Lazarus
New Member
I'm always out of line. Especiallly at the post office.
Anyway, the government is supposed to protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic, no? I always took that to mean human enemies. >_>
Proposition 19
- Thread starter Odale
- Start date
I'm always out of line. Especiallly at the post office.
Anyway, the government is supposed to protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic, no? I always took that to mean human enemies. >_>
Odale
Active Member
Now that this is at 5 pages I guess I'll give my opinion.
I don't smoke marijuana and never have, but I am glad they are legalizing it. Marijuana is less lethal than alcohol and nicotine. You cannot die from Marijuana like you can from nicotine (lung cancer, cardiovascular problems, certain birth defects are correlated with nicotine) or alcohol (heart disease, liver problems, etc). In my opinion, if the government is going to make additional drugs illegal they should focus on nicotine-based smoking and alcohol. Cigarette smoke smells horrible (not to mention second hand smoke is deadly) - at least marijuana smoke has some aroma to it.
I can't imagine the government making cigarette/cigar illegal, and I don't believe they have to - it is getting less socially desirable to smoke these things. AutoNation (the company I work for) is rolling out their new healthcare plans this month and people who do not smoke cigarettes and have a BMI (beer belly, remember) in the acceptable range get a discount on their health insurance. Before anyone says that its discrimination to do that - both I and AutoNation disagree. Sure, you're addicted to nicotine but it is not a necessity for life. Additionally, you're making my health insurance more expensive by purposefully poisoning yourself.
Marijuana does none of these things - it doesn't make you fat, it doesn't give you an irregular heartbeat, it doesn't give you lung cancer, it doesn't give you liver disease... why make it illegal?
I need to study, haha.
I don't smoke marijuana and never have, but I am glad they are legalizing it. Marijuana is less lethal than alcohol and nicotine. You cannot die from Marijuana like you can from nicotine (lung cancer, cardiovascular problems, certain birth defects are correlated with nicotine) or alcohol (heart disease, liver problems, etc). In my opinion, if the government is going to make additional drugs illegal they should focus on nicotine-based smoking and alcohol. Cigarette smoke smells horrible (not to mention second hand smoke is deadly) - at least marijuana smoke has some aroma to it.
I can't imagine the government making cigarette/cigar illegal, and I don't believe they have to - it is getting less socially desirable to smoke these things. AutoNation (the company I work for) is rolling out their new healthcare plans this month and people who do not smoke cigarettes and have a BMI (beer belly, remember) in the acceptable range get a discount on their health insurance. Before anyone says that its discrimination to do that - both I and AutoNation disagree. Sure, you're addicted to nicotine but it is not a necessity for life. Additionally, you're making my health insurance more expensive by purposefully poisoning yourself.
Marijuana does none of these things - it doesn't make you fat, it doesn't give you an irregular heartbeat, it doesn't give you lung cancer, it doesn't give you liver disease... why make it illegal?
I need to study, haha.
Last edited:
Cypher
New Member
WHAT!? Where did you get this? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but how in the world did you get the idea marijuana isn't as deadly as alcohol or nicotine?Marijuana, if anything, is just as (if not more) deadly than alcohol or nicotine. Smoking anything still had the potential of producing cardiovascular problems.
In beer or any alcoholic drink, there's only a small percentage of alcohol in there. I think whiskey only has 5% alcohol. Yet, in consuming pot or marijuana is a greater percentage that you consume, increasing its deadliness.
If you want a list of marijuana's effects. Look at this. Marijuana's effects
Lloren
Christian Gamers Alliance Forums Administrator
Many people (especially for medical) don't smoke it, but rather ingest it. To be clear, smoking anything (vaporization aside) can cause lung cancer. Smoke is bad.
Odale
Active Member
When I posted that I had in mind alternative means of ingesting marijuana, Im not sure why I typed in smoking (notice I only did it once).
I have a hard time believing them as their website is Drugfree.org, clearly they will be biased. They don't say anything about the lethality of marijuana if you don't smoke it.
Additionally:
I know quite a few people who smoke at least a pack per day.
I have a hard time believing them as their website is Drugfree.org, clearly they will be biased. They don't say anything about the lethality of marijuana if you don't smoke it.
Additionally:
That Article. said:
I know quite a few people who smoke at least a pack per day.
Last edited:
ewoksrule
Active Member
Most people that I know use a vaporizer to avoid the cancer causing effects. With that form of intake there are zero deadly effects. Is there even 1 reported death from pot smoking on the record books? There is no way you can consume mass alcohol and not risk death every time.
Last edited:
ewoksrule
Active Member
medical risks? 1000s die from aspirin but not one from Pot....
Last edited:
silverleaf
New Member
I believe smoking is just as bad as marijuna. There are some things moderation is ok, such as alcohol (not drinking to get drunk, don't understand the whole concept), and others that isn't. Addictive substances should be controlled. If you want to stamp it out, you must be prepared to take STRONG measures like in the east. Long jail time with caning (more like a whip) for dealers, death penalty for smugglers. It is brutal, even inhumane, but only way if you're gona ban it. Else it will just continue to fester underground, like now. What is a $200 fine to these dealers who make thousands?
TL;DR
Current = bad, money goes underground, lots of exploitation, violence, wasting police resources who can be tasked elsewhere.
Total Ban = ideal, but needs extremely heavy handed systems to enforce
Control + education + rehab = 2nd best option.
TL;DR
Current = bad, money goes underground, lots of exploitation, violence, wasting police resources who can be tasked elsewhere.
Total Ban = ideal, but needs extremely heavy handed systems to enforce
Control + education + rehab = 2nd best option.
Lazarus
New Member
Question time!
Why are normal cigarettes as bad as marijuana, silverleaf?
Why should addictive substances be controlled? Did you know people have gotten addicted to things like carrots?
Why are you willing to use "inhumane"(your words) measures to stamp this out? What's so bad about it?
How do you know how much marijuana dealers make?
And speaking of ewoks' post, are you in favor of banning aspirin as well, silverleaf?
Why are normal cigarettes as bad as marijuana, silverleaf?
Why should addictive substances be controlled? Did you know people have gotten addicted to things like carrots?
Why are you willing to use "inhumane"(your words) measures to stamp this out? What's so bad about it?
How do you know how much marijuana dealers make?
And speaking of ewoks' post, are you in favor of banning aspirin as well, silverleaf?
silverleaf
New Member
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
A lot of harmful effects. Addictive doesn't always mean bad. It should be discouraged like smoking. Same as how substance abuse is bad, and shouldn't be promoted any more than aspirin abuse.
I am not willing. That's why I say control, you can't snuff it out.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/singapore-the-darker-side/
I don't think anyone will find this 100% agreeable.
News reports. Multi billion business world wide. That's multi billion dolalrs going into the wrong hands.
However, it is not my country so I can't vote lol. Don't mind me, I was brought up, maybe indoctrinated IDK to hate drugs.
Not saying you're a BAAAD person for smoking, marijuna use or heavy drinking. Saying it should be discouraged that's all. Not exactly good habits to have.
Wouldn't want to get it BANNED... it is just impossible. I'm saying in an ideal world, we wouldn't have smokes, drugs, hard liquor. Everyone would eat 2 fruits and 2 vegetables servings a day. Not going to happen, but just don't want people saying YAY IT'S LEGAL THAT MEANS IT'S OK!
The main problem is that the very purpose of smoking weed is to GET HIGH. And it's the getting high part I have an issue with, you could kill me should I accidentally offend you. Vandalism up, crime up because it's addictive. If you smoke it like a cig, not enough to affect control, it's your loss. The problem with second hand smoke has been solved by banning smoking in air conditioned public places and transport anyway.
While I agree with the above posters that because it's unhealthy it shouldn't be promoted, it is ultimately the end user who suffers, which is all right, ethics and public health speaking. Cigs were once a problem due to second hand smoke, but that's kinda solved now. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else, it is up to the end user to choose. Just don't count on managing to get health insurance lol.
Last edited:
Odale
Active Member
Irony!
Government: With current policies, these drugs can harm people and even get them killed! So lets go ahead and torture and kill them to get it over with.
Cypher
New Member
Both are extremes. On one hand you have people being executed for using a banned substance, but on the other you have people free to abuse a substance to the point where they become a danger to themselves and those around them.
So here is my question: where should the line be drawn?
To legalize marijuana for personal use, what would the end result be? Would it discourage or encourage others to begin their addiction to pot? Even if the side effects are not as negative as you say, are there any benefits? Alcohol has already proven itself to be beneficial in the medical field as well as in cleaning supplies. Where as nicotine has shown little. I am all for researching marijuana in the medical field, but until that time comes, I would have to say I would be hesitant on legalizing it to the public.
Patriot
Active Member
It matters.
A) We are voting on the proposition and can use any criteria we like to vote the way we do.
B) Gambling and porn are already legal, marijuana use is not. Therefore, we are voting to create a right, not to take one away. There is a difference.
ewoksrule
Active Member
Ahh yes, very valid points.
My answer would be that I have some stressed out neighbors that could use some mellowing out. They turn to Alcohol and it makes them rage, if they were to switch over to pot I think things would go a lot smoother for them.
Would the whole country be better off? Hard to say, if it got people off of Alcohol I think it would be better in some ways. If it led to more people trying worse drugs, then that would be super negative.
Over all the risk is pretty big as there are too many unknown consequences that could arise.
Ultimately won't the Feds just overrule it? I am pretty sure Obama said that while he will not strong-arm medicinal use, he will not stand for recreation use of Pot.
Lazarus
New Member
I think it's kind of funny that the government pretends to have any say in this.
People will use marijuana no matter what the laws say.
People will use marijuana no matter what the laws say.
Patriot
Active Member
Or they just need to learn self-control. . .
I have serious doubt about people switching. Adding pot to their alcohol use, perhaps, but not switching from one to the other.
Obama has said many things. Not all of them have been true.
You seem to advocate no laws. That is a very bad idea. Certain people do all sorts of things regardless of laws (murder included). However, laws restrain the vast majority of the population. Punishment is reserved for the rest.
Lazarus
New Member
Current drug laws aren't restraining the vast majority of the population.
Patriot
Active Member
Source?
Patriot
Active Member
Aside from the fact that those statistics are 10 years old, I don't see 55% as a "vast" majority. But perhaps your definition of vast and mine differ?