Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[Rocko]

water can trigger a psychotic episode in SOME people.

Wanna start a "war on water"???

That's absurd! Link please?

There's an interesting study on water to come out recently. It was concluded that all people need to drink water to survive. Go figure. The inconvenient truth for some of the potheads here is there is a proven link between psychosis and pot, in particularly regarding people suffering from schizophrenia. Do some research on the subject. As a matter of fact is very possible that pot contributed to the actions of jared loughner and many more like him.

And.. HOW is that "possible"? Explain.

I didn't conjure up the theory myself.

Big Think expert Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, tells us that Loughner may indeed have induced his illusory preoccupations and paranoid thoughts from the marijuana. He says it's true that "among an unknowable subgroup of adolescents, heavy abuse of marijuana will cause a psychotic episode."

Does Marijuana Really Trigger Psychosis? | Think Tank | Big Think

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have never beat my wife or any woman in my life.

Now, your question has been answered, how about answering his....

Maybe if you were not high you would get it


tapatalk post

Being AD i cannot get high on anything - even many leagal substances so do try again.

More importantly, I DO get it. the problem is that you failed because his question was not one that required an admittance to a false premise to answer. That was your assumption with that asinine retort, was it not?

Even then, I can successfully answer the question by dispelling the false premise out the gate. That was extremely easy and also blatantly obvious. YOU would have gotten that if you were intelligent enough to understand why I answered your question in the manner that I did.

Now, back to that point that you keep avoiding....

You've obviously never dropped acid or ate peyote.

 

[Rocko]

It's not just about stabbing sprees, although more incidents would occur if pot was decriminalized/made legal. I personally don't know anyone harmed by schizophrenic, but I'm sure such cases exist.

But stabbing sprees were your main example up to this point. At least you agree that it's a non-issue (because neither you nor I, nor anyone I know has ever heard of this occurring, lol). We're getting somewhere..

I never said it's a non issue. I don't know where you got that from. The fact is Pot makes mentally unstable people more dangerous to society. It is a big issue in that regard.

What about the burden on society from all the pot related car accidents? Don't you think legalizing pot lead to more of them?

If the # of accidents is to be our criteria on whether or not a substance should be illegal, are you willing to prohibit alcohol as well given that it is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - far more than marijuana - each year from people behind the wheel?

If you're consistent, I can respect that

.

The whole point of smoking weed is to get high. A person can drink alcohol responsibly. It is true that there are a significant amount of alcohol and pot related automobile deaths. So is your plan to make things worse by legalizing weed and having more people drive stoned.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

With that said, I can't speak for everyone but I think the drug can be beneficial if you use it correctly. You've got to realize that a lot of people who smoke and are successful use the drug somewhat covertly - in the comfort of their home - and (wisely) do not advertise it due to many of the negative stigmas hanging out there right now. I think that's an important thing to remember.

I agree.

Saying "Pot-smokers I've known . . ." is comparable to saying "Booze-drinkers I've known. . . ." There is a distinctly negative implication in either example.

There really is no reason why anyone other than close friends and those who share common social attitudes and habits should be acquainted with one's private recreational preferences. It follows that anyone who is known to be either a "pot-smoker" or a "booze-drinker" clearly has a problem.

 

[KevinWestern]

The whole point of smoking weed is to get high. A person can drink alcohol responsibly. It is true that there are a significant amount of alcohol and pot related automobile deaths. So is your plan to make things worse by legalizing weed and having more people drive stoned.

The whole point of drinking is to get buzzed/loosened up/drunk Rocko. They're one in the same. Do you think people actually like the taste of miller lite? It's like a crappier version of water that's 400x more expensive.

Also, you do realize there's a difference (especially when we're talking about a veteran smoker w/a tolerance) from a hit vs. smoking 10 hits? THC is a substance just like alcohol and can be regulated through "doses", and people can chose to smoke less (just like drink less) if they don't want the drug to interfere with their daily activities/obligations.

Secondly, my plan is to force you to be consistent with your reasoning. If product A is exactly the same as product B when it comes to significant comparison points, it's irrational to make one illegal and not the other. "Law" shouldn't be a "pick and choose", arbitrary engagement; it should solid, concrete, and rational.


.

 

[KNB]

The whole point of smoking weed is to get high. A person can drink alcohol responsibly. It is true that there are a significant amount of alcohol and pot related automobile deaths. So is your plan to make things worse by legalizing weed and having more people drive stoned.

Conservatives need to stop with that argument. People drive high all the time. Right now. Right this very moment, in every state. Is it wise to do so? Hell no. Do people do it anyway? Yes, but it doesn't mean that they're going to kill anyone, the same with alcohol. For every drunk driver that gets caught, there are hundreds more who don't because they don't get in crashes or speed or swerve or do anything reckless. We don't make alcohol illegal because drunk drivers kill people. Instead, we make drunk driving illegal. Do people still do it? Yes. Are you going to outlaw alcohol? No.

So why is marijuana illegal but alcohol is not?

 

[KevinWestern]

The whole point of smoking weed is to get high. A person can drink alcohol responsibly. It is true that there are a significant amount of alcohol and pot related automobile deaths. So is your plan to make things worse by legalizing weed and having more people drive stoned.

Conservatives need to stop with that argument. People drive high all the time. Right now. Right this very moment, in every state. Is it wise to do so? Hell no. Do people do it anyway? Yes, but it doesn't mean that they're going to kill anyone, the same with alcohol. For every drunk driver that gets caught, there are hundreds more who don't because they don't get in crashes or speed or swerve or do anything reckless. We don't make alcohol illegal because drunk drivers kill people. Instead, we make drunk driving illegal. Do people still do it? Yes. Are you going to outlaw alcohol? No.

So why is marijuana illegal but alcohol is not?

And here's the other thing..

Drunk driving is illegal! So is stabbing someone while drunk, or bashing in a guy's head in a bar when you've just polished off 5 martinis. We have laws saying "those things are illegal"!

The act of drinking alcohol, or smoking marijuana in it of itself should not be illegal. For the people who can't control themselves, they'll get arrested. But for the GREAT MAJORITY - the rest of us - we should not be penalized.

 

[KNB]

This debate was supposed to be settled in 1972. The Nixon administration appointed a special committee to review the available research on Cannabis and give credence to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which classified Cannabis as a Schedule 1 "dangerous" narcotic without medical use. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that the penalties for marijuana law violations far outweighed the harm caused to society by the use of marijuana.

The 1972 Shafer Commission advised the United States government to decriminalize marijuana.

That's when the War on Drugs started.

This is our chance:
Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This bill needs to be supported. A new National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse will come to the same conclusion- decriminalize Cannabis Sativa.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think there is an argument that it can be psychologically addictive to some people, is there?

Pogo, to whom my response was directed at made the comment that pot wasn't addictive. I simply showed that some people disagreed with his opinion. People that probably know a little more about it than he does.

But there is a big difference between a physical drug addiction, like to heroin or alcohol and a psychological one.

I think the conflict is partially because if the addiction/effects are in the BRAIN
then it is both psychological AND physical in terms of brain chemicals.

So it is harder to distinguish, and gets counted as both physical and psychological.

I don't think this can be resolved, but just agree there is an addiction risk or factor
whether people may view it more as psychological or physical, or technically both.

Either way, I don't see how ANYONE can argue against "NOT SMOKING
or ingesting it at all" posing LESS risk of addiction on ANY level.

Arguing about degrees of addiction in comparison with other drugs
still doesn't change the fact that "taking no drugs at all" poses no risk of addiction.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not just about stabbing sprees, although more incidents would occur if pot was decriminalized/made legal. I personally don't know anyone harmed by schizophrenic, but I'm sure such cases exist.

But stabbing sprees were your main example up to this point. At least you agree that it's a non-issue (because neither you nor I, nor anyone I know has ever heard of this occurring, lol). We're getting somewhere..

What about the burden on society from all the pot related car accidents? Don't you think legalizing pot lead to more of them?

If the # of accidents is to be our criteria on whether or not a substance should be illegal, are you willing to prohibit alcohol as well given that it is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - far more than marijuana - each year from people behind the wheel?

If you're consistent, I can respect that.

Not necessarily "banning alcohol," but first effectively addressing the issues of drug related violence, crime or driving dangers BEFORE opening up avenues to any further drug access.

Why not solve public health and safety issues with abuse and addiction first? Wouldn't that make for a safer and more supportive environment for any related substance issue?

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not just about stabbing sprees, although more incidents would occur if pot was decriminalized/made legal. I personally don't know anyone harmed by schizophrenic, but I'm sure such cases exist.

But stabbing sprees were your main example up to this point. At least you agree that it's a non-issue (because neither you nor I, nor anyone I know has ever heard of this occurring, lol). We're getting somewhere..

What about the burden on society from all the pot related car accidents? Don't you think legalizing pot lead to more of them?

If the # of accidents is to be our criteria on whether or not a substance should be illegal, are you willing to prohibit alcohol as well given that it is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - far more than marijuana - each year from people behind the wheel?

If you're consistent, I can respect that.

Not necessarily "banning alcohol," but first effectively addressing the issues of drug related violence, crime or driving dangers BEFORE opening up avenues to any further drug access.

Why not solve public health and safety issues with abuse and addiction first? Wouldn't that make for a safer and more supportive environment for any related substance issue?

Of course I believe in good-willed efforts to provide meaningful counseling/help to those addicted, but don't think we need to do that first before making marijuana legal.

Why? Because marijuana is already smoked everywhere by everyone. You mention "introducing a drug", but I think it's already been well introduced by now, lol. America is MARRIED to marijuana in fact. For a minor, it's easier to get your hands on a joint vs. a beer because the "gatekeepers" of pot don't check for ID.

See, I think prohibition is doing so much harm to our society* that we need to absolutely, without a doubt, legalize it as soon as possible. That's my stance.



*Harm = millions jailed for smoking a non-toxic plant (what happens to your family when your dad's in prison?), $40 billion wasted law enforcement dollars, hundreds of millions in tax dollars lost, billions of dollars lost that could otherwise be a thriving industry.

 

[MikeK]

I think the conflict is partially because if the addiction/effects are in the BRAIN then it is both psychological AND physical in terms of brain chemicals.

THC does impart an effect on brain chemistry but the effect is transitory. The condition known as addiction exists when the effect of a substance on brain chemistry is lasting and produces a dependence on that substance to maintain normal neurological functioning.

THC does not impart a lasting effect on brain chemistry. Thus marijuana is not addictive. If a compulsive craving for marijuana exists it is analogous to the craving for such things as chocolate and occurs as a component of the purely psychoological condition known to behaviorists as Addictive Personality Syndrome. (Search Google re: "addictive personality" for thorough examination of this condition.)

 

[Rocko]

I think the conflict is partially because if the addiction/effects are in the BRAIN then it is both psychological AND physical in terms of brain chemicals.

THC does impart an effect on brain chemistry but the effect is transitory. The condition known as addiction exists when the effect of a substance on brain chemistry is lasting and produces a dependence on that substance to maintain normal neurological functioning.

THC does not impart a lasting effect on brain chemistry. Thus marijuana is not addictive. If a compulsive craving for marijuana exists it is analogous to the craving for such things as chocolate and occurs as a component of the purely psychoological condition known to behaviorists as Addictive Personality Syndrome. (Search Google re: "addictive personality" for thorough examination of this condition.)

Give me a break!

People get addicted to the high marijuana gives you. It may not be psychically addictive, but it is an addictive substance nonetheless. Case closed.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course pot is addictive! If it wasn't people wouldn't be smoking it all their fucking lives! I can't believe people don't see this. Maybe if you all put down the bong you will be able to think.

Are salt and pepper addictive? Is sugar addictive? Are milk and butter addictive?

Also, smoking marijuana is not the only way to enjoy it, nor is the best way. And if marijuana is legalized you will soon see plentiful evidence of that. Ingesting THC via the digestive system rather than via the lungs produces a less intense but more euphoric and much longer-lasting effect.

Edible marijuana products are presently available everywhere they are legal, such as medical marijuana dispensaries. In fact, if marijuana were legal smoking it would eventually be the least common means of enjoying it.

You should know that humans are not the only animals who enjoy the effects of marijuana. Here is just one example: How do i protect my outdoor grow from deer?

THC must be dried first before it becomes psychoactive. The deer will still chomp down on a grow but it's because they like the plant, not that they get high from it. Same goes for humans.

Hint: If your making butter make sure your buds are crispy dry before hand

 

[ABikerSailor]

The War on Drugs is an effort by Neocons and Progressives to keep as many black people in jail as possible, denying their ability to vote and bear firearms.

Uhh.... yyyeaah, sure. That's why it was started by that Neocon "Progressive", Richard Nixon.

So you're saying only black people use drugs?

Wacko.

Actually, the war on drugs was started back in 1939 by some FBI agent named Anslinger who was looking for a way to put all the brown and black people in jail. He noticed that the main consumers of cannabis were Hispanics and Afro Americans, and so he lobbied to get marijuana to be classified as a banned substance.

He also teamed up with Dow and Hearst, because Hearst had a vested interest in making paper from trees (cannabis can be made into paper and it's cheaper), and Dow was interested in selling their oil and didn't want hemp to be made into oil.

Originally, the reason was made illegal was because it was an easy way to lock up the non-whites.

Add to the hysteria that was generated by the movie "Reefer Madness" (which shows zero truthful effects of cannabis), that was specifically commissioned by Anslinger, who asked Hollyweird to make it as scary as possible.

Incidentally, marijuana is STILL considered to be a Schedule I substance, which means that it has no medical benefit and is considered to be highly addictive. Given the amount of research that has been done since the 60's on this particular substance, it has been proven to be non addictive, as well as has been proven to have a medical benefit, which is why over 25 states currently provide for medical marijuana use.

We could fix this whole debate over pot if they would simply take it off Schedule I and move it down to Schedule III or IV.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think the conflict is partially because if the addiction/effects are in the BRAIN then it is both psychological AND physical in terms of brain chemicals.

THC does impart an effect on brain chemistry but the effect is transitory. The condition known as addiction exists when the effect of a substance on brain chemistry is lasting and produces a dependence on that substance to maintain normal neurological functioning.

THC does not impart a lasting effect on brain chemistry. Thus marijuana is not addictive. If a compulsive craving for marijuana exists it is analogous to the craving for such things as chocolate and occurs as a component of the purely psychoological condition known to behaviorists as Addictive Personality Syndrome. (Search Google re: "addictive personality" for thorough examination of this condition.)

Give me a break!

People get addicted to the high marijuana gives you. It may not be psychically addictive, but it is an addictive substance nonetheless. Case closed.

By that logic, shopping, gambling and co-dependent relationships aren't physically addictive, but people do get psychologically addicted to the high those activities generate.

Should we ban shopping, gambling, and co-dependency as well?

 

[MikeK]

The whole point of smoking weed is to get high.

to say the whole point of using marijuana is to get "high" is technically erroneous and imparts a negative impression.

Marijuana is not a stimulant, so it doesn't make one "high." Marijuana is a tranquilizer, which causes euphoric relaxation, which is a desirable, non-frivolous effect. Overdoing this effect produces the condition commonly known as being "stoned," or "baked."

A person can drink alcohol responsibly. It is true that there are a significant amount of alcohol and pot related automobile deaths. So is your plan to make things worse by legalizing weed and having more people drive stoned.

If marijuana is legalized are you going to run right out, buy some, smoke it, and get behind the wheel? Or do you think most others will?

Some will. But this inclination can be effectively limited with public education, which is the way cigarette smoking was substantially reduced without effecting a single arrest.

The way to solve all the problems presently associated with marijuana is to start telling the truth about it and educating the public with the facts.

 

[KevinWestern]

Give me a break!

People get addicted to the high marijuana gives you. It may not be psychically addictive, but it is an addictive substance nonetheless. Case closed.

In what way – though – is this relevant to the conversation at hand? Tens of thousands of legal ingestible/digestible products can be considered “mentally addictive”, including Oreos. Addictiveness is not the prime criteria for prohibiting something and being forced to spend $40 billion/year policing it, and much more paying for 24/7 costs for millions of prisoners in jail for non-violent drug offenses.

Here’s my stance Rocko – prohibition doesn’t work. It’s certainly not discouraging anyone from using the drug given the frequency and sheer popularity of pot in the US today. So I say lets regulate it so that the people selling it are forced to check ID, forced to make sure that there were no harmful pesticides used, etc because currently the “gatekeepers/sellers” of pot do not check IDs. It’s easier for a kid in high school to get his hand on a joint vs a beer for this reason.

Lets approach this with consistency, common sense, and reason.



.

 

[MikeK]

THC must be dried first before it becomes psychoactive. The deer will still chomp down on a grow but it's because they like the plant, not that they get high from it. Same goes for humans.

Hint: If your making butter make sure your buds are crispy dry before hand

The voice of experience! And you are quite right.

It's been a very long time since I've cooked any butter. Back then it was possible to do because of decrim in New York City made it affordable (and we made a superb carrot cake). But based on current prices I've been hearing about unless one is a grower, or a millionaire, cooking a batch of butter is out of the question.

I'm anxious to learn about developments in Colorado, mainly in the shops. I expect by next Christmas we'll be seeing news reports of available baked goods

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course I believe in good-willed efforts to provide meaningful counseling/help to those addicted, but don't think we need to do that first before making marijuana legal.

Why? Because marijuana is already smoked everywhere by everyone. You mention "introducing a drug", but I think it's already been well introduced by now, lol. America is MARRIED to marijuana in fact. For a minor, it's easier to get your hands on a joint vs. a beer because the "gatekeepers" of pot don't check for ID.

See, I think prohibition is doing so much harm to our society* that we need to absolutely, without a doubt, legalize it as soon as possible. That's my stance.

1. I don't mean "introducing" in that sense, I mean in making "more drugs legally accessible" without first setting up agreed regulations or standards.

The real question I ask is: what does it take to resolve the objections or opposition
so a consensus on policy can be reached, especially if changes or reforms are to be made.

Even the issue of whether there are addictions or dangers specific to MJ" comes up, that IS an issue obstructing the process of reform. It could be true, false, whatever; but if this issue needs to be resolved to settle the PERCEPTION of public safety, health, security and faith in govt and law enforcement, then it IS an issue. Even if it is solely "perceptual."

I agree, this is on its face "unfair" for legalization of pot to be put through tests or require proof not imposed on other cases; that is why I see similarity with why Muslims are put to a different level of tests or proof that they aren't enabling religious abuse.

Sure, I recognize that biases or conditions I have or others seem unfair to others; the same when I propose reforms to Muslims who ask "why do they have to change things before other people change their perceptions." I'm just trying to help solve the problems, in whatever way works.

As for my biases, I just ask that I am not required to pay for policies, responsibilities or consequences of policies that I don't agree to; I want the right to fund the systems of my choice, and I ask other people to take financial responsibility for theirs.

It's clear that many people like you do NOT agree to pay for the kind of disasters going on with drug enforcement policies; but as with the ACA mandates, we don't all agree what to replace the policies with. So we are stuck with them. I agree it's not fair, but it's reality. It's not fair with ACA, or with Roe v. Wade either, where the burden of proof has been put on prolife people to prove their arguments first.

My goal is to help get to "points of agreement" on which reforms we all want passed.
and if there are arguments that are "making matters worse" (such as denying issues with MJ addiction or dangers, I will urge to refocus our approach so this doesn't increase opposition).

2. technically no, it is a matter of bias to impose conditions on regulations on some things more than others, as some people are biased more against abortion than against guns, etc.
Again, in reality, this is happening across the board. To the people imposed upon, no it isn't fair, so what does it take to resolve the conflicts as soon as possible?

[I found out a friend is equally biased against spiritual healing as a cure for abuse, because he is afraid THAT will be abused to cause more harm than good! Even though I don't believe "medical proof" should be required to justify beliefs in spiritual healing or prolife beliefs that life begins at conception, in reality, public proof is needed to resolve the conflicts. So even though it isn't "technically fair" to put conditions or burdens on ONE side of the arguments BEFORE changing law, that's what is happening in these different cases.]

So in reality, in studying the political culture, and why the conflicts aren't being resolved,
I believe it would help remove opposition to legalization by focusing on this issue
as a key reason for objections, instead of skirting it.

KW at least from my experiences, if you skirt someone's concerns as a nonissue,
you can expect the same reaction from them. In Texas with issues like the death penalty or drug laws, if you downplay the issue of crime or abuse, you tend to lose the audience.

The Green Mayoral candidate for Houston can show stats day and night, that violent crime is down and not as pressing a threat as X Y Z; but people's fear of crime and drug activity is going to override that. They will not even consider a mayor who doesn't appear to take crime seriously as a concern, regardless what stats you cite. So maybe I just come from a different background, where I am used to having to address this to get anywhere with ppl!

Given the different approaches, attitudes and issues of just the people posting here,
I am very hopeful the insights shared will make us all more effective in shaping reforms.

Thanks to you and everyone again.

I generally agree "1000%" with the other posters here who take issue with the "denial of dangers or addictions" of MJ that seem to promote or encourage use. Regardless if this is myth or emotional, it hurts the argument and movement to reinforce the perception that people don't care about consequences it may have on society that "aren't proven."

I have a personal bias against promoting hallucinogens for "insights or enlightenment"
because I believe that natural methods of meditation on resolving inner and outer conflicts are superior, and produce insights that can be shared and replicated without drug use.
To open one's mind because of conscious choices made without relying on intoxicants or manipulation is more natural, and creates permanent change, so I prefer to study and prove how those methods work that do not "introduce risks" of side effects or damage.

I think Leary even tested LSD on Buddhist monks and found they were already more open minded, and only reported "getting headaches" from taking much stronger hits than average people could tolerate.

That is my own bias. I believe if people really cared about insights, relaxation, healing and other benefits attributed to pot, they would equally consider methods that offer least risk.

*Harm = millions jailed for smoking a non-toxic plant (what happens to your family when your dad's in prison?), $40 billion wasted law enforcement dollars, hundreds of millions in tax dollars lost, billions of dollars lost that could otherwise be a thriving industry. [/SIZE]

wouldn't we save even MORE dollars wasted on prisons, medications and health care "after damage is already done"
by investing instead in prevention and correction of abuses period.

KW you could make a lot of money with drugs, but what about treating the effects caused by abusing them? If you even look like you are ignoring that side as an issue important to people, why would anyone listen to you if they think you don't care for "unproven" consequences but just want to make money by selling drugs?

Would you win anyone over for legalizing prostitution by pointing out "how much money could be saved or made," if their concern was against making it easier to exploit women for money?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. And given enough time, we old folks who were brought up old fashioned will die out, and the next generations who don't worry about "old fogey stuff like we do" can just take over and run things any which way. Maybe it's just a matter of time, and there won't BE anyone left to have these arguments with. We'll be out the way of the dinosaurs! if the drug wars don't kill us all first.