Topic: Should weed be legalized? POLL (Read 5626 times)

Just legalize it already. 

I voted for legalization, as "other" is too vague. Also, I consider the legalization of marijuana a step in the right direction, particularly, rolling back the state.

Unfortunately, legalization opens the door to taxation. That's less egregious than jailing a guy for smoking a joint, or killing him because he "resisted" (which in modern American Government Speak" means not immediately pissing yourself when the pig cop ball licking scumbag Law Enforcement Officer shows up). It is a less violent solution than the current mess. In a poll conducted nationwide about 15 years ago, 1/3rd of those polled said they had tried marijuana at some point in the United Socialist States of America. Extrapolating that to the general population, it would outstrip any other recreational drug except alcohol and tobacco, and equals them. So obviously the "general" sentiment, whatever expressed where big brother is listening, is against regulation, or at least prohibition. (I cannot find the source of that poll right now, but it was conducted by gallup for NORML. It's out there, I'm sure. )

The so-called war on drugs irritates me on many levels. La Mota just being one of them. But it is probably the most egregious as it affects all sectors of society. Even sectors who CLAIM to be in favor of sustainable industries. I'll focus for a moment on just one industry, but an extremely important one in the modern world. I'll leave out the other thousands of uses of the plant l.cannabis sativa for the moment.

That industry is paper. Generally, not a specific type. Paper is made primarily from wood fibers at the moment. this is a wasteful, highly polluting, expensive proposition, but the demand is such that economies of scale make it possible. I wish to note that I am not what is generally termed an environmentalist, because I believe the survival of my species is of paramount importance TO my species. That being said, I like the wild places, and I am a conservationist in the sense that I hate waste. Making paper from trees is a waste. Why?

Because it is better to make it from a more renewable resource. It takes more than a decade to replace a tree. It takes three months to replace the equivalent amount of hemp. That is just one issue. The chemicals necessary to make paper from trees are ridiculously dangerous. By making the paper from the longer more pliant hemp fibers, you eliminate several of these processes and reduce all of the others. Thus the danger, both to humans and the environment at large, is greatly reduced.

Those same long fibers make much more robust paper prodcts, so hempen cardboard, for example, is stronger than tree cardboard. Same with writing paper. Also, to get very white paper such as we have become accustomed to takes less dying. The overall costs associated with managing a forest for harvest vs. the cost of growing hemp is massively different. Hemp grows easily, almost in any climate, and contributes a great deal of oxygen to the atmosphere by comparison to trees (which do the same thing, but slower).

In this same vein, medium and high density fibers made from hemp can be used in a great deal of construction where tree lumber is currently used. These fibers can also be made from trees, and MDF is becoming commonplace for trim work already. My brother was involved in building luxury houses a few years ago, and I briefly worked for him. In million dollar houses a lot of the trim work was made from medium density fiber, rather than actual lumber, and this by the choice of the builders and buyers. It's very malleable. HDF's are suitable for structural timber, in fact are somewhat stronger in compression and tortional strength than pine or spruce, and only a little less than oak. All of these can be made from hemp as either a primary product, or a byproduct of other processes as they are with lumber. The reduction in costs ALONE demands that the idiotic laws making hemp illegal because some of us like to smoke the flowers be not only rescinded immediately, but that the people who made, enforced, and advocated such bullshit laws should stand up in public and apologize. Especially those on the so-called "left" with their constant harping on environmental issues that they neither understand nor care about.

I could go on for pages, but I shan't bother. Suffice it to say that there are thousands of uses for hemp that are not only commercially viable, but superior. Superior quality, lesser cost, more sustainability. The only thing standing between these industries and the benefits they would bring are stupid laws backed by stupid people carrying well made expensive weapons bought with YOUR money.

Legalize everything. By criminalizing it you are pushing tons of addicts into crime.
The fact that alcohol is legal and weed is illegal shows us the hipocrasy we are living in.
A society who's values are based on a few old books.
I always feel like I'm living in some sort of movie where everyone blames each other in public for the facts we all secretly do when we are at home.

You won't live as long resulting in them getting less money from you.

right, so who ate you going to buy it from, the jamaican guy who sells it at 10 a gram or the evil corporation that sells at 10 an ounce? 

Please read my previous post.

Good point

I can make a parallel with wine production in my country, many people had/still have vineyards in their backyard, it's kind of a tradition here, it's just a plant, you can grow it, collect the grapes and make some wine, if you are going to sell it on the open market you pay the proper taxes for doing that, if you have a big vineyard exploration you need to go through the proper channels, get the permits and so on.

With weed it should be the exact same thing, big corporations are going to emerge, sure, there are also big wine corporations, but that does not invalidate someone from producing their own wine at home.

And I know a few people in my country that cultivate their own tobacco, not as good as Marlboro, but much less expensive, mainly because they sell on the "black market", no taxes are payed.

And it's much easier to cultivate good weed than tobacco or good wine, or even bad wine.

 If weed is going to be like cigarattes and big corporations going to make big bucks while it will be still legal to make money out of weed and corporates will charge insane profits from us , no! But if the current weed circulation going to be legal , thats great.

Finally someone who gets it! Nice thinking! 

I knew you would say this and I changed my decision based on your first post and thinking a bit more about it. Am I not allowed to do that? Re read my other posts.

I hate to say this but you are wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Sure, drugs should be legal. But it has nothing to do with property.

It is no one else's business what I do with my property. My body is my property. 

On the hard drugs issue:

I would feel myself safer if hard drugs would be decriminalized, the state or health care would supply them to users with up to standard quality control. Druggies would not need to go on the path of a criminal.

This would generate income and some % of that income could go on the education and public awareness of the effects of drugs.

Crazy people do crazy things, what they consume doesn't really affect their "habits".

I don't consider weed (good quality of course) as a drug, it's medicine.

No.  You said

I'm sure you are aware of your decisions. All I said was to tax the things that are bad for you... its still your decision to pay more.

I'm well aware of my choices consequences, moderation is the key!

What I despise is the ban/prohibit/criminalize authoritarian mentality, if you want a civilized society, stop treating people as children!

I actually look younger than I am lol Im not vegan but I give props to those who have the will power to switch.

You sound like one of those Vegan hippies out in California with green skin and looking about 15 years older than they are... 

 

Hi sir fuck you right back Im your age and I drank since 15 but last few yrs have woken up to its implications im glad I get responses from ppl like you reenforces my decision to quit for good.

About the link its old news kiddo I knew that 5 yrs ago.. how about the 1 beer a day test? Remember that? Well none of its true and although wine may help woth dinner Eating your antioxidents like grapes strwaberries acai berries etc are even better. Better yet ive been making fresh juice every other day with fruits m veges combines which is the best thing u can do to supercharge ur body better than any wine will help ur dillusional ass any day.

I already said fast food should be taxed not banned since there is still a market for it in my view just not as big as today.

Smoker and drinker huh? must be doing swell! Maybe ur one of chosen ones lol

Ack!  I never thought about it like that... just one more reason for me to hate on them fat peepz.  I'm so sick of the stigma that smokers get in this country (USA) but being morbidly obese is an issue that we have to skirt because we could offend the fatties.

more people should watch this, shows more about the benefits of this wonderful plant :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31SrjjgPbhU

First let me say this: Fuck you, sir!

Educate yourself a little: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you

And a little of my personal experience, I'm 31 years old, I drink alcohol since I was 7 or so, I'm not an addict, never was, not even a functional drunk, I just enjoy drinking and have done that a lot! And hope still be doing a lot more in the future!

I will argue the same way Damnsammit did, why not ban fast food, or any unhealthy food, like bacon, as it is a major cause of death and/or disability, I'll bet much higher than alcohol consumption.

And check my post on addiction/banning/decriminalization from someone who saw the changes in policy reflecting on the social changes: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3106944


I do live in such a country also, but like you typed, and very well done, free is not actually free...

In defense of this "free" healthcare I'll argue that putting junkies in jail where they will perpetuate their addiction, or letting them on the streets begging for money or robbing or spreading aids prostituting themselves has a much higher social and financial cost then implementing treatment into the "free" healthcare system.

And another point on this subject, some people argue that smokers are a big burden on the healthcare system, because they have higher chance of developing diseases like cancer and treating these diseases is very expensive.

Where I live, something like 90% of a cigarette pack price goes for taxes, what a smoker contributes in his life time in taxes pays many times whatever treatment he might need for a smoking related disease, so, we smokers are the ones paying for the treatment of the fat fucks who like to clog their veins with fatty foods that have a low tax attached.

How about the costs of healthcare for the drug users vs the costs of incarceration for those same drug users?

In the state of California it costs $47,000/yr to incarcerate someone[1].  The taxpayers also take that hit. The war on drugs has failed, and I would rather my tax dollars go toward healthcare for drug addicts than locking up people for silly ass "crimes".

[1]http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

That's the other side of the problem.  When you have "free" healthcare everybody's health suddenly becomes everyone's business.  Which is crazy because people's health, what they consume, how much exercise they do etc is a very personal thing.   You can't decree people should be healthy though govt never seems to learn that lesson.

And not that the health care is actually free of course.  The more socialised health care becomes, the more expensive overall it seems and the worse the service (waiting lists, etc).

People need to be responsible for their own health and part of that responsibility is taking the consequences of bad actions.  Free health care takes this responsibility away from the individual with predictable consequences.   Yay, free health care for all.  Oh, but some people consume things they shouldn't which puts a strain on the system.  Solution: ban those things.  And so on.   And eventually you get a nanny govt.
 

I'm in agreement with you, yet I suspect that the main line of reasoning has to do with things like the cost of healthcare for chronic drug users.  Trust me, it escalates quickly.  Drug use is much higher among the homeless, for example, and guess what type of healthcare the homeless usually have?  Public aid!  And while public aid doesn't typically fund substance abuse treatment, it does fund dual-diagnosis clients, and that's virtually any drug user that's had a serious hospitalization of some kind.  Here's a typical cycle, especially in inner cities:

1)  Person consumes drugs often and frequently
2)  Symptoms of mental illness arise; financial situation declines.
3)  Person becomes homeless, is hospitalized, or both.
4)  Person gets dually-diagnosed:  (Poly)substance abuse + serious mental illness, often depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder.
5)  Person applies for public aid.
6)  Public aid funds psychiatric care, some medications, medical aid, and counseling services.  It also makes the person eligible for residency in places like nursing homes or group homes.
7)  Person lives in institutional setting funded by public aid until they relapse.  Then they go back to the hospital.
8.)  Repeat from step 4.

Depending on how long this cycle lasts, you could easily be looking at $100,000+ in public aid per person every couple of years.

In a society where healthcare is "free" like where I live some will argue that it will increase government spending on medical care. Not that I'm in favour of "free" and poorly managed healthcare but this is another mater.

Agree 100% with that.  I'll agree to disagree on the other part of this argument though.  I don't like the government stepping in and saying what is right or wrong when it comes to personal health.  That should be up to the parents (unless they are unfit) in a case of a minor, and up to the individual in the case of an adult.

If I want to free-base a ball of tar off of a fire made from asbestos then that should be my right to do so as long as it is in my house where the fumes aren't killing anyone else.

You don't get it, most ppl smoking cigarettes do not want to smoke but they do because of addiction. Its a gray area... fast food is also an addiction. Trans fat and sugars in fast food exhibit withdrawls with the likes of other substance abuses. The minute you touch any of these your remotely addicted, the more you use it the more addicted you get. Alcohol I learned is addictive from your first sip, however little addiction there is. But the more you have the more addicted you get. I'm occasional but health oriented through exercise and sports which I say keeps me away from drowning my stress in drinking. I use exercise to relieve stress instead.

I also don't believe a fullon intervention is needed and that your right gov't shouldn't spend overly on these things but a simple incentive approach would work but taxing fast food/alcohol producers and adding incentive or tax breaks on healthy food producers right now its opposite corn etc is subsizidized to allow for cheap fast food and higher profits while the healthy stuff costs an arm and a leg which is very awkward.

I don't think the government should be able to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.  They should reserve their resources to combat fraud and malintent.  If a company is selling rat poison with a label that says "Not for human consumption" then it is legal.  If a company is selling rat poison disguised as food, then the government should step in. 

If someone is smoking cigarettes because they think it is beneficial to their health then they are stupid and deserve the cancer they are getting.  The government shouldn't step in and tell a business that they can't sell the cigarettes just because it's unhealthy though.  If McDonalds was marketting a Big Mac and Fries as a "healthy alternative" to a home cooked meal, then there are problems.  However, I would venture to say that most people know that eating a pound of saturated fat isn't a healthy choice, but they want something quick to satisfy their hunger.

I think that there actually should be some sort of consortium regarding what your allowed to feed to the public through sale. Some sort of standard because we all know fast food is a killer so why would you let people promote it? Why not keep using Fiat then why are you here using bitcoin? We know its bad for us so lets just keep feeding the fat cats until they explode and then feed a new fat cat working away our lives like a slave??

Yes its not as addictive so it may be allowed to be held but business should be allowed to serve food that is NOT going to have negative effects on such a widescale such as fast food! this is just common sense to me dont know how hard it is to understand for so many people. Maybe because they are in the circle its hard to have an external perspective on things and realize it.

Yes freedom of choice comes into it, but again it comes down to the fact that people who eat it everyday dont think there's anything wrong with it, theres smart ppl dying because of it. If incentive (money) is given to feed people to death with bad food then that is the wrong message and we turned off on a tangent somewhere. I just think there should be an inecntive to becoming healthy and promoting health as success is highly correlated to being healthy. Maybe success isn't something those with power wish to share with us minions.

Its not like I havent drank because I have and do, but I think that it would be great for everyone involved if it weren't available anymore. Recent legal issues has made me think twice and reflect on the true nature of it and how it may effect so many things along the way that we may not know until its too late. This is where an expert with outside influence and knowledge would be able to correct based on incentive on being healthy and promoting success.

Fuck that line of thinking.  Fuck it straight to hell!  

I love my alcohol, and I am fully aware of it's detrimental affects on my health.  

I don't know why people think that stuff that is bad for you should be "banned and destroyed". Might as well add all fast food, most frozen food, soft drinks, Kool-Aid, etc. to your list of "wish this was banned" substances.

Obesity is the leading cause of death in the USA, so take away the french fries and burgers before even thinking about putting your paws on my whiskey.

If its medically proven that in the long term occasional usage of weed is not determental to your overall health in any way then yes legalize it, alcohol however should be outright banned and destroyed.... it is addictive from the first sip and it is proven to be bad for you in the long run.

Dealing with addiction is weird because some may no thave have the will power to do it, or some may be in a depression cycle exaggerated by alcohol which they have no free will to try to quit, so saying that its your own decision is utter bullshit. An addictive substance is made to lure you in after occasional use turns frequent because of stresses in life. If you dealth with the stress in another way then ofcourse you will get over it faster!

Also socializing with friends seems to go hand in hand with getting hammered. This needs to change aswell. It seems to be wasting an entire generation of talent and knowledge or potential. Seems as though those that do not occasionally drink are the only ones getting somewhere in life!

Coke and heroin should be legal, too, IMO.

No reason we can poison ourselves with some substances but not others.  As long as I am only shooting up in my veins, then what makes it an issue with the federal government?

legalize it and tax it just think eliminating it as a crime will save tons of money for the real bad drugs like coke and heroin and make extra money thru the taxes and save from having potheads rotting in jail that they really don't deserve (some do because of other issues but not all)

Haters gonna hate. Fuck medical. Weed has its place as medicine, but this grey market alongside the black market creates perverse economic incentives and obviously does not work to restrict it to medical use.

The medical cannabis industry -- exceptions aside -- exploits black market consumers en masse. The majority of dispensaries here in LA area are fly-by-night and run by thugs trying to make as much money as fast as possible. The Bay Area is considerably better in this respect, in my experience, but still shady as hell.

It won't be legalized as this eats in to the profit of the cartels and decrease the prison population, all against the interest of the Zionist Jew World Order.

They will shoot you.

Pretty definitive result.

Haha, suicide is illegal? What are they going to do, arrest you? 

Tax and regulate similar to cigarettes and alcohol. Medicinal is more likely to adopt in all states.

I don't think the government should be able to tell me what I am allowed to put into my body.

Sodomy and drug laws are ridiculous.  Also, it shouldn't be illegal to kill yourself... lol

It may not have a significnt effect in the sense that I'm not sure that a large percentage of non-smokers would suddenly begin smoking, but I think you'd definitely see people being more 'openly stoned' in public, for example by smoking while driving, while walking on the sidewalk in busy areas, and being high at work.  People do these things already, but with legality comes more social acceptance and less stigma.  I just think that those who typically do more to hide their behavior would be more casual and open about it.

On of the countries where weed is legal doesn't seem to have a higher amount of the population being "stoned"

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

We might have a lot (more) of stoned idiots if it becomes fully legalized, but if we really need to protect us from ourselves, then we're already a lost cause.

Legalize all drugs and let people be responsible for themselves.  

Do you have a source?

Yes, but I mean smoking it without having a medical reason.

Uhm did you hear about medicinal weed?

don't ask for permission. it sets a bad precedent.

You can say that about ALL drugs. Make them legal, and there will be no more cartels.

Drugs are illegal just because that way they are more profitable for the powerful few.

Yes, so idiots who smoke it die so we have less stupid people on earth 

Also stress and depression as well.

Cannabis cures cancer.

Of course. 1) It's inevitable and 2) it's mostly harmless. (Yes, all smoke causes cell trauma, but it's obviously a personal choice.)

If you search on Google, you will find a study done on Switzerland on prescription heroin. This study concluded that crime and disease transmision was considerably lowered. If you take the Netherlands, prevalence of marijuana use is lower than most other countries that criminalise recreational use like Canada or the US.

Disclaimer: I don't do "drug" but I drink alcohol. I'm for harm reduction rather than criminalisation.

Yes.  It costs far too much of my money to stop people from doing what they're still doing after this long, drawn out "war" against drugs; you simply cannot tell a person what it is they're going to do and expect good results to follow.

If people want to do it, they will do it, regardless of what any law says.  There has been a law against killing (your fellow citizens at least) for thousands of years with varying punishments and people still don't "get the message"; law, then, does not prevent anything, it only puts a bandaid on the problem after it occurs.  It is knowledge which dictates prevention (not propaganda, as nations love to use, but real knowledge); if a person knows why they shouldn't do hard drugs, they're far less likely to do them.  For those who still do, they would understand the risks, and would know their own limits, and when they're ready to kick the habit, businesses would already be around, not to prosecute them for what they've done, but to help them so they'll stop.  Prison has been the absolute most ineffective rehab for hard drug use; in fact, placing a bunch of drug addicts in a cage has led to even more prison violence and even more organized drug cartels, where people come out of prison (if ever) even more convinced that their way is the right way.

Coercion doesn't work, not with drugs, not with anything, and forcing people not to take hard drugs when it's already obvious that they're very, very bad to take, means just these things: people are either still ignorant of the effects of these drugs, are flatly curious (e.g. doing something that's banned is a sign it's "badass"), or don't have enough self-worth to care.  These are the underlying problems that the "war on drugs" not only does not fix, but makes worse.

Do you think the same of "Hard"drugs?

Drug prohibition should be ended.  It was bad idea from the start.  Just like alcohol prohibition.  The only reason the govt gets away with it is because they are less popular than alcohol. 

It's making criminals of what are otherwise innocent people.  Those who consume and those who supply it.

It's a victimless crime.   No-one has the right to tell another person what they can and cannot grow and what they can or cannot put in their body?  Certainly not a bunch of beuracrats, half of whom have probably willingly partaken in such substances at one point themselves.

You start thinking about the drug war and you realise it's completely insane. 

It's welfare in disguise for the DEA.  Just like the fake wars started by lies is welfare in disguise for the military.  It's excuses to keep people in jobs and keep money flowing through the Govt so politicians can divert a certain amount into their pockets.

They also tried to ban that, didn't went well, and they have the 21 years old stuff, and no open containers thing... Murican freedom!

Alcohol kill more people than anything else, and it is legal. How does that work? 

I do not partake, but I do not see a reason why it should not be legal.

Of course it should it needs to be recreational hands down and I dont understand why it hasent been nationwide yet.

Laws make problems, nothing more. Any law, or lack of law dealing with weed (or anything including crack, murder, traffic violations, and tax evasion, ect) only serves to hurt people.
An arena where legislation is impossible, where institutionalized, state-violence-backed laws are obsolete is what I'm voting for.

I don't want any government interference on my own business unless it threatens another human being.

Hashish is just "plant concentrate". You can shake the plants on a sieve to collect the resin or "pollen" or THC, you can do it dry or cold and wet.

We're talking about the plant itself, not the cartels. You legalize weed, then the cartels will no longer find weed to be profitable as every medical dispensary around the corner will have one. Then they won't murder you over weed.

I can't say the same about other drugs though.

The Mexican Cartels would disagree with you about this. But yes it is a natural plant... Until its THC level is artificially boosted by humans, and transformed into pure hashish.

GMO Weeds are next.

So I vote yes for the weed you find in the forest, untouched. And no for the weed with blood on it.

I'm gonna quote this here as it's relevant to this discussion:

I don't want weed legalized, or for it to be illegal; this implies government knows better than you do as to whether everyone should be allowed to use it or not.

I'd rather politics simply stop encroaching my personal life.  The ban on weed is completely moronic; even with weed being illegal, it is still used by many people.  The ban does nothing (as with all bans) but make criminals out of once innocent people.  The only thing a ban can possibly do is result in a new form of taxation; catch all the people with item X and make them pay extra for it, and all that money goes straight to the state.  And remember: "It's for your own good."  And yet, we already know what's best for us, so we're already comfortable knowing whether we want to smoke weed, or if we do not want to smoke weed; this vote is made easily by either smoking, or not smoking.

But I guess it doesn't matter to me; I don't smoke the stuff.  And if you smoke the stuff, you already know the law is a meaningless, and expensive inconvenience; time, and time, and time again, we prove that threats of violence cannot sufficiently govern behavior, else murders would be a relic of the past.

There shouldn't even be a long-term stable authority to beg for an innocent plant to please please legalize it.

also, hemp will save the economy and the whole world of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDeyNLUwf_U

Yeah, why murder an innocent green plant? Has it ever done anything to you? No one has ever died because of it.

This ^

It is just a plant. You should be not only allowed to grow it at your backyard for your personaluse, but also grow it for profit to stimulate economy

So what is your opinion on this matter? Please explain why you agree or disagree.