Poll of the Day > Marijuana legalization

(+) Yeah! (+)

Should marijuana be legal?

Only medicinally. Such as in an oil or pill form
---

It should be legal. There's no reason for it to be illegal.
---

The benefits of legalization by far outweigh any negatives.

Like it isnt even close.
---

It grows naturally in places. Its a freaking plant. Organic stuff rules. (Plus its fun to actually see a plant thrive when one has been unsuccessful at growing things.)
---

I say make it 100% legal, but with similar restrictions to tobacco/alcohol.

I see peoples lives ruined by alcohol on a daily basis working in a liquor store. If those people were "addicted" to weed their lives would be 1,000% better I feel like.

Safer in nearly every way compared to ethyl alcohol(instead of smoking there are edibles) which is already legal in most places.

So, as somebody who sells a product unquestionably worse than weed I kinda wonder what the big deal is

Should? Eh.
I however don't see the point in it not being. The government could just regulate it like they do with Tobacco and then everyone is happy. I still wouldn't smoke it and would prefer to not be around folk who are stoned though.
---

I'd make it legal medically
make it legal to posses plants
not sell in stores though
same with other drugs
---

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.
---

Mead posted...

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.

inhaling plant matter makes you sick
lighting it on fire damages your organs

it's a vice, harmless compared to other vices, but still a vice
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

Mead posted...

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.

inhaling plant matter makes you sick
lighting it on fire damages your organs

it's a vice, harmless compared to other vices, but still a vice

Lots of alternatives to smoking
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

I'd make it legal medically
make it legal to posses plants
not sell in stores though
same with other drugs

Like alcohol and caffeine and painkillers

MICHALECOLE posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

I'd make it legal medically
make it legal to posses plants
not sell in stores though
same with other drugs

Like alcohol and caffeine and painkillers

yeah, but again you could make em yourself
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

I'd make it legal medically
make it legal to posses plants
not sell in stores though
same with other drugs

Like alcohol and caffeine and painkillers

yeah, but again you could make em yourself

Unlike weed, which can only be produced in nuclear reactor cores
---

AnnoyedCops posted...

It should be legal. There's no reason for it to be illegal.

---

All drugs should be legal. All of them.

Questionmarktarius posted...

All drugs should be legal. All of them.

Even peanut butter?!
---

Mead posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

All drugs should be legal. All of them.

Even peanut butter?!

Hey, what you do with that shit is your own business.

It should be decriminalized and more research should be done on its long-term harmful effects so we can make an actual educated decision on whether or not legalization is a good idea, instead of shooting blind like we're doing right now.
---

darkknight109 posted...

It should be decriminalized and more research should be done on its long-term harmful effects so we can make an actual educated decision on whether or not legalization is a good idea, instead of shooting blind like we're doing right now.

Weed's been researched to death. It's less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs.

CaptainStrong posted...

darkknight109 posted...

It should be decriminalized and more research should be done on its long-term harmful effects so we can make an actual educated decision on whether or not legalization is a good idea, instead of shooting blind like we're doing right now.

Weed's been researched to death. It's less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs.

Alcohol is only legal because most people just ignore the law, and tobacco is on ever increasing restrictions with the clear aim of criminalisation.
---

No people underestimate it's ability to impair you and aren't responsible enough to handle it.

CaptainStrong posted...

Weed's been researched to death.

Not really. Not when we're talking about long term effects. It can't be, because it's an illicit substance.

There is a proven link with schizophrenia. Causation hasn't been proven and likely never will be, but we're still very much in the dark on what the risks are for someone's long term health. There's suspected links to cancer. How bad is it? Unclear - more research required.

CaptainStrong posted...

It's less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs.

And? So what?

This argument is great for anyone arguing that tobacco and alcohol should be illegal, but is absolutely useless for anyone arguing that weed should be legal. It's not like we draw a line in the sand and say, "Everything less dangerous than this is legal, everything more dangerous is illegal" - it doesn't work like that.

Weed is dangerous. We can split hairs over exactly how dangerous it is and talk about its relative risk compared to other substances, but the fact of the matter remains that marijuana, if abused, can cause harm or, indirectly, death. In arguing for legalization, you are arguing for making society less safe overall, because you are talking about legalizing a dangerous substance. Now that's not a dealbreaker - plenty of unsafe substances and activities that carry risks of harm and death are completely legal and uncontroversially so. But if we want to discuss whether the recreational benefits of weed (and, let's be completely honest here, recreational benefits are the sole reason why 95+% of legalization advocates want it legalized) outweigh the potential health risks, we need to properly understand what those risks are. Whether you're for legalization or against it, you should not be in any way against more research so that we can make an informed decision - not unless you are afraid of what will be found out and would prefer people remain ignorant (and there are people like that on both sides of the argument).
---

dedbus posted...

No people underestimate it's ability to impair you and aren't responsible enough to handle it.

Then you support totally banning alcohol, right?

darkknight109 posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

Weed's been researched to death.

Not really. Not when we're talking about long term effects. It can't be, because it's an illicit substance.

There is a proven link with schizophrenia. Causation hasn't been proven and likely never will be, but we're still very much in the dark on what the risks are for someone's long term health. There's suspected links to cancer. How bad is it? Unclear - more research required.

CaptainStrong posted...

It's less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs.

And? So what?

This argument is great for anyone arguing that tobacco and alcohol should be illegal, but is absolutely useless for anyone arguing that weed should be legal. It's not like we draw a line in the sand and say, "Everything less dangerous than this is legal, everything more dangerous is illegal" - it doesn't work like that.

Weed is dangerous. We can split hairs over exactly how dangerous it is and talk about its relative risk compared to other substances, but the fact of the matter remains that marijuana, if abused, can cause harm or, indirectly, death. In arguing for legalization, you are arguing for making society less safe overall, because you are talking about legalizing a dangerous substance. Now that's not a dealbreaker - plenty of unsafe substances and activities that carry risks of harm and death are completely legal and uncontroversially so. But if we want to discuss whether the recreational benefits of weed (and, let's be completely honest here, recreational benefits are the sole reason why 95+% of legalization advocates want it legalized) outweigh the potential health risks, we need to properly understand what those risks are. Whether you're for legalization or against it, you should not be in any way against more research so that we can make an informed decision - not unless you are afraid of what will be found out and would prefer people remain ignorant (and there are people like that on both sides of the argument).

My point is no one supports banning alcohol and tobacco, so why should less harmful substances like weed be banned?.

And theres tons of proven links between alcohol and other shit. you wanna ban alcohol too? cuz it worked sooooooo well in the 20s and tooooootally didnt create a black market and made it unnecessarily dangerous

CaptainStrong posted...

dedbus posted...

No people underestimate it's ability to impair you and aren't responsible enough to handle it.

Then you support totally banning alcohol, right?

Why.

dedbus posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

dedbus posted...

No people underestimate it's ability to impair you and aren't responsible enough to handle it.

Then you support totally banning alcohol, right?

Why.

cuz alcohol impairs you a fucking shitload way more than weed does
so if you support banning weed on those grounds it would make sense that you also support banning alcohol
but you dont, do you? why?

CaptainStrong posted...

My point is no one supports banning alcohol and tobacco, so why should less harmful substances like weed be banned?

Healthcare professionals support a ban, it's merely tolerated because people will throw a fit. Weed is already banned so public outrage is nothing in comparison, and if it's allowed and people act badly, it can't be rebanned as people would have access and complain like with alcohol.

CaptainStrong posted...

And theres tons of proven links between alcohol and other shit. you wanna ban alcohol too? cuz it worked sooooooo well in the 20s and tooooootally didnt create a black market and made it unnecessarily dangerous

Weed hasn't got a strong userbase or production network so the black market is muuuuuch smaller.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

My point is no one supports banning alcohol and tobacco, so why should less harmful substances like weed be banned?

Weed hasn't got a strong userbase or production network so the black market is muuuuuch smaller.

ahahaahahahaha the black market for weed is fucking massive dude what are you talking about?! if it was legalized sooooo much fucking tax money could be raised that could do sooooo much good for the community, dude. and when its underground it gets fucking dangerous. legalize tax and regulate it.

CaptainStrong posted...

darkknight109 posted...

It should be decriminalized and more research should be done on its long-term harmful effects so we can make an actual educated decision on whether or not legalization is a good idea, instead of shooting blind like we're doing right now.

Weed's been researched to death. It's less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs.

It hasn't been researched as much as you might think. And most of that research is incredibly bias one way or another. That's why you have studies suggesting it effects things like Alzheimer's go both directions.
If it's legal you can have places like tufts medical and other legit, more neutral, places study it's long term use.

CaptainStrong posted...

ahahaahahahaha the black market for weed is fucking massive dude what are you talking about?!

The production of Jack Daniels alone outpaces it.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

ahahaahahahaha the black market for weed is fucking massive dude what are you talking about?!

The production of Jack Daniels alone outpaces it.

who gives a shit? just cuz theres something bigger doesnt mean it isnt still big, dude. still tons of weed out there on the black market. and if it was legalized so much good could come from its tax dollars.

CaptainStrong posted...

who gives a shit? just cuz theres something bigger doesnt mean it isnt still big, dude.

Big is relative, and when you're comparing alcohol industry to the weed trade, it's relatively miniscule.
---

CaptainStrong posted...

My point is no one supports banning alcohol and tobacco, so why should less harmful substances like weed be banned?.

You know what's also less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco? Or even weed, for that matter? Driving without a seat belt. 99.99% of the time if you drive somewhere and don't do your seat belt up, you'll arrive at the other side with absolutely no harm done, no long term consequences. And even if you do get in a crash, that crash has to fall in a narrow band (i.e. not so minor that the seat belt does nothing, but not so horrific that the seat belt also does nothing because it, your car, and you are now a pile of scrap metal and raw meat) for the seat belt to actually make a difference.

Yet driving without a seat belt is illegal and no one really bats an eye at it or suggests it shouldn't be. Point being, just because something is mostly safe that doesn't mean that's a good argument for it being legal.

CaptainStrong posted...

And theres tons of proven links between alcohol and other shit.

Again, so what?

We're not talking about alcohol here, we're talking about weed. Why you're trying so hard to deflect the topic of conversation over to alcohol is beyond me, because you could prove to everyone here that alcohol is the most dangerous, most addictive, most toxic substance to ever exist and it still would do absolutely nothing to bolster your argument that weed should be legal.

CaptainStrong posted...

you wanna ban alcohol too? cuz it worked sooooooo well in the 20s and tooooootally didnt create a black market and made it unnecessarily dangerous

If it were up to me and I thought that a ban would actually stick, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Because I don't think the hundreds of thousands of deaths and countless more injuries, families torn apart, etc., caused by alcohol every year are worth it.

But we both know a ban wouldn't do a damn thing, because we, as a species, are addicted to the stuff. Have been since we first crawled out of the trees. Our shift from a nomadic hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian one was done partially because our distant ancestors wanted to brew alcohol. So yeah, there's no way you could effectively ban booze, because everyone who loves it now (what with it being legal and all) will fight you tooth-and-nail on it, despite its clear-cut hazards (because it's not a problem if you don't abuse it, which is a fair argument).

So since there's no getting that genie back in the bottle, my view is we should be very, very, very careful before we legalize another, similar vice, lest it have similar effects, because once it's legal it's going to stay that way. If we do this haphazardly, our decedents could very well be left wondering what the fuck we were thinking when we decided to legalize a substance whose long term effects could be every bit as deleterious as tobacco or alcohol.

CaptainStrong posted...

cuz alcohol impairs you a fucking shitload way more than weed does

Depends on the strength of the booze and the strength of the weed.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Weed hasn't got a strong userbase or production network so the black market is muuuuuch smaller.

Dude, what? Weed has an enormous userbase and production network. There are gangs that run nothing else because it's that lucrative. Back when it was illegal here in Canada it was the main illicit export to the US (with guns coming the other way as payment).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Dude, what? Weed has an enormous userbase and production network. There are gangs that run nothing else because it's that lucrative. Back when it was illegal here in Canada it was the main illicit export to the US (with guns coming the other way as payment).

Still small compared to alcohol. Like not even a blip.
---

darkknight109 posted...

CaptainStrong posted...

My point is no one supports banning alcohol and tobacco, so why should less harmful substances like weed be banned?.

You know what's also less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco? Or even weed, for that matter? Driving without a seat belt. 99.99% of the time if you drive somewhere and don't do your seat belt up, you'll arrive at the other side with absolutely no harm done, no long term consequences. And even if you do get in a crash, that crash has to fall in a narrow band (i.e. not so minor that the seat belt does nothing, but not so horrific that the seat belt also does nothing because it, your car, and you are now a pile of scrap metal and raw meat) for the seat belt to actually make a difference.

Yet driving without a seat belt is illegal and no one really bats an eye at it or suggests it shouldn't be. Point being, just because something is mostly safe that doesn't mean that's a good argument for it being legal.

I do!!! I use seat belts, but I don't think the government should require it. If I wanna be a GAMEFAQS CENSORED THIS WORD and hurt my self why should they stop me? this is supposed to be the land of the free.

and isnt the shit being mostly safe actually a reason for it to be legal? lol dude your logic is ass backwards. seat belts and weed are not even in the same ballpark

Cannabis has been cultivated for longer than the latin word for cultivate, sativa, has existed.

Societies have been using it for many 100's of centuries. It's only in recent times, that we think we know better than nature, a fallacy.

It is that most useful plant on the planet, providing: cloth, food, fuel, oil, medicine. The human brain has cannabinoid receptors designed for and activated by the consumption of cannabis. Hmm?
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

Mead posted...

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.

inhaling plant matter makes you sick
lighting it on fire damages your organs

it's a vice, harmless compared to other vices, but still a vice

Eating fast food and soda also makes you sick and damages your organs.
---

kangolcone posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

Mead posted...

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.

inhaling plant matter makes you sick
lighting it on fire damages your organs

it's a vice, harmless compared to other vices, but still a vice

Eating fast food and soda also makes you sick and damages your organs.

This line of argument is so frustrating. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, it doesn't discount the statement made, and it leads away from the original discussion. It's not only useless it's actively bad for a debate.

It isn't just you doing stuff like this, I just took your post as the example.

RoboXgp89 posted...

I'd make it legal medically
make it legal to posses plants
not sell in stores though
same with other drugs

Kinda makes sense, depending on 1 thing, what is your stance on alcohol?
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Cannabis has been cultivated for longer than the latin word for cultivate, sativa, has existed.

Societies have been using it for many 100's of centuries. It's only in recent times, that we think we know better than nature, a fallacy.

It is that most useful plant on the planet, providing: cloth, food, fuel, oil, medicine. The human brain has cannabinoid receptors designed for and activated by the consumption of cannabis. Hmm?

Uhh, human's naturally produce cannabinoids. THC actually overwhelms those receptors very quickly, which is why the high comes on so fast.

I'm honestly not against weed. I think it's safe and great. I'm against pretending it's more than that.It has limited use medically that is only beneficial because it's so safe. Hemp products are also great and the crop can grow anywhere. I just can't stand the idea that it's some magic plant that is actually going to unlock the next stage of human understand or cure cancer.

ASlaveObeys posted...

I just can't stand the idea that it's some magic plant that is actually going to unlock the next stage of human understand or cure cancer.

I doubt anyone seriously believes that...
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

kangolcone posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

Mead posted...

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.

inhaling plant matter makes you sick
lighting it on fire damages your organs

it's a vice, harmless compared to other vices, but still a vice

Eating fast food and soda also makes you sick and damages your organs.

This line of argument is so frustrating. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, it doesn't discount the statement made, and it leads away from the original discussion. It's not only useless it's actively bad for a debate.

It isn't just you doing stuff like this, I just took your post as the example.

We live in a society that allows self-harm within reason. Simply because something is not good for you is not a reason to keep it illegal.

If the only point a person is making is that marijuana can be harmful and therefore should be illegal, I see no harm in pointing out the societally sanctioned substances which are also damaging.

If the user I was posting to had made a secondary point, I would have addressed that as well. But they didnt. They said its harmful. Which is true about many many things.
---

kangolcone posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

kangolcone posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

Mead posted...

Theres no reason to make it legal medically but not recreationally.

inhaling plant matter makes you sick
lighting it on fire damages your organs

it's a vice, harmless compared to other vices, but still a vice

Eating fast food and soda also makes you sick and damages your organs.

This line of argument is so frustrating. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, it doesn't discount the statement made, and it leads away from the original discussion. It's not only useless it's actively bad for a debate.

It isn't just you doing stuff like this, I just took your post as the example.

We live in a society that allows self-harm within reason. Simply because something is not good for you is not a reason to keep it illegal.

If the only point a person is making is that marijuana can be harmful and therefore should be illegal, I see no harm in pointing out the societally sanctioned substances which are also damaging.

If the user I was posting to had made a secondary point, I would have addressed that as well. But they didnt. They said its harmful. Which is true about many many things.

Fair enough. And I agree that's a stupid reason. In fact it's barely even true.

kangolcone posted...

We live in a society that allows self-harm within reason. Simply because something is not good for you is not a reason to keep it illegal.

Law is about what you do to others, and you getting out of your head and staining fabrics with your stank effects others.
---

CaptainStrong posted...

If I wanna be a GAMEFAQS CENSORED THIS WORD and hurt my self why should they stop me? this is supposed to be the land of the free.

Because the government (and, by extension, the rest of the taxpaying public) has a vested interest in keeping you healthy and productive. If you injure yourself because you didn't wear a seatbelt, you will take up hospital resources that could have been spent on someone who wasn't being a moron and, depending on what your health insurance situation is, the taxpayers may wind up footing the bill for treatment. And for the whole time you're recovering (which may be the rest of your life if you really screw yourself up) you aren't contributing to society yourself via working and paying taxes. That sort of a situation isn't one that any society should be encouraging.

CaptainStrong posted...

and isnt the shit being mostly safe actually a reason for it to be legal?

In and of itself? No. Hence why driving without seatbelts is illegal, while other activities that have much, much higher risks of injury - like something as simple as professional football - are completely legal. Just saying "it's mostly safe" and not building on that isn't a valid reason for legalizing something.

Now if you say, "It has benefits x, y, z, which are worth having access to, and it's mostly safe" then you've got an argument... *if* it's actually safe. And that's been my point all along - we should have a better understanding of that before we start talking about whether to legalize (though I'm all in favour of decriminalization - imprisoning people and giving them permanent records over an activity that is, at absolute worst, nothing more than self-destructive is ridiculous).

But that wasn't what you were arguing. You weren't arguing "Weed is safe", you were arguing "alcohol is more dangerous", which is a) A separate discussion and b) Completely irrelevant to whether or not weed should be legal.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Societies have been using it for many 100's of centuries. It's only in recent times, that we think we know better than nature, a fallacy.

"Agriculture" has only been around for a single "hundred centuries", so I'm somewhat skeptical of your claim we've been using it for many times that figure.

And pardon me for doubting the wisdom of the ancients but they were also convinced that tomatoes were extremely toxic, mostly because the tomato juice was reacting with the lead that they thought was a great idea to make their dinnerware out of, so I'm a bit more comfortable trusting in modern science instead.

SunWuKung420 posted...

It is that most useful plant on the planet, providing: cloth, food, fuel, oil, medicine.

Do your own argument a favour and stop bringing this up. I would bet the contents of my house that you could not give less of a shit about the cloth manufacturing industry, nor do you particularly care if hemp is used for food, fuel, or oil.

I just wish more marijuana advocates would be honest about what they're asking, rather than dancing around the subject with talk about hemp ropes and cloth production. I have significant respect for someone with the stones to say, "I want to be able to go down to the store, buy a bud, and light up in the comfort and privacy of my home without worrying that the cops are going to bash down my door and haul me off to jail." That's an argument with substance; in fact, I think it's the best argument in favour of legalization. But pretending that you're actually a great advocate for the cloth industry makes it seem like that argument doesn't have legs, when it absolutely does.
---

^
This guy doesn't even know that America was built by hemp. And then when some whites dudes wanted to control fuel, textiles, medicine and food, they tricked a cannabis using society by marketing to the racists regarding the sourge of the marijuana-smoking Mexican (the farm workers) and blacks (surprise surprise).

The prohibition of marijuana was a step backwards in the evolution of mankind.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

This guy doesn't even know that America was built by hemp.

This is not a reason for me to care.

SunWuKung420 posted...

The prohibition of marijuana was a step backwards in the evolution of mankind.

Funniest thing I've read all morning.

I may regret asking this, but how do you think weed is going to spur enlightenment and evolution in our species? I mean, there are plenty of places where weed is legal, yet I don't see them transcending to a greater plane of existence.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I may regret asking this, but how do you think weed is going to spur enlightenment and evolution in our species? I mean, there are plenty of places where weed is legal, yet I don't see them transcending to a greater plane of existence.

Because a thriving cannabis industry can replace all current forms of textile, fuel and medicine, while providing a highly nutritious dietary addition. If they had been allowed to progress, instead of greed forcing us to regress, our world would be a very different place.

Not a single current society is using cannabis to its fullest potential for our greatest benefits.
---

@darkknight109

Do you believe that the propaganda that led to the prohibition of marijuana was based on truth and fact?
---