/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3348915]

Pros & Cons of Legalizing Marijuana. Where do you stand on this issue? I need good scientific arguments

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.3348941]

It can have permanent negative long term effects on the mind. It is dangerous and it is illegal for a reason.

[Anonymous No.3348944]

>>3348941
It was made illegal to harass mexicans

pretty stupid decision if you ask me

[Anonymous No.3348946]

Let me put it this way: I think smoking pot is a waste of a good mind, and I won't be doing it, illegal or no.

[Anonymous No.3348947]

It has hundreds of medical and commercial uses (along with hemp) and is many ways, is the safest recreational drug to use.

If your against recreational drug use, then I hope you do not drink coffee, tea, soda.

[Anonymous No.3348949]

>>3348941

I agree with you by experience, seeing friends smoking that shit etc, but in some articles i read that it cant have permanent effects on the brain. cant you give me some study proving that?

[Anonymous No.3348959]

There is no scientific need for it to be legalized.

I enjoy it, and know that it is less damaging than most other drugs, including the legal ones. The question of economics shows that it should be legalized in the US. The amount of money spent policing and jailing users is astronomical, whereas if it were legal, it could be taxed.

[Anonymous No.3348961]

>>3348941
So? It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it. It's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, and the only reason it was outlawed in the 50s is because of the lumber companies. They figured out that you can use hemp for more things than lumber, and for a lot of the same things, so they paid off a bunch of lobbyists and politicians to criminalize it. In fact, ever Above the Influence ad you see is paid for in full by the lumber association of America. How does it feel knowing that your basic human rights are being limited and created based on how much money a privatized company will make next quarter?

[Anonymous No.3348963]

It grows anywhere, and it makes you happy. Making it illegal is like illegalizing sex to help sell dildos.

[Anonymous No.3348965]

>>3348949

Being a regular user, I can tell you that it has lasting effects on the brain, but most of them reverse after stopping usage for a while. The problem is that it stays in your system for a long time, and your brain is still effected for some time.

I believe the only permanent brain damage is that from smoke, and causing psychosis to those who were already vulnerable to it.

[Anonymous No.3348968]

>>3348949
no he can't. As there doesn't exist a study that claims negative effects that isn't:

- government funded
- done in a matter that doesn't prove anything (such as that study claiming that it damages the brain of teens because they gave inexorbitant amounts of marijuana throughout the entirety of the rat's adolescence. It was a recent study too)

[Anonymous No.3348977]

Pro's: Save the taxpayer billions; reduce drug use, reduce drug abuse; stop creating criminals as a result of non-crimes

Con's: People in cartels and people in law enforcement will lose money; people who don't like marijuana and don't think anyone should like what they don't like will get even more of a rod up their ass

[Anonymous No.3348983]

>>3348949

Irrelevant. Does this apply to anything bad for you? Alcohol, sports, fast food?

[Anonymous No.3348984]

>Not really scientific, but just from personal experience.

I used to smoke a fair amount of it, and for a while it was awesome, everything was funnier, life seemed better, couldn't get enough.

One night I took way more than I had ever done before and something in my head just switched. Started to come to wild hypothesis in my head and grew completely paranoid. Ever since then, if I ever smoked pot, it has made me completely depressed and paranoid, to the point where I don't ever want to smoke it again. I think the point is that you can only smoke a certain amount of weed before the negative effects start to outweigh the positive ones

[Anonymous No.3348987]

>>3348984

>anecdotal evidence
>science board

cool meaningless story bro

[Anonymous No.3348990]

>>3348961
>Uses example from family guy

Definitely a stoner

[Anonymous No.3348998]

>>3348984

This is certainly not true for everyone. It is not true for me, or the several people I know who have smoked daily for years.

[Anonymous No.3349001]

>>3348987
My point was that maybe he should look into this effect. Perhaps there is a threshold amount of weed you can handle in one sitting before your brain starts to change it's chemical reaction to it or something.

[Anonymous No.3349004]

>>3348990
I've actually only seen a few episodes of Family Guy and I had no idea they used that in an episode. Also, I don't smoke pot, and haven't done so in over a year. I just can't believe any logical human being wouldn't want the freedom to do whatever it is that he or she wants to do to their body in the comfort of their own home. That's ridiculous to me.

[Anonymous No.3349008]

Pros: People will be more open about their marijuana usage which allows me to more easily discriminate against them

[Anonymous No.3349017]

>>3348998
Just that one time changed it. Hadn't been smoking that long, just a lot for a few months. One night had about 16 cones of really strong weed in about 10 minutes (all I will say is that we were having a 'competition'). I think this was just too much for my brain to handle

[Anonymous No.3349023]

I dont think the possession or dealing of any drugs should be criminalised. Just decriminalisation wont solve the problems of drug use that exist at the moment.

There needs to regulated channels like with alcohol and tabacco to stop the drug trade funding a criminal black market.

Marijuana is a pretty silly one tbh, it does less harm than alcohol and tabacco but it treated more severely. Ecstasy and LSD are similarly misclassified

[Anonymous No.3349028]

I won't get into a heated debate about this because I've already argued about whether or not marijuana should be legalized with many other people in my lifetime, but I will say a few personal things.

Smoking marijuana (along with other drug use) has allowed me to become more interested in science, math, and all of the other subjects that I was studying in high school. The year that I started smoking, my GPA experience a huge boost and I found that I was very interested in subjects that had previously bored me. This has continued throughout college, even though I don't smoke nearly as much and sometimes will even go months without smoking. Marijuana was able to stimulate my mind and cause me to seek out answers to many different academic questions and helped to give me a love for learning that doesn't seem to be disappearing, regardless of how much I smoke.

I know this is just anecdotal evidence and that it's meaningless in relation to scientific studies, but I'm just trying to show people that marijuana can have positive effects on the mind of a healthy person. It doesn't lead to laziness and apathy, although it certainly can. Cannabis, like all other tools in the world, can help to build great things but it can also be used to destroy. Ultimately, it's up to the user.

[Anonymous No.3349032]

>>3348990
But its true.

I will admit though, I used to smoke alot, so did my friends too. Some people really do become pieces of shit when they smoke alot, but those are also the people that were destined to become pieces of shit anyways. All you have to do is have some self control.

Oh and those people that claim they were/are addicted to pot are just pussies that also can't go a day without their caffeine buzz, they have no self control.

[Anonymous No.3349036]

I plan on getting blazed tonight, posting on /sci/ and watching through the wormhole. UMAD?!?

[Anonymous No.3349039]

>>3349017
I call bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3349040]

Pros:
I can get high without discrimination from my employer (mind you, not on the job).
Cons:
LOL.

[Anonymous No.3349049]

>>3349032

Yeah, pot has next to no physical withdraw symptoms. Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine all have more.

The only withdraw symptoms of marijuana are mild anhedonia, and mild appetite loss. These only exist with heavy use and go away after a few days.

[Anonymous No.3349052]

The negative effects and societal damage of criminalisation far outweight any potential negative effects of legal pot. Plus there are immense positives to legalisation like less money spend on persecution, more money from taxation of pot, less money for drug mafia... Thus I am pro legalisation, even if I no longer smoke pot. I used to smoke moderately in the past, but I started getting bad trips and it no longer interests me.

[Anonymous No.3349054]

>>3349036
nah brah, i jelly.

[Anonymous No.3349055]

pros:

freedom for the people
nothing wrong with it
reduce lucrativeness of drug trafficing

cons:

i don't give a fuck and will never use.

[Anonymous No.3349086]

>>3349039
No bullshit. We had two bongs going round a circle, had a competition to see who could smoke the least. I lost badly and that was way too fucking much

[Anonymous No.3349093]

>>3349036
Man through the wormhole is probably the most awesome science show i've seen. Anyone know if there will be a second season?

[Anonymous No.3349098]

Pros: the culture of marijuana will be diluted
Cons: angering Gaia by smoking more of her children

[Anonymous No.3349108]

>>3349093

New season started June 8. It's on the Science Channel Wednesdays 10 PM EST.

[Anonymous No.3349118]

>>3349086
So what you're saying is, you had entirely too much, and think it should be illegal because of this?

Protip, if you have too many energy drinks YOU FUCKING DIE.

And they're legal.

[Anonymous No.3349124]

Stratosolar - finally cost competitive clean energy?

http://www.stratosolar.com/csp-home.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/stratosolar-for-concentrated-solar.html

Is this shit legit? They state the cost of electricity produced this way would be $0.06 per kWh. Thats fossil electricity price range.

tldr - its based on light CSP concentrators suspended in the stratosphere by hydrogen baloons, thus getting sunlight with increased intensity and no weather effects affecting it.

[Anonymous No.3349126]

>>3349118
Not saying it should be illegal man. Just saying maybe OP should look into the effects of having too much and how much is 'too much' for one sitting in his study. I think weed should be legalised, but like anything, take it in moderation. I didn't and I fucked myself over

[Anonymous No.3349145]

>>3349126

Ok.

One point to remember in the legality argument is that pot smokers generally stop when they've had too much.

Being too high, as you said, is a very unpleasant feeling, and because of that people rarely go beyond their limits, and if they do, they are generally more careful about what they do.
I know when i got super fucking baked i'm careful as fuck even when it comes to doing things like setting a cup down, rofl.

[Anonymous No.3349159]

>>3348961
>ever Above the Influence ad you see is paid for in full by the lumber association of America.

Can I get a source on that? I really want to believe this is true.

[Anonymous No.3349169]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

This is prevalence by percent:

>Netherlands 6.1%
>Portugal 3.3%

Personal use of cannabis is legal in these countries.

>Australia 13.3%
>Canada 16.8%
>New Zealand 13.4%
>USA 12.6%

Personal use of cannabis is illegal in these countries.

[Anonymous No.3349184]

>>3349169

Brazil only 1%?! Something is wrong

[Anonymous No.3349214]

1) You don't need a good reason to make something LEGAL. You need a good reason to make it ILLEGAL.

2) "It is kind of bad for you" is not a good reason, nor is it even consistent. Alcohol is a substantially harder drug than THC in almost every respect. Fried food is a bigger public health concern.

3) The prohibition is laughably ineffective. Cannabis is still a major cash crop, and almost anyone who wants it can get it.

4) The prohibition is actively harmful. It is hugely expensive, puts millions of otherwise law-abiding and productive people in jail, funds organized crime, and makes the product itself less safe (thus being counterproductive even in the goal of public health).

I can go on, but that ought to do it.

[Anonymous No.3349221]

All drugs should be legalized.

1) It would put a stop to the immense amount of people who go to jail for committing a victimless crime. This is especially important as a portion of these people surely would adopt a criminal lifestyle in jail, a lifestyle they wouldn't have adopted if the drugs they sought out were legal to consume.

2) Criminalization clearly does nothing to stop people from using the drug as seen with the prohibition of alcohol in the past and these statistics >>3349169

3) It would generate multi-billion dollar businesses and stimulate the economy.

[Anonymous No.3349274]

-More tax money
-A new thriving market for an already popular product
-Capitalist competition for higher quality and cheaper goods
-Stronger awareness and less ignorance
-More or less the same amount of usage as before

The only problem I can see it having is how THC itself is classified as a hallucinogen, which is a really good way of making someone a useless piece of shit for a few hours. Right now the fact that it's illegal makes the consumer base more responsible about its usage due to the ramifications of the using it improperly.

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349275]

Benefits of legalisation:
-Good for people with problems that it helps with such as cancer, glaucoma
-Good for country's budget as fighting a war on drugs is incredibly costly and has zero results
-Good for stability of neighbouring states (i.e. Mexico for America) which are currently at the mercy of drug lords made rich by prohibition, costing thousands of lives yearly
-Similarly good for communities which have drug dealers in them currently. Drug violence keeps poor areas poor. Legalisation will stop this.
-Good for people who want a way to relax since it's much healthier than alcohol. So much healthier that it's laughable to even compare them.
-Good for police force which will see a reduction in corruption
-Good for stoners as they won't have their lives destroyed for wanting to get high
-Good for prison as there will be far more space (seriously it will make a HUGE difference if you look at the figures) once all the nonviolent drug offenders are removed.

Negatives of legalisation:
-Bad for people who don't like stoners and want them to be in jail
-Bad for tobacco industry and alcohol industry as there will be a legal, cheaper and healthier alternative which produces (for many) a better high.

And no I am not a stoner :)

[Anonymous No.3349290]

>>3349275
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.3349308]

>>3349221
My only problem with this is the number of health problems many drugs can cause. While weed's effects are not well understood and likely only relevant to heavy/longterm users, things like heroine and cocaine can have severe side effects and long term effects such as psychosis. Number of addicts will increase as supply will likely become a very little problem with every pharmaceutical company competing for the cheapest blow they can release. Not to mention number of violent crimes attributed to intoxication will increase.

And on a personal note I don't want to be around people who could have been shooting up 10 minutes ago.

Go crazy with the marijuana though. Worst case scenario is I get mildly irritated by people being 2deep4me

[Anonymous No.3349329]

>>3348915
There is absolutely no reason to keep marijuana illegal. Legalizing and taxing marijuana would save the government untold billions of dollars.

Marijuana will be legalized as soon as the tobacco industry creates a variety which includes nicotine, making it as addictive as cigarettes. Mark my words.

[Anonymous No.3349331]

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a24

I figured this would be a small but relevant contribution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as established by The United Nations on December 10, 1948:

Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

[Anonymous No.3349342]

>>3349308

>Number of addicts will increase as supply will likely become a very little problem with every pharmaceutical company competing for the cheapest blow they can release.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Blackman No.3349346]

>>3349308
If all drugs are legalized there would need to be clinics for heroin addicts (and other drugies will get similar treatment) so they will be provided with clean and sterile needles. This will prevent the spread of disease.

[Anonymous No.3349353]

>>3349308

Yeah. Legalizing things like cocaine is never a good idea.

[Anonymous No.3349373]

>>3349308
Yeah, but like Ron Paul said, most reasonable people don't need a law telling them heroin is bad for you.

[Anonymous No.3349375]

>>3349308
>>3349353

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

>In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

>Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349385]

All the pro-legalisation people who want to make sure they understand the arguments should listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN0_aJsPcHY

All the anti-legalisation people should listen so they learn to be pro-legalisation.

[Anonymous No.3349391]

>>3349375

the money that should go to our public health care would be used to treat drug addicted. cant see how this is good.

[Anonymous No.3349401]

>>3349375
The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption under almost any reasonable guess as to what the legalization (or more modestly, the decriminalization) regime would look like. First, under legalization the cash price would be lower. Second, under legalization the quality price would be lower. Third, under legalization the search price would be zero.

The effect of cutting prices will be three fold:
it will dramatically increase the number of users;
this increase will be permanent, and
many aspects of society will be profoundly impacted by the drug-incapacitated persons, for example,
needing welfare,
causing traffic deaths, and
ruining marriages.

Now suppose after legalization we have 5 million users, with 1 million totally zonked. We can support the 1 million on welfare, though I think the political chance of that is utterly remote. Or we can let them fend for themselves by stealing. They may well steal more than the 200,000 steal when the price of drugs is much higher. Take a guess. But remember that after we create the 1 million, we can't turn the clock back. We shall have them forever. Take away coercion, and you take away treatment for all but a few burned-out addicts. I think that the harm to others from drug legalization will be greater than the harm--and it is a great harm--that now exists from keeping these drugs illegal.

[Anonymous No.3349404]

I smoke weed pretty often but I'm a little hesitant about an initiative to decriminalize or legalize all drugs.

Mostly because if that were the case, weed would be lumped in with things like heroin, meth, and cocaine and it's not anything like them in terms of risk or experience.

That, and it'd be significantly harder to get the law passsed if they included such drugs.
It would also have to be done over time, weed being first, others slowly following, otherwise some people (idiots) would rush to try them.

[Anonymous No.3349417]

OP, read this:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349430]

>>3349391
Money that wouldn't exist without drug legalisation would be used in part to help addicts. There would be less addicts who need state support, so the cost of helping them would be lower than when there was no drug tax money to help them with.

Furthermore, huge amounts of money would be saved on policing. Please, look at the figures.

>>3349401
If you look up in this thread, you will see that there is no reason to suppose that drug usage rises with legalisation. It tends to be lower, in fact.

Secondly, the reason that drug addicts have to resort to crime is because prohibition makes drugs insanely expensive. Prohibition also stops addicts from seeking help for fear of being arrested.

[illuminati !AI9Lue1M.E!!KyzG4KHXtor No.3349436]

Marijuana was illegalized by the corporations for the corporations. Because hemp clothing could last 100's of years and be shared or past down with complete ease. Also you could build cars out of hemp. You can create bio fuel with cannabis. Also the medical formulas of cannabis are amazing.

Why would we want to legalize something in which you can cultivate on your own with such ease? Big Pharma alone would lose our on billions of revenue.

We prefer you drinking and driving. Because alcohol you can not easily make and this keeps the power with the corporations! We prefer you stay in pain and are angry and upset because doctors are comped with free trips, golf clubs, eatery certificates and mad samples of the pharma reps. Why would big pharam wanna lose all of that rev to a people who can treat 1/3rd of their own pain.

Also who wants a relaxed society where making $ isn't the #1 issue of every single day?

[Anonymous No.3349437]

>>3349391

The tax dollars from drug production would be immense. And drug addicts are being treated now with your tax dollars, I don't even see how anything would change on that front in any case.

>>3349401

>The effect of cutting prices will be three fold: it will dramatically increase the number of users;

How did you come to that conclusion? If decriminalization REDUCES drug use why do you assume legalization and lower prices would "dramatically increase" drug use?

Here is the full report by the way:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

[Anonymous No.3349435]

>>3349401
Lolwutthefuck are you talking about?
These drugs are already cheap enough with the exception of cocaine. Poor people are already abusing these drugs.

[Anonymous No.3349438]

Its obvious the number of users would go up with legalization of nearly ANYTHING. Now with that in mind, the general public would be legally under the influence, much like today with alcohol, but rather a drunk driver we would have a higher rate of high drivers. This is not safe in any degree and really only leads me to believe the money that the gov't uses already on prosecuting these "non-harmful criminals" would be used on enforcing the regulation and overseeing to usage.

[Anonymous No.3349441]

>>3349401

How can you be serious? Nations where it is legal for personal use have lower usage rates than those where it is still under prohibition.

At worst, usage will briefly go up and then return to normal.

And even so, 1 million on welfare would cost the taxpayer less than enforcing the prohibition. It is cheaper to pay welfare than to keep a prisoner. At least 1 million people are in prison on drug related offences. Then add enforcement, then add lost revenues from allowing the black market to control the drug trade.

[Anonymous No.3349442]

>>3349401
lrn2price-elasticity

Look at Portugal, decriminalized for 10 years, drug use has gone down, not up.

Also, look at alcohol prohibition, when you make it illegal to sell beer, harder drinks become more popular because it's cheaper to transport and hide.

If you legalized weed and even the harder drugs like meth and heroine, usage of the harder drugs would go DOWN.

[Anonymous No.3349459]

>>3349417
haha 5 star post.
incoming butthurt and rage .

[Anonymous No.3349468]

Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[49][50] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, his friend Lester Grinspoon disclosed this information to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999 brought media attention to this aspect of Sagan's life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

thats true or fake?

[illuminati !AI9Lue1M.E!!KyzG4KHXtor No.3349477]

Let your Big Brothers take care of you via our laws.

Why is Congress a millionaires club? Because they are paid to keep Alcohol & Tobacco and Big Pharma going. And they make mega dollars from doing what they are told via the $
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075586-503544.html

Also over the last 7 years 90% of the wealth generated stayed with the corporations!

Also during the last 40 years your productivity has been increased 7x's

Work more worry less about your recreational time. Don't be so greedy with your time.

[Anonymous No.3349481]

>>3349459

Having the practitioners being annoying is not enough of a reason to make something into a crime. We live in a secular society, after all.

[Anonymous No.3349494]

Legalize: the current law is bullshit.
Weed is a schedule I drug, the worst class, while
Meth and cocaine are schedule II drugs.

Its all in the history

[Anonymous No.3349504]

EVERYBODY GETTIN' TROLLED
ANY IDIOT KNOWS PROHIBITION OF SUBSTANCES IS WORSE THAN LEGALIZATION

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349507]

>>3349417
So which one of these arguments exactly is meant to make sense?

[Anonymous No.3349509]

>>3349468

i dont know if its true op, but here is the essay:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

crtl + f, search Essay as "Mr. X" (1969)

[Anonymous No.3349525]

>>3349481
i was linking more to the article, but
i might as well rename that pic
guarunteedreplies.jpg

[Anonymous No.3349551]

How can you seriously not understand that with the legalization of any drug the crime rates will rise? If there is potential to lower prices, there in turn will be a spike in the addiction rates. This is VERY basic economics.

The cost to manufacture a hit of crack is around thirty cents, but sells for about 5 dollars. Can the price really get much lower? If it did would that then mean that crime would increase to fill the same spending "drug budget"?

Purchase related crime will increase due to the lowered price and higher amounts purchased. Its important to remember a thief is a thief and that means they will steal for crack or rent. Also not considering the drug induced crimes. The prices of drugs affect the addiction rate, which in turn affects the purchase related crime rate. The question is not "how much", but "how many". If there are ANY restrictions on users then there will certainly be a rise in the black market to fill the need.

[Anonymous No.3349569]

Pros: Ron Paul will finally shut up for five minutes
Cons: Smells like shit.

[Anonymous No.3349608]

>legalization of marijuana thread.
>now about legalizing crack, cocaine, and other class II substances.
>mfw

rock, mistoni

[Anonymous No.3349628]

pure heroin is less toxic then weed.

[Anonymous No.3349645]

>>3349628
truth

[Anonymous No.3349647]

>>3349551

That is not seen in countries that have relaxed prohibition.

[Anonymous No.3349650]

>>3349551

This isn't the same thing as reducing, say, the price of salmon from 5$/pound to 1$/pound.

Or do you seriously think there are people out there interested in becoming a heroin addict, the only thing stopping them being the price of it?

[Anonymous No.3349660]

>>3349628

Irrelevant. Something being bad for you is not a good reason to ban it. Should we ban guns because you could shoot yourself? Should we ban fast food because it makes you fat? Should we ban sports because you can injure yourself?

The only things that should be illegal are those cases where somebody gets somebody else to do something with undue force, or takes somebodies property without permission.

[Anonymous No.3349711]

I honestly don't care one way or the other. I mean, I like to smoke a joint of hash a couple of times a year but I never cared much about the legality or the debate of the legality of it.

[Anonymous No.3349718]

Here is an undergrad's psychologist standpoint. Possible long term effects are, depression, anxiety and irritability (APA 2000). And within the past three years, there has been an interest in the connection between cannabis use in adolescents and subsequent development of Schizophrenia, although it is not clear if the association is a causal one (Tandon et al., 2008)

[Anonymous No.3349735]

>>3349718
And of course along with this, there is always risk for substance abuse and/or dependency. This goes for pretty much everything else, ranging from alchohol to caffeine.

[Anonymous No.3349755]

>>3349718
I smoke weed but I don't encourage use of it by "adolescents".

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349781]

>>3349711
You don't care about the tens of thousands of incarcerated people who have done nothing more than you?

[Anonymous No.3349784]

>>3349718
>>Here is an undergrad's psychologist standpoint
Stopped reading there.

FACT: 92% of women have been, currently are, or eventually will be an "undergrad psychologist".

and if you don't agree, you've never been a university so you can shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.3349789]

I just want to open a weed farm. Is that too much to ask for?

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349790]

>>3349718
Compared to hundreds of deaths every year by aspirin and paracetamol.

[Anonymous No.3349799]

>>3349718
>>3349735

We know this already. We also know heroin and cocaine are very addictive. Has nothing to do with their legalization.

Also, decriminalization of drugs has been proven to reduce drug use.

[Anonymous No.3349805]

>>3349755

They don't let you drink until you're 18.

Why do prohibitionfags always think that stoners want to stick a joint in the mouth of every elementary schooler, or drive around stoned out of their gourd? They want to have a joint the same way Joe Dumbass wants to have a beer.

[Anonymous No.3349814]

>>3349790
Deaths per user per year might be a better metric. Or deaths per use per year.

[Anonymous No.3349818]

>>3349814
Oops, make that last one "deaths per use", or deaths per 100,000 uses, or something.

[Anonymous No.3349834]

Like drugs? Oppose prohibition and you'll get to smoke drugs without being made into a criminal.

Hate taxes? Oppose prohibition and you'll stop having to pay for people to live in prison for non-crimes, and you'll stop having to pay people to arrest them in the first place.

Hate drugs? Every study indicates that ending prohibition results in a drop in drug use, and a drop in drug abuse.

Hate crime? Ending prohibition takes drugs out of the black market, and so eliminates the use of violence for the acquisition of the same.

Hate drug users, and are willing to pay a premium to hurt them? Well, maybe then you should support prohibition.

[Anonymous No.3349836]

>>3349799
Not disagreeing with you, but think about the American culture, do you think people will be able to handle the legalization of drugs? If you ask me, I have no clue, because I know several people that let things go out of control, though I do know many people who are the exact opposite, and could more and likely handle it.

[Anonymous No.3349848]

>>3349836

Even if they can't handle it, it's a civil liberties issue.

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349852]

>>3349814
I don't know of any statistical source on the number of takers of mild painkillers. The point can be made without this.

Weed may have some potential for rare complications, but it has NO FATAL DOSE, whereas the fatal dose of other legal drugs such as alcohol, paracetamol etc is easily achieved.

So if a substance or activity has any potential to kill you, it is immediately far more dangerous than weed.

[Anonymous No.3349863]

>>3349852
IIRC weed is less toxic than water.

[Anonymous No.3349869]

>>3349848
There is no right to fuck yourself up. We generally call such people mentally ill, and forcibly get them help.

[Anonymous No.3349874]

>>3349781
>You don't care about the tens of thousands of incarcerated people who have done nothing more than you?
To be completely honest, I don't care about them at all. I don't live in the states though, where I live it is illegal but possession of under 5(i think) grams is just a fine of what would be equal to $500.

[Anonymous No.3349880]

Now, this is just anecdotal evidence, but I heard this one guy was smoking weed with some mexicans and they told him it had angel dust in it. Next thing you know, he's being chased down the street in his damn draws. Then he ends up in this guy's pigeon coop sweating like a slave. The only person who could get him out was his mom. And man he wasn't ever right since then.

[Anonymous No.3349883]

>>3349869

If you don't have the right to do what you like with your own body, you have no rights at all.

Your argument applies to legal drugs, as well, I assume you are no hypocrite and seek to extend prohibition?

[Anonymous No.3349891]

>>3349880
Thats from that movie Friday, with Ice Cube. That scene is fucking hilarious.

[rec & play !!lz9pGsOAX6N No.3349897]

>>3349863
Is that a joke? I don't even know what that means and I'm not going along with it without a source.

>>3349869
If this were accurate, it would just be the logical fallacy of assuming that the current law is justified. It's not true though; moderate drug users and even people who get drunk occasionally are not considered mentally ill. Such lunacy is inconceivable.

>>3349874
>To be completely honest, I don't care about them at all.
Asshole.

[Anonymous No.3349901]

>>3349869

First of all yes you do. The same way you have the right to kill yourself you have the right to do whatever you want to your own body. It is a victimless crime.

Second, where do you draw the line of drugs that "fuck you up"? Some people who do LSD, cocaine, mushrooms, exctacy and the like recover from it without any professional help. Even if they do it frequently. Some people aren't so lucky/good at using drugs.

[Anonymous No.3349912]

>>3349897
No its not a joke, I've read it somewhere before(I know not very good evidence lol). I'll try and find the source later tonight if this thread is still up.

[Anonymous No.3349975]

>>3349897
>Asshole.

[Anonymous No.3350031]

Things that should be legalized.

-weed
-LSD
-shrooms
-DMT
-MDMA(for medical purposes)

Essentially, anything that is not physically addictive is cool with me. Obviously there should be regulations as to the consumption of things like LSD etc, like no driving or causing scenes in public.

[Anonymous No.3350219]

>>3350031
I can see MDMA being used as a replacement for other drugs such as Viagra.

[Anonymous No.3350239]

if it comes down to popular vote it'll never happen
because
>dealers would lose their "jobs"
>growers would lose demand
i just woke up, so this list is short because i can't think

basically anyone involved in mj production nowdays in the non-legal areas would vote against legalizing it

[Anonymous No.3350248]

>>3350031
You're a real idiot if you think legalizing only some of the drugs is going to help anything, especially if you only legalize tryptamines.
All the money is made in heroin, cocaine, meth and MDMA.
If you legalize only the drugs YOU enjoy then you're not doing anything to help the problem. Legalize everything or don't even bother.

[Anonymous No.3350260]

>>3348947
>If your against recreational drug use, then I hope you do not drink coffee, tea, soda.
They all come in decaf, don't they? I know caffeine does jack shit to me, so I find coffee disgusting, tea okay for a nice summer drink, and soda perfectly fine as caffeine-free - hell, my favorite is root beer, and that almost never has caffeine.

[Anonymous No.3350280]

>>3350031
I agree. Physical addiction is my "do not cross" line, as well.

[Anonymous No.3350286]

>>3350280
Yeah, I know I only enjoy extremely mentally addicting drugs.

[Anonymous No.3350291]

Regardless of whatever your moral perspective is on the issue of legalisation - it costs millions of £/$ to combat weed cultivation and use.

People will always want to smoke it (and thus sell it) and the goddamn plant will grow practically anywhere.

So if a government dictates that it is illegal yet are essentially powerless to stop it's usage, what's the point in continuing to criminalise it?

[Anonymous No.3350292]

The reason drugs are illegal is because its a huge source of revenue for the U.S. government and others. And provides them with a valuable reason for burning large sums of money, and excuses for fucking with individuals and even nations.

Morphine is a much more dangerous drug than marijuana, while it is more effective a treating pain marijuana would be effective enough in many of the situations in which morphine is prescribed without having all the negative effects(Primarily associated with addiction and overdose)

Legalization of marijuana would have the logical consequence of reducing alchohol sales as an alternative legal means to intoxication, and drugs sales as an alternative means to pain management.

You can rationalize why LSD is illegal. You really can't for MDMA, and that nonsense about holes in your brain is tantamount to reefer madness propaganda. It can have long term effects with really really heavy use on your liver, care has to be taken to stay hydrated.

[Anonymous No.3350306]

Which is more dangerous? Smoking pot or drinking booze? This shit is so fucking stupid, just legalize it already.

Long term effects? Addictive nature? Cigarettes, fuck.

Non-violent pot smokers don't need to be thrown in jail for this. Cops have better things to do with their time.

[Anonymous No.3350310]

>>3350248
this.

This is why California couldn't pass a legalization vote.
every single MMJ grower and supplier spread FUD about it so they could protect their industry.
If anyone could grow or buy, weed loses ALL value, because it's dead easy to grow it.

[Anonymous No.3350313]

>>3350292

Every substance will have serious effects if you do enough of it over a long period of time.

Almost all drugs should be legal (or at least tolerated). But the law should be amended to state that it is fine for personal consumption, illegal to cultivate/synthesize for distribution and serious prison terms and other life-changing punishments for injury/death resulting from usage (like drink driving).

Side note: I have yet to see people fighting whilst under the influence of weed.

[Anonymous No.3350341]

>>3350313
>Side note: I have yet to see people fighting whilst under the influence of weed.
You just haven't agitated them enough yet.

[Anonymous No.3350365]

Quick question to the collective:

What mammals possess cannabinoid receptors? Why?

Oh, okay, that was two questions.

[Anonymous No.3350368]

>>3350365
>Why?
This is a deeply flawed question.

[Anonymous No.3350376]

>>3350368
Well, how about the first question? I know from childhood experiments, dogs, cats, squirrels...

Heh.

[Anonymous No.3350419]

The economic argument is kind of stupid. Sure, it will cut down on minor charges like possession, but that will likely be offset by the cost of regulation. And in an unregulated environment, people will still be buying off the streets so no tax dollars will be coming in. Think about it, instead of spending millions locking up people for possession, the government will be spending millions on giving permits to salesmen and testing and managing the THC content of each product. And it's government, so you know that in 10 years that department will be extremely bloated and with far too much redundancy and red tape to make it anything more than a vacuum for tax dollars.

[Anonymous No.3350435]

>>3350286
Mental addiction is a real problem. To some extent, it is even society's problem, as there are real social consequences to mental addiction. Just because I choose to treat physical addiction as requiring legal protection and not mental addiction doesn't mean I don't recognize the possible damages.

But we are a free society and part of the cost of freedom to is an acceptance of the damages caused by exercising freedoms.

[Anonymous No.3350442]

>>3350419
that testing comes from taxing the marijuana industry itself, and even if they didn't regulate it it would be likely that marijuana companies would test their own marijuana for quality.

[Anonymous No.3350451]

>>3350419

This is absurd. It costs the country many times more to (ineffectively, I might add) prevent people from using certain drugs, than it does to regulate the use of other drugs.

The single biggest argument against the prohibition that should be an instant win is IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY AND DOESN'T WORK. This should be compelling whether you've ever even tried a single drug or not.

[Anonymous No.3350454]

I fucking hate that fucking mexican slang term 'marijuana', the correct term is CANNABIS. I bet many here did'nt know that until know.

Now why should it be legal:
-feels good man (much better than alcohol in most circumstances)
-practically non-toxic
-no physical addiction
-as much as physical effects are concerned, it's actually HEALTHY for you (cannabinoids found in cannabis have been experimentally proven to hinder or stop, and in some case reverse cancer growth, stimulate growth of new brain cells etc. and pretty much every alleged physical harmful effect has been disproven or is to be considered pseudo science instigated by ancient propaganda)
-strong indica (high amounts of cbd which is an antipsychotic on top thc) at reasonable doses is a great relaxant and antipsychotic.

To be continued due to "field too long"!

[Anonymous No.3350457]

The harmful effects:
-potential for a panic attack during high doses, if setting is not sufficiently 'mellow', person has never experienced high, or if ones existing mental state was already compromised due to one thing or another.
-people who can potentially develop a schizophrenia will likely develop one earlier than they would without cannabis
-people with existing mental disorder (especially schizophrenia or something similiar) should not in most cases, expect their overall condition to get any better.
-Main con (aka why it has not been legalized, and why it will not be legalized): It would not be profitable, as it is easy to grow and even small yields can be enough for a whole year of highs. Though same goes for majority of the drugs. It has been estimated that the drug market is the second most largest after the oil market. And, it's CIA which governs majority of that market, providing for the US 'Black Budget'.

As far as im concerned, i love cannabis, and i would love to have it legal (though it would'nt change much of my current situation, but at least i could feel a bit more ease with it). But thats unlikely to happen anytime soon. You should'nt get your hopes too up for it.

[Anonymous No.3350469]

If Cannabis were to belegalized
>violent crime would rise(as a result of the withdrawal symptoms of high-grade cannabis),
>more people would be sitting on their arses on the dole every day because of the availiability of cannabis.
>There would most likely be a rise in the amount of people taking harder drugs because of the gateway theory(In my personal experience all users of hard drugs such as Cocaine or Heroine started out smoking weed)
>People who take drugs in order to just do something illegal(Idiotic tennagers) may start abusing harder drugs as a means of rebellion.

[Anonymous No.3350475]

>Article is posted on cracked.com dissecting popular arguments for the legalization of weed
>First Marijuana legalization thread I've seen on this board in ages

I love Human sugestibility

[Anonymous No.3350481]

Any eventual health concerns related to cannabis is meaningless to discuss in the current situation, because whatever it is, it is LESS HARMFUL than legal alternatives such as alcohol and tobacco. This has been proven again and again by independent researchers. If you are anti-legalization because of the harmfulness to the body, but still wish to keep alcohol and tobacco legal, you are a hypocrite. Therefore, any harmfulness must be ignored in the debate if you wish to keep alcohol and tobacco legal, as most people do.

Another point is money and organized crime. By legalizing cannabis the majority of the users will be able to aquire cannabis while avoiding dealers that will push actual dangerous stuff such as heroin or meth. Organized crime will lose millions of customers and people who just wish to have fun will stay safe and isolated from bad culture.

The last point I wish to make is based on principle. I believe in freedom, liberty and the right to do what you want as long as it does not hurt others. I hope and think all of you feel the same way. Therefore it is unthinkable to me that doing anything at all for whatever purpose, in your own home, in your own free time, is illegal or frowned upon by society. I honestly consider the criminalization of drugs, especially weak drugs such as cannabis, a disgusting violation of basic human rights.

[Anonymous No.3350488]

>>3350419

The cost of policing drug use at present is practically a financial black hole.
Secondary effects promote further loss of revenue (the cost of jailing someone, their subsequent loss of income: no longer spending their wages, not being taxed etc).

Legalising weed (f.e.) would generate profit by taxation, free up the police to stop/prevent serious crime, increase trade to certain markets, reduce the prison population, reduce the gateway to harder drugs via decreased contact to dealers etc

captcha: chickin traffic

[Anonymous No.3350493]

To be honest, I think tobacco and alcohol(or even caffeine) should be made illegal if marijuana is illegal. If neither of those two are, then Marijuana shouldn't be. Caffeine does a lot of negative things to the brain too, but most people on /sci/ or in the world at large are already dependent on it in some way.

[Anonymous No.3350495]

I don't think people realize that even if it's legalized IT STILL WON'T AFFECT YOU. You will not be forced to smoke weed. It should be treated as alcohol is treated. If you wish to smoke, so be it, but if you don't wanna that's perfectly fine too.

[Anonymous No.3350498]

I was posting in this thread early on, but it has been derailed into trolling and butthurt.

It's pretty obvious that legalizing marijuana would cause little to no negatives, and some positives.

Anyone who is saying otherwise, is either trolling, gullible, or mad.

Anyone getting butthurt by these people is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3350529]

>>3350454
Cannabis is a genus of plants. Contrary to popular belief, cannabis is not illegal, only its flowers and leaves, which are known as marijuana, are. Talking about the health effects of cannabis and how we should legalize cannabis makes you appear to be an ignorant, uneducated pothead in the eyes of many. Same goes for cherry-picking data. Good day.

[Anonymous No.3350558]

>>3350529
Pretty sure you can't grow any species or cultivar of cannabis in the states actually. Whether it's industrial hemp or the dankest buds, the law treats them the same.

[Anonymous No.3350571]

>>3350558
As long as it is just a stem and roots, with no flowers or leaves, you're golden. That's why hemp ropes and hemp clothes are legal in the United States.

[Anonymous No.3350594]

>>3349028
Beautiful.

[Anonymous No.3350637]

>>3350529

It's not. They're all within the same species, which are/were divided into 3 not too distinct subspecies sativa, indica and rudelaris. The modern industrial hemp is strain specially bred for large size (and later ones for minimal as possible THC content). All of the three subspecies could naturally harbor significant enough THC content for some sort of high, if they got enough UV light.

The 'industrial hemp' some 70-100 years ago WOULD've gotten you high without needing to suffocate yourself, it was only a matter of light conditions [and that you grew kept the males out of the females, or they would fertilize them, which would make them largely impotent in terms of THC production.

[Anonymous No.3350645]

>>3350488
It's easy to predict all of the incoming cash flow, but it's a lot harder to predict the outgoing cash flow. Consider this, the labour for the existing growing and distributing infrastructure is entirely made up of criminals who have to conduct their business in a certain way. Suddenly, with the legalization and subsequent regulation, they are forced to either a) spend thousands of dollars b) shut down shop or c) continue operating the way they do, where the only thing that changes is what they are charged with when they get caught. Sure, many will legalize up, but the smaller growers and distributors won't have the means to, and they'll likely be able to produce a cheaper product, and they know how to conduct business (building a client base, operations, etc...) in the black market, and all they have to do is give the buyers a product that they can't get legally. These people are still going to be caught, prosecuted, and changed (likely with more crimes, as you'd have to include things like tax evasion, operating without a license, etc...). That shit costs money. As does enforcing the new regulations, and prosecuting those that do not follow them but operate their business legally.

So sure, it'll bring in some tax dollars, slowly, and yes, it'll free up the prisons, a little bit, but the net effect won't be nearly as positive as most people think simply because there would be a myriad of new costs that most people don't take into account.

[Anonymous No.3350646]

>>3350529

It's not. They're all within the same species, which are/were divided into 3 not too distinct subspecies sativa, indica and rudelaris. The modern industrial hemp is strain specially bred for large size (and later ones for minimal as possible THC content). All of the three subspecies could naturally harbor significant enough THC content for some sort of high, if they got enough UV light.

The 'industrial hemp' some 70-100 years ago WOULD've gotten you high without needing to suffocate yourself, it was only a matter of light conditions [and that you kept the males out of the females, or they would fertilize them (which would make them largely impotent in terms of THC production)].

[Anonymous No.3350676]

I'm pro-cannabis, I would really love it legalized (in Spain is almost legal). But I hate when people say it's not harmful. In the moment you're inhaling smoke, it becomes harmful, because you're not inhaling THC only, you're inhaling a lot of toxic substances created by the combustion. And that goes directly to your lungs and bloodstream.
So, if you're not eating it, or using vaporizers, it's very harmful, and specially when you mix it with tobacco.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3350716]

Pros: personal liberty, save taxes and money on a failed war on drugs, restore some elements of federalism by ending the federal war on drugs (enforcement and jails), uppity old people get their comeuppance.

Cons: None.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3350732]

Fixed:

Pros: personal liberty, save taxes and money on a failed war on drugs (enforcement and jails), restore some elements of federalism by ending the unconstitutional federal war on drugs, uppity old people get their comeuppance.

Cons: None.

[Anonymous No.3350739]

>>3350676
Perhaps they mean cannabis is not inherently a detriment to your health.

[Anonymous No.3350755]

>>3350645

I'm not under any illusions - it won't be the cash cow most people purport it will be. But it will turn a profit.

Agreed - dealers, and the black market in general, will always exist. All that will change is the product and method.
Iirc, the mass cultivation of weed is actually pretty cheap when considering the end cost per gram.
Where I am from, the cost from a dealer can be £10/gram. I know some growers and the cost to them is ~£1/gram. Typically they have less than 10 plants at any one time. Using medical grade (if that's the appropriate term) equipment, this cost will drop and the quality will increase.
If you market a product that is of high quality, with cheaper end-user costs (it will fail if it is a profit maximising monopoly) and make it definitively clear the punishment for illegal trade and reckless behaviour, rational people will buy it.

Also, from what I understand about places like the Netherlands, a considerable proportion of the smoking community grow their own weed. Not for sale, but for personal use. I'm assuming there are a myriad of reasons why, but I wouldn't think this has a considerable impact on legal sales. Imo, it is akin to people brewing their own beer or fermenting their own wine. Plus it seems to take a lot of knowledge, effort and time to grow decent weed.

>there would be a myriad of new costs that most people don't take into account.
Agreed.
But the war on drugs is almost a complete failure - so if they definitely cannot win, they should turn the situation around and embrace it. But I have no doubt that some of those in power will have deeply personal objections ...

[Anonymous No.3350761]

>>3350645
That's what we saw with alcohol prohibition. When they ended it, the bathtub gin, speakeasies and bootleggers all kept on the underground booze economy. Oh wait, they didn't at all

[Anonymous No.3350780]

Marijuana has been largely responsible for some of the best music and other art that has been produced in the past 50 years.

Furthermore, the plant itself predates our species. Laws have been created that actually criminalise the consumption of a plant that existed before humans did.

Weed isn't the problem, people are.

[Anonymous No.3350802]

>>3350645
No one is going to keep buying $20 an eighth mids from their dealer when they can buy $40 an ounce low-end dro from the fucking gas station. You're right that many suppliers won't go legal but it doesn't matter, corporate suppliers entering the market will be able to produce much, much more efficiently and no one will pay twice as much to get stuff illegally. As far as high-grade stuff, I don't know what exactly will happen, but if legalization policy is at all competent, growing for personal use will remain legal and the tax rates will be enough to generate revenue but not so high as to make the risk of being caught profitable.

And, of course, no matter how bad the legislation is, hash bars and coffee shops will still be a big money maker.

[Anonymous No.3350809]

>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468
>>3349468

>>3349468

http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/

Fuck yeah Carl Sagan.

[Anonymous No.3350840]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

OP probably read this today. This is also like the second thread about it in the past hour.

[Anonymous No.3350842]

Life is rather harsh, we look toward reality altering substances to relieve much of that stress and help us lubricate our social interactions. Alcohol is one such substances and marijuana is another.

I promote the legalization of all substances that people will crave for the mentioned reason, but those substances must also not have drastic physical or psychological consequences in short periods of time.

Marijuana has not been shown to have long lived physical dependency, so I find it to be one of the more acceptable substances; especially because it is a depressant and not a stimulant.

Whether I promote people to do it or not is another question. I will always tell people to do what they need in order to be happy and work through life, but the less alteration of reality we need the better.

[Anonymous No.3350984]

>>3350761
How much was alcohol taxed immediately after prohibition? Oh wait, it wasn't.

>>3350802
You're not seriously suggesting that the black market sale prices won't change were the product in question legalized were you?

[Anonymous No.3351253]

'Tax it' argument is retarded

The average acre yield for bud is on the order of 6000lbs/yr, about 16x that of vanilla bean, vanilla sells for about $20-$30/lb and even very high quality beans only sell for around $150/lb.

Given that vanilla is for more labor intensive to grow, requiring things like hand pollination, using vanilla as a rough scale of the costs for licit production should produce very conservative numbers.

Based on high-end vanilla we have a projected licit price of bud of <$10/lb, or about .5%(half of one percent) of the illicit price. If this ratio holds for the entire distribution chain(a conservative estimate given that an illicit market should have higher margins then a licit one) gives a licit retail 1/8 a price of 40¢(for an illicit 1/8 at $80, higher than the average)

Total US consumption is around 2000mt or about or about 550 million eighths, with a projected retail licit price no more than $200 million. Even a tax rate of 400% (about what the Brits tax tobacco) would only generate 800 million a year in tax revenue.

[Anonymous No.3351462]

>>3351253

The real profit is not in the tax, but in the savings. Policing the war on drugs costs billions a year and is utterly ineffective.