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.
Yes, I agree. Right now, pot is hip and trendy, but it's just as gross, stinky and harmful as cigarettes (I mean your putting smoke directly into your lungs for crying out loud), once the "cool" factor wears off, people will realize that smoking pot is just as much as a total loser habit as smoking cigarettes is.
Why is it a total loser habit when there are known highly educated and successful people that use it on a regular basis? Just like alcohol you have the right not to use it.
Pot has been hip and trendy for more than half a century. That would make it just hip because trendy usually refers to something that is relatively new and popular.
There is a lot of misinformation in this post. If you really don't know anything about the effects of cannabis, why not do some research and than comment?
For example:
Since you smoke, vape or eat a lot less of cannabis than you would tobacco, it doesn't affect your lungs to the extent that it would cause a disease like cancer or emphysema. In fact cannabis has substances within it that counteract the chemicals it has in common with tobacco when burned. However, if tobacco and cannabis are used at the same time, the two have a synergistic affect that causes the negatives of tobacco to be enhanced.
Tobacco cigarettes do serve a purpose! Geez! They cause a feeling of mild euphoria, enhance a feeling of well being, help to control anxiety, are an appetite suppressant, makes you feel as if you are thinking with more clarity and that you are in control, etc.
Tobacco has also been described by a former Surgeon General of the US as being as addictive as heroin, while cannabis is about as addictive as caffeine!
"Pot" is not going away. It is providing millions of dollars to the states that are taxing and regulating it.
Just a few differences you can find out with a simple google search.
Thank you for your post.
Since most misinformed people are unlikely to do any Googling on their own, please allow me to follow up your post with a link. I admit even if they click on this link it is unlikely to open any new lines of thought among the misinformed and closed-minded, but it is still worth a shot:
While chemically very similar, there are fundamental differences in the pharmacological properties between cannabis and tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.
There is a lot of misinformation in this post. If you really don't know anything about the effects of cannabis, why not do some research and than comment?
For example:
Since you smoke, vape or eat a lot less of cannabis than you would tobacco, it doesn't affect your lungs to the extent that it would cause a disease like cancer or emphysema. In fact cannabis has substances within it that counteract the chemicals it has in common with tobacco when burned. However, if tobacco and cannabis are used at the same time, the two have a synergistic affect that causes the negatives of tobacco to be enhanced.
Tobacco cigarettes do serve a purpose! Geez! They cause a feeling of mild euphoria, enhance a feeling of well being, help to control anxiety, are an appetite suppressant, makes you feel as if you are thinking with more clarity and that you are in control, etc.
Tobacco has also been described by a former Surgeon General of the US as being as addictive as heroin, while cannabis is about as addictive as caffeine!
"Pot" is not going away. It is providing millions of dollars to the states that are taxing and regulating it.
Just a few differences you can find out with a simple google search.
I think caffeine is way more addictive than cannabis but that is just me. That sweet cup of caffeine first thing in the morning is pure joy.
I enjoy this topic because it doesn't split along party lines.
Rather, the authoritarian factions of each party want to control it and the non authoritarian factions think people should be left alone over it.
You can see the busybody mirror personalities from both sides.
It kind of is partisan though, though not as much as lot of other issues and tends to be more generational. However, right now the GOP and particular the evangelical wing of the party is the ONLY thing standing in the way of legalization. The public support is there. An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents support legalization and around half of Republicans do. The Christian Right doesn't though and they are currently the primary driver of public policy because as the evangelicals go, so goes the GOP.
It kind of is partisan though, though not as much as lot of other issues and tends to be more generational. However, right now the GOP and particular the evangelical wing of the party is the ONLY thing standing in the way of legalization. The public support is there. An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents support legalization and around half of Republicans do. The Christian Right doesn't though and they are currently the primary driver of public policy because as the evangelicals go, so goes the GOP.
I must disagree with you. Your issue is legitimate, and you are correct the public support is there. But this is only a secondary reason that prohibition holds fast. It is in a distant 2nd place behind $MONEY.
Marijuana actually has more tar in it and can damage your lungs even more than smoking. However, the amount of pot one smokes is drastically less than the number of cigarettes a person will smoke in any given day.
I honestly don't know why one would be cool and not the other, maybe b/c you can get stoned or high on pot and not on cigs. Cigs really serve no purpose. They used to be cool, and now they're not so much, so maybe pot will go that way, too. Not really sure since I don't hang out with a lot of people who do either.
Cigs serve a purpose. The ingredients calm anxiety, a common symptom in a big part of the pop. It's self -medication and is used as a coping mechanism much like alcohol. Ever notice that people in movies and TV come home from work and have a drink to relax? Drinking is a coping mechanism which is a slippery slope.
This is how dependence on alcohol gets started.
I must disagree with you. Your issue is legitimate, and you are correct the public support is there. But this is only a secondary reason that prohibition holds fast. It is in a distant 2nd place behind $MONEY.
This is typically how it usually works with blue laws. If you've lived in Oklahoma I'm sure you are familiar with the liquor laws which are just finally set to be repealed next month.
The way it works is this. Blue laws are put into place to enforce the views and morality of a specific religious sect. This has the unintended consequence of benefiting certain special interest groups economically and/or creating monopolies. In the case of marijuana it's Big Pharma and the private prison industry (with liquor it was the liquor stores and distributors). Years go by and public opinion evolves and there starts to be discussions about repealing the blue laws. As soon as that happens, the special interest group(s) who benefit fund a fear-mongering propaganda campaign aimed at energizing the hardcore religious right to come out to vote to keep the laws on the books, invoking fear of a mass moral panic if they are repealed. It typically works and the blue laws stay on the books sometimes many decades after the majority public opinion has turned against them and the special interest groups win.
This is typically how it usually works with blue laws. If you've lived in Oklahoma I'm sure you are familiar with the liquor laws which are just finally set to be repealed next month.
The way it works is this. Blue laws are put into place to enforce the views and morality of a specific religious sect. This has the unintended consequence of benefiting certain special interest groups economically and/or creating monopolies. In the case of marijuana it's Big Pharma and the private prison industry (with liquor it was the liquor stores and distributors). Years go by and public opinion evolves and there starts to be discussions about repealing the blue laws. As soon as that happens, the special interest group(s) who benefit fund a fear-mongering propaganda campaign aimed at energizing the hardcore religious right to come out to vote to keep the laws on the books. It typically works and the blue laws stay on the books sometimes many decades after the majority public opinion has turned against them.
Yes, you have that pegged pretty well. As a 50 year long resident of Oklahoma everything you say holds true.
However, when it comes to the particular issue of marijuana legalization, the playing field changes. That is because the amount of money that stands to be lost by the big industries you mentioned eclipses the amount of money in play in the past for any other blue law.
Another way of making my point is this: If suddenly the religious right laid down their weapons against marijuana legalization and threw in the towel, while at the same time a democratic president and congress was elected, it would STILL not get legalized. EVEN IF public opinion for it rose to 90%.
I will give you 3 guesses as to the reason why. Hint: It begins with a dollar sign, with many numerical digits following it.
The only power in the universe that can overcome the amount of $money in play here is the power of the vote. Only once these career politicians (who knows exactly what they are doing by keeping it illegal) starts losing their seats will you see legalization happen. Once we reach that point, all the crying and moaning in the world by the religious right won't stop federal legalization.
Do you now see why the religious factor in this equation pales in comparison to the under-the-table, practically limitless, corrupt $$$MONEY$$$ that is currently flowing directly into lawmakers pockets, regardless of their political affiliation?
Yes, you have that pegged pretty well. As a 50 year long resident of Oklahoma everything you say holds true.
However, when it comes to the particular issue of marijuana legalization, the playing field changes. That is because the amount of money that stands to be lost by the big industries you mentioned eclipses the amount of money in play in the past for any other blue law.
Another way of making my point is this: If suddenly the religious right laid down their weapons against marijuana legalization and threw in the towel, while at the same time a democratic president and congress was elected, it would STILL not get legalized. EVEN IF public opinion for it rose to 90%.
I will give you 3 guesses as to the reason why.
The only power in the universe that can overcome the amount of $money in play here is the power of the vote. Only once these career politicians (who knows exactly what they are doing by keeping it illegal) starts losing their seats will you see legalization happen. Once we reach that point, all the crying and moaning in the world by the religious right won't stop legalization.
Do you now see why the religious factor in this equation pales in comparison to the under-the-table, practically limitless, corrupt $$$MONEY$$$ that is currently flowing directly into lawmakers pockets, regardless of their political affiliation?
I think the tipping point is going to be once the cannabis industry gets large enough and has enough money behind it to be able to compete with the special interests dedicated to keeping it illegal. As more states and nations legalize (even if it's just medical), the closer we get to that day. One of the issues with marijuana is it's not an issue a lot of people really feel strongly about one way or another, especially on the pro side. Therefore it's unlikely going to be one of those issues where the politicians' hands are forced by the voters. While a majority may want to see it legalized, it's probably not at the top of the list of issues they are thinking about when they go to the polls unless they happen to be voting in an election where legalization is on the ballot.
The reason I bring up the religious factor on this though is because it's the hardlined religious right politicians that are the most vocal about keeping it illegal. Also a recent poll showed that white evangelicals are the ONLY demographic that still overwhelmingly supports prohibition. Everyone else is significantly or overwhelmingly for legalization, including non-white evangelicals and white mainline Christians.
The agruments againsts cigs is that it causes lung cancer, emphysema, heart issues, it stinks, etc. Can the exact same things not be said about pot? I've never smoked either, so I don't know, but cigarettes are socially unacceptable, yet pot is socially cool. Why? Thanks
Are they not two different substances? And if so then isn’t it possible they would have different effects? The facts are out there and they ain’t particularly hard to find. Pot aint tobacco.
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.
