Completely Off-topic Poll

[nsherman2006]

Actually wes, i beg to differ. Even though Maiden69 has a completely different opinion on the topic(which, by the way, is not whether weed is good or bad, but whether it should be legalized) i respect him more than before. Why? Because i have learned of his service to our country, as well as the fact that he can disagree with me in a civili fashion. Debate is good, without different viewpoints the world would be at a standstill. As long as it's civil(so far it has been) i think this is a good topic. JMO. Neal

[Southpa]

Blaming weed for accidents etc. is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnel being fat.

[skibum5545]

Perhaps that's a bit of an oversimplification (especially in relation to driving), but your point is valid.

And funny too!

[Devon Headen]

More like blaming guns for murders.

[westhemann]

Even though Maiden69 has a completely different opinion on the topic(which, by the way, is not whether weed is good or bad, but whether it should be legalized) i respect him more than before. Why? Because i have learned of his service to our country, as well as the fact that he can disagree with me in a civili fashion.

in other words,you are

judging the posters based on what the poster writes and how it agrees or conflicts with the readers own personal beliefs.

so what are you disagreeing with?

[nsherman2006]

i was saying that even though he conflicts with what i am saying, i don't lose respect for him

[westhemann]

i was saying that even though he conflicts with what i am saying, i don't lose respect for him

←

that's because your priorities lie with civil discussion of disagreements.i think that is great...i am the same way.

but i assure you most people are not that way at all.

i am not saying this thread has anything wrong with it...just that drak is correct...it serves no purpose in that nobodys opinions are influenced by it.

[ToneMonkey]

Paraphrased from Howard Marks:

"The war on drugs? They've got the money, helicopters, battleships and we're still winning........

.........and we don't even like fighting"

[G_urr_A]

it serves no purpose in that nobodys opinions are influenced by it.

←

I like this thread even though it doesn't change my opinion.

1. It makes me think about what I think (I don't usually think about weed since it's pretty much not present in my daily life)

2. It shows which members can state their opinions calmly, and back them up with facts.

3. It allows me to get a better picture of the situation in other countries.

4. It gives me a better base for my opinion, by telling me that this and that person I have been respecting since I got here, has also been using drugs for quite some time.

And for those who may be wondering why I chose to reply, I just felt I wanted to share my opinion to prevent mods from locking this thread.

And for anyone wondering about my opinion in the matter at hand, I can't really give you an answer. What I can say though, is:

-I'm strongly against myself using drugs (mainly considering alcohol, though), but I think that's mainly because I doubt I could handle it.

-I think it's up to each and every one of us to do what we want, as long as it doesn't affect others (if it's going to affect others, ask first and respect their answer).

And that leaves me with no answer to the question about legalizing drugs, since a legalisation would depend on the people's ability to use the drug in question responsibly, IMO.

[Fluke]

And what of these new "laws" saying medical users once protected, are now being arrested?

[Mattia]

I know, I know, bad me, digging up old-ass threads, but some of this stuff needs rectification.

First, it ain't no gateway drug. Crafty, your numbers prove that, much as anything else; that hard drug users almost all (supposedly, depending on the study) use or have used Marijuana doesn't mean diddly. You'll probably find 99% of them also used alcohol, breathed air, smoked cigarettes, and watched pronography. B comes after A does not mean B has any causal relationship with A. The Dutch model also provides fairly strong evidence, with some of the lowest hard drug use in the world, and the Marijuana use is pretty marginal as well. And that in a country that's arguably got the highest THC content dope (on average) of anywhere, thanks to the fact it's semi-legalized. The 'gateway drug' argument is one oft touted, and never proved.

Weed is less addictive than cigarettes (psychologically, yes, but nicotine is a powerful physically addictive substance) so average users (ie, those who don't abuse it, smoke daily, and/or smoke lots and lots of it) get less crap into the system. Tar content's usually lower, and weed's carcinogenic 'nature' is very much up for discussion. Kinda depends how 'clean' the stuff is, I suppose, but fact remains that exposure is important: how many you smoke/day makes a big difference to your cancer risk.

Driving while stoned doesn't seem to be a big problem here, in the Netherlands, where it is a real possibility. People who do smoke (and it's not many of them) don't do it and drive, and very, very few will do it if they have to go to work the next day. It's just not THAT socially acceptable to walk in with a weed hangover, if you will, just as it's not really acceptable show up with a hangover after a night of binge drinking.

Now to address some of El Dangerouso's analysis of the Dutch situation, based on some incorrect information, and some skewed perspective:

I know I might be in the minority with this one, but for all your case studies, why not just look at a place where it might not be legal, but at least tolerated: The Netherlands.  Now I know we have some folks from the land of rain, wooden shoes, tulips, windmills, etc. on the board, and I would really like to hear what they have to say.  I could have my story wrong because of my perspective.

It's not prosecuted, basically, which leaves us in a complicated situation: it decriminalizes users and sellers in very specific locations (coffeshops only), but it's still illegal to grow, except for personal use (ie, 3-5 plants, max). Meaning: production's still largely in the criminal circuit, but political pressure from outside means legalizing is a difficult proposition to say the least. The Netherlands is a small, if populous country in a very crowded part of the world. I'd prefer to see the whole thing legalized, because it would mean more taxation and controls would be possible. There's also the disturbing statstic that here (in Amsterdam), a healthy majority of Coffeeshop (ie, weed bar) owners have criminal records/criminal pasts. Not entirely unsurprising, given the not-quite-legality of it all, but still, not great.

All I know is the Netherlands is not an economic powerhouse.  The United States is.  My wife did an exchange semester in Maastricht (help me out with the spelling if I've blown it).  Parks were full of folks strung the hell out on pot and herion, and there was pretty much no chance of them contributing to the economic situation of their country (anyone ever heard of GDP?).  It was just a fact of life.  My parks are not like that, and I want them to stay that way.

OK, this is where you're simply wrong. The Netherlands, for its size and population, very much IS an economic powerhouse. Maybe not like the US, and Maastricht is certainly a highly rural zone, but a powerhouse it remains. Huge amounts of engineering (I think quite a bit over half of all dredging/land reclamation projects go to Dutch companies), one big oil company (Shell), one of the largest remaining non-Asians electronics companies (Philips), a healthy banking sector (ING group, particularly), significant publicly traded companies with overseas presense (the majority of AHOLD revenue, dutch company, comes from it's US and South American super market chains, IIRC), and a strong position in the IT and other service and knowledge industry markets. Historically, it's a nation of entrepreneurs and traders, and some of that's still true today. We're pretty big on 'knowledge economics', not as big as the US (but few are). Maastricht, not s'much, but the Randstad area (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague), where about 11 million of the Netherland's 16.7 million inhabitants live, defnitely.

Next, I lived in Maastricht for a full year; 99% of those 'strung out' folks in the parks (what 'parks', though? In Maastricht? Not much parkland...) are tourists from Belgium, France and Germany, over for the weekend to get high, and have a good night out. The downside to being very close to the border. It's a particularly problematic area because it's also not the strongest part of NL economically, and its proximity to the border means it is very popular with drug tourists. The locals who smoke will, as said, mostly do a joint or so on the weekend, and the park on a nice sunny day is as good a place as any to do it, with the same effect on GDP as going out on the town and getting good and drunk on the weekend has. Which is to say, not much at all. Have to say that I still saw very, very little evidence of hard-drug use (Heroin) anywhere in Maastricht, and even up here in Amsterdam, it's limited to certain areas (none of them parks), and the junkies are quite well mapped out (Social Health Services keeps tabs on most of them; locking them in jail just isn't the wanted option).

That said, none of this sociological stuff is a science.  I suppose that experience does not mean that if you did legalize pot here, the exact same thing would happen.  You might see no connection between drug legalization and a downhill economic spiral, I see one.

Given there *is* no drug-realted downhill economic spiral, you're blowing smoke out your nether reagions, good sir ;-)

The drug policy in NL has been in place for a good many decades now, and the economy's grown and shrunk like any other does in the business boom/bust cycle, drug use in the general population is lower than average, excessive drug use and hard drug use well within 'bounds', HIV relatively in check, teen pregnancy some of the lowest in the world (as opposed to the US, which has some of the highest), so I can't say you're basing yourself on much.

I would rather have more people working in industries that do things other than provide a chemical substance that alters your reality through controlling you mood.  I'm sure this would be a profitable industry, and many folks would flock to it were it legal (I know there are people already working in illegal pot for a living, but let's face it, if it's legal, there will be many more), we are a capitalist country, and I love the fact we are.  I'm not okay with supporting that industry on the grounds that it is an industry that will have ill effects on overall productivity.  You can make the same arguments about tobacco, alcohol, etc.  Guess what?  They're already legal, and we have to deal with the reality of today.  I'm taking about something we can keep from possibly changing for the worse.  I'm okay with spam, because it may not be natural for some 80 year old to have an erection, but he can still drive with no imparment (assuming he has no other health problems that would limit his driving).  Hell, it wasn't natural for the majority of the population to live past 65 not too long ago.  Should we halt or remove all the drugs that have improved the quality of life for our family members into their later years because they come from a non-organic compound?  The fact that it is organic does not make it okay or good.  Would you like for me to list plenty of organic poisons?

Thing is, it's not as poisonous as some of the legal poisons, which is why many feel it's being treated unfairly.

Secondly, let's look at the misunderstanding of supply and demand economics here: right now, the industry's huge, but it's underground, the profits go unreported, and there's a fair chance a good number of people working in it are actually drawing unemployment benefits; ergo, it's already sucking away productivity, and providing none. More would work in the industry, but these would be newly created jobs, new industry, more productivity in a sector not previously exploited, additional tax revenue, and probably decreased crime (and thus lower costs, particularly when it comes to drug-related internment) in certain specific areas. These aren't people 'drawn away' from other industries, necessarily, but new opportunities. Ones I personally wouldn't want to partake in, but then I'd never work for Big Tobacco either. That's a personal choice, and that it will always remain. You may not like it, I may not want to work in it, but to prohibit based on that is to prohibit using very flimsy arguments, to my mind.

As you say, it's a capitalist model you're following, and you like it (it's got it's drawbacks when done the US way, IMO, like the complete lack of social responsibility felt for making good healthcare a fundamental right; I'm a med student, so it's a bit of a pet hate, but moving on..). The market regulates itself, and is currently doing so at full tilt. If it were legalized, weed would have to adhere to a number of health and safety rules, and the Dutch experience, for one, would indicate it would not lead to explosive increase in Marijuana use. Barely anything in a capitalist model has any tangible benefit beyond fulfilling demand in return for profits. It's an industry here, but still nowhere near a 'huge' one, and mostly a marginal, tourist-feeding (tourists are the #1 buyers and users of weed in NL, based on my observations) industry that could do with 'opening up' a little more.

For the record, I don't smoke weed. I never have smoked weed, I don't want to smoke weed, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I do enjoy the occasional glass of wine, fine single malt scotch, or cool belgian beer. In moderation. Would I vote for outright legalization? Here, probably. Elsewhere, I'm not sure. It's still a potentially serious health risk (although not on the same level as nicotine or alcohol abuse is), but I do feel decriminalization of use, at the very least, is a healthy step to take.

[jmrentis]

It's still a potentially serious health risk (although not on the same level as nicotine or alcohol abuse is), but I do feel decriminalization of use, at the very least, is a healthy step to take.

I agree! Making criminals out of easy going people is stupid in my opinion. By easy going I mean they don't go home and beat the hell out of their wifes, don't get into huge brawls at the bar, don't crash their cars and kill endless amounts of lives. Alcohol is by far a worse substance to use even just socially, and it's toxic it can kill you if you ingest too much. Pot from my knowledge is harmless, I don't believe there is a toxic level. Potatos are far more toxic than pot. The skin in potatos is a tiny bit toxic and while it would probably be impossible to eat enough to get sick or die it is still far more toxic than weed. And there is absolutely no physical withdrawl from weed what so ever. But I wish for those who do it there was a safer way to ingest it, that was more readily available. I know for medical purposes there is a pill but I can not think of it's name off hand.

For people that have medical issues, I feel pot can be some welcomed relief. It's hard being sick and having on going chronic problems and any sort of relief you can find you will take. That to most people that have never had a chronic problem sounds desperate, and it is, you have no idea what chronic pain can do to your mind and body. You become lost and just can't feel good or be in a good mood, sleep is terrible and everything about your life just seems to fall apart. Pains meds help but you become tolerant eventually and you can easily become dependent and rarely addicted. I would say that a lot of people with chronic pain do become dependent, but dependence and addiction are two totally different things. So if your pain is going to be long term or life long you can bet you will become dependent.

Pot has pain relieving qualities and is not addictive chemically. So in my opinion it is a great addition for chronic pain patients. If they can use pot and get enough relief to stop or refrain from using pain pills, I think thats a great idea and is much better for them, besides of course the smoking aspect of it, which as I already stated there is a pill substitute. Even if they can just use less pain meds by using pot I think it would be a benefit.

I just want to say that I don't advise anyone to start smoking, it is illegal and smoking is bad for you but if or when it becomes legal then I think it is much safer than any other social drug and does not lead to other drugs, I don't see how anyone can make that point. It doesn't even make sense. Gateway Drug, yeah right, if you want to say that, you need to reconsider and start thinking about alcohol. Booze is socially acceptable and is everywhere and it is highly addictive, causing terrible withdrawl which in bad cases causes seizures, and/or hospitalization. So if you think pot causes problems, try looking at your alcohol use. It is at almost every restaurant, 7-11, and many grocery stores. It's TOXIC, it can kill you by overdose, and it causes drastic mood swings in my opinion. I've seen an old roommate of mine, go from a great mood laughing and playing guitar to the next second where he is screaming at his girlfriend in her face and then punches 3 holes in the wall. Needless to say he doesn't smoke pot. He is just a drunk and a bad one at that.

Man I can't believe I never saw this topic, it's something I feel strongly about, and I don't feel it has to be legal but at least decriminalize it and make it available for medical use. But I think if you are going to allow alcohol to be legal, then pot should be legal being that it is much safer. No point in creating criminals and wasting money on housing them in our jails. I don't want to get into the politics of the topic although that is one of the biggest factors in legalizing it. Always politics. So thats my opinion and by the stats it seems I'm in the majority. And when I see polls on TV it's the same way, thats how I know it's all politics, because most people have no problems legalizing but the government does. So they make sure it won't happen, even after we had legalized it for medical use here in CA, they came in and said we will arrest you anyways, even if your laws won't we will. Stupid to say the least, I thought votes mattered, I guess not! Later. Jason

[borge]

i totally agree jmrentis

most people have no or a very warped idea of what weed actually does (or doesnt do) to a person.

edit; just read rest of thread

it seems to me so many people just jump on the "drugs are bad ban them all" bandwagon and use irrelevant unconnected analogies to try and get their point across without thinking about the posible benifits

being a music related forum a track from a tool album comes to mind:

"if you think drugs havent done some good things take all your tapes,all your records, all yor cds and burn them,

because all the people that made the music that has enhanced your lives thoughout the years rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreally f#@ken high on drugs"

(or something like that)

IMO the small (unnoticable to me) amount of damage inflicted by weed is overshadowed by the fun ive had doing it, the hours of hsyterical laughter, the countless deep and meaningfuls on the strangest of subjects, the extreme intensity of orgasms, the great (IMO) music ive written, how acute my senses become and about a million other things.

obviously i think it should be decriminalised, the amount of resources used enforcing marijuana laws should be used to prevent something more detrimental to society eg murder and rape.

IMO educating people on the actual effects of drugs is much more helpful than a reefer madness type thing that alot of people still seem to believe.

Edited July 17, 2005 by borge

[Jivin]

I have no real issue with it being legalized, however I am 100% of the opinion that if some fool is caught playing up while under the influence of the stuff then the law should come down on them like a ton of bricks.

A number of years ago 3 of my friends were coming back from a trip to the coast for a football game and on their return trip their van was slammed by a bunch of interstate tits in a rented car who were going for a drive down the highway after taking bong hits. Later I managed to find out that the driver of the rented car swore on his life that he swerved to miss a pack of schoolchildren sitting on the road.... at 2am. I lost a good friend on that night, and the other 2 were seriously injured.

Even though it was a while back now and I am over it, I would be lying if I said that the actions of those few guys hasn't influenced my opinion on the matter a little. You cant help but hold onto a bit of animosity after something like that. So yeah... I can see some good things coming from its legalization, but I would like to see a zero tolerance and zero mercy policy in place for those caught fudging up (to put it nicely) while their high.

I voted Yes

- Dan

[jmrentis]

Jivin I fully agree with you about driving under the influence. Smoking in the car isn't smart to begin with. But that is one of the reasons to legalize it, giving people the freedom to smoke at their house without worry of the cops being called on them or roommates getting pissed because it's illegal, having that freedom will let most people just kick back and smoke up in the house, which is much safer for everyone. I want to say I'm very sorry for your loss. It can be a very hard thing to deal with, but it sounds like you are doing ok.

I know that there are a few accidents that have pot heads involved but I can guarantee you that accidents involving alcohol is probably 100x more at least. Which should make people think about how recklessly we hand out alcohol. So many people every single night jump into their cars after they get trashed and attempt to drive home, how dumb can you be? And so many of these people I'm talking about are the ones saying you can't legalize pot, it's a drug. Yes it is and it's about a 1/10th of a drug that alcohol is. And everyone drinks, it's socially acceptable. But when it comes to something they know nothing about like pot, they all of a sudden have an opinion and know so much about it. I think alcohol should be heavily restricted, it's way to easy to overdose and drive drunk and become so intoxicated that you black out and get in a fight and cause someone to end up in the hospital. How stupid is that. And it's cool to everyone, don't ask me why!

If there are laws to be placed on pot, I think they should be the same as alcohol. No worse, because it way less of a drug than alcohol and should be treated for what it is. But Dan is fully right, no driving should be allowed, reaction times become slow, you can easily become distracted and many other reasons. Just kick back smoke it up, eat some grub and flip on the tele. When I was younger I read a cool thing somewhere, about 420. Some people I forget where use 420 as the time they smoke. I know everyone that smokes takes a rip at 420 and is like Weew bro it's 420 yeah! But if you've been smoking all day then it doesn't count. It's about going to work being productive all day, taking care of all your responsibilities, then coming home, eating dinner, turning on the tv and just relaxing while smoking it up. It doesn't have to be 4:20, it just means that you should take care of business then take care of your head. If you smoke all day you will have a much larger chance of being unproductive as pot is a depressant and you will have less energy and end up being foggy all day. So just take care of you life and once you've finished for the day, kick back with a fatty. Thats just what I got out of the article I read. Something to think about. Later. Jason

[skibum5545]

http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html

This link goes to nine different studies done by the US, UK, Canada, Dutch, and Australian governments, as well as some independent groups, that all study the effects of driving while under the influence of marijuana.

[westhemann]

http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html

This link goes to nine different studies done by the US, UK, Canada, Dutch, and Australian governments, as well as some independent groups, that all study the effects of driving while under the influence of marijuana.

←

total b.s.

anyone that tells me that being foggy in any way improves driving skills is just skewing the findings to say what they want them to say...

oh yeah,talking on a cell phone is dangerous,but getting stoned and driving is not?give me a break

i am all for recreational drug use...but responsibility is the key...

[Mattia]

total b.s.

anyone that tells me that being foggy in any way improves driving skills is just skewing the findings to say what they want them to say...

oh yeah,talking on a cell phone is dangerous,but getting stoned and driving is not?give me a break

i am all for recreational drug use...but responsibility is the key...

←

[westhemann]

It ain't saying it's safe, just that it's safer than alcohol and certain prescription drugs. Seriously, there's no vested interest in NL to declare 'stoned driving' a good idea, or even a safe idea.

did you read the "findings" at all...that is exactly what it is saying

All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents.

and that is total b.s.

anybody knows that pot is MEANT to mess you up....driving is complicated enough without being stoned on top of it all...i have been in the car and hung out with too many stoned people to believe any of that line of crap...

like i said though...i am all for recreational drugs,including alcohol...just keep it at the house or in a safe place.re-spons-i-bility...i know ya'll have heard of the concept

[Drak]

If you were going on a family vacation with your entire family in the car...brothers, sisters, mom, dad, girlfriend, throw in the grandparents...

...and your car was hit head on by a driver who was stoned, driving around with his friends listening to tunes or whatever, let's say the driver turned his head for a second because his friend in the backseat was jabbing him or passing him a toke, whatever...

...and both your grandparents were killed, brothers and sisters killed (5-6 funerals to attend)

...mom was put into a coma for the next 20 years and dad was crippled and could not work and had to go on disability for the rest of his life...

...girlfriend was permanently disfigured and burned...

...all due to someone who thought it was OK to drive stoned.

...now you tell me.

When the toll hits home, it's a whole different ballgame.

And I would like to see the ages of the posters, I think it would add an interesting skew to the proceedings.

[Mattia]

total b.s.

anyone that tells me that being foggy in any way improves driving skills is just skewing the findings to say what they want them to say...

oh yeah,talking on a cell phone is dangerous,but getting stoned and driving is not?give me a break

i am all for recreational drug use...but responsibility is the  key...

←

Read the source texts, where possible; half of the 'conclusions' the main page quotes (particularly the 'cannabis makes you a safer driver') aren't in the majority of reports, and it's obvious the website reviewing the articles is very, very biased. And the ones they are in, unsurprisingly, weren't published in peer-reviewed journals.

Thing is, there are problems with the experimental setup: either they test people who were in accidents vs. a random sample on the road, and find very little to no correlation (ok, all that says is that it's not a highly significant element in road accidents, which, given the amount of smoking and driving that probably goes on, isn't surprising; I'd be interested to see if dope AND alcohol is worse than just alcohol), and in others, people are given dope and then asked to use a driving simulator, so, well, they've got an incentive to think about how they're driving. That's a biased, flawed experimental setup, and frankly, overly slow, paranoid drivers are often more dangerous than people pushing the speed limit but keeping an eye on the roads and surrounding traffic.

You may not believe it, but flawed as they are, the studies do consistently indicate very little to no strong correlations between road accidents and marjuana use.

[westhemann]

And I would like to see the ages of the posters, I think it would add an interesting skew to the proceedings.

yeah..i think the same thing.life experience changes people...makes them into the responsible adults who know when and where the good time is appropriate...

truth is that teens are statistically the most dangerous drivers on the road...part of that is just inexperience...but a part just may be that the teens are the ones who don't know when the proper time to HAVE a good time is...

You may not believe it, but flawed as they are, the studies do consistently indicate very little to no strong correlations between road accidents and marjuana use.

funny how there is no test given after an accident to determine marijuana influence like there is with alcohol...maybe the statistics would change?

[Mattia]

funny how there is no test given after an accident to determine marijuana influence like there is with alcohol...maybe the statistics would change?

←

That's precisely what most of those tests were doing, though; testing blood and/or urine levels of Marijuana in people involved in accidents, and comparing them to those in the general population.

Drak: As for age, I'm 25. Thing is, your argument's nothing more than a straw man you set up, just to knock down, and isn't based on any hard evidence. It plays to the emotional angle.

Now, I'll be the first to admit the limitations of statistics; the average stoned driver may do fine, but you've always got the very stoned and/or irresponsible driver who won't affect the average, but that hardly matters if that statistical abberation is the one that kills someone in an accident.

I agree that saying drugged driving is 'safe' is a big, big stretch, and advocating it is idiotic. After all, see the campaigns against cell phone use (distraction), and warnings against driving when tired. I'm just saying it's not completely impossible that average stoned dude isn't the danger on the road some people here seem to want to prove they are. No more, no less.

Besides, playing devil's advocate's just too much fun 8)

[westhemann]

I'm just saying it's not completely impossible that average stoned dude isn't the danger on the road some people here seem to want to prove they are.

this is the reason that marijuana will never be legalized here...it's because rather than making an intelligent argument for personal freedoms,pot smokers would rather try to stretch the truth and focus on the peripheral arguments.

you guys have no focus.if you did,you would stick to the "responsible use" argument...after all,that is the argument that keeps alcohol legal.

every time you guys try to put up a ridiculously flawed study,the rest of the world just throws up their hands and gives up on you.

if you really wanted to be an advocate,you would stick to the methods that don't make you look like a b.s artist

[Mattia]

I'm just saying it's not completely impossible that average stoned dude isn't the danger on the road some people here seem to want to prove they are.

this is the reason that marijuana will never be legalized here...it's because rather than making an intelligent argument for personal freedoms,pot smokers would rather try to stretch the truth and focus on the peripheral arguments.

you guys have no focus.if you did,you would stick to the "responsible use" argument...after all,that is the argument that keeps alcohol legal.

every time you guys try to put up a ridiculously flawed study,the rest of the world just throws up their hands and gives up on you.

if you really wanted to be an advocate,you would stick to the methods that don't make you look like a b.s artist

←

Whoa, back way up. I'm not one of 'you guys', and I'm not advocating legalization, or trying to push weed's 'positives'. Re-read what I've posted; I'm merely pointing out inaccuracies in some previous points, and taking issue the validity of various arguments made. In this particular case, with the 'gut reaction' that all of those studies are bullshit based on 'common sense' (which ain't very sensible at all, most of the time), straw man arguments, without, say, going out and finding research studies which claim the opposite. I'm hesitant to 'buy' those results outright, without doing my own lit search, particularly because the website clearly has an agenda, but I can't really be bothered to spend too much time on something that just doesn't interest me quite enough. But the fact the site has an agenda doesn't immediately invalidate the findings.

I don't like drugs, I don't use them, but I don't feel use of weed is something that should be heavily criminalized. Decriminalization of use and regulation of sale over here works for NL, but that doesn't mean it would work everywhere. I'm fairly neutral on this, so I'm none too quick to accept or dismiss any findings out of hand.

Far as I'm concerned, the facts (the actual facts, determined by unbiased, peer-reviewed research, not the fears, speculations, and so forth) speak for themselves; medically, Marijuana is less dangerous than either nicotine or alcohol, so as far as it being a 'danger', there's not a whole lot of basis for its illegality. The End. I won't pretend to care about it's 'beneficial' effects, or put much stock into them (if it contains useful substances, they'll be purified, and used like any other drug: see opaites like morphine, same chemical family as heroin, or medical-grade cocaine which is used in certain anaesthesiological areas), but you seem to be accusing me of things I haven't done (focus on peripheral arguments, stretching truth).

I do feel making arguments as to the effects of the drug itself are essential for anyone who is actually fighting for legalization at this time, since the 'other side', the anti-weed groups, are very much about pushing either biased studies, disinformation, or outright lies on the dangers of the stuff itself, personal freedoms be damned. That they go overboard when they do it doesn't invalidate the information; that people don't take it seriously, and that the 'anti' crowd uses the 'extremism' projected as additional ammunition to ridicule the 'pro' crowd, and push their own agenda, does nothing to bolster my respect of any of the parties involved. Look through the politics at the information, judge it on its own merit (most of the source articles linked to are balanced, if sometimes flawed in setup, but I suspect most of the conclusions are the summarizers', not always the authors'), and make your mind up on the issue. That's all I've been advocating. No more, no less. Other than that, I've been describing the situation I perceive here as I see it, as I've read about it, and as I hear about from within the medical professional field (alebit in a limited fashion, since I'm still a student).