Legal or illegal marijuana

Marijuana is a 'steping drug' which means it leads to people trying others. Thats why it should stay illegal.

Originally Posted by Hyrule Pheonix

Marijuana is a 'steping drug' which means it leads to people trying others. Thats why it should stay illegal.

I'm thinking that that's not a good enough reason to create or maintain a law. There's got to be more behind your argument for it to hold up. Anyway, the way laws are written, it's really more about being able to prosecute people rather than prevent them from doing it.

- J

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Oh, I certainly support making Marijuana legal, but regulated. However, it is addictive, and it is harmful. You're still inhaling smoke, which is never good for you.

So is water is you're thirsty. It's about as addicting as chocolate if my calculations are correct.

Originally Posted by Kishiro Diablo

So is water is you're thirsty. It's about as addicting as chocolate if my calculations are correct.

Drinking water when you're thirsty is not the same thing as an addiction. An addiciton, by definition, is to something that you don't need to survive. If you ignore that then water is, in fact, the most addictive substance on Earth.

Anyways, Marijuana is more addictive then chocolate, and even if it wasn't, it's far more harmful, since eating chocolate doesn't make you inhale smoke.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Anyways, Marijuana is more addictive then chocolate, and even if it wasn't, it's far more harmful, since eating chocolate doesn't make you inhale smoke.

Do you know how much chocolate contributes to obesity and heart disease? That would make for an interesting comparison (overall risk of chocolate vs. smoke).

- J

Originally Posted by Hyrule Pheonix

Marijuana is a 'steping drug' which means it leads to people trying others. Thats why it should stay illegal.

True, but smoking cigs are the 'stepping drug' to marijuana, so why don't we get rid of all of the stepping things? Chewing tobacco, cigarretes, cigars, etc?

The Gateway Drug theory is exactly why marijuana as a prescription drug wouldn't be nearly as harmful as painkillers. Because painkillers are also the 'stepping drugs' too other drugs as well.

To be fair, if marijuana was legal and moderated, I believe it would be beneficial to a countries economy.

For one it would allow police to concentrate on prosecuting people committing more serious crimes. Especially cracking down on more harder drugs.
It would also open the market for a massive industry to bloom & it would help the economy of many third world countries by creating jobs on a phenomenal scale.

It is a herb which has many good points and bad points. There hasn’t been any record that completely proves someone has died from marijuana. (Compare that with alcohol) Its not "addictive" like tobacco, but it can be mentally addictive, and cause long term damage if use terns to abused. However this is what I preach: God made plans, man made chemicals. who do you trust?

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

We can't ban cigarettes because it would lead to another Prohibition. The most they can do is place warnings all over the boxes and set an age limit.

I wasn't suggesting it, I was just providing an example. Although you made the greatest point that the US government attempting to ban the things that cause deaths and sicknesses caused trouble in the world. If I'm not mistaken in the 1920's the drunken statistics and the approximated sale of alcohol during Prohibition was much greater with Prohibition than without. Speak-easies (am i right?) caused these.

1920's speak-easies
2000's drug-dealers

1930's FDR's killing of Prohibition WITH limits (age limits)
2000's US Gov't killing of illegalization of marijuana WITH limits (prescription limits)

The comparison is unbelievable.
Thank you

Hm... Let us make a moral scale here:

Loosing profits or letting Americans (and other countries) become addicted to something pathetic?

Wikipedia is not a reliable or credible source of information. If you aren't willing to regard scientologists as reliable sources, then wikipedia is NOT a reliable source at all.

In some places in europe, women don't wear deodorant or shave their armpits. By your logic, nobody here should shave or wear deodorant.

Also, people have already shown a lack of responsibility in the use of other drugs, and of marijuana. Using simple logic, it is obvious there isn't a need for another drug. Supposed evidence of currently legal drugs being 'worse' than marijuana isn't a good excuse - It is just a reason for alcohol and tobacco to be banned.

http://www.healthtalk.umn.edu/health...coma/home.html

Furthermore, only 1-2% of the population has glaucoma, and even fewer have late stage cancer. You want to legalize a drug for medical purposes to treat a very small percentage of the population? The drug has been illegal for around one hundred years, and virtually since it was made illegal people have been trying to use this reason for legalization. The simple fact is that there are too few people who have it and that there are better treatments available anyway.

Another health related topic is the fact that you ARE STILL BREATHING SMOKE INTO YOUR LUNGS. Last time I checked, smoke inhalation wasn't healthy, NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SMOKE. Sure, regular smoke might not have as much tar as a cigarette, but long term exposure to smoke will still cause lung problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/me...q-s/870943.stm

The other simple truth is that the more often one uses marijuana, the more likely one is to become a user of other drugs. According to http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/dailyMJ/dailyMJ.cfm
, a daily marijuana user is 46% more likely than a non user to try other illicit drugs. A less than daily user is 34% more likely. Even if the user didn't incur mental damage from THC (which you DO), the fact that users are more likely to participate in the use of other illicit drugs is reason enough to leave it illegal. There is no reason to change the official stance of the law from not supporting a gateway drug, to supporting a gateway drug. There is no reason to legalize an already illegal substance that has been proven to lead to illegal activity beyond the originating activity.
(And I don't care if you don't support the government as a source, I bet president bush did it all too according to you. He probably doctored the sources somehow, and it is all a conspiracy by the vast right wing... I don't care what you think, do some research on what a real credible source is and you will find that it isn't true. This is a generalization to anybody that has the same deranged idea of what a real source is as honeyfresh.)

You don't have to agree, but it is probably time for you to accept the fact that marijuana will never be legal and/or for sale in every convenience store. It has more dangers and less benefits than you are willing to acknowledge as a current user. You also quoted wikipedia as evidence, a website that can be edited and published by ANYONE, while you won't trust an educated STUDY and facts represented by government agencies, which hire mostly college graduates or individuals who show a knowledge of their field of study.(From multiple countries at that.) (I bet president bush, who doesn't have the time or reason to sit and manipulate every single website that has a .gov adress went through and manipulated every last one of them, even though everyone in the entire bureaucracy, bar very few, is a democrat !1111!!!!11132435)

Anyway, as a final note, you won't find very few mature adults willing to legalize marijuana. Mostly just kids and hippies, the former of which can rarely vote and the second of which are few in number. Marijuana will thankfully never be a legalized plague on our society and our country will be better for it. Enough kids smoke and drink already, no reason to have 90% of them hooked on another wretched drug that alters their state of mind.

Marijuana is not dangerous and much safer than nicotine

So is stabbing you friend in the intestine. Doesn't make it legal.

inforcing

I think you've been smoking too much weed.

I mean if all the money we're losing with it being illegal

We're losing a lot of money not keeping slavery legal, so according to you we should really be snapping some whips and shipping over some foreigners. Farmers would be able to make billions more and not have to pay for machinery. As another bonus, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem because we'd have shipped them over as slaves. Good thinking, lets legalize everything we can make money on, regardless of what it is.

would probably stop the persecution of the hemp plant, it's cousin.

I wasn't aware plants had civil liberties.

There's no credible evidence of marijuana being addictive, at least not addictive like narcotics are.

There is more than one form of addiction, but good luck ever feeling happy again after you have burnt out all of those THC receptors.

False, and contradicts what the first link says. Marijuana doesn't cause withdrawal symptoms, those are only associated with narcotics. That single unscientific statement spoils everything else the websites have to say.

I'm sure you are the great all knowing master of marijuana, just like every other pothead who claims the same things. Sorry, but I'll stick to trusting university's medical divisions and research done by educated bureaucrats before I will believe some 16 year old who tokes up twice a week in his friends van. Thats right: You don't know squat about how it is going to effect you in 20 years of constant use, you haven't observed patients, done trials, double blind tests or any other scientific research. You only know what your friends say and what you want to believe, and I don't trust you. You don't provide credible evidence, and your best defense is that they do it in other countries and that YOU say it is safe. I don't trust you, and neither should anyone else.

It was proof that the first website you presented me with was owned by Scientologists.

You don't think scientologists are credible, I don't think dimwitted tokers are credible. You and me don't decide which sources are academically credible. Although anything with a .com at the end usually isn't.

I've smoked some of the dankest, yet I've never felt like a slave to it.

Oh man, I smoked up a storm of the dankest and I had headaches and withdrawals. I couldn't feel my arm for a week. - Just as credible as your testimony. That is my testimony.

I know several people who drink can after can of Rockstar energy drink, and if they go more than 6 hours without one, they either complain of headaches or become very irritable.

Warning labels. The warning labels on the cans are there for a reason. This just proves that according to your logic, caffeine should be illegal because marijuana already is. Good job crusading to get coffee banned, everyone will be willing to join your cause now.

LOOK AT AMSTERDAM

What works in a small area with a relatively small population does not necessarily work everywhere.

They do it there!!!!111

If "They" jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too? Most of you who say this probably would, if you seriously hold to that logic.

Here is a little list of some countries with legalized marijuana and their GDP per capita:

Spain: $27,000
Netherlands: $31,700
Switzerland: $33,000

Illegalized Marijuana:
USA: $43,500
Norway: $47,800
Iceland: $38,100

I think we should copy the policies of the marijuana smokers, even though we non smokers make more money. (Those are confirmed non smokers compared to the few confirmed smokers.

Here is a map of europe that shows....

Your wikipedia map shows that most of Europe has laws against marijuana, even if it is only partially enforced. That means we SHOULDN'T legalize marijuana in crazy "They do it!!!" logic.

I have to say that I like all the points posted in this thread but I don't like that some think that marijuana is "addictive", it could become a mental addiction though. Where the abuser may think he/she needs marijuana to function.

I'm nineteen years old going on twenty and I haven't smoked pot ever until three days ago. I also don't feel like I'm addicted to it, so I think that's a myth. I only smoked marijuana out of curiousity and not because of influence.

Now that I tried it and I can't say I didn't like the experience but I ain't going to smoke it ever again because of course like someone mentioned, smoke is bad for your lungs no matter what kind of smoke it is, and the stuff also messes with your sperm count after frequent use (and I respect my balls enough not to become a pot head)

I have family and great friends that smoke pot and they're not jonsing.

I think marijuana should be left alone, meaning I think it should be ignored and that making it legal shouldn't even be a matter, nobody is making a freaking cartel out if like crack and heroin. Those are the real drugs that the law enforcers need to focus more on.

In response to CageCrado be cause I do not want to quote her extremely long post


Wikipedia is not a reliable source
Although
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...rietyoftechnic
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...rietyoftechnic
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...rietyoftechnic
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...rietyoftechnic
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...rietyoftechnic

These are all great books and possibly you should read them before creating an argument based on medicinal purposes of marijuana and myths about it.

Now although you may say that marijuana is still the inhalation of smoke, the effects of it is only long term. Compared to alcohol, alcohol breaks down the liver about 5 times faster than the smoke of marijuana does to the lungs.
With the high contents of nicotine in cigarettes it breaks down the lungs faster the marijuana
Marijuana can still cause lung cancer and mouth cancer in which is should not be used long-term
Although in my argument (which I belive you are completely ignoring)

Now according to the National institute of Health since 1997, marijuana helps chemotherapy victims by allowing their appetite to regain and their mind to function better than on chemotherapy (while still disoriented from the marijuana). Since 1997, in the 2000s the NIH has found marijuana to be help full for glaucoma victims and AIDs patients also.
Instead of tryign to prove the point that I've already so proved above...And from ranting on and on about something that can so easily be fought against (like someone else who took up a whole page) I will end it here.
Enjoy this 1997 review
http://www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/hhsfact.htm
And 2000-2004 Review
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Testimony/4-1-04aTestimony.html
From health institutions

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

The other simple truth is that the more often one uses marijuana, the more likely one is to become a user of other drugs. According to http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/dailyMJ/dailyMJ.cfm

In that case I'd say correlation does not indicate causation. People who use marijuana are more likely to do other drugs because that's how their personality works, not because marijuana somehow makes them take other drugs.

Anyway, as a final note, you won't find very few mature adults willing to legalize marijuana. Mostly just kids and hippies, the former of which can rarely vote and the second of which are few in number. Marijuana will thankfully never be a legalized plague on our society and our country will be better for it. Enough kids smoke and drink already, no reason to have 90% of them hooked on another wretched drug that alters their state of mind.

The argument is that banning marijuana does more harm then legalizing it, due to the vast underground drug rings. It's like prohibition, sure getting rid of alcohol probably did good things, but it also created massive amounts of crime.

The same argument can be made about marijuana.

So is stabbing you friend in the intestine. Doesn't make it legal.

Um, no. Stabbing someone is not safer then smoking.

I think you've been smoking too much weed.

No insults, thank you very much.

We're losing a lot of money not keeping slavery legal, so according to you we should really be snapping some whips and shipping over some foreigners. Farmers would be able to make billions more and not have to pay for machinery. As another bonus, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem because we'd have shipped them over as slaves. Good thinking, lets legalize everything we can make money on, regardless of what it is.

Actually, slavery is an incredibly inefficient way of doing business, using paid workers or machines saves you more money.

I'm sure you are the great all knowing master of marijuana, just like every other pothead who claims the same things.

No insults.

Here is a little list of some countries with legalized marijuana and their GDP per capita:

Spain: $27,000
Netherlands: $31,700
Switzerland: $33,000

Illegalized Marijuana:
USA: $43,500
Norway: $47,800
Iceland: $38,100

I think we should copy the policies of the marijuana smokers, even though we non smokers make more money. (Those are confirmed non smokers compared to the few confirmed smokers.

There are far more factors then marijuana use in determining GDP. On top of that, you've gone and 'cherry picked' your countries. I honestly doubt that the legal or illegal state of marijuana has any effect at all on a country's GDP.

Originally Posted by unbearabledead

Now although you may say that marijuana is still the inhalation of smoke, the effects of it is only long term. Compared to alcohol, alcohol breaks down the liver about 5 times faster than the smoke of marijuana does to the lungs.

How much alcohol per day and how many cigarettes per day?

I’m sorry in advance for the long post…

First of all how is Wikipedia NOT a credible source of information? I can't think of a more credible source, especially on the hotly debated topics. When you have a community-created encyclopedia that's constantly being updated, checked and re-checked for accurate information - well, I can't think of a more reliable source for correct information on the Internet.

In addition to that - marijuana is NOT physically addictive. You do not experience any *significant* physical withdrawal symptoms. (However, you can get a totally legal prescription for many painkillers/anti-anxiety medications that do cause some pretty intense withdrawal symptoms.) You CAN experience some psychological withdrawal symptoms, but again, you can experience that from just about anything to which you form an attachment. The problem with a psychological addiction (or any kind of addiction) comes when it begins to interfere with your life in any sort of a negative way - and that should be judged on an individual basis.

Also, you don't have to smoke marijuana to get high. You can cook with it, vaporize it, or even extract (or synthesize) the THC (active ingredient in marijuana) and put it into pill form.

My personal thoughts on marijuana are this: kids should NOT do drugs. Legal, illegal - whatever. It just shouldn't happen. Your growing body needs all the help it can get in the form of a good diet/exercise and positive role models. The real questions there are: Where are the parents? Why is that child on drugs in the first place?

Psychologically unstable people shouldn't do drugs, unless it helps them - again, judge on an individual basis.

You shouldn't get your dog/cat/pet hamster/comatose grandmother high - that's cruel and not funny. Use some common sense and compassion.

However - I do believe in a person's right to choose - especially if they're suffering. Say you have a debilitating disease, you're losing weight, and you can't eat - ingest some THC, your appetite will come back for a bit, and allow you to take in some much-needed nutrients.

Here's a quick story for you: I had an older neighbor a few years back who was HIV positive. Her medications had dropped her weight waaaaay below the healthy level - this lady was skin and bones. Her doctor prescribed some synthetic THC (in addition to her other medications), and it allowed her to gain some of the weight back, putting her into a more healthy weight range. And don't go getting holier-than-thou about her having AIDS, she wasn't a drug user or anything like that. Her husband ended up giving her AIDS and dying - he was a closet homosexual, and she didn’t know until it was too late.

In addition to that, I should be able to choose what I put into my own body, regardless of what anyone thinks. Am I a stoner? Absolutely not. To be honest, I’m not really a fan of being in any way intoxicated. Have I ever smoked marijuana? You bet. If I wanted to smoke marijuana/eat pot brownies all day, every day - I should be able to do that in the privacy of my own home. It wouldn't hurt anyone, least of all you -especially if I grew it myself and stayed at home when I smoked/whatever. Don't make quick assumptions based on hearsay and your own knee-jerk reactions. Marijuana isn't some kind of panacea - but it can help a lot of people. One of the many reasons why marijuana is illegal is because of the gross amount of propaganda perpetuated by the government and the uninformed.

Originally Posted by honeyfresh

Apparently none of you have ever tried marijuana, nor gotten to know any regular users.

That's the problem with most people.

Here's my two cents; It should be up to the people whether or not they want to use marijuana. Like GDwarf stated, it does screw you over.

But legal or illegal, teenagers+ will still want it, and they'll still buy it, and they'll still sell it. And they'll still smoke it.

It doesn't really matter :-/

Originally Posted by GDwarf

How much alcohol per day and how many cigarettes per day?

An alcoholic and a chain smoker compared to a pot addict

Originally Posted by ms.wonderland

I’m sorry in advance for the long post…

First of all how is Wikipedia NOT a credible source of information? I can't think of a more credible source, especially on the hotly debated topics. When you have a community-created encyclopedia that's constantly being updated, checked and re-checked for accurate information - well, I can't think of a more reliable source for correct information on the Internet.

Wikipedia is a source that can be changed by anyone at will (with a small check through by a moderator that watches the appropriatness of the edit). The articles are written by everyday people. Some things said in wikipedia may not be reliable because it may not be true.
This is what my teacher said when she told us we can't use wikipedia in our bibliographies


What vadruz says is true although. Some people are fighting over the affects of marijuana more than the legalizations of it. Effects or not, too many people smoke it for America to care about what it damages.

Wikipedia isn't an accurate source. It's a great place to start any reaserch, you can get an overview of a subject and it tends to be more interesting and up-to-date then articles in, say, the Britanica. However, you could check the article right after it's been changed to say something wrong, before anyone has noticed.

As such, it's fine for internet debates, since unless you're getting into really, really, really specific points it will be correct, but it's no good for reaserch papers.

If someone quotes something from Wikipedia in one of these threads, it should be assumed to be accurate unless someone else can cite a different study that contradicts it.



Now, Wikipedia now has it's sources cited, so it's almost always a better idea to quote the cited source, since people take far less issue with that.

Wikipedia is a source that can be changed by anyone at will (with a small check through by a moderator that watches the appropriatness of the edit). The articles are written by everyday people. Some things said in wikipedia may not be reliable because it may not be true.
This is what my teacher said when she told us we can't use wikipedia in our bibliographies

I can understand that when it pertains to something small and not commonly discussed, but on the big things, it's pretty much on the money. They cite their sources, and if something isn't cited, or is phrased in a way that's questionable, they flag it and you can bet that on an article like marijuana that whatever is flagged will be changed in a matter of days. Oh, and I forgot to post this before, but here are a couple books that might help anyone looking for some (mostly) unbiased information:

linky

and again

That sucks about your teacher not letting you use wikipedia, but then again, something like that could be easily abused by lazy students.

**edit** Thanks, GDwarf - I missed your response the first time around.

Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia

Let me just say that, as a teacher of high schoolers, I can easily tell when someone has been using Mary Jane... Let's just say that their brains are either A) kicked into high gear to the point of disfunction or B) lacking in any ability (desire) to focus on important matters.

Thankfully, it doesn't happen as often in the school at which I teach, but I can tell you that legal M.J. would be devastating to the school system, even if an age limit were placed on it. It would just be all that more accessible and widespread.

In short, we would continue on our self-destructive path and no one would ever become a teacher because drug-induced stupors would make it a worthless endeavor.

People at my school once smoked it by the 400 hall during lunchand there's always people will drink, etc. So why isn't school already useless because of the alcohol?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Oh, I certainly support making Marijuana legal, but regulated. However, it is addictive, and it is harmful. You're still inhaling smoke, which is never good for you.

Marijuana can be eaten or vaped. It's very easy for someone to use it without smoking it.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Wikipedia is not a reliable or credible source of information. If you aren't willing to regard scientologists as reliable sources, then wikipedia is NOT a reliable source at all.

Actually, wikipedia often, if not always, provides links to the information that they cite in their articles. Also, check out the "discussion" page, and you'll learn that they're one of the most unbiased sources that can ever exist.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

In some places in europe, women don't wear deodorant or shave their armpits. By your logic, nobody here should shave or wear deodorant.

No, by his logic, not wearing deordoant or not shaving one's armpits obviously does not ruin someone's life.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Also, people have already shown a lack of responsibility in the use of other drugs, and of marijuana. Using simple logic, it is obvious there isn't a need for another drug. Supposed evidence of currently legal drugs being 'worse' than marijuana isn't a good excuse - It is just a reason for alcohol and tobacco to be banned.

... so, because a select few people have "shown a lack of responsibility" with their drugs of choice, that means that nobody is able to handle themselves properly while they're under the influence?

Tell me, when has somebody killed another person while they were on marijuana? As a matter of fact, when has anybody ever died because of a marijuana overdose?

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

http://www.healthtalk.umn.edu/health...coma/home.html

Furthermore, only 1-2% of the population has glaucoma, and even fewer have late stage cancer. You want to legalize a drug for medical purposes to treat a very small percentage of the population? The drug has been illegal for around one hundred years, and virtually since it was made illegal people have been trying to use this reason for legalization. The simple fact is that there are too few people who have it and that there are better treatments available anyway.

There are better treatments available for glaucoma and late stage cancer?

:::laughs::: Like what, pray tell? Suicide? Suicide's a good cure for glaucoma and late stage cancers - then again, it's a good cure for everything else too.

Oh, and also, do you know *why* cannabis was banned in the US? The same reason that Prohibition occurred - meddlesome progressives decided that cannabis was the root of all evil in the world and led people to destroy themselves and everything around them - we tend to call that sort of thing "Reefer Madness" nowadays.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Another health related topic is the fact that you ARE STILL BREATHING SMOKE INTO YOUR LUNGS. Last time I checked, smoke inhalation wasn't healthy, NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SMOKE. Sure, regular smoke might not have as much tar as a cigarette, but long term exposure to smoke will still cause lung problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/me...q-s/870943.stm

Last time I checked, I breathed in more smoke on my trip down 5th Avenue than I did the last time I sucked in an entire pack of Camels. Nevermind, of course, that the effects of smoking marijuana last longer than the effects of nicotine ever have, so even a hardcore stoner inhales far less fumes when they're constantly doing marijuana than the average person who smokes a quarter of a pack a day.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

The other simple truth is that the more often one uses marijuana, the more likely one is to become a user of other drugs. According to http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/dailyMJ/dailyMJ.cfm
, a daily marijuana user is 46% more likely than a non user to try other illicit drugs. A less than daily user is 34% more likely.

:::blinks::: Are those statistics supposed to shock and horrify me?

Whenever I buy a package of Keebler cookies and find out that they're tasty-tasty, I'm more likely to try another product that their company makes. :O GASP! When I found out that cookies don't kill me, I see no problem trying out other brands of snack foods!

How many of the people who "try other illicit drugs" try them more than a few times? How many, in fact, try them once and then never do it again? How many of them become crack addicts?

I can assure you, I've tried pot five times in my life, and I've tried shrooms once. According to the statistics you're presenting, I'm running down a slippery slope to a life of ruin and despair.

A less than daily cannabis user is somebody who's tried pot at least once in their life. Being 34% more likely to try another illegal drug means that somebody is 34% more likely to try it at least *once*. Oh lord, what a horrifying idea. It looks like our entire country is going to be ruined now.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Even if the user didn't incur mental damage from THC (which you DO), the fact that users are more likely to participate in the use of other illicit drugs is reason enough to leave it illegal. There is no reason to change the official stance of the law from not supporting a gateway drug, to supporting a gateway drug. There is no reason to legalize an already illegal substance that has been proven to lead to illegal activity beyond the originating activity.

Any illegal drug can be a gateway drug - simply doing something illegal makes one more likely to think that other illegal drugs do not cause the sort of harm that people have been told. There's a good reason a fair number of physically addicting drugs are illegal - however, the fact that marijuana, a harmless drug for a recreational smoker that can only cause mental damage to a hardcore stoner, is illegal as well will often leave people wondering what all the fuss and whining is about that "crack cocaine" they've been hearing so much about.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

(And I don't care if you don't support the government as a source, I bet president bush did it all too according to you. He probably doctored the sources somehow, and it is all a conspiracy by the vast right wing... I don't care what you think, do some research on what a real credible source is and you will find that it isn't true. This is a generalization to anybody that has the same deranged idea of what a real source is as honeyfresh.)

... considering the fact that marijuana is still labed as a Schedule I illegal drug, the highest classification possible for drugs of any sort, the federal government IS a horrible source on information about the drug.

These are the criteria that a drug has to fill to be labeled as a Schedule I drug -

1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Other Schedule 1 drugs include LSD, Ecstasy, and Heroin - Cocaine and Crack Cocaine (the drugs that managed to destroy dozens of inner city societies) are both Schedule II. Marinol, synthetic THC (the active chemical in marijuana), is a Schedule III drug and available in the US with a prescription.

Marijuana clearly does fulfill any of these three qualifications. It has no high potential for abuse because people do not develop a physical addiction to it. It is used regularly for medicinal purposes, and thus people have developed ways to use the drug safely under medical supervision.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

You don't have to agree, but it is probably time for you to accept the fact that marijuana will never be legal and/or for sale in every convenience store. It has more dangers and less benefits than you are willing to acknowledge as a current user.

I'm not a current user, and I still have no clue what these dangers you're referring to might be. Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the entire country, and even then it doesn't harm as many people as you'd think. I know plenty of 50 year old men who have been using cannabis regularly since the early 70s, and they're highly successful at their jobs and have wonderful personal lives.

Oh, and it's legal in plenty of countries right now.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

You also quoted wikipedia as evidence, a website that can be edited and published by ANYONE, while you won't trust an educated STUDY and facts represented by government agencies, which hire mostly college graduates or individuals who show a knowledge of their field of study.(From multiple countries at that.) (I bet president bush, who doesn't have the time or reason to sit and manipulate every single website that has a .gov adress went through and manipulated every last one of them, even though everyone in the entire bureaucracy, bar very few, is a democrat !1111!!!!11132435)

Pardon me, but is it likely that a government will publish data that directly conflicts with their own moral policy about something?

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Anyway, as a final note, you won't find very few mature adults willing to legalize marijuana. Mostly just kids and hippies, the former of which can rarely vote and the second of which are few in number.

In 1999, 60% of teenagers admitted that they had tried marijuana at some point in their life. Considering the fact that 60% of today's 20-somethings are not all homeless or mentally retarded, odds are they don't really have much of a problem with the drug.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Marijuana will thankfully never be a legalized plague on our society and our country will be better for it. Enough kids smoke and drink already, no reason to have 90% of them hooked on another wretched drug that alters their state of mind.

So instead of letting them inhale a small amount of smoke to get a temporary, non-addicting high, let's have them smoke a drug that completely rewires your brain and drink something that makes them more likely to become highly aggressive or overdosed to the point where they drown in their own vomit. Good idea.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

So is stabbing you friend in the intestine. Doesn't make it legal.

... Um, what? Let me quote what somebody else said to try and put into perspective just how stupid your response is.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

So is stabbing you friend in the intestine. Doesn't make it legal.

What?

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

I think you've been smoking too much weed.

... Et tu, Brute?

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

We're losing a lot of money not keeping slavery legal, so according to you we should really be snapping some whips and shipping over some foreigners. Farmers would be able to make billions more and not have to pay for machinery. As another bonus, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem because we'd have shipped them over as slaves. Good thinking, lets legalize everything we can make money on, regardless of what it is.

So, putting people in jail and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep them there is the exact same thing as losing a couple million dollars in order to give half of the country its inherent freedom back?

Your argument makes no sense in the context of this debate.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

I wasn't aware plants had civil liberties.

No, they don't, but the hemp plant still produces rope and clothing that is almost 5 times more durable than any other material invented. But yet, it contains minute amounts of THC and so is labeled as a Schedule I drug just like marijuana...

Nevermind, of course, the fact that American farmers were given subsidies to grow hemp during World War II while the plant was still illegal. And nevermind that the US is the only country where it is illegal to grow hemp... :::sighs:::

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

There is more than one form of addiction, but good luck ever feeling happy again after you have burnt out all of those THC receptors.

:::blinks::: Because only THC can ever give people a feeling of happiness? Dopamine receptors? Opiate receptors? Have you ever heard of those things, or understood the biological basis for pleasure induction?

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

I'm sure you are the great all knowing master of marijuana, just like every other pothead who claims the same things. Sorry, but I'll stick to trusting university's medical divisions and research done by educated bureaucrats before I will believe some 16 year old who tokes up twice a week in his friends van. Thats right: You don't know squat about how it is going to effect you in 20 years of constant use, you haven't observed patients, done trials, double blind tests or any other scientific research. You only know what your friends say and what you want to believe, and I don't trust you. You don't provide credible evidence, and your best defense is that they do it in other countries and that YOU say it is safe. I don't trust you, and neither should anyone else.

And yet you're using completely biased information that is filled to the brim with scare-tactic statistics that you can't even comprehend properly to back up your claims.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

You don't think scientologists are credible, I don't think dimwitted tokers are credible. You and me don't decide which sources are academically credible. Although anything with a .com at the end usually isn't.

... I'd lay off the ad hominems if I were you, good sir.

Oh, and according to you, only american government sources that back up your beliefs are worthy to be admitted to this debate. Let's not forget that the american government uses separate classifications for marijuana and THC (it's only active ingredient), and let's not bother with the fact that marijuana has been proven to not cause a severe social impact in the country ever since it's been absurdly popular in the late 60s and beyond.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Oh man, I smoked up a storm of the dankest and I had headaches and withdrawals. I couldn't feel my arm for a week. - Just as credible as your testimony. That is my testimony.

Except for the fact that you've obviously never smoked marijuana. Therefore, any anecdotal evidence you admit would automatically not be an anecdote.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Warning labels. The warning labels on the cans are there for a reason. This just proves that according to your logic, caffeine should be illegal because marijuana already is. Good job crusading to get coffee banned, everyone will be willing to join your cause now.

No, you're the one that's crusading for that. He's pointing out that marijuana is an essentially harmless drug.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

What works in a small area with a relatively small population does not necessarily work everywhere.

11 states have laws that decriminalize the possession and use of up to an ounce of marijuana.
14 European countries have decriminalized the stuff as well, and if you tack on Russia (the largest country in the world), that makes 15.
Almost all of Australia has made marijuana legal, along with almost all of South America.

These are only countries that have official marijuana laws on the books - it doesn't even count countries that have laws but don't bother to enforce them.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

If "They" jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too? Most of you who say this probably would, if you seriously hold to that logic.

The analogy doesn't work - there's no *cliff* here that anybody's jumping off of. All of these countries have set the precedent that marijuana doesn't significantly affect the wellbeing of a country or a group of recreational users.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Here is a little list of some countries with legalized marijuana and their GDP per capita:

Spain: $27,000
Netherlands: $31,700
Switzerland: $33,000

Illegalized Marijuana:
USA: $43,500
Norway: $47,800
Iceland: $38,100

... You can't be serious. This data means nothing - not only did you pick all of these countries yourself, but this data includes nothing about a person's cost of living or what sort of government benefits a person gets.

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

I think we should copy the policies of the marijuana smokers, even though we non smokers make more money. (Those are confirmed non smokers compared to the few confirmed smokers.

... So you're admitting that you don't have any sort of proper data to back up your statement, since few successful people will admit to using an illegal drug?

Originally Posted by CagedCrado

Your wikipedia map shows that most of Europe has laws against marijuana, even if it is only partially enforced. That means we SHOULDN'T legalize marijuana in crazy "They do it!!!" logic.

:::blinks::: But I thought that your entire argument above was based on the fact that American policy shouldn't be dictated by the stances of other countries. If you're going to take a stance about a country's policy development, please have the common decency to at least be consistent about it.