marijuana- should it legal????

[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 mistake.

[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.