Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm all for legalizing it Van BC style. Unfortunately the United States of America is soulfully a few steps behind so it might be a couple of generations before we see people vastly understanding how good it may be.
I used to think that a couple years ago, but lately I've seen support for legalization accelerating fast. Just look at CA's initiative this Nov, and I don't think they're the only ones. I hardly think it will take a couple generations now. People are realizing that there's no good argument for keeping it illegal. Facts are something, aren't they?
I used to think that a couple years ago, but lately I've seen support for legalization accelerating fast. Just look at CA's initiative this Nov, and I don't think they're the only ones. I hardly think it will take a couple generations now. People are realizing that there's no good argument for keeping it illegal. Facts are something, aren't they?
Oh, there are excellent reasons for keeping it illegal.
One example, as printed in the Feb., 1996 Reader's Digest:
Throughout the Netherlands, marijuana and hashih are openly sold and consumed in so-called "coffee shops." But the results are increasingly problematic. Dutch adolescent marijuana use nearly tripled between 1984 and 1992.
The gateway theory is probably the dumbest of all theories ever produced. Even though the result of Marijuana and Cocaine are exactly opposite (Marijuana is a downer and Cocaine is an upper), somehow a pot smoker is going to move on to cocaine? What sense does that make?
Statistics show that it is not a "theory" but fact. Whether you want to admit it or not.
Quote:
Kids who do drugs are going to obtain the easiest one to get first, which is pot, then they will move on to those that are more potent if they have serious issues at home. That 12 year old honor student clearly had personal issues if he was doing all that stuff at age 12.
Smart kids don't do drugs at all.
Quote:
The lack of logic in that theory is astounding, but then again, it makes sense to have an illogical argument when your status is "fox news rules".
The only lack of logic is in your entire post! Again, I posted facts to back up the "theory." You refuse to accept them.
And why is Fox News mentioned (again)? Look, I prefer Fox News over the other cable stations. Do you have a problem with that? Why not just accept it and move along; others here do.
Oh, there are excellent reasons for keeping it illegal.
One example, as printed in the Feb., 1996 Reader's Digest:
Throughout the Netherlands, marijuana and hashih are openly sold and consumed in so-called "coffee shops." But the results are increasingly problematic. Dutch adolescent marijuana use nearly tripled between 1984 and 1992.
Statistics show that it is not a "theory" but fact. Whether you want to admit it or not.
Smart kids don't do drugs at all.
The only lack of logic is in your entire post! Again, I posted facts to back up the "theory." You refuse to accept them.
And why is Fox News mentioned (again)? Look, I prefer Fox News over the other cable stations. Do you have a problem with that? Why not just accept it and move along; others here do.
Its not a fact that weed is a gateway drug, but then again it's not fact that it isn't. It all depends on the user. If it was a gateway drug then there would be way more crack heads and meth addicts running around. There is no 100% correct answer to that debate.
Next, you're wrong. Some of the most intelligent minds have smoked marijuana. You've fallen into the idea that so many have that only lazy, and moronic people smoke. Which is far from the truth.
Oh, there are excellent reasons for keeping it illegal.
One example, as printed in the Feb., 1996 Reader's Digest:
Throughout the Netherlands, marijuana and hashih are openly sold and consumed in so-called "coffee shops." But the results are increasingly problematic. Dutch adolescent marijuana use nearly tripled between 1984 and 1992.
Decriminalizing marijuana doesn't lead to more widespread use, according to a new study comparing the drug's users in Amsterdam and San Francisco. The study, published in the May issue of the American Journal of Public Health, flies in the face of prohibitionists who argue that relaxed laws will lead to a rampant increase in the use of marijuana. Drug warriors, who often talk about marijuana being a first step to the use of harder drugs, should also take note that decriminalization appears to reduce the so-called "gateway effect."
--
I think a 2004 peer-reviewed scientific study done by a group of PhD's is a better source than 1996 Reader's Digest, don't you? Go ahead, click on the link to the actual study. Facts are something, indeed.
Its not a fact that weed is a gateway drug, but then again it's not fact that it isn't. It all depends on the user. If it was a gateway drug then there would be way more crack heads and meth addicts running around. There is no 100% correct answer to that debate.
It is a gateway drug for too many. That is a fact.
Quote:
Next, you're wrong. Some of the most intelligent minds have smoked marijuana. You've fallen into the idea that so many have that only lazy, and moronic people smoke. Which is far from the truth.
Decriminalizing marijuana doesn't lead to more widespread use, according to a new study comparing the drug's users in Amsterdam and San Francisco. The study, published in the May issue of the American Journal of Public Health, flies in the face of prohibitionists who argue that relaxed laws will lead to a rampant increase in the use of marijuana. Drug warriors, who often talk about marijuana being a first step to the use of harder drugs, should also take note that decriminalization appears to reduce the so-called "gateway effect."
--
I think a 2004 peer-reviewed scientific study done by a group of PhD's is a better source than 1996 Reader's Digest, don't you? Go ahead, click on the link to the actual study. Facts are something, indeed.
Actually, I find the Reader's Digest more credible. It has been around for over 80 years. I notice the link you posted did not mention adolescent use of marijuana in the Netherlands.
Anyway, I don't know what is going on with all these questions.
I strongly oppose legalization of marijuana. And I won't change my mind. IMO, legalization of that would be insane.
Actually, I find the Reader's Digest more credible. It has been around for over 80 years. I notice the link you posted did not mention adolescent use of marijuana in the Netherlands.
Anyway, I don't know what is going on with all these questions.
I strongly oppose legalization of marijuana. And I won't change my mind. IMO, legalization of that would be insane.
Why insane? I don't get your reasoning.
Currently, adolescents can get marijuana easier than alcohol. I remember my high school years - I knew no one who was over 21 to buy me alcohol, but I knew plenty of classmates who had hookups for weed.
Unlicensed black market drug dealers don't card. If you are concerned about adolescent use, you should legalize and regulate.
Besides, it is fascist and anti-freedom to arrest someone for simply possessing property. Especially property that is less harmful than aspirin and refined sugar. Property that is a god-given natural plant that grows nearly everywhere on earth.
Currently, adolescents can get marijuana easier than alcohol. I remember my high school years - I knew no one who was over 21 to buy me alcohol, but I knew plenty of classmates who had hookups for weed.
Unlicensed black market drug dealers don't card. If you are concerned about adolescent use, you should legalize and regulate.
Besides, it is fascist and anti-freedom to arrest someone for simply possessing property. Especially property that is less harmful than aspirin and refined sugar.
I support legalization also and you are making great points but you could be a hypocrite slightly (depending on your views of what I am about to bring up). You say it is anti-freedom and fascist (which I'm assuming isn't you) for arresting someone simply because they posses property, but do you believe we should legalize, all drugs, even the hard ones? I do. Because I don't really want to hijack this thread, you can see my reasons as to why if you look up the thread "Should recreational meth be legalized?" I just brought this up because I was wondering and yeah.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
