficantly more common. The ease with which pot can be obtained currently suggests to me that most people who are inclined to want to use it do, with a much smaller percentage of people that are curious but unwilling to break the law. There is also likely a small percentage that currently use pot precisely because to do so is breaking the law.

The other area where we disagree is the gateway theory. As I've already pointed out, the evidence does not support this notion. Again I ask why is it that so very few people that have tried pot are users of harder drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc) if there is something inherent in smoking pot that causes a person to use harder drugs?

Perhaps there is something in pot that changes the brain chemistry to make people more likely to seek more intense highs, but there's not much in the way of conclusive evidence for this theory. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Much more likely is the notion that those people inclined to actively seek altering their mental state and are willing to break the law to do so will start smoking pot. A few among them will feel the need to experience more intense highs or be willing to subject themselves to the higher risks of harder drugs. Given the ease with which pot can be obtained, they are very likely to start there before moving on to harder substances. Hence, the connection is a correllation, but not causation.

Another possibility is the proximity effect - some pot dealers will also deal harder drugs, and through repeated exposure to these dealers pot users might be convinced to try a harder drug (which of course benefits the dealer by getting them hooked on a more addictive substance with a much higher profit rate). If this is the case, legalizing pot removes this as an effect.

Originally posted by QuikSand
There's more to the story, of course. There's a lot of bad that comes from the fact that there exists a demand for this product, legal or not. And therefore, you have substantial commitments of law enforcement resources to the problem, along with the downsides of such a lucrative illegal business (unregulated black market companies don't play by the same rules as "ordinary" ones)- so much of our street violence is the direct and obvious result of the lucrative drug trade. Convert that market to one where law-abiding, regulated businesses can lawfully conduct their transactions in the open, and you cut out much of the ruthlessness and territorialism that pervade the black market. You'll probably have more drug addicts, but fewer drug murders.

We agree here. This country has spent the last 20 years or so battling the "War on Drugs", and what has changed? It makes no sense to me from a public policy perspective to continue keeping marijuana illegal.

I would also agree that Fritz has pointed out a number of practical issues that would have to be addressed by making it legal. Obviously you'd want at least the same regulations on pot as you do alcohol - strict limits on driving while stoned, no operating heavy machinery or public transport, set an appropriate age limit, make provisions that account for the effects of second-hand smoke, etc. I don't have the answers to these, but I think it's time we started figuring them out as a country rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that the demand for pot isn't going to go away.

[Qwikshot]

Y'know I had a dream that once they legalized pot, I'd be a pot farmer, how great a dream is that? Long as you didn't smoke all your profits away...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
I agree, my friends have done it for long trips, these are the same guys who fall asleep after one toke, I shake my head...but if that's what they want to do with their lives, I'm not going to stop them, I just not going to get into that car either...
I'm sure that's very comforting to the people (and their families) who have to share the roads with your idiotic friends.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Craptacular
By the way, does anyone else think dawgfan is really Woody Harrelson?

And your point is...?

To address your previous post, I agree that underage kids shouldn't be using either. The best way to do this though is through education. And the only way for education to be effective is if the information being provided is accurate. For years this government has attempted to paint grossly exaggerated portraits of the effect of many drugs. When people try them and find out much of what the government has claimed is BS, they lose any faith in the messages the government is trying to send.

So, acknowledge the reasons why people like to use pot (and alcohol, and tobacco, and cocaine, etc). Then discuss the drawbacks to all these drugs without resorting to exaggeration or distortions of the truth.

Drug education can work - I for one have never had any interest in using cocaine or heroin because I knew what the drawbacks were and decided I didn't think either was worth it. Same thing with cigarettes - I can't understand why anyone would start smoking.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Fritz
you will be able to find a post almost exactly like this anytime this subject comes up anywhere.

And your point is...?

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I'm sure that's very comforting to the people (and their families) who have to share the roads with your idiotic friends.

No different than the drunks on the road...you try talking a 6 foot 7 inch 350 pound man out of his car...

and for the matter, if you've been on the roads, there are sober people who are scarier drivers...cell phone junkies, 16 year old teens, old people...you share the road with lots of idiots...and I'd like you not to judge my friends either, they may not be perfect, but neither are you...(after all you /are/ a Leafs fan, bleach).

[dacman]

My grandfather farmed hemp in WW2. I see no reason why HEMP should be illegal.

If cannibis is legalized then I would want :
1) No smoking if it in public AT ALL. (I don't want a 2nd hand high, thank you -- yes its possible).
2) Driving under the influence of THC would be illegal, as would
operating heavy machinery, public transportation, etc.
3) Public "intoxication" would include a THC high.
4) Minor in possession in public would be illegal.
5) Growing it in city limits would be illegal.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by dawgfan
And your point is...?

To address your previous post, I agree that underage kids shouldn't be using either. The best way to do this though is through education.
...
Drug education can work - I for one have never had any interest in using cocaine or heroin because I knew what the drawbacks were and decided I didn't think either was worth it. Same thing with cigarettes - I can't understand why anyone would start smoking.

dawgfan,

I forgot the :) ... it was supposed to be a joke. Sorry, the first thing I picture when someone talks about hemp is Woody Harrelson.

I agree, the best way to prevent drug use by minors is through education ... preferably from family.

Personally, I think driving under the influence of anything (too much alcohol, pot, cocaine, NyQuil, etc) is asinine. People that do so are a danger to society and should be dealt with harshly. I am a huge believer in personal responsiblity, so if people want to fuck with their brains in private, I don't really care. When that behavior endangers anyone else, then I have issues.

Personally, I don't see how anyone would want to drink too much alcohol, smoke dope or cigarettes, snort cocaine, etc, etc, etc.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Without taking a stance on either side of the debate, it's worth pointing out that there is a signficant difference between driving drunk and driving high. Alcohol can be detected with a simple breathalyzer test. As far as I'm aware, there's no (empirical) way to determine whether someone has smoked up, short of a urine or blood test.

So unless you want to give the police the right to demand your blood, or make you pee in a cup for them, you're looking at a problem that will need to be solved before a lot of people will get onside with legalization.


Ahh but mother is the necessity of all invention. Right now they have no real reason to test you and see if you have recently smoked. I dont know many people that have been pulled over and charged with being high on pot. Usually they mix the two, and get nailed for the booze.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Airhog
Ahh but mother is the necessity of all invention. Right now they have no real reason to test you and see if you have recently smoked.
Well, I believe it is already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, so in theory they have a reason to test right now. Unless you're arguing that there will be more reason to test once pot is legal, because there will be more people driving impaired. I don't think that's what you meant, though.

Besides, I'm sure many of these corporations that want to drug test emplyees (on the basis that what they do in their spare time somehow affects their work day) have already been trying to come up with a quicker test.

[jonnylungs]

What really ticks me off are those commercials that make pot out to be this horrible terrible thing. All that BS about druggies supporting terrorists is completely idiotic. I'd like to see their numbers. Sure cocaine users are probably supporting some south american guerillas or whatever but gimme a break. a pot smoker is not supporting terrorism

[Fritz]

what really ticks me off is the commecial where the high kid shoots his friend by mistake. Like it was a <i>mistake.</i>

[illinifan999]

I don't really care. For me I would get in just as much trouble smoking weed, as drinking.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Well, I believe it is already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, so in theory they have a reason to test right now. Unless you're arguing that there will be more reason to test once pot is legal, because there will be more people driving impaired. I don't think that's what you meant, though.

Besides, I'm sure many of these corporations that want to drug test emplyees (on the basis that what they do in their spare time somehow affects their work day) have already been trying to come up with a quicker test.


Your probably right, although now the urine test is probably accurate enought to dectect someone that has just gotten high. I had to piss in a cup for the state for 6 weeks, and they could tell if you just smoked or not.

[Fritz]

you think they have a field kit for that piss test?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by John Galt
QS, "undeniable" seems a bit strong. I think, in recent years, the gateway argument favors legalization. The argument for a reverse-gateway goes like this:

As long as we have some legal and some illegal drugs, the gateway is already created. Kids or adults try alcohol, cigarettes, aspirin, ibuprofen, sudafed, etc. They then move from those drugs to other "hard drugs." The key, then, is to create a sensible line dividing more harmful and less harmful drugs. Otherwise, people try an illegal, less harmful drug (like pot), discover it isn't that bad, and then question what the government has been telling them. Pot is less harmful than alcohol in every way. By making it illegal, people who try it become more distrustful of the government propoganda and thus, rationalize the move to other drugs.

To me then, the "gateway" is a reason to legalize pot.

JG, I can accept that logic. I think there's some truth to it. I'd be perfectly willing to move the "gateway" argument from the "undeniable" (as I originally suggested) to the "arguable" category. I suspect some people might reach the conclusion that you do. I also firmly believe that at least some people would, with legal and openly avialable marijuana, gain a taste for mind-altering substances, and move on to more aggressive vehicles. How that would balance out, I don't know... but I'll concede that it's not a truly one-sided calculus.


Originally posted by dawgfan
The other area where we disagree is the gateway theory. As I've already pointed out, the evidence does not support this notion. Again I ask why is it that so very few people that have tried pot are users of harder drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc) if there is something inherent in smoking pot that causes a person to use harder drugs?

While I think you have made several fine arguments in this thread - this is not among them. This is fallacious logic, pure and simple.

Of course plenty of people smoke pot and not go on to harder drugs. Everyone knows that. Suggesting that this refutes the "marijuana as gateway" argument is a non-sequitur.

The gateway argument is, of course, not that every pot smoker goes on to try other drugs... it's that those who do smoke pot are substantially more likely to do so. (Again, this is not my personal opinion, but rather my own restatement of the issue as it is widely argued) If only 2% of non-pot smokers never try harder drugs, but (holding other factors equal) 40% of pot smokers do indeed try harder drugs - that would be the kind of statistic to affirm the gateway theory. Yet, there would still be plenty of people out there - 60% of pot smokers is millions of people - who smoke(d) pot and never went past that point. Doesn't offer even a chink in the armor of the gateway theory.

Again - you have made several good points, I just disagree with this one.

[jonnylungs]

For me, alcohol was the gateway drug. I experimented with some drugs back in high school (cocaine, LSD) when I was drunk and didn't really care. I did smoke a lot of pot but the only time I ever did a harder drug was when I was drunk.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Fritz
you think they have a field kit for that piss test?

no they dont. but this is a point we could argue over and over. I dont think that just because you cannot readily test it, that it should be illegal.

What if alcohol was not able to be detected by a breath test? Should it be illegal too, because we couldnt determine if someone was drinking?

[Airhog]

Originally posted by QuikSand


Of course plenty of people smoke pot and not go on to harder drugs. Everyone knows that. Suggesting that this refutes the "marijuana as gateway" argument is a non-sequitur.

The gateway argument is, of course, not that every pot smoker goes on to try other drugs... it's that those who do smoke pot are substantially more likely to do so. (Again, this is not my personal opinion, but rather my own restatement of the issue as it is widely argued) If only 2% of non-pot smokers never try harder drugs, but (holding other factors equal) 40% of pot smokers do indeed try harder drugs - that would be the kind of statistic to affirm the gateway theory. Yet, there would still be plenty of people out there - 60% of pot smokers is millions of people - who smoke(d) pot and never went past that point. Doesn't offer even a chink in the armor of the gateway theory.

Again - you have made several good points, I just disagree with this one.

And I have to disagree with this one point that you bring up Quicksand. The problem I see it, is most people want to look at the fact that someone has smoked pot, then goes on to become a crack head. But I feel there is a more underlying cause, as to why people smoke pot, and why some people are more likely to move on to harder drugs. I think there are other factors, that cannot be quantified as easily as the smokes pot then goes onto crack argument. I think you have to look much more deeply into the mental health of these people, and the Psychological factors that lead upto heavy drug use. I tend to believe that most people that are classified as drug users rather than recreational users, are looking to replace or cover up something. Maybe they are trying to mask their pain, rather than deal with it. They are looking for a way out and drugs provide that way out. That is why you see an escalation in the drugs they use. They might start out smoking pot, and move up into cocaine, because it makes them feel better, even if only for a little bit. Now on the other hand, I think people that stay with pot, are just like people that drink on the weekends. They like the feeling of being high, just like people that drink like the feeling of being buzzed. They have no desire to try harder drugs because pot is all they need. I think they also understand that you cannot overdose on pot and kill yourself like you can on harder drugs. So to reiterate, I belive that the mind and possibly even genes play a much larger role in determining those factors that someone might try harder drugs, instead of the argument that if you smoke pot, there is a 40% chance your going to try harder drugs.

On another note, I think the Netherlands has clearly disproven that Pot leads to hard drugs. Their heroin population has remaind fairly constant at 25,000 people. Then again, they place an empahsis on helping people deal with there problem, rather than just lock them up.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Airhog
no they dont. but this is a point we could argue over and over. I dont think that just because you cannot readily test it, that it should be illegal.

What if alcohol was not able to be detected by a breath test? Should it be illegal too, because we couldnt determine if someone was drinking?

Sometime in the post-legalized future a patrol officer pulls over some lady late at night for weaving. While checking her license the officer notices the smell of pot in her car, and asks the lady to step out of the vehicle. After a quick visual inspection the officer decides she might be high. "Mam, could you please tinkle in this" he would say, handing her a dixie cup. Of course, this would be on the interstate, so she would have to hike up her skirt and aim for the little cup in plain view of the road. Every few seconds the lights of a bigrig would spotlight her, quickly followed by the booming honk of an airhorn. After peeing in the cup, and her shoes, she would hand the dripping cup back to the officer....

that was all I was thinking.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
The gateway argument is, of course, not that every pot smoker goes on to try other drugs... it's that those who do smoke pot are substantially more likely to do so. (Again, this is not my personal opinion, but rather my own restatement of the issue as it is widely argued) If only 2% of non-pot smokers never try harder drugs, but (holding other factors equal) 40% of pot smokers do indeed try harder drugs - that would be the kind of statistic to affirm the gateway theory. Yet, there would still be plenty of people out there - 60% of pot smokers is millions of people - who smoke(d) pot and never went past that point. Doesn't offer even a chink in the armor of the gateway theory.

Again - you have made several good points, I just disagree with this one.

I don't disagree with your point, but I do disagree with the numbers you suggest. I don't have the figures for percentages of people who've tried pot trying other, harder drugs, but the figures I've seen for people who've tried pot becoming regular users of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin are along the lines of 1-2%. Given these figures, if there's anything about smoking pot that makes people more likely to abuse harder drugs, it has a negligable impact.

Are people who've tried pot more likely to try harder drugs than those who've never tried pot? Perhaps, but this is a flawed comparison - the group that has tried pot is a self-selected group that has already demonstrated a willingness to break the law in search of a mind-altering state.

If there was something inherent in using marijuana that caused people to be more likely to abuse hard drugs, it would stand to reason that there would be a much greater percentage of pot-users moving on to cocaine and heroin.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I don't disagree with your point, but I do disagree with the numbers you suggest.

I tried to be clear that my "numbers" (all preceded by the word "if") were there for illustrative purposes only. I'm not quoting statistics, since my bickering was only with the logic, not the facts. Therefore...

I don't have the figures for percentages of people who've tried pot trying other, harder drugs, but the figures I've seen for people who've tried pot becoming regular users of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin are along the lines of 1-2%. Given these figures, if there's anything about smoking pot that makes people more likely to abuse harder drugs, it has a negligable impact.

Are people who've tried pot more likely to try harder drugs than those who've never tried pot? Perhaps, but this is a flawed comparison - the group that has tried pot is a self-selected group that has already demonstrated a willingness to break the law in search of a mind-altering state.

If there was something inherent in using marijuana that caused people to be more likely to abuse hard drugs, it would stand to reason that there would be a much greater percentage of pot-users moving on to cocaine and heroin.

I don't disagree with your general argument about the self-selection process... but maybe that isn't a real refutation in itself.

And again, if 2% of pot users graduate to heroin, but only 0.01% of non pot users do... doesn't that say something? You may be completely right that there is nothing in the chemistry of marijuana that causes the so-called gateway problem... but maybe (a derivation from Galt's argument above) it simply springs from the fact that pot is largely harmless... the authority figures all say that it's terrible for you, and then you try it and your world doesn't collapse, so you beging to distrust the authority figures' advice on other things, including harder drugs... who knows?

I'm not sure that the whole "gateway" argument hinges on something physiological about marijuana contributing to an appetite for harder drugs. Maybe it's purely psychological... and maybe it's purely a function of the self-selection process that you describe (pot smokers are just more likely to have already been rule-breaker and risk-taker types... the type who would have tried harder drugs anyway).

I think we're on the same sheet of music, really. I'm just razzing you about one argument - I can't help myself.

[dawgfan]

I think we're basically on the same page Quik. I'm probably just arguing semantics here.

Based on the question do people who use pot try harder drugs at a greater rate than those who don't try pot, then yes the answer is likely that marijuana is acting as a 'gateway' to harder drugs.

That's not the impression I get though when critics refer to marijuana as a gateway drug. The implication seems to be that using marijuana causes people to move on to harder drugs, i.e. there is a physiological component. If there is a correlation between pot use and harder drug use, but the causation is a particular predisposition in the user rather than a physical effect from the marijuana, then I think it is faulty to describe marijuana as a 'gateway' drug - instead the pot use would more accurately be described as a byproduct of that predisposed attitude in the user.

By referring to the numbers I've used, I'm making the point that there seems to be extremely little evidence that there is any causation on the part of marijuana use. Even if the percentage of pot-users who go on to cocaine or heroin is greater than the percentage of non-pot users, I think the much more likely reason is that most people with an inclination to use cocaine or heroin will first start with marijuana due to the ease with which it can be obtained, while there will be a few who jump straight into cocaine or heroin without bothering to try marijuana first.

[Fritz]

how much would it piss the NFLers off if pot was legal and they still couldn't smoke it....

[Kodos]

I've never taken any illegal drug, but I think marijuana should probably be legalized, FWIW.

[Raven]

Bob and I vote yes.

http://www.the-head-shop.co.uk/images/Bob-Marley---Smoke.jpg