Support NeoGAF

[Nerevar]

I agree with the ruling, because if you read what I have said, it's simply because there hasn't been a solution or program in place that is competent enough to help those who need it and is not abused by people who want to use marijuana for recreational purposes. Perhaps if I saw more proof of properly regulated medicinal marijuana or some kind of solution to put an appropiate program in place, I'd change my mind.

This is an addition to the state and federal issues at hand, which is as you said, the first thing that needs to be settled.

I disagree for a couple of resons, but mainly because I don't think the priorities are straight. I'd rather have the federal government pressure states to go after "corrupt" (for lack of a better word) doctors who are giving out subscriptions to those who don't need them than to punish those who might actually need the medical pot. By making this ruling you're effectively taking away the rights of a class of citizens who've fought for something (with real, medical evidence to support themselves) to ensure that "the greater good" is served, when you can serve "the greater good" in a much better way by pursuing a different avenue.

As has been stated before, we don't completely illegalize methadone, or oxycontin, or any other of a number of extremely dangerous narcotics simply because some doctor might be prescribing them too liberally - we go after the doctors who are committing the crime. I think this should be handled the same way.

 

[Gattsu25]

.... this issue is usually hijacked by potheads to tell everyone how not bad marijuana is, despite the fact they're not the ones that should benefit from it being legal for medicinal purposes.

Agreed. Not sure where I stand on this issue of Medical Marijuana...I'm not in the position to debate on that IMO

 

[videogamer]

I just thought you ought to be called out on your petty holier than thou bullshit.

"Holier than thou"? Ironic coming from a guy who put down gay people.

 

[akascream]

"Holier than thou"? Ironic coming from a guy who put down gay people.

Sounds like you got me pegged.

and it wasn't for disagreeing with him

Bullshit.

 

[ManDudeChild]

I think it's all silly. I mean what makes pot (the stuff without the billions of chemicals) illegal, while cigarettes are legal? I don't smoke tobacco (nor do I think it should be made illegal), but i sometimes have a joint or a drink, a quick buzz then it's over. Now I can understand some take the position of, "then others will want their stuff legal," but that's taking an extreme stance that would have very little basis in reality, even though some would probably try to protest. Though I certainly am not saying smoking tobacco should be illegal (in it's non chemical pumped form it's no 'worse' for a person than pot, but i do find it funny that something that has been proven to cause cancer is perfectly legal, yet something that just gives tou a buzz not unlike booze isn't. But that's just my take.

 

[Willco]

As has been stated before, we don't completely illegalize methadone, or oxycontin, or any other of a number of extremely dangerous narcotics simply because some doctor might be prescribing them too liberally - we go after the doctors who are committing the crime. I think this should be handled the same way.

I somewhat agree with you, but there even other issues.

Another problem, which most people dismiss, is that it's easy and affordable for average people to cultivate their own marijuana. You can't really do that with the heavy narcotics on the market.

In order to properly regulate marijuana, you're going to have to have either a pharmaceutical company or a licensed (and heavily regulated) farm grow and distribute it, which is going to lead to an increase in costs. What's to stop poor cancer-ridden nanny on a fixed income to buy it off an illegal vendor to save money? Or Doctor Feel Good selling it on the side to skim cash?

There are really so many issues and problems at hand that nobody thinks about because we're too busy arguing over which is worse -- alcohol or marijuana. If people really want to help those in pain and are in need of an alternative way to help them, they need to address the problems rationally and come up with real, pratical solutions that would appease the government and health care operations. There really isn't a solution out there right now that makes it easy for the Supreme Court to legalize marijuana.

Or we could argue that other drugs, alcohol and tobacco are worse.

 

[SlickWilly223]

By that same token, I feel people who think that medical marijuana being legal is going to make it any easier for their kids to get pot are suspect.

It's easier for kids to get weed in junior high and high school than it is to get alcohol, at least it was for me and my friends. I've heard similar sentiment as well. I don't get the connection. It's already pretty damn easy to get marijuana.

It's true.

 

[ManDudeChild]

In order to properly regulate marijuana, you're going to have to have either a pharmaceutical company or a licensed (and heavily regulated) farm grow and distribute it, which is going to lead to an increase in costs. What's to stop poor cancer-ridden nanny on a fixed income to buy it off an illegal vendor to save money? Or Doctor Feel Good selling it on the side to skim cash?

I agree to an extent, but your arguement can be used for almost EVERYTHING that has or could have an under the table version: movies, games, various counterfiet products, the list goes on. Now regulation would be nessesary, that's a given, but what does the possibility of an illegal vendor have to do with anything? Yes it's going to happen, but it happens nowadays anyways, and it won't go away. If anything, regulation would decrease the 'illegal vendors,' as there would be a legal source. As for the costs, well that's a result of the drug companies in the U.S. bending your citizens over and not using lube. That could be taken care of with more REGULATION on that front. But the problems of your drug companies isn't really the primary issue here, now is it?

It's true.

But the taboo behind it would also be gone, and so less kids would be likely to use it.

 

[DJ_Tet]

1. Uhhh Kennedy is usually listed under as a conservative...
2. It's generally agreed that the court has 5, not 4, conservative justices.

Both those are the same point no? Anyway, my point was that the conservative judges were the only ones to dissent.

If you count Kennedy as conservative, then that would leave five justices. I'm still not sure what Scalia was thinking however.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Everything has medical "properties" -- even Marijuana and Opium. However, this doesn't mean that said drugs are safe enough to be provided to the public as a means of self-medication. This is why medical institutions have created derivitives of these drugs, which are not only safer than the original form of the drug, but are prescribed and regulated by a doctor that knows more about effective doses in relation to our medical needs than we know ourselves.

The fact of the matter is that there are already prescription drugs on the market that are THC and Marijuana based, which not only work better in utilizing the chemical compounds of Marijuana to provide medical relief for certain conditions, but are void of the harmful side-effects that come with the smoking of the plant. These drugs provide the same medical benefits of Marijuana, but because they do not produce a "high" and are regulated, nobody bothers to mention or even consider them. This is because a large number of those who are interested in Marijuana for claimed "medical purposes", but refuse to look towards alternatives, are more interested in recreational use than medical relief. This same scenario is exactly the case with those who are demanding that we legalize Heroin, Methamphetamine, Opium or Cocaine under the same pretenses.

Drug use and abuse (as an issue) affects more than the people using the drugs, because we (the tax payers) will be the ones having to shoulder all of their medical costs in the future. The future of Medical and Medicaid is more important than providing people with the "right" to slowly poison themselves with a drug 4x as potent as cigarettes and put further strain on what is already an economically burdened agency of social welfare.

I also fail to see what was wrong with the Supreme Court's Ruling. Federal law has and always will supersede state law and opinion on these and similar issues.

 

[Willco]

I agree to an extent, but your arguement can be used for almost EVERYTHING that has or could have an under the table version: movies, games, various counterfiet products, the list goes on. Now regulation would be nessesary, that's a given, but what does the possibility of an illegal vendor have to do with anything? Yes it's going to happen, but it happens nowadays anyways, and it won't go away. If anything, regulation would decrease the 'illegal vendors,' as there would be a legal source. As for the costs, well that's a result of the drug companies in the U.S. bending your citizens over and not using lube. That could be taken care of with more REGULATION on that front. But the problems of your drug companies isn't really the primary issue here, now is it?

Comparing drug companies to entertainment products is ridiculous.

 

[DJ_Tet]

By that same token cigarettes and alcohol should be outlawed.

The argument of "social welfare" holds no water when the federal govt have tobacco companies in their same hand. If costs to the system is all you are worried about, I'm sure the tax would more than cover it.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Everything has medical "properties" -- even Marijuana and Opium. However, this doesn't mean that said drugs are safe enough to be provided to the public as a means of self-medication. This is why medical institutions have created derivitives of these drugs, which are not only safer than the original form of the drug, but are prescribed and regulated by a doctor that knows more about effective doses in relation to our medical needs than we know ourselves.

The fact of the matter is that there are already prescription drugs on the market that are THC and Marijuana based, which not only work better in utilizing the chemical compounds of Marijuana to provide medical relief for certain conditions, but are void of the harmful side-effects that come with the smoking of the plant. These drugs provide the same medical benefits of Marijuana, but because they do not produce a "high" and are regulated, nobody bothers to mention or even consider them. This is because a large number of those who are interested in Marijuana for claimed "medical purposes", but refuse to look towards alternatives, are more interested in recreational use than medical relief. This same scenario is exactly the case with those who are demanding that we legalize Heroin, Methamphetamine, Opium or Cocaine under the same pretenses.

Drug use and abuse (as an issue) affects more than the people using the drugs, because we (the tax payers) will be the ones having to shoulder all of their medical costs in the future. The future of Medical and Medicaid is more important than providing people with the "right" to slowly poison themselves with a drug 4x as potent as cigarettes and put further strain on what is already an economically burdened agency of social welfare.

I also fail to see what was wrong with the Supreme Court's Ruling. Federal law has and always will supersede state law and opinion on these and similar issues.

Oh yeah, i'm sure people that take it just want the high. That is the biggest crock of shit ever. I started roughly 7 months ago as a result of some depression, shit I'm still working through. I had a choice between using the pot to level my head out from the anxiety attacks, or use dangerous anti-dep drugs (which can easily cause addiction and other horrible things). Now i'll admit, I sometimes have it for the hell of it, but more often than not it's to keep my mind level when i'm having an anxiety attack. It isn't everyday, sometimes it isn't even in a week, but the point is that ... well you're ignorant. Pot doesn't pack the lethal punch of tobacco in its chemically soaked mess form. Now you CAN burn out on it, but like booze, everything in MODERATION.

Comparing drug companies to entertainment products is ridiculous.

Ok, maybe that wasn't phrased well. What I'm saying is that you'll get an illegal or knock off of anything and everything, and that you can't stop something just because of the possible 'what if' scenarios. Especially if the result is helping people.

 

[Master Z]

The future of Medical and Medicaid is more important than providing people with the "right" to slowly poison themselves with a drug 4x as potent as cigarettes

Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on what people would call their "right" to slowly poison themselves with cigarettes and alcohol?

 

[videogamer]

Both those are the same point no? Anyway, my point was that the conservative judges were the only ones to dissent.

If you count Kennedy as conservative, then that would leave five justices. I'm still not sure what Scalia was thinking however.

Yes, there is some overlap, but they are not the same thing.

1. You mentioned Scalia, but not Kennedy. You acted as though Scalia was the only conservative to be in the majority decision. Thus, point one.
2. You mentioned four conservatives. Thus, point two.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on what people would call their "right" to slowly poison themselves with cigarettes and alcohol?

Just to add another voice to it, I too would like to know your stance on the right for people to poison themselves with excess booze and smoking.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Drug use and abuse (as an issue) affects more than the people using the drugs, because we (the tax payers) will be the ones having to shoulder all of their medical costs in the future. The future of Medical and Medicaid is more important than providing people with the "right" to slowly poison themselves with a drug 4x as potent as cigarettes and put further strain on what is already an economically burdened agency of social welfare.

First of all, more potent in what way? I'm assuming you're talking in terms of tar content, and in that respect, you're right -- marijuana has more tar than a filtered cigarrette. That fact alone doesn't paint the entire picture, unfortunately, because the average cigarrette smoker consumes many cigarrettes per day, while one joint is enough to get high off marijuana. A regular pot user may use 1 - 2 joints/day, often sharing with friends, while an average cigarrette smoker usually goes through an entire pack of cigarrettes per day. 1 pack of cigarrettes = 25 individual cigs = more tar than a joint.

Policing "dangerous" drugs like these is silly for many reasons -- if a person wants to hurt themselves, what's stopping them from eating rat poison, or drinking cyanide? What's stopping them from sniffing glue, gasoline fumes, or paint -- all of which are far more deadly than smoking a joint a day. If you think hardcore potheads are slow, try talking to a person who's brain's literally turned to mush due to their frequent abuse of inhalents that can be purchased at practically any hardware or grocery store.

Chemicals. Harmful to our bodies in varying degrees, yet some of a social stigma attached to them. Why?

If you think policing drug use will solve the problem, you're very, very wrong. The crime and injustice that occurs as a result of these chemical substances being outlawed probably rivals whatever it costs to rehabilitate these junkies.

Bottom line is this: if people want to escape reality and poison their bodies and minds, they're going to do it, no way around it. We as a society need to get our priorities straight and turn lemons into lemonade. Instead of promoting gang violence, poverty cycles, and inconsistent messages, let's decriminalize, then eventually completely allow marijuana -and other soft drugs- into society where we can control and profit off their consumption.

 

[iapetus]

That has nothing to do with gay marriage. You're an idiot.

Explanation for the hard of thinking: he was parodying the 'slippery slope' argument, and rightly so. It's a remarkably tenuous one, and his example of it was supposed to indicate that.

Oh, and akascream and Nerevar, take it to PM if you need to continue shouting at each other. Nobody else cares in a thread that's already veered wildly off topic.

 

[Willco]

Tobbacco is maybe twenty years, probably less, from being banned.

And the alcohol debate is useless. Alcohol is not there so people can abuse it and crash cars into people. Is alcohol more or less dangerous than marijuana? They're two completely different substances and such a comparison doesn't account for all the sociological conditions.

It's easy to sit there and go that alcohol is legal, and it causes car crashes, domestic abuse and other negative traits, so why isn't marijuana legal? A lot of that negative effects of alcohol that occur are far more common place in America than other countries however, so you need to take that into consideration.

Ok, maybe that wasn't phrased well. What I'm saying is that you'll get an illegal or knock off of anything and everything, and that you can't stop something just because of the possible 'what if' scenarios. Especially if the result is helping people.

If not a possible "What If" scenario, it's a very real problem that needs addressing. You're dealing with a drug that needs to be properly regulated. What's you solution? Make it legal for medicinal purposes and let's hope it all works out well in the end?

Your lack of foresight doesn't really let you think about REAL problems, like who is going to distribute the marijuana or who is going to enforce proper regulations. Marijuana is helpful, but that doesn't mean we should just jump into legalization without thinking of very real consequences. C'mon.

 

[ManDudeChild]

If not a possible "What If" scenario, it's a very real problem that needs addressing. You're dealing with a drug that needs to be properly regulated. What's you solution? Make it legal for medicinal purposes and let's hope it all works out well in the end?

Your lack of foresight doesn't really let you think about REAL problems, like who is going to distribute the marijuana or who is going to enforce proper regulations. Marijuana is helpful, but that doesn't mean we should just jump into legalization without thinking of very real consequences. C'mon.

Perhaps I'm not articulating myself well enough. I AGREE it needs to be regulated to the extreme if it were to be legal. My solution is NOT to make it legal and hope for the best. I was simply stating that no matter what is done, and no matter what we're dealing with (drugs, food, drinks, consumer products in general), you're always going to have a knock off, a backdoor, an illegal or counterfeit version. It seems to me (if I'm misreading please say so) that you're suggesting that since a couple problems (valid ones I agree) would surface, that it's not worth even setting up the proper infrastructure and regulation.

Who is going to enforce it, distribution, socialogical issues that might arise (ones that don't involve annoying religion). Those are all VALID points. I'm saying there should be some sitting down and hammering it out. After all (and i'm not trying to fall on this tired arguement), society hasn't fallen into the pits of hell with tobacco, and regulation is strick there. What's to stop similar (though modification would be nessesary) regulations and means of distribution?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

It's funny: I support banning trans fats, yet the legalization of most drugs :lol .

 

[iapetus]

You're dealing with a drug that needs to be properly regulated. What's you solution? Make it legal for medicinal purposes and let's hope it all works out well in the end?

Or legalise it completely, stick a big-ass tax on it and regulate the industry using a proportion of the proceeds. Not saying it's necessarily a good thing in and of itself, just one of the suggestions that often comes up.

 

[SlickWilly223]

I could write this entire post on the supreme court ruling, but I'm not going to. Do I think medicinal marijuana should be legal? Yes, but it doesn't concern me in any way so my opinion doesn't really matter. I have to say, it really sucks that the people who need marijuana for their condition won't get it anymore, but why argue? The stereotypical potheads are stupid for a reason... they smoke too much, and then they rally to get marijuana legal for their own selfish purposes. Good job, jerk asses, because as a result we can't even use marijuana medically now, let alone recreationally.

I'm basically a self proclaimed 'pot head.' I smoke pretty often these days. It's a lifestyle, it's a hobby, and it's a habit, which makes me realize if they ever did make marijuana totally legal, I'd probably become a burn out within a few months time. But I'm already a burn out, and it's not that bad. I'm not braindead, I don't like Phish or Dave Matthews Band, and I'm not out of shape (quite the opposite actually). So what constitutes me as being a 'burn out?' Well, I guess the only thing that makes me a burn out is that I've really started to care less about things... like medicinal marijuana.

But the argument of marijuana vs. alcohol must still be argued whether you like it or not, because the very same conservatives looking out for the children and values of America don't seem to realize that alcohol is the main problem in society, not pot. The sooner you realize that, the better. I know that prohibition didn't work, and that's fine, but I think America in general and the government need to re-evaluate a lot of things (like alcohol) going on within the country before they even begin to touch the topic of marijuana.

I don't need to post the statistics, we all know that drinking kills more people than pot. So why worry about pot when there's an even bigger threat out there that's been existing as an accepted substance in our society for decades? (except for 20's...)

Shit, my friend got killed by a drunk driver. My aunt basically burned her stomach by drinking too much, and now her mind's fried as a result. My father gained about 25lb because of Bud-Weiser, which can't really help his heart condition any better. And now one of my good friends has recently become addicted to alcohol in the last year and a half because of his own personal problems... he's not shot yet though, so I still have a chance to help him out.

Alcohol negatively affects my life, but pot does not in anyway. The only way pot CAN negatively affect my life is if I get caught with it by the cops, which shouldn't even be a problem anyway because this shit should not be such an unlawful product. Still, I'm not arguing that pot should become legal. I just think we should do something more concerning drinking, which has affected us all a lot worse than pot has. It's the 21st century, we should have gotten this right by now.

Anyway, I'm going to play things safe this weekend. I'll smoke some blunts and hang out. I won't puke my lungs out, I won't get behind the wheel and kill anyone, and I can rest easy knowing that whether they legalize it or not, pot's here to stay.

 

[ManDudeChild]

I could write this entire post on the supreme court ruling, but I'm not going to. Do I think medicinal marijuana should be legal? Yes, but it doesn't concern me in any way so my opinion doesn't really matter. I have to say, it really sucks that the people who need marijuana for their condition won't get it anymore, but why argue? The stereotypical potheads are stupid for a reason... they smoke too much, and then they rally to get marijuana legal for their own selfish purposes. Good job, jerk asses, because as a result we can't even use marijuana medically now, let alone recreationally.

I'm basically a self proclaimed 'pot head.' I smoke pretty often these days. It's a lifestyle, it's a hobby, and it's a habit, which makes me realize if they ever did make marijuana totally legal, I'd probably become a burn out within a few months time. But I'm already a burn out, and it's not that bad. I'm not braindead, I don't like Phish or Dave Matthews Band, and I'm not out of shape (quite the opposite actually). So what constitutes me as being a 'burn out?' Well, I guess the only thing that makes me a burn out is that I've really started to care less about things... like medicinal marijuana.

But the argument of marijuana vs. alcohol must still be argued whether you like it or not, because the very same conservatives looking out for the children and values of America don't seem to realize that alcohol is the main problem in society, not pot. The sooner you realize that, the better. I know that prohibition didn't work, and that's fine, but I think America in general and the government need to re-evaluate a lot of things going on within the country before they even begin to touch the topic of marijuana.

I don't need to post the statistics, we all know that drinking kills more people than pot. So why worry about pot when there's an even bigger threat out there that's been existing as an accepted substance in our society for decades? (except for 20's...)

Shit, my friend got killed by a drunk driver. My aunt basically burned her stomach by drinking too much, and now her mind's fried as a result. My father gained about 25lb because of Bud-Weiser, which can't really help his heart condition any better. And now one of my good friends has recently become addicted to alcohol in the last year and a half because of his own personal problems... he's not shot yet though, so I still have a chance to help him out.

Alcohol negatively affects my life, but pot does not in anyway. The only way pot CAN negatively affect my life is if I get caught with it by the cops, which shouldn't even be a problem anyway because this shit should not be such an unlawful product. Still, I'm not arguing that pot should become legal. I just think we should do something more concerning drinking, which has affected us all a lot worse than pot has. It's the 21st century, we should have gotten this right by now.

Anyway, I'm going to play things safe this weekend. I'll smoke some blunts and hang out. I won't puke my lungs out, I won't get behind the wheel and kill anyone, and I can rest easy knowing that whether they legalize it or not, pot's here to stay.

Couldn't have said it better myself. It all comes down to moderation.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Personally, I find alcohol and cigarettes to be poor analogies in this circumstance. Alcohol has been widely consumed in our society and a part of our culture since before the country was even founded; which is why prohibition did nothing to stop it. Likewise, large numbers of the rich, middle class and poor drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. I would go so far as to estimate that 4 out of every 5 persons (of any financial standing) enjoys a drink every so often on some social occasions. These are established markets culturally and financially, with large coroporations profiteering from them for generations. Although it would be preferrable to make these substances illegal, history and posterity makes only further regulation of them possible.

Those who do drugs such as marijuana, on the other hand, do not even begin to compare to these statistics historically (and never have come close). These drugs being illegal inconveniances few in the grand scheme of things. This also brings into question the impact that legal, un-regulated drug use of this kind would have on our society sociologically. I fail to see why we should make other damaging substances legal just because one such as alchohol already is.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I see no direct benefit in making these or similar drugs legal. Allowing the unregulated medicinal use of any narcotic is reckless enough. As a means to get high alone, I would find it to be pure negligence on the government's part. I do not think that two wrongs should make everything right.

ManDudeChild: Marijuana has been clinically proven to cause depression.

 

[Willco]

Perhaps I'm not articulating myself well enough. I AGREE it needs to be regulated to the extreme if it were to be legal. My solution is NOT to make it legal and hope for the best. I was simply stating that no matter what is done, and no matter what we're dealing with (drugs, food, drinks, consumer products in general), you're always going to have a knock off, a backdoor, an illegal or counterfeit version. It seems to me (if I'm misreading please say so) that you're suggesting that since a couple problems (valid ones I agree) would surface, that it's not worth even setting up the proper infrastructure and regulation.

There are always going to be illegal means of attaining any product, so yes, that is correct. Marijuana is pretty much unlike any drug doctors prescribe for pain as regular people can make it. The fact that I can grow it or you can grow it or someone can grow it will make it difficult to secure it for people who need it, and more importantly, make it something that health insurance companies are willing to cover. You've got to stop thinking that marijuana is good and we need to help people, and start thinking on how to appease pharmaceutical companies and the FDA in order to get that done.

If Grandma Jane Doe can't afford over-the-counter marijuana, and is forced to go to a less than reputable dealer to secure her medicine, that opens up a Pandora's Box of problems and social consequences.

It's not worth legalizing as there is no solution on the table. Trust me, if there was a way for pharmaceutical companies, health care organizations and the government to properly address this issue, distribute marijuana and - more importantly! - make money, it'd be legal. But there's just not anything setup for it right now, mainly because when I see advocates for legalizing medicinal marijuana, it's not cancer-ridden Grandma Jane Doe, but fucking Bill Mahr and Mitch Hedburg (in TV form).

And no offense, you abuse marijuana. Using marijuana to work through depression is just a way of escaping your problems. There's nothing in marijuana that helps chemical imbalances in the brain that would cause clinical depression. If you truly have clinical depression than what you need first and foremost is therapy, and if need be, anti-depressants. I'm not an advocate of the latter, as there are significant side effects than can occur, but I haven't see anything that says marijuana is an adequate treatment for treating depression.

Anxiety attacks? There are plenty of ways of curing these without the use of marijuana.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Personally, I find alcohol and cigarettes to be poor analogies in this circumstance. Alcohol has been widely consumed in our society and a part of our culture since before the country was even founded; which is why prohibition did nothing to stop it. Likewise, large numbers of the rich, middle class and poor drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. I would go so far as to estimate that 4 out of every 5 persons (of any financial standing) enjoys a drink every so often on some social occasions. These are established markets culturally and financially, with large coroporations profiteering from them for generations. Although it would be preferrable to make these substances illegal, history and posterity makes only further regulation of them possible.

Those who do drugs such as marijuana, on the other hand, do not even begin to compare to these statistics historically (and never have come close). These drugs being illegal inconveniances few in the grand scheme of things. This also brings into question the impact that legal, un-regulated drug use of this kind would have on our society sociologically. I fail to see why we should make other damaging substances legal just because one such as alchohol already is.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I see no direct benefit in making these or similar drugs legal. Allowing the unregulated medicinal use of any narcotic is reckless enough. As a means to get high alone, I would find it to be pure negligence on the government's part. I do not think that two wrongs should make everything right.

ManDudeChild: Marijuana has been clinically proven to cause depression.

To an extent I can see where you're coming from, but like i've said before in this thread, it's all about moderation. Anything can kill you if you do it too much, from drinking to screwing.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/87/99417.htm

I'm sure you can pull out various articles to counter what I just linked to above. But in doing so, try to remember that videogames have been proven to cause kids to go psycho and kill their classmates. Or were videogames proven to increase hand to eye quardination and help kids deal with trauma after operations. I always get it mixed up. Maybe you can help?

It's not worth legalizing as there is no solution on the table. Trust me, if there was a way for pharmaceutical companies, health care organizations and the government to properly address this issue, distribute marijuana and - more importantly! - make money, it'd be legal. But there's just not anything setup for it right now, mainly because when I see advocates for legalizing medicinal marijuana, it's not cancer-ridden Grandma Jane Doe, but fucking Bill Mahr and Mitch Hedburg (in TV form).

And no offense, you abuse marijuana. Using marijuana to work through depression is just a way of escaping your problems. There's nothing in marijuana that helps chemical imbalances in the brain that would cause clinical depression. If you truly have clinical depression than what you need first and foremost is therapy, and if need be, anti-depressants. I'm not an advocate of the latter, as there are significant side effects than can occur, but I haven't see anything that says marijuana is an adequate treatment for treating depression.

Anxiety attacks? There are plenty of ways of curing these without the use of marijuana.

How isn't there any solutions to the problem? The use of tobacco seems to do just fine with its regulations. The only thing I can see as an issue on that front (aside from the perfectly obvious) is that is getting the regulation going, as that would take a lot of doing.

As for your other comment. I'm not abusing it at all. I'm not sitting around the house getting high and doing nothing, and I don't use it everyday, or even everytime I have an anxiety attack. Only when it gets to an extreme level. I know there are other methods of dealing with it, but you see, I know those are far more dangerous in the long run. I can easily put the joint away and not touch it. You can't say the same for some of the other solutions.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Personally, I find alcohol and cigarettes to be poor analogies in this circumstance. Alcohol has been widely consumed in our society and a part of our culture since before the country was even founded; which is why prohibition did nothing to stop it. Likewise, large numbers of the rich, middle class and poor drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. I would go so far as to estimate that 4 out of every 5 persons (of any financial standing) enjoys a drink every so often on some social occasions. These are established markets culturally and financially, with large coroporations profiteering from them for generations. Although it would be preferrable to make these substances illegal, history and posterity makes only further regulation of them possible.

Those who do drugs such as marijuana, on the other hand, do not even begin to compare to these statistics historically (and never have come close). These drugs being illegal inconveniances few in the grand scheme of things. This also brings into question the impact that legal, un-regulated drug use of this kind would have on our society sociologically. I fail to see why we should make other damaging substances legal just because one such as alchohol already is.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I see no direct benefit in making these or similar drugs legal. Allowing the unregulated medicinal use of any narcotic is reckless enough. As a means to get high alone, I would find it to be pure negligence on the government's part. I do not think that two wrongs should make everything right.

ManDudeChild: Marijuana has been clinically proven to cause depression.

Alcohol IS a depressant. It's also been clinically proven to fucking cause traffic accidents at a rate of 16,657 per year, accounting for 40% of all fatal accidents annually.

Oh, and a brief history lesson:

Marijuana has been used as an agent for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 BC Its use spread from China to India and then to N Africa and reached Europe at least as early as AD 500. A major crop in colonial North America, marijuana (hemp) was grown as a source of fiber. It was extensively cultivated during World War II, when Asian sources of hemp were cut off.

Marijuana was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1850 until 1942 and was prescribed for various conditions including labor pains, nausea, and rheumatism. Its use as an intoxicant was also commonplace from the 1850s to the 1930s. A campaign conducted in the 1930s by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) sought to portray marijuana as a powerful, addicting substance that would lead users into narcotics addiction. It is still considered a “gateway” drug by some authorities. In the 1950s it was an accessory of the beat generation ; in the 1960s it was used by college students and “hippies” and became a symbol of rebellion against authority.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified marijuana along with heroin and LSD as a Schedule I drug, i.e., having the relatively highest abuse potential and no accepted medical use. Most marijuana at that time came from Mexico, but in 1975 the Mexican government agreed to eradicate the crop by spraying it with the herbicide paraquat, raising fears of toxic side effects. Colombia then became the main supplier. The “zero tolerance” climate of the Reagan and Bush administrations (1981-93) resulted in passage of strict laws and mandatory sentences for possession of marijuana and in heightened vigilance against smuggling at the southern borders. The “war on drugs” thus brought with it a shift from reliance on imported supplies to domestic cultivation (particularly in Hawaii and California). Beginning in 1982 the Drug Enforcement Administration turned increased attention to marijuana farms in the United States, and there was a shift to the indoor growing of plants specially developed for small size and high yield. After over a decade of decreasing use, marijuana smoking began an upward trend once more in the early 1990s, especially among teenagers, but by the end of the decade this upswing had leveled off well below former peaks of use.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/marijuan_HistoryofMarijuanaUse.asp

Most of these substances have been in use since the beginning of time. Leaving alcohol out of the comparison simply because it's become socially acceptable means ignoring:

a.the biologically toll it takes on one's body
b.the dramatic impact it has on the lives of others

You're quite adamant that drugs contribute to medicare problems. I'd wager that alcohol related car fatalities (forget all the other accidents that occur while inebriated) cost the medical system far more than pot ever could aspire to. If getting rid of dangerous substances really is what you're about, there should be no exceptions.

Acceptance for marijuana has always existed, and it is growing at an incredibly fast rate. You're right: prohibition didn't work, and it's not working for marijuana now either. Accept reality and CAUSE change instead of REACTING to change.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Cyborg, I would appreciate if you would please read my post over again. I never claimed that alcohol was not harmful or that it was safer than marijuana. What I stated was that alcohol's legality is due to the influence of a number of cultural and historical circumstances that do not exist nor apply to the legal issue of marijuana. I also agreed that, if it was possible, I would like to see alcohol made illegal just the same.

Strawman.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Cyborg, I would appreciate if you would please read my post over again. I never claimed that alcohol was not harmful or that it was safer than marijuana. What I stated was that alcohol's legality is due to the influence of a number of cultural and historical circumstances that do not exist nor apply to the legal issue of marijuana. I also agreed that, if it was possible, I would like to see alcohol made illegal just the same.

Strawman.

You might want to do the same for his post. Specifically the history lesson.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

You might want to do the same for his post. Specifically the history lesson.

Yes, it is true that marijuana holds cultural and historical ties to some degree in other countries, but the same goes for opium eaters both abroad and in the US as well. The difference is that these uses were not as prelevant in some cultures as others; nor to such a magnitude of consumption as alcohol was. They also did not show as much popularity in use during the colonization and founding of this country. These are the defining legal factors that distinguish alcohol from marijuana, opium and most other drugs.

I could find even more historical ties and regular populations of use with opium than have been provided with marijuana. Infact, opium actually has more of a case in being legalized than marijuana, according to your line of reasoning here. However, I'm sure that we are all sensible enough to recognize the damaging effects of opium use throughout history (both in China and the US) and recognize that the substance has long outlived its medical usefulness. What does that leave us with? An abused substance of no contribution to society other than in being forthecoming with further medical debt.

 

[Willco]

How isn't there any solutions to the problem?

I've yet to see an advocate for legalization make public any kind of real solution other than, "Just legalize it! Alcohol is worse and pot just makes you eat more LOL AM I RITE?!?"

The use of tobacco seems to do just fine with its regulations.

As with alcohol, it's competely irrelevant. It's legal and it's not used as a prescription drug, which is what marijuana would be used for it was legalized.

The only thing I can see as an issue on that front (aside from the perfectly obvious) is that is getting the regulation going, as that would take a lot of doing.

There's not even a model for regulation. You've got to understand that not only does the government need to get a proper program in place, it has to be setup so prescription marijuana is covered by health insurance and both of those factors are going to ride on lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies. And they're not going to lobby for legalized marijuana until they see a model where they can make money off of it.

Let's get real, not argue over which substance is worse.

As for your other comment. I'm not abusing it at all. I'm not sitting around the house getting high and doing nothing, and I don't use it everyday, or even everytime I have an anxiety attack. Only when it gets to an extreme level.

You're using an illegal substance to, as you said, work through your depression. And - again! - there are altenative methods to dealing with anxiety attacks other than drugs.

I know there are other methods of dealing with it, but you see, I know those are far more dangerous in the long run. I can easily put the joint away and not touch it. You can't say the same for some of the other solutions.

Yeah, you can. While a lot of anti-depressants have a laundry list of side effects, you won't find many depressed people saying that dependency is one of them. If anything, the biggest problem people in the medical field find is people getting off of anti-depressants before they should.

There are a whole host of options for dealing with depressions and they're not inclusive to prescription drugs.

If you're honestly using marijuana as a way of dealing with your depression (defend your position to me all you want, but at least be honest with yourself), then you have a problem that marijuana is probably only compounding. Sounds to me at the very least it's for recreational use, which in that case, is illegal.

 

[Amakusa]

I hate the Supreme Court, may they all burn... Have a nice day

 

[ManDudeChild]

There's not even a model for regulation. You've got to understand that not only does the government need to get a proper program in place, it has to be setup so prescription marijuana is covered by health insurance and both of those factors are going to ride on lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies. And they're not going to lobby for legalized marijuana until they see a model where they can make money off of it.

I might have to go over what I said in my prior comments again, but I'm pretty sure I said aside from the ovbious. What you've said qualifies as the ovbious problems that would arise. A model similar to that used for tobacco would be fitting I think. Yes you'd have to deal with lobbyists from the pharmaceutical companies (the most ethical of people, especially with the lubing up they give you guys already. Which is bullshit) and insurace issues, but that shouldn't fall too far from other things that are added and accepted into insurance. As pointed out in OpinatedCyborg's post, it hasn't always been illegal in the U.S.

Let's get real, not argue over which substance is worse.

It's not JUST a matter of debating which substance is worse (and as illustrated in my prior post), the jury's still out in some respects, though I do admit I think tobacco in its chemical form is more harmful. However, I'll grand that due to pot being more potant than say 50 years ago, that the tar front is higher there. Yes you can debate it till the cows come home (which is worse), but despite what some might think, it's worth bringing up. Perhaps not to the level some do (as it can be a bit of a crutch), but it's still important.

You're using an illegal substance to, as you said, work through your depression. And - again! - there are altenative methods to dealing with anxiety attacks other than drugs.

Yeah, you can. While a lot of anti-depressants have a laundry list of side effects, you won't find many depressed people saying that dependency is one of them. If anything, the biggest problem people in the medical field find is people getting off of anti-depressants before they should.

There are a whole host of options for dealing with depressions and they're not inclusive to prescription drugs.

If you're honestly using marijuana as a way of dealing with your depression (defend your position to me all you want, but at least be honest with yourself), then you have a problem that marijuana is probably only compounding. Sounds to me at the very least it's for recreational use, which in that case, is illegal.

I am honest with myself. I think I've even stated it all in this thread. The very reason I even tried it (and I was against trying when the idea was suggested to me as I was worried about addiction. I even frequently tell people that should I ever get addicted to let me know, as I don't want that) wasn't due to wanting to try something new. It leveled me out, simple as that.

As for the other options (what with the anti-depress), i'm not just talking about addiction, i'm talking about shit like where that kid killed his grand parents after using Prozak. I'd rather use this, which i can put down and say, "no more", than take one of those drugs. Or, go to a shrink and have the quack say a bunch of psychobabble bullshit that fucks me up even more. No thanks.

 

[Nerevar]

There's not even a model for regulation. You've got to understand that not only does the government need to get a proper program in place, it has to be setup so prescription marijuana is covered by health insurance and both of those factors are going to ride on lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies. And they're not going to lobby for legalized marijuana until they see a model where they can make money off of it.

While this point is valid (there needs to be a model for insurance comapnies to make money off it before they lobby congress to make it legal, the only thing that will really affect change), I would much rather the Supreme Court was tied to higher ideals than that - sort of the whole point of the lifetime appointments thing. IMO, of course.

 

[Phoenix]

Mainly because you were being a dick, and I have Phoenix on ignore.

WOOT! Now I can talk badly about him and he'll never know Must've been my comments on Spiderman2...

 

[Willco]

WOOT! Now I can talk badly about him and he'll never know Must've been my comments on Spiderman2...

I stopped ignoring you to see what Nerevar was talking about. FYI, I just hate your damn avatar.

 

[Nerevar]

I stopped ignoring you to see what Nerevar was talking about. FYI, I just hate your damn avatar.

that seems like a somewhat petty reason to put someone on ignore ... why don't you just use greasemonkey or adblock to prevent his avatar from showing up?

 

[Willco]

that seems like a somewhat petty reason to put someone on ignore ... why don't you just use greasemonkey or adblock to prevent his avatar from showing up?

You're speaking gibberish to me now.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't think any drugs should be criminalized. Especially marijuana. What a bogus ruling.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Good, now when are they gonna make ice cream illegal for people with a body fat higher than 18%?

 

[DJ_Tet]

Good, now when are they gonna make ice cream illegal for people with a body fat higher than 18%?

Now that medical marijuana is illegal, expect overall ice cream sales to plummet. Between this and global warming, it's time to sell your Baskin Robbins stock.