Archive

Marijuana: By the numbers

  • SQ_Crazies
    Synthetic THC is not more effective than marijuana.
  • justincredible
    It shouldn't have to "do something" in order to justify its legalization.
  • SQ_Crazies
    http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6635
  • SQ_Crazies
    Glory Days wrote: marijuana isnt some wonder drug.
    You're right, but no one can deny that it has medical benefits. But none of that should matter.

    It's a fucking PLANT that you could find growing in your woods, but you can't pick it and smoke it. 95% of the users are using it for the same reason people are drinking alcohol. It's not some devil drug either..
  • Fab1b
    Exactly SQ!!
  • Bigred1995
    justincredible wrote:
    Glory Days wrote: so why not cocaine, heroin, meth....
    They should be legalized as well.
    ^^^This!!!

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

    why do we need the government telling us what we can and can't put into our bodies? If were, going to go down that road, why don't we let the government tell us how much exercise each day we should get, how much fat, sugar, salt, etc, etc,etc we can consume each day?

    Oh and the question about regulation is a joke. They'd regulate it the same way the regulate everything else; if you have the ability and time to grow mass quantities, then you apply for a licence just like you would for alcohol. And for the small time users that would like to grow their own, then they'd only be allowed to grow a certain amount within a certain time frame just as I can only brew so much beer for my own consumption!
    Costs to Taxpayers
    A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).[45][46] Recent surveys help to confirm the consensus among economists to reform drug policy in the direction of decriminalization and legalization.[47]


    .
    [45] Bernd Debusmann (2008-12-03). "Einstein, insanity and the war on drugs". Reuters.
    [46] Dan Rodricks (2008-12-02). "Legalizing drugs: The money argument". Baltimore Sun.
    [47] Thornton, Mark. "Prohibition vs. Legalization: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy?" (April 2004)
  • Bigdogg
    Glory Days wrote:
    Bigdogg wrote:
    Glory Days wrote:
    Bigdogg wrote:
    Glory Days wrote:
    krazie45 wrote:
    Glory Days wrote: so why not cocaine, heroin, meth....
    Because those are not comparable. Those are drugs that

    1. Are physically addictive(so is alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine)
    2. Are harmful to the body no matter how taken (according to some on here, everything we put in our body is)
    3. Are not natural substances (cocaine and opium come from plants)
    4. Are far behind marijuana in usage in the world (where is marijuana in relation to alcohol and cigs?)
    5. Cannot be used for other purposes such as rope, clothing, shampoos, paper, etc. (what can tobacco be used for?)
    6. Have no medicinal value (refer to my last post)
    7. Are HARD drugs.(well....thats just your opinion...man haha)

    Should I go on? The reaching continues lol
    kinda hypocritical if you ask me.
    Glory,
    I hope you never get cancer, but if you do you will be begging to get a little relief from the chemotherapy and the best thing you get do is fire one up.
    actually its not the best thing you can do, do some research. and even IF i did marijuana, "lighting it up" is the least effective way to do it.
    Unfortunately plenty of people I know including Doctors have done the research, you my friend our too closed minded. Let me know how things work out for you if you do ever get into that situation. It is evident that nothing can change your mind (yet) so why do you have such a big problem with others who have a different opinion?
    i have already shown before in these threads there are snythetic THC drugs that are more effective than marijuana. smoking it is ineffective and you cant control doseage. even the AMA is on the fence saying more studies need to be done to support medical use and that if used, it should not be smoked. and changing my mind? let me know when marijuana actually does something. marijuana isnt some wonder drug.
    Did not say smoking would be my preferred way. Here is some things that won't change your closed mind either, but maybe other people would be interested in.

    http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383
  • tcarrier32
    you've really got to stop posting all of those informative and scientifically proven articles... some posters head might explode from being overwhelmed by the truth.
  • Glory Days
    haha ok you got me, but hey, atleast use a better source than NORML. i got bashed earlier for using .gov sources.
  • Bigdogg
    Glory Days wrote: haha ok you got me, but hey, atleast use a better source than NORML. i got bashed earlier for using .gov sources.
    Thanks for confirming my thoughts about you. Its on NORMAL's website, the articles cited are not. They are from :

    National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
    Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997
    The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.
    National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine
    Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.
    Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
    Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307-322.
    The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
    California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977.
    British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.
    New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
    Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.
    Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
    Science 278: 47-52.
    From Prohibition to Human Right. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany. 227-242.
    University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. 248-253.
    Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 48.
  • Glory Days
    Bigdogg wrote:
    Glory Days wrote: haha ok you got me, but hey, atleast use a better source than NORML. i got bashed earlier for using .gov sources.
    Thanks for confirming my thoughts about you. Its on NORMAL website, the articles cited are not.

    yeah and the .gov sites i used also sourced from other places.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Glory Days wrote: haha ok you got me, but hey, atleast use a better source than NORML. i got bashed earlier for using .gov sources.
    LOL, not my fault you're fucking retarded enough to trust the government. This propaganda machine has been running for years, if you're too blind to see it then that isn't my fault, nor the fault of anyone else here.

    Although I suppose now you'll say that marijuana has made me a paranoid citizen that doesn't trust the government...
  • Glory Days
    SQ_Crazies wrote:
    Glory Days wrote: haha ok you got me, but hey, atleast use a better source than NORML. i got bashed earlier for using .gov sources.
    LOL, not my fault you're fucking retarded enough to trust the government. This propaganda machine has been running for years, if you're too blind to see it then that isn't my fault, nor the fault of anyone else here.

    Although I suppose now you'll say that marijuana has made me a paranoid citizen that doesn't trust the government...
    no i am not that crazy and not all doctors are onboard with medical marijuana yet. but SMOKING marijuana is still ineffective. vaporizing is what doctors approve. yet you still see people who legally have marijuana smoking it. it cracks me up.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Smoking marijuana is NOT ineffective. If it were ineffective, millions of people wouldn't be doing it. I'm not saying it has no adverse health effects--smoking anything does. But don't relate smoking with marijuana. I know people who use more than most and don't smoke it ever. They eat it. They make weed butter and put it on or in everything. Either way, you're still missing the point of why it's stupid that it's illegal.

    And no shit not all doctors are onboard with it, find me a list of things that ALL doctors are onboard with. It'll be a short fucking list. I'm sure some doctors aren't on board with it because they don't want to lose the business of nut jobs like you who wouldn't want to see them because of their views on pot.
  • Glory Days
    SQ_Crazies wrote: Smoking marijuana is NOT ineffective. If it were ineffective, millions of people wouldn't be doing it.
    its ineffective when used for medicinal purposes. yeah you will get high, but a lot of the chemicals are are destroyed unlike when using a vaporizer.
  • Fab1b
    See but the high they get will ease their pain and increase their appetites so how is smoking not effective even for medical?? Why do you think alot of people prefer to smoke it instead?
  • SQ_Crazies
    Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

    Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.

    If so, my point in asking is because I have and I know plenty of others who agree with me on this. I've smoked weed in just about any way you can imagine, including multiple different kinds of vaporizers. I'm very well read on marijuana, I understand what happens when you burn it, what happens when it's filtered through water, what happens when you vape it.

    --Break for a bong rip.--

    A LOT of people I know get wayyyy higher from smoking a joint or a bowl (lowest amount of THC of any of the typical ways of smoking it) than they do from vaporizing it. And the whole medicinal purpose is to make the person high. If you get high, you'd understand exactly why they give it to cancer patients.

    And once AGAIN, you're missing the entire point of this discussion, it has nothing to do with medicinal use--that's just an added plus for it's cause.
  • I Wear Pants
    I find it hilariously sad that we literally eradicated this plant from the wild because it makes people feel good.
  • SQ_Crazies
    It still grows wild.

    And people have been smoking it in mass amounts for thousands of years.
  • Bigdogg
    SQ_Crazies wrote: It still grows wild.

    And people have been smoking it in mass amounts for thousands of years.
    Ya and all those people are dead;)
  • Glory Days
    SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

    Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.
    no i havent used. if getting high is the whole purpose, why not use cocaine, meth, heroine and other opiates? all of those get you high and can take away the pain(heck, thats where morphine comes from). thats fine if you want to legalize all of them, but to pick and choose in my opinion is not much different than keeping alcohol somewhat legal and marijuana not.
  • SQ_Crazies
    LOL.

    Still missing the point.
  • justincredible
    Glory Days wrote:
    SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

    Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.
    no i havent used. if getting high is the whole purpose, why not use cocaine, meth, heroine and other opiates? all of those get you high and can take away the pain(heck, thats where morphine comes from). thats fine if you want to legalize all of them, but to pick and choose in my opinion is not much different than keeping alcohol somewhat legal and marijuana not.
    This is the point I am trying to make. ALL drugs should be decriminalized, legalized, whatever.
  • wes_mantooth
    ^^^False...me on crack isn't good for anyone.
  • justincredible
    wes_mantooth wrote: ^^^False...me on crack isn't good for anyone.
    It may not be good for you but it doesn't affect me in any way.