View Full Version : For the first time, 50% support legalizing marijuana
wild_wild_wes
10-17-11, 22:26
A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal; 46% say marijuana use should remain illegal.
As recently as five years ago, the public opposed it 60/36.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f9nyco05-um-ww_mfbuo9q.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx
I think more and more people are looking at the situation from a Libertarian approach. The comparison between Mexican drug cartels of today, and the Italian Mafia of Prohibition is strikingly similar......which is another incentive to take way the cartel's business.
However, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the majority of the US population not to become addicts. Whether it be marijuana, or some other type of legalized drug. The #1 cause of death in the United States is not auto accidents anymore, it is abuse of prescription drugs. China destroyed itself as a society and nation in the mid 1800s after most of its population had turned into opium addicts. Even the Netherlands, which was full of "coffeeshops" which legally sold marijuana, are becoming more restricted and regulated as the detox centers are being over taxed with patients, and the job force is resorting to bring in immigrates who aren't drug users to be productive.
The #1 cause of death in the United States is not auto accidents anymore, it is abuse of prescription drugs.
Where are you getting that from? That's a pretty loaded statement. Drug users in any culture only represent a very minor segement of the population. Even if it was legal, I think there are a great number of people who wouldn't touch it.
The problem with marijuana is that the habitual use of any chemical, be it a plant or pill, will over time result in changes to your behavior.
The simple fact is, there isn't a drug around that does anything to your your brain can't do on its own. All drugs do is manipulate the natural chemicals in your brain. This causes many changes to the natural levels of these chemicals, many of which are directly tied to mood, sleep, etc.
Anyone who says marijuana isn't "physically addictive" doesn't have any sort of a grap on the pharmacology involved, and is using a fools argument. The whole notion of good and bad drugs is a worthless.
That being said, I don't think making marijuana legal is going to upset the fabric of society.
The issue I have is that if a majority of the people don't respect drug laws, by enacting and enforcing them, you only breed contempt for the system. I believe this is one of the issues that states need to addressed by popular vote and let the people decide.
That being said, I don't think making marijuana legal is going to upset the fabric of society.
You should probably spend some time in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Shasta Counties in California and get back to us.
I don't think California represents the majority of American culture, nor is it a microcosm of a culture who smokes pot. California's ****edupedness stretches way beyond that.
I dated a girl from Orange County. I'm done with California.
I think more and more people are looking at the situation from a Libertarian approach. The comparison between Mexican drug cartels of today, and the Italian Mafia of Prohibition is strikingly similar......which is another incentive to take way the cartel's business.
However, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the majority of the US population not to become addicts. Whether it be marijuana, or some other type of legalized drug. The #1 cause of death in the United States is not auto accidents anymore, it is abuse of prescription drugs. China destroyed itself as a society and nation in the mid 1800s after most of its population had turned into opium addicts. Even the Netherlands, which was full of "coffeeshops" which legally sold marijuana, are becoming more restricted and regulated as the detox centers are being over taxed with patients, and the job force is resorting to bring in immigrates who aren't drug users to be productive.
Where are you getting that from? That's a pretty loaded statement. Drug users in any culture only represent a very minor segement of the population. Even if it was legal, I think there are a great number of people who wouldn't touch it.
The problem with marijuana is that the habitual use of any chemical, be it a plant or pill, will over time result in changes to your behavior.
The simple fact is, there isn't a drug around that does anything to your your brain can't do on its own. All drugs do is manipulate the natural chemicals in your brain. This causes many changes to the natural levels of these chemicals, many of which are directly tied to mood, sleep, etc.
Anyone who says marijuana isn't "physically addictive" doesn't have any sort of a grap on the pharmacology involved, and is using a fools argument. The whole notion of good and bad drugs is a worthless.
That being said, I don't think making marijuana legal is going to upset the fabric of society.
The issue I have is that if a majority of the people don't respect drug laws, by enacting and enforcing them, you only breed contempt for the system. I believe this is one of the issues that states need to addressed by popular vote and let the people decide.
So where do you gentlemen stand on alcohol? You know the completely legal substance that is more widely available than Milk or Orange Juice in all 50 states.
Khan, what do you think the current ratio in America is in regards to the total number of people who consume alcohol responsibly VS. those who become full blown alcoholics?
bp, is a drug only available in a pill or plant form?
since you have assigned marijuana as a drug due to it's ability to change your chemical balance in your brain over time, obviously than that same drug label has to be applied to alcohol given its a much stronger intoxicating substance which has much stronger inebriating effects...as denoted by the stats like as I type a drunk driver killed another person, a drunk father beat another child, or the alcoholic battling depression finally ended the misery by taking their life while under the influence. marijuana would be legal if it had matching great stats to claim like that:confused:
So how does my reply tie into what the OP posted....most people can only stomach so much hypocrisy even within themselves, i.e. any person who drinks an occasional glass of red wine at dinner or drinks a cold snack at a tailgate eventually has to be honest with themselves and realize that they are consuming a substance(usually very frequently), and by extension supporting the legalized status of it that is so exponentially more dangerous, deadly, and detrimental to society as a whole than marijuana could ever dream of being.
If you drink alcohol even in the rarest of occasions, and you don't support the legalization of marijuana...than you are flat out a hypocrite of the highest magnitude. Most people can only have that label on their back for so long before they let rationality take over and in this case support a substance that is far less harmful than the one currently in their hand, fridge, or cooler in front of them.
Before I get called a pothead...just the opposite, I hate alcoholics and the retarded shit they do every single minute of the day with their perfectly legal substance.
For the record, I wouldn't date a chic from Orange County either as that County clearly is one of the dumbest in the Country. It has nothing to do with their hardcore love affair with shortbus cruising Bush and his controllers either:haha:
I'm sorry I didn't address all the physical forms drugs may take in my post. :suicide:
People always go to the pot vs alcohol argument.
There aren't good and bad drugs.
I would also advise everyone on a gun forum about admitting the habitual use of a controlled substance.
There is a lesson in the fact the British subdued China by supplying it with opium
Stupid people breed much faster than the rest of us. This kind of trend is inevitable.
I think more and more people are looking at the situation from a Libertarian approach. The comparison between Mexican drug cartels of today, and the Italian Mafia of Prohibition is strikingly similar......which is another incentive to take way the cartel's business.
However, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the majority of the US population not to become addicts. Whether it be marijuana, or some other type of legalized drug. The #1 cause of death in the United States is not auto accidents anymore, it is abuse of prescription drugs. China destroyed itself as a society and nation in the mid 1800s after most of its population had turned into opium addicts. Even the Netherlands, which was full of "coffeeshops" which legally sold marijuana, are becoming more restricted and regulated as the detox centers are being over taxed with patients, and the job force is resorting to bring in immigrates who aren't drug users to be productive.
very well said :)
and also it seems our values and beliefs and country are all falling apart faster than ever these days with the kind of people we have now
they do that and the fall of the country as we know it is not far behind
I can honestly see MJ being legalized within the next decade. I support the legalization purely on the basis of taxing the hell out of it. No, I don't smoke it, so many are inclined to think that based on my position.
But looking at statistics, alcohol does kill more people than MJ. If anyone wants to dispute this, google it and look for any reputable sources.
4x4twenty6
10-18-11, 19:40
I honestly dont think that the number of pot smokers will have some dramatic increase if it is legalized.
I think it should be legalized.
I do not smoke now and i honestly probably would not smoke if it was legalized. I am a cop and honestly i dont give a rats ass about some body with a marijuana for personal consumption. I am more worried about the cocaine, heroin, meth and crack which contain a ton of harmful chemicals. Plus the only violent people i have ever dealt with concerning marijuana are the dealers. Make it legal and we essentially can get rid of the illegal street dealers.
ICANHITHIMMAN
10-18-11, 20:20
I honestly dont think that the number of pot smokers will have some dramatic increase if it is legalized.
I agree with you. I dont think it will be dramatic. Their already doing it, in fact everyone is doing it! I have stoped being shocked when I hear that so and so smokes Every single person in mine or my wifes family smokes with 3 exceptions that are all cops or mil. It dosent effect the 3 of us we would not even know they were doing it if that didnt tell us. Imagin how many people you know like that?
4x4twenty6
10-18-11, 20:55
My buddies that smoke told me one night when we were all hanging out that the general consensus was that they dont give a **** if im a cop or not, that they were gonna smoke anyway. I laughed and told them to smoke up cuz i dont give a shit. I know people from all walks of life from cops to doctors to attorney's who do it.
It needs to be legalized and we need to take advantage of the economic advantages it would bring.
Meanwhile in Alabama, a law is going into place next Monday that will make herbal and synthetic "fake marijuana" a controlled substance. Good job, Montgomery. You're about to turn a bunch of people who were conscientiously operating within the law into criminals overnight.
Legalizing pot may be gaining popularity on the national level, but locally it feels a bit darker lately.
It needs to be legalized and we need to take advantage of the economic advantages it would bring.
Kind of like how casino money was suppose to go to schools, and how the taxes on cigaretts were suppose to really help out...
Kind of like how casino money was suppose to go to schools, and how the taxes on cigaretts were suppose to really help out...
Sin taxes always have the best of intentions, but after a while the government becomes addicted to the revenue......and thus, the government becomes dependent upon the sin.
Belmont31R
10-18-11, 23:21
I think more and more people are looking at the situation from a Libertarian approach. The comparison between Mexican drug cartels of today, and the Italian Mafia of Prohibition is strikingly similar......which is another incentive to take way the cartel's business.
However, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the majority of the US population not to become addicts. Whether it be marijuana, or some other type of legalized drug. The #1 cause of death in the United States is not auto accidents anymore, it is abuse of prescription drugs. China destroyed itself as a society and nation in the mid 1800s after most of its population had turned into opium addicts. Even the Netherlands, which was full of "coffeeshops" which legally sold marijuana, are becoming more restricted and regulated as the detox centers are being over taxed with patients, and the job force is resorting to bring in immigrates who aren't drug users to be productive.
Ive been to Amsterdam many times, and I have close blood relatives in Holland right now. Much like the rest of Europe they accepted in huge numbers of 3rd worlders which took their "liberties" and ruined them. The last time I was there the only time we got hassled was 3rd worlders asking us if we wanted heroin and opium.
You can go into a coffeeshop there, and no one is going to hassle you to smoke weed. We went into many and never even got mentioned unless you asked.
The same thing in Germany. The only time I got offered drugs there was Turks in a park.
Belmont31R
10-18-11, 23:29
I agree with you. I dont think it will be dramatic. Their already doing it, in fact everyone is doing it! I have stoped being shocked when I hear that so and so smokes Every single person in mine or my wifes family smokes with 3 exceptions that are all cops or mil. It dosent effect the 3 of us we would not even know they were doing it if that didnt tell us. Imagin how many people you know like that?
When I was a sat dish tech I went into lots of homes that reeked of it. I can't stand the smell of it myself but I imagine there are lots of people who are "friends" with neighbors who have no clue.
That being said, I don't think making marijuana legal is going to upset the fabric of society.
Well here is one issue. If I stand next to a guy drinking a beer, I don't get drunk. I don't want to have to be in the same room with somebody smoking legal weed.
Belmont31R
10-19-11, 00:14
Well here is one issue. If I stand next to a guy drinking a beer, I don't get drunk. I don't want to have to be in the same room with somebody smoking legal weed.
Thats where the free market and responsibility come into play...
I've said it before, I'll say it again. This would set a very dangerous precedent. "Don't like it? We can just tax it to make it go away." How long before that becomes the case with ammo, mags, etc.?
I don't know the ins and outs of what effects marijuana may or may not have on the body but I do know that most hardworking, red-blooded Americans would not condone such an unproductive an asinine practice as blazing up a leaf for the sole purpose of getting high and becoming a vegetable.
Legalization would put the cartels out of business; a good thing. I support the idea of people's choice in the matter but I don't support the use of non-medical marijuana. At this point I think legalization would do more good than bad.
I can honestly see MJ being legalized within the next decade. I support the legalization purely on the basis of taxing the hell out of it. No, I don't smoke it, so many are inclined to think that based on my position.
But looking at statistics, alcohol does kill more people than MJ. If anyone wants to dispute this, google it and look for any reputable sources.
The #1 cause of death in the United States is not auto accidents anymore, it is abuse of prescription drugs.
Please supply a valid cite for that statement. :rolleyes:
According to 2007 CDC figures:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
* Heart disease: 616,067
* Cancer: 562,875
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
* Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
* Diabetes: 71,382
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
* Septicemia: 34,828
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
And BTW, cigs and booze kill far more people then abuse of prescription drugs.
Well here is one issue. If I stand next to a guy drinking a beer, I don't get drunk. I don't want to have to be in the same room with somebody smoking legal weed.
Smoking is smoking, right? I'd assume most places would treat pot smokers the same as tobacco smokers.
Go stand outside an office building or restaurant on a cold, overcast day and hang with the smokers for a bit. I bet nobody would even notice if you pulled out a one-hitter instead of a regular cig.
Please supply a valid cite for that statement. :rolleyes:
Sure.
I came across the article a while back, but I had forgotten that it was a CA study, not nationwide:
http://www.cjcj.org/post/alternatives/incarceration/drug/abuse/now/california/s/leading/cause/premature/death
This is premature death and sudden death, not related to cumulative conditions such as heart desease.
Reagans Rascals
10-19-11, 10:24
to be honest... I do not partake, however I do believe it has helping benefits for those suffering chronic illness/pain (my mother being one), and that being said I feel they should not have to endure pain that could otherwise be alleviated even for a short amount of time simply because a bureaucrat deems it illegal because there is not full proof way to tax it like Tobacco and Alcohol.
My mother suffers all day and night due to a spinal illness. She has exhausted all "legal" medical options. Marijuana holds the potential to possibly palliate her symptoms, even just short term, yet because someone else says no you cannot have weed, she is forced to suffer? bullshit... If I had access to it you better believe I'd be more than willing to do a 2 year bid to ease her suffering.
I had a friend pass away in 2009 due to Glioblastoma multiforme, as well as Leukemia, and in the end, when the battle was all but lost, the only remaining pain reliever was personally attained Marijuana, and it helped him drastically. He began to gain some weight back and had a better quality of life.
Would you allow yourself or a loved one to suffer when you have the ability to at least ease it somewhat, simply because someone else not in your shoes says no? I don't think so.
Also, I do not agree with the justice system incarcerating individuals for non-violent crimes i.e. possession, distribution etc.. If they think by doing so they will prevent a crime that is a load of shit, you can't stop a crime before it is committed, this isn't Minority Report. If the person buying or selling weed is so inclined to further break the law in a violent way, then you charge them, but it is asinine to think you can do so before.
The justice system is in place to protect individuals from harm, someone smoking weed in their own residence is a non-violent offence, a.k.a a victim-less crime. period. end of story. there is no rebuttal for that.
Just legalize it simply to ease the burden on our penal system... and to help those in pain that have exhausted all other options.
And no... I am not a pothead, and have never used it... Just looking at it in the most pragmatic of terms.
Sure.
I came across the article a while back, but I had forgotten that it was a CA study, not nationwide:
http://www.cjcj.org/post/alternatives/incarceration/drug/abuse/now/california/s/leading/cause/premature/death
This is premature death and sudden death, not related to cumulative conditions such as heart desease.
Which is very different issue, and set of stats, then your original statement. :blink:
So how does my reply tie into what the OP posted....most people can only stomach so much hypocrisy even within themselves, i.e. any person who drinks an occasional glass of red wine at dinner or drinks a cold snack at a tailgate eventually has to be honest with themselves and realize that they are consuming a substance(usually very frequently), and by extension supporting the legalized status of it that is so exponentially more dangerous, deadly, and detrimental to society as a whole than marijuana could ever dream of being.
If you drink alcohol even in the rarest of occasions, and you don't support the legalization of marijuana...than you are flat out a hypocrite of the highest magnitude. Most people can only have that label on their back for so long before they let rationality take over and in this case support a substance that is far less harmful than the one currently in their hand, fridge, or cooler in front of them.
Yep.
The drug issue is no different than the basis for plenty of other issues. The need of a person to feel superior to someone else. It's the thing currently. Fortunately for those folks the Government is all too eager to play those cards. In the end the Government is the only winner however. But who cares as long as someone feels better about themselves.:rolleyes:
Reagans Rascals
10-19-11, 10:33
Well here is one issue. If I stand next to a guy drinking a beer, I don't get drunk. I don't want to have to be in the same room with somebody smoking legal weed.
Smoking indoors in general has been all but stamped out for the most part, hasn't it?
With the exceptional bar and craphole Denny's here and there, but who the hell wants to go to a Denny's....
Smoking indoors in general has been all but stamped out for the most part, hasn't it?
With the exceptional bar and craphole Denny's here and there, but who the hell wants to go to a Denny's....
Just think.... if they legalized, you could be blazing up at Waffle House. They would cold regulate your munchies in that joint.
There already exists prescription drugs which duplicate the effects of marijuana. To name a few; Marinol, Sativex and Cesamet. The effects go both to pain releif and an increase of appetite.
From a pharmocology standpoint, I can't think of one medication that is smoked. Morphine is administered for pain, but you can't smoke opium.
What really doesn't make sense is that marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance, and its synthetic pill form (Marinol) a schedule III. Cesamet is a schedule II, so users can't get refills w/o a new prescription.
There already exists prescription drugs which duplicate the effects of marijuana. To name a few; Marinol, Sativex and Cesamet. The effects go both to pain releif and an increase of appetite.
From a pharmocology standpoint, I can't think of one medication that is smoked. Morphine is administered for pain, but you can't smoke opium.
What really doesn't make sense is that marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance, and its synthetic pill form (Marinol) a schedule III. Cesamet is a schedule II, so users can't get refills w/o a new prescription.
I agree.
There are many prescription drugs out there that will out-perform any medicinal benfits of marijuana better without the carcinogens that you get from smoking it. People smoke marijuana to get high.....plain and simple. Just as most people drink alcohol to get a buzz. So, in my opinion the medicinal marijuana arguement doesn't hold water no more than people drinking alcohol to get medicinal benefits.
History has shown that societies that spend their time chasing highs and buzzes are easily dissolved or conquered. The earliest reference was Homer's account of the Lotus eaters. Lotus, was a generic term of intoxicating plants in the classical era. There are Egyptian references to "Lotus" addiction as bringing all of Egypt to its knees. In a more modern version as I explained earlier, the British supplied the Chinese with opium so that the majority of their population were addicts which imploded their economy and military making them easily conquered. Later, the Afghans supplied Soviet Troops with plenty of opium during the invasion as a means of asymmetrical warfare.
Sometimes the truth lies in the messenger. George Soros is a big proponent of legalizing marijuana in the US.
Reagans Rascals
10-19-11, 11:56
There already exists prescription drugs which duplicate the effects of marijuana. To name a few; Marinol, Sativex and Cesamet. The effects go both to pain releif and an increase of appetite.
From a pharmocology standpoint, I can't think of one medication that is smoked. Morphine is administered for pain, but you can't smoke opium.
What really doesn't make sense is that marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance, and its synthetic pill form (Marinol) a schedule III. Cesamet is a schedule II, so users can't get refills w/o a new prescription.
I really appreciate this post. Honestly. I nor my mother have ever been told of these drugs, and Sativex seems very promising for the treatment of Neuropathic Pain, we will be inquiring about it at the next doctor visit. May have found a new answer. Thanks a bunch!
My buddies that smoke told me one night when we were all hanging out that the general consensus was that they dont give a **** if im a cop or not, that they were gonna smoke anyway. I laughed and told them to smoke up cuz i dont give a shit. I know people from all walks of life from cops to doctors to attorney's who do it.
It needs to be legalized and we need to take advantage of the economic advantages it would bring.
exactly, right now it's a huge burden on law enforcement, prisons and of course the taxpayer. if it were legal and taxed in a reasonable manner it would bring revenue in.
Thats where the free market and responsibility come into play...
Except that most people who smoke that shit don't have any sense of personal responsibility or consideration. If people could just stay home and get high or drunk and not mess with other people most of this stuff wouldn't be illegal in the first place.
There are many prescription drugs out there that will out-perform any medicinal benfits of marijuana better
You are a scientist, doc, pharmacologist? Many (most...) people who use marijuana for pain management, etc report the prescription versions simply don't work as well, which is why big pharma has had to keep working on those drugs.
without the carcinogens that you get from smoking it. People smoke marijuana to get high.....plain and simple.
And that's our/your concern why again?
Just as most people drink alcohol to get a buzz.
So, in my opinion the medicinal marijuana arguement doesn't hold water no more than people drinking alcohol to get medicinal benefits.
Same comment as above, and I do know a number of people who drink 1-2 glasses of red wine per day for it's medicinal effects, per advice of their doc.
George Soros is a big proponent of legalizing marijuana in the US.
That's some tin foil hat sh&% right there, but I'll respect it's your opinion on the matter. ;)
Reagans Rascals
10-19-11, 13:16
Marijuana legislation is the same type of slippery-slope malarkey as those who propose stricter gun control.
Lets not make it legal because if we do then work productivity will plummet, DUI fatalities and injuries will drastically increase, violent crime will increase and eventually our society will crumble. Classic illogical slippery-slope. Simply because its legalized doesn't guarantee anything adverse will happen. That is simple hypothetical theorizing.
If we legalize the right to carry in every state, then gun crime will become rampant and shooting fatalities and violent crimes will exponentially increase. Once again, not guaranteed to occur.
Hypotheticals swing both ways equally.... If its yes, its can just as equally be no.
Last I checked, I don't ever recall hearing Amsterdam in the news for any type of severe violent crime upswing or their rampant traffic fatalities attributed to DUI.
No full proof way to assure gubment profits by taxation is the only reason for non-legalization. Instead we spend billions every year on prosecuting and incarcerating those which have not committed a violent crime... makes sense... same as getting fined for seat belt and helmet laws (for Adults not kids)... its a personal choice... as its been said before, alcohol and cigarettes represent a greater threat than Marijuana, exponentially more so.
watch the film "Burzynki"..... and it'll start to make a lot of sense...
Except that most people who smoke that shit don't have any sense of personal responsibility or consideration. If people could just stay home and get high or drunk and not mess with other people most of this stuff wouldn't be illegal in the first place.
LOL. If good citizens didn't shoot up schools, post offices, co-workers, and so forth we wouldn't have all these restrictions on guns either. Come on. It's for power. You know that; stop with the Reefer Madness and middle school type bullshit. "****, I won't even be able to go to church without some kid, probably a rapist child molester to boot, injecting me intravenously with marijuana cigarettes if that stuff is legalized." That's how sensible most anti-weed arguments sound. I don't think I've ever heard a sensible anti-weed argument now that I think of it. You know, one based on the Constitution, common sense, facts, or something not ****ing stupid like hysteria and personal prejudice.
Reagans Rascals
10-19-11, 13:41
LOL. If good citizens didn't shoot up schools, post offices, co-workers, and so forth we wouldn't have all these restrictions on guns either. Come on. It's for power. You know that; stop with the Reefer Madness and middle school type bullshit. "****, I won't even be able to go to church without some kid, probably a rapist child molester to boot, injecting me intravenously with marijuana cigarettes if that stuff is legalized." That's how sensible most anti-weed arguments sound. I don't think I've ever heard a sensible anti-weed argument now that I think of it. You know, one based on the Constitution, common sense, facts, or something not ****ing stupid like hysteria and personal prejudice.
+1 bravo zulu
4x4twenty6
10-19-11, 16:39
bp7178: you have a point on the government properly using the money collected from taxes but that goes for everything, not just what mj would bring in.
I think big tobacco would have a shit fit if pot got legalized.
bp7178: you have a point on the government properly using the money collected from taxes but that goes for everything, not just what mj would bring in.
I think big tobacco would have a shit fit if pot got legalized.
I doubt big tobacco is worried about pot. People don't use it as a tobacco substitute. Big alcohol, and big pharmaceutical, that may be a different story.
Reagans Rascals
10-19-11, 16:55
I think big tobacco would seize the opportunity and begin to capitalize on it. Not much retooling, just simply replace the tobacco with different blends. Simply adjust the packaging to fit the type and it would be simple to go to the store and buy an already rolled, packaged Marijuana cigarette, with or without a filter, just as you would a regular cigarette. Could even incorporate the menthol crush ampule to make it menthol... Pretty much sells itself... just another product line in addition to what they currently have
"...umm yeah I'd like a pack of the unfiltered Tangerine Dream's... " .... at the local Sheetz
Belmont31R
10-19-11, 16:57
Except that most people who smoke that shit don't have any sense of personal responsibility or consideration. If people could just stay home and get high or drunk and not mess with other people most of this stuff wouldn't be illegal in the first place.
You can make the same argument against CCW or firearms ownership.
I really only believe in laws that punish people AFTER they do something that hurts someone else in a reasonable capacity not criminalizing things because a person MIGHT do something if they are allowed to own XYZ.
I also would think most employers would continue doing drug screenings. I doubt most businesses would be cool with Joe getting high on the job or coming to work intoxicated.
Not much retooling, just simply replace the tobacco with different blends.
Normal cigs are made from long strands of tobacco. Some of those strands that get broken up due to being made improperly are then re-mixed with the good tobacco. Often times these cigs will be sold as exports or a "lesser quality" package.
Pot is more like ground spice and I doubt if it would even run through the machines. I made cigs for Phillip Morris ages ago and you could have a night when you couldn't make 4 trays of cigs because the tobacco or paper wasn't running properly. Everything has to be just right for those things to come out of those machines as fast as they do. They are constantly monitored by several people.. or used to be anyway... it's been a while.
I really appreciate this post. Honestly. I nor my mother have ever been told of these drugs, and Sativex seems very promising for the treatment of Neuropathic Pain, we will be inquiring about it at the next doctor visit. May have found a new answer. Thanks a bunch!
I'll address something Willbrink said in response to this post.
There are a few sources which speak negatively of synthetic THC drugs, namely Marinol. Its undergone some changes, but the biggest is due to its delivery, ingestion, it takes a long time to act. It has to be digested. The other big argument seems to be around its potency. Users either report Marinol seriously ****ed them up, or didn't do a thing. But I think this is something that needs to be addressed with dosing and your doctor. If you use marijuana (illegal or not) for pain, and want to be described a synthetic THC, I would discuss it with your doctor.
But before getting caught up in the anti pill THC hype, you REALLY have to look at the sources that information is coming from. A great many are pushing "legalize it" agendas.
But still, I know of no prescription drug that has to be smoked. Imagine having to freebase a tylenol because you have a headache. Its not a good delivery system at all. I would speculate that is how it (marijuana) is still stuck as a schedule I controlled substance.
For clarity, I think this is a state issue and should be decided by the voters.
For clarity, I think this is a state issue and should be decided by the voters.
On that we agree.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. This would set a very dangerous precedent. "Don't like it? We can just tax it to make it go away." How long before that becomes the case with ammo, mags, etc.?
I don't know the ins and outs of what effects marijuana may or may not have on the body but I do know that most hardworking, red-blooded Americans would not condone such an unproductive an asinine practice as blazing up a leaf for the sole purpose of getting high and becoming a vegetable.
Legalization would put the cartels out of business; a good thing. I support the idea of people's choice in the matter but I don't support the use of non-medical marijuana. At this point I think legalization would do more good than bad.
It's not a dangerous precedent in this case. It would certainly open up another HUGE source of revenue for the government. The fact that MJ is illegal and guns are legal, is a incomparable argument. The government doesn't spend billions of dollars enforcing gun trafficking as they do with MJ. There is no issue with government wanting to impose exorbitant amount of taxes onto guns, mags or ammo to "make it go away." Okay, sure, $200 tax stamps on NFA items. But those NFA items hardly play a role in criminal cases.
While you are right, most hard working americans will not tolerate others to getting high, this applies to the work force. What you do in your free time is up to you. I don't want any of my employees to show up to work drunk, nor do I want them to show up high. But once the shift it over, do whatever you like, I have no say. I have no tolerance for being under the influence while working. Americans can and are productive members of society even if they drink alcohol or smoke MJ. Keep in mind, there will always be a percentage that deviates from norm in terms of substance abuse.
Legalization WILL NOT put the cartels out of business. Fact. Cartels will still find other forms of illegal substances to traffic. Albeit, legalization will hurt the cartels quite a bit. Black market dealers will cease to be once the legalization occurs. What is the point of dealing a legal substance? There little to no profit in competing against companies that sell MJ. I.E. Do you know anyone that sells tobacco through the black market? No.
What legalization of MJ will do is control inflation of the prices on MJ. Currently, an 8th costs roughly $55 depending on your geographic location. Depending on the legalization process and how much the public welcomes it, the prices will significantly lower. The public gets the benefit of saving more money and government receives revenue.
Currently, there are studies that clearly show it's easier for children under 18 to obtain MJ than it is to get tobacco products. A buffer zone, sort to speak, are regulated by businesses that do sell MJ products and tobacco. Since tobacco companies will benefit from the legalization of MJ, it's safe to say buyers can see MJ and tobacco products being sold on the same shelfs. Let the business owners regulate who they sell to by checking IDs as they do for tobacco or alcohol.
What it comes down to, is moderation. Consume whatever you like, in moderation. While there are some that still abuse substances such as alcohol or MJ, MJ to this date, has yet to kill anyone from overdose. That's a clue.
But still, I know of no prescription drug that has to be smoked. Imagine having to freebase a tylenol because you have a headache. Its not a good delivery system at all. I would speculate that is how it (marijuana) is still stuck as a schedule I controlled substance.
You don't have to smoke marijuana to ingest it and derive all the benefits from it. It can be heated and used in foods such as the typically well known "brownies". It can also be heated using a vaporizer to ingest the medicine and receive the same benefits without the smoke.
It's no secret that I lean towards the Constitutionalist/libertarian side of the political spectrum. Personally, I believe that the prohibition of marijuana usage is a state's rights issue, read the 10th Amendment, and should not be decided by the federal government. If in fact they want to regulate it there should be a Constitutional Amendment passed as was done for the prohibition of alcohol, the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act.
It appears that several of our representatives also believe the federal government shouldn't be imposing bans on marijuana by introducing legislation to that effect (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-introduce-bill-legalize-marijuana-225335489.html).
That's where the argument ends for me. Personally I don't care if people want to smoke their bong, eat their twinkies and ice cream while watching Dazed & Confused. However, I do think these stories below are quite interesting and also point to some very valid medical reasons for the use of marijuana.
This Montana man cured his 2 year old son's brain cancer using marijuana in a medicinal fashion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383240/Boy-brain-cancer-cured-secretly-fed-medical-marijuana-father.html).
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm) who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
The National Cancer Institute has changed it's wording due to the overwhelming responses they received after publishing the fact that marijuana has helped decrease tumors in humans. They still have relevent information concerning testing on mice and rats here (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page4#Section_7). A little more info on human testing is here. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page7#Section_13)
Most people already have their minds made up about MJ and threads like these won't change their opinion. Currently the Feds are shutting down medicinal dispensaries left and right and are renewing their efforts to crack down on these evil cancer patients. Yet again another lie from the Obama administration. There also arresting and confiscating firearms from people who have legitimate prescriptions and a need for medicinal marijuana. There's threads on here about that as well... So much for living in a free country.
Reagans Rascals
10-20-11, 16:31
I'll address something Willbrink said in response to this post.
There are a few sources which speak negatively of synthetic THC drugs, namely Marinol. Its undergone some changes, but the biggest is due to its delivery, ingestion, it takes a long time to act. It has to be digested. The other big argument seems to be around its potency. Users either report Marinol seriously ****ed them up, or didn't do a thing. But I think this is something that needs to be addressed with dosing and your doctor. If you use marijuana (illegal or not) for pain, and want to be described a synthetic THC, I would discuss it with your doctor.
But before getting caught up in the anti pill THC hype, you REALLY have to look at the sources that information is coming from. A great many are pushing "legalize it" agendas.
But still, I know of no prescription drug that has to be smoked. Imagine having to freebase a tylenol because you have a headache. Its not a good delivery system at all. I would speculate that is how it (marijuana) is still stuck as a schedule I controlled substance.
For clarity, I think this is a state issue and should be decided by the voters.
I understand what you are saying, after reading about Marinol, Cesamet and Sativex yesterday, Sativex seems the most prominent.
It's a terrible thing to live with severe pain every day, and its just as bad to watch a loved one do so.
My mother at the moment, has an intrathecal pain pump implanted in her side dispensing Ziconotide, Dilaudid, and Novocane. She has a spinal cord stimulator implanted in her back. And in addition, she takes over 11 medications a day. Most of which are opioids and destroy organs over long term use. It would be more than beneficial to find something that may help, even in just the slightest, without the harmful affects of modern analgesics...
I believe marijuana usage should not be up to the States or Federal Government. It is a personal choice, and that is where it needs to stay. Just like a persons right to Assisted Suicide.... but I digress....
If they do legalize pot they should consider a law to restrict users to the far right cruise lane so traffic won't be impeded for miles.
Except that most people who smoke that shit don't have any sense of personal responsibility or consideration. If people could just stay home and get high or drunk and not mess with other people most of this stuff wouldn't be illegal in the first place.
I think you are grossly underestimating the number of people (and types) that smoke pot.
arizonaranchman
10-22-11, 06:24
Alcohol kills FAR more people, destroys FAR more lives and families and costs society infinitely more than marijuana use does.
The grotesque hypocrisy of marijuana laws when alcohol is legal cannot be overlooked.
Address the behavior of people. If you get drunk, high, etc and do something stupid then the law should deal with that, not the substance. All these laws succeed in doing is creating an enormous underground black market that costs billions of dollars to try to combat. It drives up the cost of these substances and fuels the need to murder, burglarize, rob, etc to support drug habits and the drug industry.
Belmont31R
10-22-11, 14:18
Alcohol kills FAR more people, destroys FAR more lives and families and costs society infinitely more than marijuana use does.
The grotesque hypocrisy of marijuana laws when alcohol is legal cannot be overlooked.
Address the behavior of people. If you get drunk, high, etc and do something stupid then the law should deal with that, not the substance. All these laws succeed in doing is creating an enormous underground black market that costs billions of dollars to try to combat. It drives up the cost of these substances and fuels the need to murder, burglarize, rob, etc to support drug habits and the drug industry.
If the cartels were inside the US like the organized crime during prohibition era was drug laws would have been done away with a long time ago. Since they are mostly in Mexico and SA we don't see bodies in the street like what happened during prohibition.
polydeuces
10-22-11, 21:04
Me thinks this poll is way to conservative and the pro-percentage is much higher.
Legalizing only makes sense: It frees up LE community, keeps real criminals in jail, and the dollars here:
If we consider the vast amount of money spent on it and most certainly going abroad to foreign drug-cartels, imagine the cash-flow created if we were to decriminalize possessing and growing it.
Growing and producing it locally would benefit the entire economy! This alone could be the stimulus package no one thought of, seriously!
And the facts stare us right in the face, yet we continue to wonder what if... all we have to do is look at societies that have done away with prohibition laws. With obviously its own pitfalls, but one must say these are far out-weight by negatives of the current status.
Regarding synthetic cannabinoids - only big money pharma would be insane enough to artificially create and package something that nature provides us free and easy.....
Which I think is where the tight spot is. Ask yourself - who benefits from keeping illegal and tightly controlled.
arizonaranchman
10-22-11, 23:20
Me thinks this poll is way to conservative and the pro-percentage is much higher.
Legalizing only makes sense: It frees up LE community, keeps real criminals in jail, and the dollars here:
If we consider the vast amount of money spent on it and most certainly going abroad to foreign drug-cartels, imagine the cash-flow created if we were to decriminalize possessing and growing it.
Growing and producing it locally would benefit the entire economy! This alone could be the stimulus package no one thought of, seriously!
And the facts stare us right in the face, yet we continue to wonder what if... all we have to do is look at societies that have done away with prohibition laws. With obviously its own pitfalls, but one must say these are far out-weight by negatives of the current status.
Regarding synthetic cannabinoids - only big money pharma would be insane enough to artificially create and package something that nature provides us free and easy.....
Which I think is where the tight spot is. Ask yourself - who benefits from keeping illegal and tightly controlled.
Well said... The laws CREATE the crisis we now have, they don't lessen it, they magnify it. Trying to outlaw chocolate would in the same way create cartels, kidnappings and murders in the same way. Arueably chocolate even does more harm to society than MJ (fat people and poor health!). The law itself is a bigger problem to society (untold billions spent, the criminals it then creates, precious prison space wasted, etc) than the thing it is attempting to address.
Politicians are arrogant control freaks is the only reason they persist in half the things they do.
Arueably chocolate even does more harm to society than MJ (fat people and poor health!).
Not to be a ball buster, but not a good example. Chocolate, specifically dark chocolate, is loaded with various health promoting compounds:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/chocolates-startling-heal_b_825978.html
http://www.livescience.com/6111-sweet-science-health-benefits-chocolate.html
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030827/dark-chocolate-is-healthy-chocolate
I'd use fried foods, soda, etc. as better examples of crap people eat that cause health issues far exceeding anything MJ causes or ever would if legalized. :cool:
Heavy Metal
10-23-11, 11:10
Legalize, tax the shit out of it, and use the taxes to go after the hard stuff like Heroin, Crack and meth.
And no, I never used it. It is a form of smoking and I don't smoke.
Legalize, tax the shit out of it, and use the taxes to go after the hard stuff like Heroin, Crack and meth.
Keep hunting rifles legal, tax the shit out of them and use the taxes to go after the evil black rifles... Neither one of those ideas is compatible with a free Republic.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemoller
If they do legalize pot they should consider a law to restrict users to the far right cruise lane so traffic won't be impeded for miles.
hahahahahahhaha :laugh:
Couldn't agree more
Heavy Metal
10-23-11, 20:20
Keep hunting rifles legal, tax the shit out of them and use the taxes to go after the evil black rifles... Neither one of those ideas is compatible with a free Republic.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemoller
First they came for the Crack Heads and I did not speak out because the Meth Additcts stole the copper wiring that connected my ****ing phone to the world...........
That is a piss-poor analogy on your part. Owning a class of rifle does not mentally-alter the user nor make them ineligable from holding down any worthwile job. You must think people have a constitutionally-protected right to sponge off of public assistance and steal to support their addict lifestyle because that is the only way they can sustain it!. Absent that, there will be the largest epidemic of property theft in American History. These people are leaches and are helping bankrupt the country. What you are proposing is giving the leeches the key to the candy store and **** the consequences for everybody else.
If you can posit an intelligent argument explaining how a hardcore additc can support their addiction without being a public burden and holding down a productive job, then please make it. Otherwise, please write a fat check to the treasury and your local court system so society can support their spongin', thevin' lifestyle and then your rose-colored idealism can work without becomeing a suicide pact for society.
The only possible way you could make what you propose work is to instute capital punishment for what are now minor felonies. The fear of certain death even then would not deter all of them. Hard core additcs get fried every day attempting to steal live high-tension wires. Now imagine what it would be like when those on SS Disability and Welfare get drug tested and kicked-off of benefits.
arizonaranchman
10-23-11, 20:32
Not to be a ball buster, but not a good example. Chocolate, specifically dark chocolate, is loaded with various health promoting compounds:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/chocolates-startling-heal_b_825978.html
http://www.livescience.com/6111-sweet-science-health-benefits-chocolate.html
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030827/dark-chocolate-is-healthy-chocolate
I'd use fried foods, soda, etc. as better examples of crap people eat that cause health issues far exceeding anything MJ causes or ever would if legalized. :cool:
OK Will, being far from a dietition I'll take your word on that example not being the best :)
The point was, make anything illegal and you create an underground criminal organization that will arise to provide it, sometimes one that's murderous and ruthless in it's methods. In making laws you have to also evaluate what the ramifications of that law will create. In the case of MJ, trying to manage/criminalize it isn't worth the problems that have been created.
First they came for the Crack Heads and I did not speak out because the Meth Additcts stole the copper wiring that connected my ****ing phone to the world...........
First off, that shit's straight comedy! Secondly, my main point was "taxing the shit" out of marijuana is completely anti-American from what our country started as, period. Why the **** do people think we fought a revolution and to distance ourself from England? Everybody wants their "sin tax" to be placed on other people for shit that they don't partake in or don't like and it's bullshit.
That is a piss-poor analogy on your part. Owning a class of rifle does not mentally-alter the user nor make them ineligable from holding down any worthwile job. You must think people have a constitutionally-protected right to sponge off of public assistance and steal to support their addict lifestyle because that is the only way they can sustain it!. Absent that, there will be the largest epidemic of property theft in American History. These people are leaches and are helping bankrupt the country. What you are proposing is giving the leeches the key to the candy store and **** the consequences for everybody else.
Using any sort of drug, alcohol included, does not make one ineligible from holding down a "worthwhile job" in any sense of the word. Obviously you don't deal with many upper management, VP's or CEO's otherwise you'd know the vast majority of them are considered alcoholics by definition. "Customer entertainment" is a great excuse to be a functioning alcholic in the business world and is damn near a religion in many different occupations.
I never once even insinuated that I believe people should have a constitutional right to "sponge" or "leech" off of anybody, in fact I believe quite the opposite. Maybe you should try to learn a little more about your American history before you go casting aspersions.
Fact #1 Bayer, the aspirin company, used to sell Heroin over the counter in drug stores, it was marketed as a cough suppressant. As a German company, Bayer was forced to give up the trademark after World War I under the Treaty of Versailles.
Fact #2 Cocaine, first manufactured by Merck, was popular, too. Parke-Davis (which is now a subsidiary of Pfizer) advertised a "cocaine kit" that it promised could "supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent and . . . render the sufferer insensitive to pain." Late-nineteenth century advertisements for "Cocaine Toothache Drops" promised users (including children such as those depicted in the ads) an "instantaneous cure." FYI - Cocaine is a "bad drug" and is also the major ingredient in "crack".
Another popular product, "Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup," contained one grain (65 mg) of morphine per ounce, and was marketed to mothers to quiet restless infants and children. McCormick (the spice company) and others sold "paregoric," a mixture of highly concentrated alcohol with opium, as a treatment for diarrhea, coughs, and pain, with instructions on the bottle for infants, children, and adults. Another medication called laudanum was similar, but with 25 times the opium. Heroin and opium were both marketed as asthma treatments, too. And, of course, cocaine was an ingredient in Coca-Cola from 1886 until 1900.
America did have addicts in the nineteenth century (perhaps as much as 0.5 percent of the population), there are some things it notably did not have. Most important, there was virtually none of the violence, death, and crime we associate with the present-day drug problem. Most drug users were not street criminals; instead, the typical addict was, as author Mike Gray put it, "a middle-aged southern white woman strung out on laudanum." Many or most opium addicts led more or less normal lives and managed to keep their addiction hidden.
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6788/cocainetoothachedrops.jpg
ARE WE NOW A NATION OF ADDICTS?!?!?! Oh no, run and hide, run and hide! People have actually had access to schedule 1 drugs and not gone completely batshit crazy!
If you can posit an intelligent argument explaining how a hardcore additc can support their addiction without being a public burden and holding down a productive job, then please make it. Otherwise, please write a fat check to the treasury and your local court system so society can support their spongin', thevin' lifestyle and then your rose-colored idealism can work without becomeing a suicide pact for society.
The only possible way you could make what you propose work is to instute capital punishment for what are now minor felonies. The fear of certain death even then would not deter all of them. Hard core additcs get fried every day attempting to steal live high-tension wires. Now imagine what it would be like when those on SS Disability and Welfare get drug tested and kicked-off of benefits.
Seriously how many people are "hardcore addicts"? And if you legalized drugs how many would becomes these so called "hardcore addicts"?
This is a great read on the WOD http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf.
According to this report we'd also save $41,000,000,000 a year ending the WOD http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf
I also find it rather humorous that our last 3 presidents are admitted illegal drug users and yet somehow insist that you shouldn't partake in the same activity.
montanadave
10-24-11, 05:57
Paregoric! That brings back some memories or, more accurately, lack thereof.
My mom used to keep a bottle of that shit in the glove box of the car to keep us kids from getting "car sick." On one car trip from Montana to Florida back in the day, right after I asked "How long before we get there" somewhere around Sheridan, Wyoming, my mom told me I looked a little car sick.
I got a few drops of the good 'ole paregoric and woke up in Tallahassee. :lazy2:
The_War_Wagon
10-24-11, 06:51
Dopes for dope. Yee haw. :rolleyes:
OK Will, being far from a dietition I'll take your word on that example not being the best :)
The point was, make anything illegal and you create an underground criminal organization that will arise to provide it, sometimes one that's murderous and ruthless in it's methods. In making laws you have to also evaluate what the ramifications of that law will create. In the case of MJ, trying to manage/criminalize it isn't worth the problems that have been created.
Agreed on that to be sure. Just didn't want you bashing chocolate! :D
I love the stuff...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.