Originally Posted By jonvn "My personal stance: neither marijuana nor tobacco nor alcohol should be consumed on a regular basis by anyone" Is a constant basis ok? "Studies can be interpreted to show that if Marijuana is legal it becomes no more of a gateway drug than tobacco or alcohol." You realize this is completely false, right? The biggest gateway drug is tobacco. Most people in this country have at least tried marijuana. Most people in this country are not gutter dwelling addicts.
Originally Posted By jonvn You need to be able to give people what they need to feel better. That's all there is to it. Has anyone seen this story? <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,300661,00.html The doctors had to give this guy 3 drinks of vodka an hour for 3 days straight in order to save his life. Oh, but alcohol is a bad thing, so we should have let him die? Of course not. If people's suffering can be alleviated with marijuana, or any other thing, then it should be employed. People who want to withold known aids to people who are sick because they have some moral issue with it are acting in an evil manner.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If people's suffering can be alleviated with marijuana, or any other thing, then it should be employed. People who want to withold known aids to people who are sick because they have some moral issue with it are acting in an evil manner.<< I agree. Most of the time, we are talking about people that have either lifelong pain, or people who are nearing the end of their life. This isn't people partying -- it's medicine.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Studies can be interpreted to show that if Marijuana is legal it becomes no more of a gateway drug than tobacco or alcohol." "You realize this is completely false, right? The biggest gateway drug is tobacco. Most people in this country have at least tried marijuana. Most people in this country are not gutter dwelling addicts." Actually, jon, that IS what MrsElderP is saying - that marijuana is NO more of a gateway drug than tobacco or alcohol. Her post was basically saying that it's not good to smoke it all the time, but she would NOT vote against legalization. As 2oony said, in the cases we're talking about it's not a party drug - it's medication and there's no good reason to deny it to severely ill people.
Originally Posted By Mr X **So, the doctor prescibes THC, in a pill form, which works just fine. Neither the pill for anti-nausa or the pill for pain messes up your lungs!** MrsP, synthetic pills are NOT as effective, and as you could see in the video that guys body rejected them anyway...that is the case for some people. Also, I agree marijuana is bad for your lungs but a) someone who is wasting away to near death might not care and b) it can also be consumed. So, for example, one dosage could be to smoke only a small amount until you are less nauseous, and then eat some (it can be cooked into deserts, but also eggs and pretty much anything else that is cooked with butter, which releases the THC), er...or so I've heard.
Originally Posted By Mr X **If people's suffering can be alleviated with marijuana, or any other thing, then it should be employed. People who want to withold known aids to people who are sick because they have some moral issue with it are acting in an evil manner.** Is there an echo in here? Anyway, kudos. I agree completely! **Actually, jon, that IS what MrsElderP is saying - that marijuana is NO more of a gateway drug than tobacco or alcohol.** I think Jon's point was that it is much LESS of a gateway drug than cigarettes. I've not seen any stats, but I'd certainly say that things are different today compared to before when that "gateway drug" concept was first floated...it very well may have been true when pot was a totally subculture thing and NO "regular" people had even seen it or even heard much about it...that's simply not the case these days.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Actually, jon, that IS what MrsElderP is saying" Well, the thing is that tobacco is the gateway drug. I never smoked tobacco, and really, didn't even do any other smoking either. Of course, this does not mean I don't mainline heroin, but that's another story. So I agree it can never be more of a gateway drug than tobacco or alcohol. But far more people started their drug taking with tobacco than they did with marijuana. In fact, I doubt anyone started smoking marijuana without first at least trying tobacco. But... It's all such a pile. Who cares. People are sick. Give them whatever they want.
Originally Posted By Mr X **In fact, I doubt anyone started smoking marijuana without first at least trying tobacco.** Wrong on that one.
Originally Posted By barboy If I had unchecked or absolute power I would have a bowl ready for partaking and a full bar at every entrance to all Disney and Universal attractions around the world.
Originally Posted By Mr X **If I had unchecked or absolute power I would have a bowl ready for partaking and a full bar at every entrance to all Disney and Universal attractions around the world.** Keep that garbage at Universal where it belongs! **Really. I'm surprised.** Well, I'm not saying the majority is that way, but I know some people that smoked pot before trying cigarettes. The simple fact is pot is easier to come by for people under 18. I even know a few people who have NEVER smoked cigarettes but smoke pot occasionally. Of course, my world is a little skewed coming from entertainment. I know a couple of trumpet players that would never so much as LOOK at a pack of cigs...but do indulge in other things.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The simple fact is pot is easier to come by for people under 18." Must be true now than when I was under 18, when they had first discovered tobacco. You could get it out of vending machines for 35 cents a pack. Gotta love the war on drugs.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I can a agree that while I have no hard evidence that tobacco does seem to be more of a gateway drug than Marijuana. I vaugly recall, but will bow to someone's concrete study, that here in the US where marijuana is illegal that kids are statistically more likely to go on to harder drugs after using pot. (Not all of them or even most of them, just that a teenage pot smoker has better odds of eventually doing heroin that a teenage tobacco smoker) However, and this is more of my vauge reccolection, in countries where marijuana is legal the pot smokers are no more likely to go on to hard drugs than the tobacco smokers. It doesn't seem to be the high or the buzz or what ever that convinces a few of them to move on, it's the crossing the legal/illegal line and getting away with it. Like I said, this is what I seem to remember, but I could be refuted with harder evidence than my vauge recollections.
Originally Posted By Mr X Sure, Mrs P...that makes perfect sense. Someone who is willing to try something "illegal" is likely more of a rebel/risk taker and so if they try one maybe they'll try em all. On the other hand, if it's legal it's just kinda "there"..perhaps folks who would NOT try something illegal ever, but don't mind trying something if it is, might try it. Just like there were far fewer drinkers during prohibition...not EVERYONE was willing to risk breaking the law for a beer.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Although I truly believe a lot of the above...1/ tobacco is the largest and first gateway ( usually ) - 2/ marijuana is a bigger gateway to harder drugs, because those who take that step likely have little issue with taking another. -- I have never been for the legalization of marijuana because quite frankly, too many people act stupid enough today when drunk - why give them another avenue to be stupid, or mix and be even stupider. But lately the main reason I might support is the justice system in this country is so bogged down with people, there is no way it can function the way it is supposed to on anything resembling a timely basis. Also we are making extremely rich people out of drug dealers - and see nothing back for it. Legalize it - tax the crap out of it - and control it. There is likely a period of time that things will get out of control because some who would not try it because it was illegal will - and some will screw up big time. But eventually that should balance out -- as has been said here and in many places is likely true - it is harder to get a cigarette today than grass - so let's control the stuff- use the tax revenue for real drug education, and hope people get smarter as we go along and realize consequences are there for anything you do - legal or illegal. My one concern is this: how many people who smoke pot today, ONLY smoke pot and do no other illegal drugs? That is the key %. If that percentage is decent the drug traffic and associated crime will be controlled much better than today. HOWEVER, if that % is low- then we are fixing one problem just to bring another to the forefront. The drug dealers will not be happy about losing the pot market and will push even harder at the next tier. What happens then ? Do we legalize everything ? I think the research needs to be done on that pot only % and then make a decision --
Originally Posted By DAR <<I have never been for the legalization of marijuana because quite frankly, too many people act stupid enough today when drunk - why give them another avenue to be stupid, or mix and be even stupider.>> And most in this country don't need chemical help to be stupid either. Of course if pot is ever legalized then Dylan's Rainy Day Women could be the National Anthem.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, VBDad, there will always be a percentage of people that ruin their lives, their familes, and their health with drugs. In fact, they can do it very effectively and legally using the drug called alcohol. To be completely frank, alcohol is WORSE than cocaine and heroin combined (I haven't even mentioned grass). That's my personal opinion, and I have valid reasons for believing so. Having said that, I'll say that ALL drugs are "bad" (of course) if misused. Obviously, as people have mentioned, there is a market for percocettes and vicodine and all those other "super painkiller" stuff too, which gets you a lot higher than pot or a beer... That's simply not the issue here though...the issue is WE HAVE MEDICINE AVAILABLE, in fact the ONLY medicine, THAT HELPS PEOPLE FEEL BETTER AND EVEN PREVENTS THEIR DEATH. And that's the part I really, really resent. I couldn't care less if they legalize dope for recreation or don't...there are plenty of bars to provide legal, dangerous drugs, not to mention supermarkets to provide even stupider, dangerous drugs. Keeping marijuana away from people that really need it, though, REALLY need it (life or death here!), is sick, stupid, EVIL political pandering. And I hold those scumbags (LIKE this Mitt jackass) personally responsible for it!
Originally Posted By DAR So we rag on politicians because of there ever changing stances on the issues. Yet one holds true to his beliefs and he still gets lambasted for it. I'm not saying he's right but I'll respect someone who stays consistent in what he or she believes.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So we rag on politicians because of there ever changing stances on the issues. Yet one holds true to his beliefs and he still gets lambasted for it. I'm not saying he's right but I'll respect someone who stays consistent in what he or she believes.<< But Mitt didn't do that. It was quite clear from the article that he didn't answer the question. The person who asked the question asked if he should be jailed for using medical marijuana. Mitt gave a politicians response - that he didn't believe in legalizing medical marijuana, then tried to walk away. Obviously the questioner wasn't satisfied, otherwise he wouldn't have asked Mitt to answer his question. Mitt then said he felt like he had, reiterated that he wasn't for the legalization of it, then went on his way. Someone said earlier that the questioner may not have liked the answer, but that Mitt did answer it. No, he didn't. You could make that argument if Mitt had said, "Yes, I do think you should be jailed for using marijuana for medicinal purposes." Certainly the questioner wouldn't have liked the answer, but at least Mitt would have given him one. But he didn't. Sure, you can infer that Mitt thought he should be jailed for using marijuana for medicinal purposes, but he didn't answer the question. It'd be like me asking "DAR, do you want steak for dinner?" and then you responding, "I don't like to eat at Black Angus." I might be able to infer what you mean, but you didn't answer my question. Perhaps a lot of people don't agree with medical marijuana, but also don't think a terminal cancer patient who uses it should be tossed in jail for it, either. Mitt gave a wussy response, and it sounds like from the article that he was uncomfortable discussing it so he walked away.
