Forum Settings
Forums

CALIFORNIANS what do you think of California's Prop. 19?

Poll: What is your vote for Proposition 19?

#1
Aug 1, 2010 3:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 87


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMM_T_PJ0Rs

FuckYou @[url=http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=7149] AsaAnime Addicts Club recently made me aware of some awesome simple animation called "The Flower"that succinctly illustrates the history and consequences of criminalizing pot. Made me wonder how many here are Californians and if they were considering voting for it.

It could mean hundreds of millions in tax revenue, which the state of California needs, and a positive departure from the "War on Drugs", and moves the discussion towards mitigation of TRULY deadly drugs and harm reduction.

If you don't like pot that's fine, but saying it causes more harm than alcohol or tobacco or is a gateway drug is ridiculous. So I'm just wondering if anyone has any productive thoughts, insights, or comments in regards to the proposition 19 and/or the vid. Or if there are any Washatonians out there who have thoughts on Initiative 1080 that would be cool too.
Modified by um_esper, Aug 1, 2010 10:36 PM
 
#2
Aug 1, 2010 7:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 92
As much as I'm in favor of this I just don't see it happening. There are a plethora of reasons why this proposition should be passed but I think too many people are set on the mindset that marijuana is a drug and therefore must be illegal regardless of the facts.

The biggest factor why I approve of this is the fact that it would ideally lower the deficit caused by all marijuana related offences like all the charges made for possession and hopefully even lower the violence caused by drug cartels trying to transport and sell.

The only concern I have is that with such change there will be idiots who will not care about the specifics of the law and think its a permission slip to do whatever they want in relation to marijuana, defeating the purpose of passing the proposition. I foresee many people showing up to work high, driving under the influence, and even trying to distribute for profit, getting us back to square one, solving nothing, and possibly bringing in a bigger set of problems.

I do plan on voting in favor hoping that the many benefits to this can be realized. I do smoke from time to time and I've never acted irresponsibly or endangered someone while under the influence so I expect the same from every "smoker" should this pass.
 
#3
Aug 1, 2010 8:00 PM
Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 106
um_esper said:

If you don't like pot that's fine, but saying it causes more harm than alcohol or tobacco or is a gateway drug is ridiculous. .


Not liking it is more than enough a reason for people to vote no. It doesn't matter what kind of argument you offer. The same goes for almost everything.
<img src="http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/liebenasuka/siggy.jpg?t=1280279735" border="0" />
 
#4
Aug 1, 2010 8:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2361
i don't like high ppl out on the streets roaming around
 
#5
Aug 1, 2010 8:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1889
More tax for me >_> there are quite a handful of people in SoCal that abuse welfare...w.e well I know it'll put some people out of business :]
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.
 
#6
Aug 1, 2010 9:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
um_esper said:

Fixed! Only copy the part after http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=


Make it legal but at-least limit the amount that one person can carry ( 1 pound or something) >.>
Modified by Gogetters, Aug 1, 2010 9:21 PM
 
#7
Aug 1, 2010 10:50 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 87
WolfgangGrimmer said:

The biggest factor why I approve of this is the fact that it would ideally lower the deficit caused by all marijuana related offences like all the charges made for possession and hopefully even lower the violence caused by drug cartels trying to transport and sell.


I agree but critics of the bill will point out how taxation would be enforced and collected, as it appears to be going, county by county. I might be wrong on this, but it appears the state would sanction the drug for legalization, while the counties themselves would decide whether they would collect taxes, how much, for what, or if people/businesses can grow in their region.

WolfgangGrimmer said:

The only concern I have is that with such change there will be idiots who will not care about the specifics of the law and think its a permission slip to do whatever they want in relation to marijuana, defeating the purpose of passing the proposition. I foresee many people showing up to work high, driving under the influence, and even trying to distribute for profit, getting us back to square one, solving nothing, and possibly bringing in a bigger set of problems.


I think you're right on usage and abuse. The RAND report predicts an uptick in use. But as far as abuse, outside of isolated cases, I think people who would abuse it like you're stating are ALREADY showing up to work high and such. I think we have more to be worried about with corporations looking at a fertile market, and throwing marijuana into everything from chocolates to energy drinks.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP315/
 
#8
Aug 1, 2010 10:52 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 87
checkdafool said:
i don't like high ppl out on the streets roaming around


I understand. But with prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and bars not going out of existence anytime soon, I think you already have a couple in your area. That's why we have police.
 
#9
Aug 2, 2010 12:02 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 35
If taxing marijuana isn't legalized, people will still purchase, exchange, grow, and smoke weed regardless of if it's illegal or not.

It would also cut back on the tax war. We've spent millions (if not billions) on people criminalizing people for marijuana. Cigarettes are worse, more accessible, and are legal, so how come people aren't apprehended for purchasing smokes (short of buying them for minors)?

Honestly if California taxes weed it would bring in some welcome revenue. Prop 19 has my support.
 
Aug 2, 2010 12:13 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 279
If people are so desperate to get these drugs could you imagine how much they'd horde if they could get it on legal terms?

I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.
 
Aug 2, 2010 12:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 832
im for it!
i hope it passes and travels from state to state till we are free...
why must my brethren be persecuted for their personal choices...
I love weed i really do...
and this is supposed to be the land of the free!
alcohol is far more worse than weed.
they might as well make it legal anyway you can obtain a medical weed card easy there...
Mr-Freeman said:
I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.

thats harsh bro ruin? really? lol dude is that some kind of joke? its not like its heroin broski its a non addictive substance
Modified by StonerWithABoner, Aug 2, 2010 12:21 AM
Its better to have burned out than to have never really shined...
 
Aug 2, 2010 12:42 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 5483
it would have my support but I am from Vancouver, Canada and am not a "CALIFORNIAN"

really, use the tax money from weed to fight REAL drugs.

@person who said "i don't like high ppl out on the streets roaming around"

Uh, high people (off weed or otherwise), in addition to drunk people do "roam" around the street. When it gets out of hand (like public drunkenness) then the police are involved and everything is fine.


note: I'm not any sort of stoner.
 
Aug 2, 2010 12:52 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7547
um_esper said:
checkdafool said:
i don't like high ppl out on the streets roaming around


I understand. But with prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and bars not going out of existence anytime soon, I think you already have a couple in your area. That's why we have police.


High people roaming around wouldn't really matter. They're not that dangerous. So the police would leave them alone for the most part.

Mr-Freeman said:
If people are so desperate to get these drugs could you imagine how much they'd horde if they could get it on legal terms?

I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.


How would mariquana being legal ruin the future? There is really not much wrong with it and it is much safer than other kind of drugs.
 
Aug 2, 2010 12:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1792
Legal or not I am still smoking.

What the hell is the difference? And please don't give me a text full of reasons.

If you smoke. You smoke.

You like fake tan over natural tan. You go get a fake tan.

You get off on drugs. You go ahead and have fun doing it. Not that I recommend doing drugs. Seriously stay away from drugs. If you're gonna do drugs; just know you limit.

There are more important things in life than our stress relievers.
 
Aug 2, 2010 12:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 279
Drunk_Samurai said:
How would mariquana being legal ruin the future? There is really not much wrong with it and it is much safer than other kind of drugs.


Anything that makes anyone lose his senses should be banned outside of medical use. Gah, I'm sounding Mormon.
 
Aug 2, 2010 1:13 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 832
Mr-Freeman said:
Drunk_Samurai said:
How would mariquana being legal ruin the future? There is really not much wrong with it and it is much safer than other kind of drugs.


Anything that makes anyone lose his senses should be banned outside of medical use. Gah, I'm sounding Mormon.

there are many things that make a man lose his senses... like women for example should we ban them 2? i have done way more stupid things to impress some hot babes than i have ever done high :P weed doesnt dull the senses rather it allows one to perceive them different. such as it often makes a boring experience that much more interesting. the only reason it was illegal in the first place is because of the fear of lost jobs in the paper industry after they discovered hemp to be a far more productive form of creating paper rope ect. it wasnt about the fact that it got you high...
Its better to have burned out than to have never really shined...
 
Aug 2, 2010 1:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Mr-Freeman said:
If people are so desperate to get these drugs could you imagine how much they'd horde if they could get it on legal terms?

I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.


I'm sick of statements like this, no offense, but alcohol is 100 times worse in EVERY aspect, addictions, mind altering where people do STUPID sh*t, abusive addicted people doing much worse then any pot smoker has done.

I do agree once it's legalized there will be people smoking like crazy because it's like CHRISTMAS or a massive new years party, it's something to celebrate. But it'll die down after awhile, I wouldn't be surprised for a while after alcohol was legal again after prohibition that a bunch of people went out and bought a truck load and got hammered for a week and just celebrated it's return to the shelf.

@Mr-Freeman - lol, I NEVER lose my sense no matter how high I get off pot, it just makes everything better that's all, comedies are more funny, action is so much awesomer, BBQ is so much tastier, etc. It's nothing like other drugs or alcohol where someone gets hammered and decide to jump off a roof into a pool and end up not making it or over jumping it and would never do it sober in the first place. Weed is the least mind altering drug out there, little to NO people lose their sense, and most if not all are capable of making proper decisions.

I've been smoking pot sense I was 16, graduated with a 4.0 GPA and stoned through 75% of high school. I don't smoke as much now, but I still smoke more responsibly, I just treat it like alcohol, no driving, and only when I'm kicking back. I'm just saying that weed didn't change my personality like booze can to people, I can still study and remember everything, just saying, it's hard if not impossible to get high enough to be changed like alcohol changes people.
 
Aug 2, 2010 1:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7547
Goodtimes420 said:
Mr-Freeman said:
If people are so desperate to get these drugs could you imagine how much they'd horde if they could get it on legal terms?

I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.


I'm sick of statements like this, no offense, but alcohol is 100 times worse in EVERY aspect, addictions, mind altering where people do STUPID sh*t, abusive addicted people doing much worse then any pot smoker has done.

I do agree once it's legalized there will be people smoking like crazy because it's like CHRISTMAS or a massive new years party, it's something to celebrate. But it'll die down after awhile, I wouldn't be surprised for a while after alcohol was legal again after prohibition that a bunch of people went out and bought a truck load and got hammered for a week and just celebrated it's return to the shelf.

@Mr-Freeman - lol, I NEVER lose my sense no matter how high I get off pot, it just makes everything better that's all, comedies are more funny, action is so much awesomer, BBQ is so much tastier, etc. It's nothing like other drugs or alcohol where someone gets hammered and decide to jump off a roof into a pool and end up not making it or over jumping it and would never do it sober in the first place. Weed is the least mind altering drug out there, little to NO people lose their sense, and most if not all are capable of making proper decisions.

I've been smoking pot sense I was 16, graduated with a 4.0 GPA and stoned through 75% of high school. I don't smoke as much now, but I still smoke more responsibly, I just treat it like alcohol, no driving, and only when I'm kicking back. I'm just saying that weed didn't change my personality like booze can to people, I can still study and remember everything, just saying, it's hard if not impossible to get high enough to be changed like alcohol changes people.


You made good points but come on. Are you seriously saying that people who smoke weed are dangerous when driving? If that was the case then I should have been dead numerous times when I was living with my cousin.
 
Aug 2, 2010 1:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
@Drunk_Samurai - well I'm not saying it's dangerous for everyone, cause I know people who actually get better at driving when high, mainly cause their affraid of getting pulled over when high but still.

But I just said that, because I have became LUCKY, when I drove high I can become EASILY distracted, day dreaming, talking, radio, etc. and I've ran red lights without noticing till mid intersection, so it's dangerous for me anyway.

BUT I can be blazed out of my mind, and yet still make the sensible choice of not driving knowing that I can be easily distracted when high.
 
Aug 2, 2010 6:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
StonerWithABoner said:
im for it!
i hope it passes and travels from state to state till we are free...
why must my brethren be persecuted for their personal choices...
I love weed i really do...
and this is supposed to be the land of the free!
alcohol is far more worse than weed.
they might as well make it legal anyway you can obtain a medical weed card easy there...
Mr-Freeman said:
I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.

thats harsh bro ruin? really? lol dude is that some kind of joke? its not like its heroin broski its a non addictive substance

Non-addictive my ass >.> Everything has some level of addiction.
 
Aug 2, 2010 5:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Gogetters said:
StonerWithABoner said:
im for it!
i hope it passes and travels from state to state till we are free...
why must my brethren be persecuted for their personal choices...
I love weed i really do...
and this is supposed to be the land of the free!
alcohol is far more worse than weed.
they might as well make it legal anyway you can obtain a medical weed card easy there...
Mr-Freeman said:
I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.

thats harsh bro ruin? really? lol dude is that some kind of joke? its not like its heroin broski its a non addictive substance

Non-addictive my ass >.> Everything has some level of addiction.


Many people believe that marijuana is addictive but science has proven time and again that marijuana itself has no naturally addictive qualities such as cocaine, heroin, or widely used tobacco. Even so there is still evidence that shows marijuana use can become habit forming just as any activity that is practiced habitually.
 
Aug 2, 2010 5:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7547
Goodtimes420 said:
Gogetters said:
StonerWithABoner said:
im for it!
i hope it passes and travels from state to state till we are free...
why must my brethren be persecuted for their personal choices...
I love weed i really do...
and this is supposed to be the land of the free!
alcohol is far more worse than weed.
they might as well make it legal anyway you can obtain a medical weed card easy there...
Mr-Freeman said:
I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.

thats harsh bro ruin? really? lol dude is that some kind of joke? its not like its heroin broski its a non addictive substance

Non-addictive my ass >.> Everything has some level of addiction.


Many people believe that marijuana is addictive but science has proven time and again that marijuana itself has no naturally addictive qualities such as cocaine, heroin, or widely used tobacco. Even so there is still evidence that shows marijuana use can become habit forming just as any activity that is practiced habitually.


In other words like a mental addiction. Such as a person who is addicted to video games.
 
Aug 2, 2010 6:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Drunk_Samurai said:
Goodtimes420 said:
Gogetters said:
StonerWithABoner said:
im for it!
i hope it passes and travels from state to state till we are free...
why must my brethren be persecuted for their personal choices...
I love weed i really do...
and this is supposed to be the land of the free!
alcohol is far more worse than weed.
they might as well make it legal anyway you can obtain a medical weed card easy there...
Mr-Freeman said:
I'd rather find another way (God only knows which way that is) to get tax dollars than ruin our future for the present.


Exactly, NO PROOF what so ever of marijuana addiction, it's just more propaganda that ignorant people CHOOSE to believe without getting both sides of the story.
thats harsh bro ruin? really? lol dude is that some kind of joke? its not like its heroin broski its a non addictive substance

Non-addictive my ass >.> Everything has some level of addiction.


Many people believe that marijuana is addictive but science has proven time and again that marijuana itself has no naturally addictive qualities such as cocaine, heroin, or widely used tobacco. Even so there is still evidence that shows marijuana use can become habit forming just as any activity that is practiced habitually.


In other words like a mental addiction. Such as a person who is addicted to video games.


Exactly, NO PROOF of Marijuana addictions, just a bunch of propaganda that ignorant people CHOOSE to believe without looking at the other sides story.
 
Aug 2, 2010 6:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence
Modified by Gogetters, Aug 2, 2010 8:01 PM
 
Aug 2, 2010 7:31 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 875
I don't understand why people think that it being legalized will increase the usage of it. Let's be honest here, it's not hard to get if you want it. Secondly the US has nearly triple the usage rate( and one of the highest in the world) than the Netherlands does, where it is legal.
 
Aug 2, 2010 7:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1403
Gunther_ said:
I don't understand why people think that it being legalized will increase the usage of it. Let's be honest here, it's not hard to get if you want it. Secondly the US has nearly triple the usage rate( and one of the highest in the world) than the Netherlands does, where it is legal.
I'm sure alcohol use went up after the prohibition ended. Why wouldn't the same happen for pot?

By the way, I generally stand in favor of marijuana legalization though I don't use it. I really only don't use it because it's illegal. If it were legalized, my usage would increase.
 
Aug 2, 2010 7:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 279
Goodtimes420 said:
I've been smoking pot sense I was 16, graduated with a 4.0 GPA and stoned through 75% of high school. I don't smoke as much now, but I still smoke more responsibly, I just treat it like alcohol, no driving, and only when I'm kicking back. I'm just saying that weed didn't change my personality like booze can to people, I can still study and remember everything, just saying, it's hard if not impossible to get high enough to be changed like alcohol changes people.


'K, I'm man enough to admit you guys have gotten me on the addictive part, heck several parts. My 2 cents became .0002 cents.

But wow. 75% of Highschool, huh? I feel rather sorry for you. Of course not in a arrogant kind of way, I had a 3.5 throughout. But you didn't think you could maintain your GPA without the drugs? And that's a serious question that is no way mocking, though I'm sure you'll take it that way, but whatever.

Edit: Not only maintaining your GPA but also maintaining your daily life. Didn't think it was fun without the drugs?
Modified by Mr-Freeman, Aug 2, 2010 8:08 PM
 
Aug 2, 2010 8:03 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7547
Gogetters said:
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence


Which means it's easier to quit. Physical addictions are the hard to break ones.
 
Aug 2, 2010 8:07 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Mr-Freeman said:
Goodtimes420 said:
I've been smoking pot sense I was 16, graduated with a 4.0 GPA and stoned through 75% of high school. I don't smoke as much now, but I still smoke more responsibly, I just treat it like alcohol, no driving, and only when I'm kicking back. I'm just saying that weed didn't change my personality like booze can to people, I can still study and remember everything, just saying, it's hard if not impossible to get high enough to be changed like alcohol changes people.


'K, I'm man enough to admit you guys have gotten me on the addictive part, heck several parts. My 2 cents became .0002 cents.

But wow. 75% of Highschool, huh? I feel rather sorry for you. Of course not in a arrogant kind of way, I had a 3.5 throughout. But you didn't think you could maintain your GPA without the drugs? And that's a serious question that is no way mocking, though I'm sure you'll take it that way, but whatever.


lol, no I respect other peoples suggestions and opinions, so there's nothing wrong about what you said. The only time I get angry is when someone tries to say something that this is true, when there's NO scientific proof, like the government does a lot towards Marijuana.

But no I never thought about being able to maintain my GPA off of marijuana, but when I started college, I stopped smoking for about 6 months because I was paying a LOT of money to go, and thought if I ever got caught with pot even if I was only fined that I would get kicked out of college, but then I talked my career councilor which told me that would only happen if I smoked and kept it in the dorms or was dealing it, but I live locally to my college the University of Washington, so I don't need a dorm so I started again, but it never really affected my GPA as I've been able to maintain it at a 3.5
Modified by DankEvergreen, Aug 2, 2010 9:13 PM
 
Aug 2, 2010 8:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1750
This will bring tourists from all over the States. Might as well tax the borders while we are at it.
 
Aug 2, 2010 9:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence


Which means it's easier to quit. Physical addictions are the hard to break ones.
Doesn't matter a addiction is still a addiction.

I still think it should be legal though.
 
Aug 2, 2010 9:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Gogetters said:
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence


Which means it's easier to quit. Physical addictions are the hard to break ones.
Doesn't matter it's still somewhat addictive.

I still think it should be legal though.


There is a fine line between additions and habit forming, but still there's a difference, as an chemical addiction is where you NEED to get it or you get withdraws, and withdraws can be painful from simple headaches to body-aches to severe migraines and other pains, which can force a person to do things they wouldn't do normally to get that drug. Marijuana DOES NOT DO ANY of that to a person, not at all, and that's one of the differences between addiction and habit forming, as habit forming doesn't give you withdraws.

Here's another fact, there are 2 kinds of drugs where you can DIE from the WITHDRAWS from quitting, heroin and ALCOHOL.
 
Aug 2, 2010 9:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
Goodtimes420 said:
Gogetters said:
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence


Which means it's easier to quit. Physical addictions are the hard to break ones.
Doesn't matter it's still somewhat addictive.

I still think it should be legal though.


There is a fine line between additions and habit forming, but still there's a difference, as an chemical addiction is where you NEED to get it or you get withdraws, and withdraws can be painful from simple headaches to body-aches to severe migraines and other pains, which can force a person to do things they wouldn't do normally to get that drug. Marijuana DOES NOT DO ANY of that to a person, not at all, and that's one of the differences between addiction and habit forming, as habit forming doesn't give you withdraws.

Here's another fact, there are 2 kinds of drugs where you can DIE from the WITHDRAWS from quitting, heroin and ALCOHOL.
Headaches body-aches etc.. are physical not physiological.
I also knew that about the Alcohol bit.


This could go on forever so you mind if we quit? =l
 
Aug 2, 2010 9:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Gogetters said:
Goodtimes420 said:
Gogetters said:
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence


Which means it's easier to quit. Physical addictions are the hard to break ones.
Doesn't matter it's still somewhat addictive.

I still think it should be legal though.


There is a fine line between additions and habit forming, but still there's a difference, as an chemical addiction is where you NEED to get it or you get withdraws, and withdraws can be painful from simple headaches to body-aches to severe migraines and other pains, which can force a person to do things they wouldn't do normally to get that drug. Marijuana DOES NOT DO ANY of that to a person, not at all, and that's one of the differences between addiction and habit forming, as habit forming doesn't give you withdraws.

Here's another fact, there are 2 kinds of drugs where you can DIE from the WITHDRAWS from quitting, heroin and ALCOHOL.
Headaches body-aches etc.. are physical not physiological.
I also knew that about the Alcohol bit.


This could go on forever so you mind if we quit? =l


Yea in a bit, I'm about to run out of steam myself, but I want to know what you mean by physiological, don't know what that has to do with marijuana sense it does little damage, at most it kills a few extra brain cells, but everything does, sleeping, being awake, watching tv, etc. Brain cells die all the time, and marijuana doesn't do much more damage.

But it's the physical part that makes drugs like heroin addictive, because people take aspirin when they have a headache, heroin addicts will do heroin when they start getting withdraws to get rid of them. Same with alcohol, meth, and other hard drugs, weed does NOT do anything of to anyone, and does little to NO damage in physiological terms.
 
Aug 2, 2010 10:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
Goodtimes420 said:
Gogetters said:
Goodtimes420 said:
Gogetters said:
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
It's not physically addictive (i.e no physical withdraws) but it can be physiologically addictive.


http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
Many users may not display any signs of addiction or withdrawal, yet the number of users seeking treatment has been growing steadily over the years.6 Overall, it is difficult to say whether or not the drug is physically addictive, but it is known that marijuana use can lead to psychological addiction and social dependence


Which means it's easier to quit. Physical addictions are the hard to break ones.
Doesn't matter it's still somewhat addictive.

I still think it should be legal though.


There is a fine line between additions and habit forming, but still there's a difference, as an chemical addiction is where you NEED to get it or you get withdraws, and withdraws can be painful from simple headaches to body-aches to severe migraines and other pains, which can force a person to do things they wouldn't do normally to get that drug. Marijuana DOES NOT DO ANY of that to a person, not at all, and that's one of the differences between addiction and habit forming, as habit forming doesn't give you withdraws.

Here's another fact, there are 2 kinds of drugs where you can DIE from the WITHDRAWS from quitting, heroin and ALCOHOL.
Headaches body-aches etc.. are physical not physiological.
I also knew that about the Alcohol bit.


This could go on forever so you mind if we quit? =l


Yea in a bit, I'm about to run out of steam myself, but I want to know what you mean by physiological, don't know what that has to do with marijuana sense it does little damage, at most it kills a few extra brain cells, but everything does, sleeping, being awake, watching tv, etc. Brain cells die all the time, and marijuana doesn't do much more damage.

But it's the physical part that makes drugs like heroin addictive, because people take aspirin when they have a headache, heroin addicts will do heroin when they start getting withdraws to get rid of them. Same with alcohol, meth, and other hard drugs, weed does NOT do anything of to anyone, and does little to NO damage in physiological terms.

tl;dr inc...

Long-term marijuana use produces changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other drugs, and can cause behaviors such as uncontrollable drug craving, delinquent behavior, and aggression. Regular marijuana smokers also face some of the same problems as cigarette addicts, including daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and frequent chest colds. Because marijuana is usually smoked without a filter, the amount of carbon monoxide and tar inhaled by marijuana smokers is three to five times greater than that inhaled by tobacco smokers.

The biggest point here is not really physical addiction regarding Marijuana, but rather the idea of psychological addiction is what is important. This is because Marijuana is very addictive to some people in a psychological sense because the person uses the drug to basically escape reality and to medicate their feelings.

For example, consider someone who has been smoking Marijuana for most of their life. They use the drug almost every day, and they justify the use of it for almost any situation. They get high to celebrate. They get high to compensate for a bad day at work. They get high when they feel sick in order to feel better. They get high when they have to deal with a bunch of drama in their life. Getting high became their default response to almost everything in their life, and so they developed this pattern of managing their entire life through getting high with Marijuana. This is addiction. They might not be physically hooked on the drug, but they rely on Marijuana as a crutch to get them through almost every event in their life. They are psychologically addicted.

It is worth noting that anyone who is psychologically addicted to Marijuana like this is also cross addicted with other drug, whether they realize it or not. In other words, people who are self medicating in this manner could very easily switch to another drug or substance and find that it works just as well for them. In other words, they are in greater danger of experiencing cross addiction. This is due to the fact that they are not really hooked on Marijuana, instead they are addicted to medicating their emotions and using a chemical to escape from reality.

Everyone who smokes Marijuana is not going to become psychologically addicted like this. But many people who smoke it every day for long periods of time are in danger of becoming psychologically addicted.
 
Aug 2, 2010 10:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Lot of that does make sense, but on that subject I don't know enough to say anything about it, I'll have start reading into that more.

I guess the only thing I could say against that for now is wouldn't alcohol have similar if not the same effects as people get into the same habits of drinking on bad days, long days at work, the traditional couple of drinks after dinner/before bed, celebrations, and depression? And if so, wouldn't that argument be nullified as it would be the same as alcohol and no current politicians against marijuana don't want to admit that alcohol is worse the pot.

But you do make a lot of sense and it's worth reading into.
 
Aug 2, 2010 10:47 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
Goodtimes420 said:
Lot of that does make sense, but on that subject I don't know enough to say anything about it, I'll have start reading into that more.

I guess the only thing I could say against that for now is wouldn't alcohol have similar if not the same effects as people get into the same habits of drinking on bad days, long days at work, the traditional couple of drinks after dinner/before bed, celebrations, and depression? And if so, wouldn't that argument be nullified as it would be the same as alcohol and no current politicians against marijuana don't want to admit that alcohol is worse the pot.

But you do make a lot of sense and it's worth reading into.
Which is why there should be a legal limit on it like there is on alcohol (.08%) and maybe an age limit of 21 should they make is legal. :)
 
Aug 2, 2010 11:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7547
Gogetters said:
Goodtimes420 said:
Lot of that does make sense, but on that subject I don't know enough to say anything about it, I'll have start reading into that more.

I guess the only thing I could say against that for now is wouldn't alcohol have similar if not the same effects as people get into the same habits of drinking on bad days, long days at work, the traditional couple of drinks after dinner/before bed, celebrations, and depression? And if so, wouldn't that argument be nullified as it would be the same as alcohol and no current politicians against marijuana don't want to admit that alcohol is worse the pot.

But you do make a lot of sense and it's worth reading into.
Which is why there should be a legal limit on it like there is on alcohol (.08%) and maybe an age limit of 21 should they make is legal. :)


Marijuana really isn't a gateway drug. I don't know why everybody keeps on claiming that.

Also no. The age should be 18. Alcohol should be lowered to 18 too.
 
Aug 2, 2010 11:27 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
Goodtimes420 said:
Lot of that does make sense, but on that subject I don't know enough to say anything about it, I'll have start reading into that more.

I guess the only thing I could say against that for now is wouldn't alcohol have similar if not the same effects as people get into the same habits of drinking on bad days, long days at work, the traditional couple of drinks after dinner/before bed, celebrations, and depression? And if so, wouldn't that argument be nullified as it would be the same as alcohol and no current politicians against marijuana don't want to admit that alcohol is worse the pot.

But you do make a lot of sense and it's worth reading into.
Which is why there should be a legal limit on it like there is on alcohol (.08%) and maybe an age limit of 21 should they make is legal. :)


Marijuana really isn't a gateway drug. I don't know why everybody keeps on claiming that.

Also no. The age should be 18. Alcohol should be lowered to 18 too.


Agreed, as one of the most common arguments, if your old enough to die for your country your old enough to have a drink.

But yes I agree it's not a gateway drug, and if there is ANY TRUTH TO IT AT ALL it's because of the POOR drug education, as they educate you to believe marijuana is equally dangerous to heroin and other hard drugs, and sense marijuana is the MOST common drug you'll run into when your young, and when you try it and find out the truth to how marijuana affects you from personal use, that poor education may have you think that the rest of the drugs are not so bad BECAUSE the poor drug education educated you to believe marijuana is equally bad to the other drugs, which causes you to lose the fear and allow you to easily try the other harder drugs.

But other then that, marijuana is not a gate way drug, there is NO scientific proof of marijuana being a gateway drug.
 
Aug 3, 2010 12:11 AM
Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 21
Fuck it. Legalize the shit. Forget about scientific proof - the gross majority of you have too poor a grasp of the scientific process and too high a willingness to listen to crap science for that to mean anything. Forget the ethical arguments for or against - the average weeaboo's grasp of the philosophy of ethics and morality is poorer than my late dog's.

All you really need to ask is "what happens if somebody does?" And the answer, as countless other nations, have demonstrated for us, is absolutely nothing important. Less stoners in jail, a tiny bit of extra governmental revenue. It's too much trouble to ban the shit, and regulating it at least means we can maybe afford a little extra for our decades-obsolete infrastructure. Given how piss-poor this state is, I'd rather have a functional water infrastructure and a few rancid herbs in the air than a holier-than-thou attitude and a failed state.
 
Aug 3, 2010 6:47 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2869
Drunk_Samurai said:
Gogetters said:
Goodtimes420 said:
Lot of that does make sense, but on that subject I don't know enough to say anything about it, I'll have start reading into that more.

I guess the only thing I could say against that for now is wouldn't alcohol have similar if not the same effects as people get into the same habits of drinking on bad days, long days at work, the traditional couple of drinks after dinner/before bed, celebrations, and depression? And if so, wouldn't that argument be nullified as it would be the same as alcohol and no current politicians against marijuana don't want to admit that alcohol is worse the pot.

But you do make a lot of sense and it's worth reading into.
Which is why there should be a legal limit on it like there is on alcohol (.08%) and maybe an age limit of 21 should they make is legal. :)


Marijuana really isn't a gateway drug. I don't know why everybody keeps on claiming that.

Also no. The age should be 18. Alcohol should be lowered to 18 too.
I agree too that was just in the post that i copied and i also agree with 18 :D

"A recent study in New Zealand found that 99% of other illicit drug users had previously used marijuana.8 However, a majority of marijuana users studied (63%) did not progress to the use of other illicit drugs. There is still no conclusive evidence that marijuana is, in fact, a gateway drug, though it is clear that most illicit drug users have experimented with marijuana at some point in time. Although marijuana may not necessarily be a "gateway drug" for all users, its use constitutes engagement in risky behavior and may set a pattern for future behavior. "



Either way i think using drugs are stupid =l
Modified by Gogetters, Aug 3, 2010 6:51 AM
 
Aug 3, 2010 8:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 87
I think citing marijuana as a gateway drug is a somewhat myopic view of exposure and use of mind-altering substances. One could argue that nicotine and alcohol, even caffeine (or ginseng and taurine), comprise most individuals' first experiences, and therefore a "gateway", of self-medicating or recreation use of "drugs".

Furthermore, prescription, "legal", drugs can clearly be seen in this light. As the price of heroin has declined, many who were addicted to OxyContin now are turning to heroin/"cheese"(heroin and Tylenol PM?).

http://www.drug-rehabs.com/HeroinReplacesOxycontin.htm

Also, I question the reliability and the set-up of that David M. Fergusson study Gogetters is quoting. Its a longitudinal study that takes into account socio-economics and other variables, a sample size of about a thousand for 21 yrs, but it just makes me wonder how a drug policy over time affects use of drugs in a population...

What I'm wondering is this: what percentage of the other 47% started using meth and cocaine (supposedly NOW Meth, X, and GHB are the most illicit drugs in New Zealand) because of marijuana prohibition? That is to say, do people who would rather use Marijuana, instead of alcohol, at times turn to other drugs, just as illegal, but more readily available?
 
Aug 4, 2010 8:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1591
How much more tax gained ?
How much more on the health care, social work, safety check, regulation expense ?
What would be the economic story if the weeds are imported from other countries, legally or illegally?
 
Aug 4, 2010 9:57 AM
Offline
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1
I don't really see any good reason to not legalize and regulate marijuana. The only arguments that can be made against it are moral and religious, both of which are not sound platforms for legislation.

bottle said:
How much more tax gained ?
How much more on the health care, social work, safety check, regulation expense ?
What would be the economic story if the weeds are imported from other countries, legally or illegally?


Well you're looking at nearly 800 million in potential tax dollars from legalization, 100 million of that from California alone. In terms of cost, I don't have any real numbers, but it's safe to say it wouldn't offset the benefits brought in. There would be nearly no health-care cost related to it, since marijuana is extremely safe.

Also, the structure of the industry would be no different than the current tobacco industry, really. There's plenty of imported tobacco. It doesn't hurt the domestic market. Same with marijuana.
 
Aug 4, 2010 11:30 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1591
My stance is suspicious as I'm not too convinced. The situation is gonna be a long run. Number is quite important in the current economy. And I think I need more insight in how to regulate also.
 
Aug 4, 2010 11:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 468
um_esper said:
I think citing marijuana as a gateway drug is a somewhat myopic view of exposure and use of mind-altering substances. One could argue that nicotine and alcohol, even caffeine (or ginseng and taurine), comprise most individuals' first experiences, and therefore a "gateway", of self-medicating or recreation use of "drugs".

Furthermore, prescription, "legal", drugs can clearly be seen in this light. As the price of heroin has declined, many who were addicted to OxyContin now are turning to heroin/"cheese"(heroin and Tylenol PM?).

[url=http://www.drug-rehabs.com/HeroinReplacesOxycontin.htm]http://www.drug-rehabs.com/HeroinReplacesOxycontin.htm

Also, I question the reliability and the set-up of that David M. Fergusson study Gogetters is quoting. Its a longitudinal study that takes into account socio-economics and other variables, a sample size of about a thousand for 21 yrs, but it just makes me wonder how a drug policy over time affects use of drugs in a population...

What I'm wondering is this: what percentage of the other 47% started using meth and cocaine (supposedly NOW Meth, X, and GHB are the most illicit drugs in New Zealand) because of marijuana prohibition? That is to say, do people who would rather use Marijuana, instead of alcohol, at times turn to other drugs, just as illegal, but more readily available?


hmm, you are making a valid point, but people aren't always attracted to another kind of drug like cocaine or heroine.
I am a daily marijuana smoker myself so whatever I say will look biased to other people, but I wouldn't even class marijuana with other drugs.
When you are stoned / high you actaully are still in a conscious state of mind, a rather abstract one at times, but not one like when you had 20 glasses of beer and the next morning you can't even remember what you did last night.
Weed or Hasj should be smoked to enjoy it as much as possible and not before going to a party, wich people do alot with Cocaine, XTC ect. (if you are stoned, you won't even want to go to that party).

The thing people are most afraid of is the possibility of switching to hard drugs, but if you think about it.. what is the main reason people turn into hard drug addicts ? It's not because of some kind of experiment with weed or hasjish.

It is such a soft drug that you shouldn't get the need to do other drugs (It's hard to explain, but people who have tried it before would understand).

If a prop like this would ever be accepted it would turn out for the best for California.
You should take a look at how this would affect the state if the prop were to be accepted
 
Aug 4, 2010 2:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Personally, I like weed. I currently don't smoke, but I used to, and would again. I'm not from California, but I would vote for it. There's currently only 1 state that has any sort of legalization, and that's Alaska - you can have up to 1 ounce in possession in your residence without facing any jail time, arrest, or fines. There's currently a few states that only fine you with $100 for possession up to 1 oz. I think it would be a great step for California to pass it. Make it legal, slap a 21 age restriction, and rake in some tax money. It would benefit the struggling economy. and now I'm going to share some quotes from norml.com

Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs American taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 847,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only.

Check your state laws, and get the facts:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516
 
Aug 4, 2010 2:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7547
sabattier said:
Personally, I like weed. I currently don't smoke, but I used to, and would again. I'm not from California, but I would vote for it. There's currently only 1 state that has any sort of legalization, and that's Alaska - you can have up to 1 ounce in possession in your residence without facing any jail time, arrest, or fines. There's currently a few states that only fine you with $100 for possession up to 1 oz. I think it would be a great step for California to pass it. Make it legal, slap a 21 age restriction, and rake in some tax money. It would benefit the struggling economy. and now I'm going to share some quotes from norml.com

Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs American taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 847,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only.

Check your state laws, and get the facts:
[url=http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516]http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516


So if you're quoting something that shows marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco then why do you want an age 21 restriction?
 
Aug 8, 2010 9:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 87

http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/
[url]http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml[url]

Even though I think it ridiculous setting up arbitrary age limits on consumption, and some behaviors (simply because people mature emotional and physically at different rates...some 25 year olds i know shouldn't be allow to drink...), and I started smoking every day when i was around 18, science has shown the teenage brain is still forming until age 20 (on average). The area in question especially is the frontal lobe, the decision making region of the brain.

So even when one takes into account neuro-plasticity, its probably better to limit the convenience of marijuana consumption, like alcohol, until 21...even though I know some kids with a script who are under 21...and it will always be widely available to kids in high-school and younger...so its kinda pointless, except in principle.
 
Top