Legalization? An Insult-Free Discussion

And perfectly valid. It's hard to go against what you've been raised and conditioned to believe, and I certainly wouldn't ask you to. I just wanted to gauge opinions and find ouy WHY people are against pot. Of course, it's still fun to debate those issues, but I don't expect to change anyone's mind.

 

I'm far from a pothead, and Jesus, I do hate those hippies and the Greatful Dead and Phish, but I don't think it's up for debate. In the U.S., right now, alcohol is so much more destructive it's not even funny. It's like, who has more home runs, Barry Bonds or Doug Mientkiewicz?

 

The prohibition against marijuana is political, not legal, and certainly not medical. It makes no sense except politically. There are millions of people who smoked regularly before the country lost its mind in the 1980's over "drugs" and almost all of them came through the experience unharmed. (And, no, I don't want to hear about your cousin who pulled out his eyeballs.) It is manifestly safer than alcohol, short-term and longterm, and its medical value has been demonstrated over and over again.

 

But how does making pot as accessible as alcohol make it LESS destructive than it is now?

 

It is not wholly illegal.

A distinction is drawn between hard drugs (which bear "unacceptable" risks; e.g. cocaine, heroin and ecstasy) and soft drugs such as the psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms as well as cannabis products: hashish and marijuana (as defined in the Dutch Opium Act). The distinction is drawn on whether the substance is only psychologically addictive (i.e. producing no worse effect than moderate craving when withdrawn) or also physically addictive (i.e. there is solid proof the drug could cause dangerous withdrawal symptoms and/or lasting physical damage). One of the main aims of this policy is to separate the markets for soft and hard drugs so that soft drug users are less likely to come into contact with hard drugs. This policy also aims to take the soft drug market out of the hands of the criminals, thus reducing crime.

So-called coffee shops are allowed to sell soft drugs openly, and to keep supplies greater than the amounts allowed by law for personal use, though they are only allowed to sell individual customers the amount allowed for personal use. The coffeeshops' wholesale suppliers, however, are still criminalized. In theory, the limit of the "for personal use" clause is 5 cannabis plants per person for growing, or possession of 5 grams of hashish or marijuana per person. However, to be prosecuted one would need to possess considerably higher quantities than that. An example of a sentence in 2004 for possession of 360 grams: confiscation and a fine of €750. Coffeeshops pay taxes just like any other business, though there are some special exemptions for them, mostly because they cannot show receipts for their supply of marijuana.

Large-scale dealing, production, import and export are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if this does not supply end users or coffeeshops with more than the allowed amounts. Exactly how coffeeshops get their supplies is rarely investigated, however.

 

Lugs, you are correct that it has been drilled into your head. However, has there really been enough studies to demonstrate the brain loss? Additionally, who is to say your neighbor's kid doesn't have a learning disability due to genetic reasons?

You know that the husband/father smokes pot. You know the wife/soon-to-be-mother is pregnant. Just because you have A and B, does not mean you have C.

Is it possible that a member of his or her families had the genetic defect? Is it possible that he was working on the house one day, left something on the floor in the way of things and she tripped, fell and landed wrong?

You can't rule out marijuana, of course, however you can't assume it is the only reason.

 

I guess part of what people are saying is that other than those who smoke while pregnant or drive while under the influence are the only real destructive results of pot smoking.

However, a positive side is the reduced prison population, money spent on a drug war, etc.

I just wonder if there's proof out there that shows a direct correlation between pot smokers and death by driving or the rate of deformities connected, even loosely, to pot smoking.

Again, so many people have been conditioned to KNOW pot is bad even if it's not. If there is proof, in the form of legit studies, let me know, please. I'm not trying to flame here, I'm trying to learn both sides of the argument.

 

Alchohol is the gateway drug.

 

The only "gateway" weed, alcohol and tobacco provide is the different people you might hang out with because of them. Nobody smokes a joint and says, "Man, I wish this was laced with coke" unless they're with people who would want that. The company one surrounds themselves with determines whether or not marijuana or alcohol leads to bigger and better drugs. If a pothead is hanging out in a crack house, then sure, he or she may try crack. But a person who smokes weed in the comfort of their own home isn't likely to develop an ecstacy problem just because they smoked a joint.

Hell, some people have just tried more drugs to see what they're all about and to form an opinion before speaking about them (raising hand). I call it investigative reporting. 8)

 

Pot is a gateway drug, in part, because it makes you associate with criminals — drug dealers who also have other drugs.
I'm only speaking from my experience as a youth, but once a kid figures out how much he/she has been lied to about marijuana, it's only natural to be curious about other drugs. The adults lied about pot, maybe they were lying about coke, LSD, etc. And a kid can gain access to the other drugs through the same connections he or she formed by smoking and buying pot.
Also, when a kid is looking for pot and none is available, a dealer will often have and offer other drugs as a substitute.

 

Is it time to start the insults yet?

 

No. Please don't.