Hybrid Marijuana

[ParanoiA]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237800,00.html

 

Thank goodness. I'm glad they're finding ways around the anti-drug force.

[resuccess]

I think that marijuana shud be legel it is not ass bad as achall and tabacow science will make it so essy to growe that thay will have no chans dont you agrey?

[ParanoiA]

I absolutely agree. Victimless crime is a big issue with me. I don't agree with the concept at all. It's the majority's preferencial behavior modification - that's it. And that's wrong. I don't believe we should advertise the US as a free country unless it's really free. The title should be stripped and given to the UK. They have more freedoms than we do.

[Y-S]

I think that marijuana shud be legel it is not ass bad as achall and tabacow science will make it so essy to growe that thay will have no chans dont you agrey?

 

See that's what happens if you smoke weed and makes you type all that......if it was legal, everyone would be typing like this

[JustStuit]

It's not victimless.... They have impaired judgment and interact with people and they can get more people addicted to it.

[GutZ]

It's not addictive by itself. It no different than alcoholic beverages. you have the same risk, yet the world isn't in a state of anarchy. The only reason it is illegal is because it always has been.

[the tree]

It's not addictive by itself. It no different than alcoholic beverages.

I am seeing a slight contradiction here? Alcohol can most certainly be addictive. Cannabis can also be physcologically addictive and in excess can do a lot of damage.

 

I think that marijuana shud be legel it is not ass bad as achall and tabacow science will make it so essy to growe that thay will have no chans dont you agrey?[/quote']See that's what happens if you smoke weed and makes you type all that......if it was legal, everyone would be typing like this

Geez, reading that is actually making me consider quitting. I get really annoyed by the whole "weed is totally safe because alcohol and tobacco are blatantly worse for you", relative safeness does not make something safe.

 

The title should be stripped and given to the UK. They have more freedoms than we do.

We do?

[ParanoiA]

It's not victimless.... They have impaired judgment and interact with people and they can get more people addicted to it.

 

Victimless relies on the concept that you can't be a victim of your own actions. That's called mental illness.

 

Alcohol and pain medications and a hundred other legal substances cause impaired judgement. And what's wrong with impaired judgement anyway?

 

They can get more people addicted to it? I don't think I've ever heard a more irresponsible statement in this forum. Talk about passing the buck.... Is anything in your life your fault or do you always blame others for your choices?

[insane_alien]

lets see, a drug that can cause people to feel good whenever they want... yeah people are going to get addicted to it. people even get addicted to chocolate ffs.

Don't try to claim its not addictive.

 

i'm undecided on its legalisation atm just making a point on its addictiveness.

 

Yes some people will not get addicted to it but a lot of people could get addicted. you can say the same of ALL drugs from heroin to calpol

[the tree]

Don't try to claim its not addictive.

Alien, you have to appreciate there is a difference between psychological addiction and chemical addiction. And that cannabis is not chemically addictive.

 

Oh, and it can't make anyone happy all the time. THC is a chemical compound, not a miracle worker.

[GutZ]

I am seeing a slight contradiction here? Alcohol can most certainly be addictive. Cannabis can also be physcologically addictive and in excess can do a lot of damage.

 

Yeah but it's not nearly on the same level. Anything can be addictive otherwise. I smoke cigerettes, those in themselves are addictive. I drink too much Cola, I am not really addicted to it, I am addict to the affect it has on me. I wouldn't label cola as an inherently addictive product.

 

Overall the Mary jane is not much worse then booze.

[ParanoiA]

I am seeing a slight contradiction here? Alcohol can most certainly be addictive. Cannabis can also be physcologically addictive and in excess can do a lot of damage.

 

Yes you are seeing a contradiction here...in your reply that is. Food, sex, drugs, gambling, smoking, playing video games, starring at your monitor - just a short list off the top of my head of things that in excess can do a lot of damage. Of course, most of us already know this and learned a long time ago, that just about anything used in excess gives bad results.

 

 

Geez, reading that is actually making me consider quitting. I get really annoyed by the whole "weed is totally safe because alcohol and tobacco are blatantly worse for you", relative safeness does not make something safe.

 

That's because you're missing the point. Alcohol is the only drug that's legal and that serves no further purpose than intoxication. Tobacco is the only drug that's legal, that serves no further purpose than shear pleasure. All other legal drugs have a higher purpose and aren't relevant to use as examples or comparisons.

 

So, people are always going to use Alcohol and Tobacco for comparison - and rightly so. If drinking kills people - in the hundreds, if not thousands - every year in overdoses alone, then pimping my weed, that has never killed a single person, for legalization is quite fair. In fact, it's downright insane not to legalize it. Weed is far safer than alcohol. Most drugs are physically AND mentally addictive - weed is just mental. It's easier to quit, it's a milder intoxication, it doesn't incapacitate people and judgement is far less impaired - none of those can be said of alcohol.

 

We do?

 

Yes, you do. At least in terms of civil liberties. My countrymen will put people in jail for spray painting breasts on their own property. My countrymen will assign an R rating to a movie that shows nudity, and no violence but then assign a PG rating to a move that shows gory violence but no nudity. WTF??

 

Honestly I'm not sure if you really have more freedoms or not, I'm more discouraged by the lack of tolerance and backward assed intellect embraced and legislated by americans. I don't see a single reason why we should be running around sporting "the land of the free..." - that land is gone...

[ParanoiA]

Overall the Mary jane is not much worse then booze.

 

Booze is much worse than Mary Jane. There is no comparison.

[the tree]

Food, sex, drugs, gambling, smoking, playing video games, starring at your monitor - just a short list off the top of my head of things that in excess can do a lot of damage.

And there are laws in place regards all of these. Very few are outright banned but there are restrictions on all of them.

Of course, most of us already know this and learned a long time ago, that just about anything used in excess gives bad results.

You're smart enough to take care of yourself and therefore no-one else needs forceful guidance?

That's because you're missing the point.

Just to note, the point that you make here was not mentioned in what I was replying to, you're point is a much more valid one.

Alcohol is the only drug that's legal and that serves no further purpose than intoxication.

Not wanting to be too pedantic here, but I do have a friend who was told by her doctor to drink alcohol as a muscle relaxant after injuring her shoulder. Although I guess this is a fairly unusual case.

If drinking kills people - in the hundreds, if not thousands - every year in overdoses alone, then pimping my weed, that has never killed a single person, for legalization is quite fair. In fact, it's downright insane not to legalize it. Weed is far safer than alcohol.

So you're arguing for consistency in drug laws? OK that's great. So tell me why you want them both legal rather than both illegal.

Most drugs are physically AND mentally addictive - weed is just mental. It's easier to quit, it's a milder intoxication, it doesn't incapacitate people and judgement is far less impaired - none of those can be said of alcohol.

OK so alcohol is a terrible drug, that doesn't make weed an acceptable one.

[ParanoiA]

And there are laws in place regards all of these. Very few are outright banned but there are restrictions on all of them.

 

True, and regulations as well - perhaps one in the same - the point being that abusing things rather than using things renders a negative impact of some kind.

 

You're smart enough to take care of yourself and therefore no-one else needs forceful guidance?

Correct. It's not anyone's place to enforce any guidance on others. That's oppression, and it's wrong - embraced by liberal and conservative ideologies no less.

 

So you're arguing for consistency in drug laws? OK that's great. So tell me why you want them both legal rather than both illegal.

 

Because I like them. That's a good enough reason. But, for argument's sake, I'll add that I would rather them both be legal because I believe it is healthy to break from the grind and cut loose a little ever now and then. Drugs help with that. They're fun. And how else would we get pics of Brittany Spears without panties??

 

OK so alcohol is a terrible drug, that doesn't make weed an acceptable one.

Right, but if you're going to legalize a drug just for its entertainment value and it's dangerous to use, then it's asinine not to legalize a safer drug just for its entertainment value. We're comparing for a good reason. You think we're doing a comparison to say weed is "safe" - but we're not, we're doing a comparison to say weed is "safe-er".

 

If you're going to throw safety out the window and allow alcohol to permeate society and let people overdose and die, get addicted and lose everything, pass out and get taken advantage of...etc - then why not allow a somewhat safer drug to permeate society and let people overdose and live, get addicted and quit before losing everything, pass out and not get taken advantage of...?

[the tree]

Correct. It's not anyone's place to enforce any guidance on others. That's oppression, and it's wrong - embraced by liberal and conservative ideologies no less.

This surprises me. You don't think that ever it's anyones place to forcibly protect others? I am assuming/hoping you think parents protecting infants are exempt from that idea.

Because I like them. That's a good enough reason.

No it's not. Else liking rape would be a reason to make that legal.

But, for argument's sake, I'll add that I would rather them both be legal because I believe it is healthy to break from the grind and cut loose a little ever now and then. Drugs help with that.

If you're going to argue that drugs are healthy in that respect, I'd be grateful if you could source that claim.

You think we're doing a comparison to say weed is "safe" - but we're not, we're doing a comparison to say weed is "safe-er".

The thing is, I already know that weed is safer. You already knew that. My parents, my teachers, the people I walk past in the street, politicians, landlords, scientists, doctors, everybody knows that. It's not news. I at no point contested it.

Now we both know the actual reasons why cannabis isn't made legal. But what do you suppose the impact would be if it were officially declared safe and made legal? There would almost certainly be an increase in casual use, more people taking it up and there could be less awareness of potentially how destructive it could be "oh it's o.k. for me to spend the rest of my life stoned, the government said so".

If you're going to throw safety out the window and allow alcohol to permeate society and let people overdose and die, get addicted and lose everything, pass out and get taken advantage of...etc - then why not allow a somewhat safer drug to permeate society and let people overdose and live, get addicted and quit before losing everything, pass out and not get taken advantage of...?

I apologise for the nit-picking here but why on earth would it easier to take advantage of someone who has passed out due to alcohol rather than due to cannabis?

[Severian]

When I was a student we used to have a Cannabis plant sitting on top of our fridge. We actually gat raided by the cops once during a party - they were looking for drugs, but didn't find any, miraculously missing the plant sitting in full view.

[Severian]

And how else would we get pics of Brittany Spears without panties??

 

To paraphrase the tree, I'd be grateful if you could source that claim.

[GutZ]

Now we both know the actual reasons why cannabis isn't made legal. But what do you suppose the impact would be if it were officially declared safe and made legal? There would almost certainly be an increase in casual use, more people taking it up and there could be less awareness of potentially how destructive it could be "oh it's o.k. for me to spend the rest of my life stoned, the government said so".

 

But thats not the case, that's the problem of people misinterepting, not everything that is bad for you is illegal, and for something that was illegal and somehow became legal doesn't make it any less harmful. The difference is that the overall people have the choice to do them or not. I don't say "well Aspirin is not illegal therefore it's safe and I can take 10 a day" thats just irrational.

 

Even if it were made legal or even decriminalized, the government is not hopeless to stop idiots who ruin other peoples lives. They could certain increase the penalty for commiting acts under the influence. What worries me more is that people can drink and drive, kill someone and get of in a year or so, yet someone who carries drugs can get 5+ years in prison.

 

Again though that's just my opinion, and I can see where your coming from. alot of my view rely on certain aspects that most others wouldn't agree, and we would be living in a different world.

[ParanoiA]

This surprises me. You don't think that ever it's anyones place to forcibly protect others? I am assuming/hoping you think parents protecting infants are exempt from that idea.

 

Oh, absolutely. It is the parents job to forcibly guide and mold their children into productive members of society. Not the government.

 

No it's not. Else liking rape would be a reason to make that legal.

 

Not at all. Rape produces a victim. Any behavior that directly harms the person or property of another should not be tolerated. That's fundamental to law and order. I do support forcibly requiring all citizens, regardless of age, sex...etc not to harm the person or property of another. Smoking dope is victimless. Just like prostitution, gambling, smoking...

 

If you're going to argue that drugs are healthy in that respect, I'd be grateful if you could source that claim.

 

It's not a claim, it's a belief. I said that I believe this. I also believe that most people believe it too. But like I said, it doesn't matter. The fact the I choose to want to do it is reason enough.

 

The thing is, I already know that weed is safer. You already knew that. My parents, my teachers, the people I walk past in the street, politicians, landlords, scientists, doctors, everybody knows that. It's not news. I at no point contested it.

 

But you had a problem with Gutz's argument because you thought he was trying to say it's "safe" when he compared it to Alcohol, when in my opinion, it looked as if he was just trying to say it's "safer" than what is already legal.

 

Also, not everybody knows that. Most people don't agree with that. This logic driven forum isn't going to have too many of those people, because most folks in here think for themselves.

 

Now we both know the actual reasons why cannabis isn't made legal. But what do you suppose the impact would be if it were officially declared safe and made legal? There would almost certainly be an increase in casual use, more people taking it up and there could be less awareness of potentially how destructive it could be "oh it's o.k. for me to spend the rest of my life stoned, the government said so".

 

Ah, yes the great legitimator known as the government. Why do you look to the government to tell you what is right and wrong? Since when is the government my mom and dad? No one should be looking at legislation to decide what is good and bad. We are free to do a lot of stupid things - like eating 100 twinkies in one sitting. There are no laws stopping you from drinking bleach for breakfast. The government decides what is right and wrong legally, not morally. Morals are subjective.

 

See this is the crux of losing our freedoms in this country. Somewhere down the line we started passing laws to mirror what the majority feels is righteous. Any behavior the majority doesn't like, they just pass laws to stop it - regardless of whether or not there are any victims, regardless of their own personal views on success and life. The government became the great legitimator.

 

And now we're held hostage by it. We let people rot in prison - PRISON - for growing a plant the majority doesn't like. Do you realize that? Does that register? Someone's dad, someone's brother, a working man with a wife and kids that depended on him - torn apart and left to a life of poverty and broken family ties - a domestic tragedy - all because we don't agree with him growing a kind of plant?? That's insane. That's oppressive. That's sick and anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves. How dare you judge someone to the point you literally shatter their life because they won't conform to your ideas of morallity? Especially when their behavior doesn't effect you.

 

I apologise for the nit-picking here but why on earth would it easier to take advantage of someone who has passed out due to alcohol rather than due to cannabis?

 

People who are passed out from alcohol are physically incapacitated. You can kick them, strip them, do whatever you want to them and they will not regain conciousness until the intoxication wears off - for hours. This is how women get gang raped and don't know it until they wake up in the morning naked, sticky, alone, with a room full of passed out half-naked guys.

 

People who are passed out from cannibas - which I've only witnessed a couple of times compared to literally dozens of passed out drunks - aren't really passed out. You can shake them and they wake right up. They're just asleep. Weed doesn't effect you like alcohol. Alcohol is a very strong intoxication - you lose control of your senses and they cannot be regained by shear will. Your motor skills are completely helpless to the poison.

 

Cannibas is a far more mild intoxication. And even after heavy, heavy dosage you still have complete control of your body. You don't stumble, and crawl and puke in the toilet promising god you'll never do this again. I've never seen anyone lose control of themselves in any capacity on pot - never. That's not to say it isn't possible, but after 20 years of personal experience, a ton of parties, from adolesence to adulthood, from irresponsibility to disciplined enlightenment, I've never been nor seen anyone else incapacitated from pot. Soak that statement in for a moment. I've smoked a lot, and I mean a LOT of pot, some great, some so-so, some laced even. It's not scientific or clinical, but it's convincing enough to at least say it doesn't impair your judgement or physical control to the extent that alcohol does.

 

To paraphrase the tree, I'd be grateful if you could source that claim.

 

Ok, are you wanting the pictures? I don't have those. But apparently her and Paris have been partying pretty heavy, to the point Ms Hilton had to carry Brittany out of some of these clubs. So, I'm assuming this lead to Panti-gate. You all haven't heard this story yet?

[ParanoiA]

Another pont I like to make, is that while we still have murder, rape and theft - violent crimes - we don't have the resources to be diverting to victimless, behavioral crime. I work in a city where the crime rate is 440 - that's 440 victims per 100,000 people. Our murder count just topped 100 for the year - and that's just the metro area.

 

That fact we even have a measurement system for crime tells me no one is trying to eliminate it. Our goal should be zero. Realistic or not, our goal should be no violent crime at all.

 

So, when you can get a better handle on murder, rape, assault, molestation...then we can talk about adding to the list. We have no business busting drug runners when we could have used those resources ethically and busted another child rapist instead.

[ecoli]

I drink too much Cola, I am not really addicted to it, I am addict to the affect it has on me. I wouldn't label cola as an inherently addictive product.

 

actually, the caffiene in cola is chemically addictive

[Ndi]

An opinion in a nutshell: Legalize it. Why?

 

* Alcohol is legal. Therefore you can have a bartender say "Ok buddy, that's enough. Go home." You can have a "Don't drink and drive" campaign. With limits and per-load punishment. You can have campaigns, you can have a choice, dosage control, a qualified opinion you don't get while smuggling.

 

* Tobacco is legal. It's poison, it's cancer inducing, radioactive, you name it. You can learn about it, you can get to a doctor is you feel ill, you don't have to hide it.

 

Legalizing provides

 

* more control

* fine-tuned legal action

* widespread knowledge

* income source

* discourage to the point of elimination all traffic

* age control

 

Other countries have this and they are not all-day-high, no dumb kids, no 100-million-addicted, no nothing.

 

You have access to it, you have to be a full-brained adult. You make a judgment and make a choice. Which you do either way.

 

What would you rather have doing this, a trained adult or a kid? Because banning it makes so much more of a magnet for teens. It is my opinion that over half of the smoking teens do so because it's not allowed/bad. If it would be then it would not be "cool" any more, what's the point of choking on smoke?

 

You can have a gun if you prove you are sane and don't abuse it. You can buy the means to murder other people but can't buy some non-lethal plant you have no intention on using on anyone else?

[insane_alien]

yeah okay, i should have mentioned i was talking about psychological addiction from the plesant effects of THC.

[the tree]

It's not a claim, it's a belief.

Seriously now, science forum.

 

Also, not everybody knows that. Most people don't agree with that. This logic driven forum isn't going to have too many of those people, because most folks in here think for themselves.

Do you honestly know many people who don't know that weed is safer than alcohol? Well o.k., fair enough, my point still stands that it isn't news.

 

Ah, yes the great legitimator known as the government. Why do you look to the government to tell you what is right and wrong? Since when is the government my mom and dad? No one should be looking at legislation to decide what is good and bad.

You're making the "everyone is just like me" error. I realise that you are smart enough to think for yourself and that's all fine and dandy. BUT YOU ARE NOT EVERYONE ELSE. OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BIAS AND INFLUENCE BY THE STATUS QUO.

 

There are no laws stopping you from drinking bleach for breakfast.

Well, there sort of are.

 

 

The government decides what is right and wrong legally, not morally. Morals are subjective.

I don't think if it is right or wrong morally is what we were discussing. The issue I see is, is it a good idea or not. Part of a governments duties is to protect its people, if forcibly removing something is the way to do that, then that is what the government should do.

 

See this is the crux of losing our freedoms in this country. [...]That's insane. That's oppressive. That's sick and anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves.

Is it that much of an inconviencience to not smoke pot? It seems you are getting too emotive about this.

 

How dare you judge someone to the point you literally shatter their life because they won't conform to your ideas of morallity?

I don't remember anyone saying that drugs are immoral. I've heard people say that they are stupid, destructive, that they cause harm to all types of people, that they are a sign of social ineptitude, all types of things, but immoral? Either you've been listening to different propaganda to me, or you're committing a strawman fallacy.