|
Post by Ancient Goddess on Nov 29, 2004 8:59:17 GMT -5
So I was checking up on the MSN news...and came across this. It's an article about a girl who has a brain tumor and uses marijuana as a pain killer. The government does not agree with this method, since they are fighting a 'war' against drugs and refuses to make an exception for the ill. I suppose they just want this girl to grin and bear the pain. Her mother is fighting for her and has gotten this case to the Supreme Court. The people from (and those who support it) the Drug-Free America Campaign don't want a government loss, since it will supposedly 'undermine campaigns against addictive drugs'. Anyway, what are your opinions about this matter? Should the government win the case or the mother?
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Nov 29, 2004 9:20:43 GMT -5
I didn`t read much of the article, but weed should be legalized anyway. Why not? Why should alcohol be legal is weed isn`t? I smoke it but if I didn`t I still think my views would be the same. Alcohol is a drug, but I suppose the goverment doesn`t realise that, or they`ve created some loophole in classifying alcohol making it legal... What`s funny and sort of ironic is that the government will neveer take the call to legalize marijuana seriously... because everybody who wants it legalized is a pot head ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on Nov 29, 2004 9:45:52 GMT -5
Well, I don't smoke weed, but I'd say it should be legalized. There are too many people who smoke it anyway for them to really be effective in banning the substance. I say they should treat the use like they treat alcohol...have a legal limit for the amount people use. Even if they attempt to fully ban the drug, people will still find a way to smoke it regardless. Their prevention matters will not really aid their fight, since marijuana will be around anyway.
I'd say it's good for medical purposes, since it is supposedly an effective painkiller. I mean, I don't understand what the government would expect them to use....Tylonol wouldn't cut ridding the pain of a brain tumor. The girl was backed by doctors who had recommended it. Yeah marijuana is an addictive drug, but if it does more good than bad, I'd say go for it.
|
|
|
Post by nori on Nov 29, 2004 17:28:02 GMT -5
the green stuff needs to be legalised for the following reasons * its a victimless crime, well the only victim could be the government as there not getting any tax for it * its great * it has saved lives before, or atleast prolonged them. and if they researched it properly it could help alot more people * its great * because i have problems picking up and if you walk out of the canna cafe in the next town you get searched by the pigs *.......its great and that will be all as im trying to skin up peace out pot heads
|
|
pandi
Thief
/--/
Posts: 17
|
Post by pandi on Dec 12, 2004 23:54:36 GMT -5
the government tried to run a test with some scientists to research the downfalls of pot. in the end they wanted to know, how much pot would you have to smoke for it to kill you? the scientists were totally perplexed after all of their studies and they finally decided on a number only because they were pressured. they figured that maybe if you were to smoke 2 tons in one sitting, that it just might kill you. it's not addictive, it can't kill you, and it has medicinal vaule. the only reason it's illegal is because the government thought it was bad and they can't take it back because that would make them look like a bunch of idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Dec 13, 2004 7:46:05 GMT -5
Word. Fucking government man. Check this out. I stumbled upon it with my sisters boyfriend while we were smoking. The government won`t legalize weed cause they can`t make money from it. The people who are making money from it are being locked up... You know, it sounded a lot better before... maybe I`ve forgotten what I was thinking. But weed can get you big profit for the streets mang. When you need that cash to support yourself and/or your family, and you`ve got the police down your neck cause the government doesn`t want ANYBODY to get money without them knowing... yo, that`s a bitch. What`s funny to me is the government has probably spent more money on the war on drugs than all the druglords, importing or exporting in the US, have made combined. They`ve spent money to see that sellers don`t get any. At least that`s how I see it. I made it come full circle before and almost pissed my boxers, but I can`t remember now.
|
|
|
Post by nori on Dec 14, 2004 15:14:44 GMT -5
.....the actual amount of mary jane needed to kill a person is 800 joints worths because after smoking that much pot you die from carbon monoxide poisoning.....
|
|
|
Post by stalefist on Dec 16, 2004 22:20:46 GMT -5
1 word: amsterdam. whynot take their ideas and utilize them here?
|
|
|
Post by nori on Dec 17, 2004 17:23:23 GMT -5
hahaha, then america would be turned upside down and mr bush wouldnt like that now would he? stupid asswipe he is.
but hey im going over to amsterdam in feb yay for me ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Jan 30, 2005 11:08:19 GMT -5
[glow=blue,4,300]I don't see why the wouldn't legalize it. I personally don't use it and can't stand the smell of it, but I can care less... The government may not want to prove that they were wrong... but the had to do it with the Prohibition Law, remember? Besides, if they legalized it, they could tax it... AH, maybe that's why they won't legalize it...
Anyone can grow marijuana in their backyard and sell it. If they don't claim "neighborhood pharmacist" on their taxes, then they basically are make a crapload of money in cash and the government can't even tax it. I bet you that's what it's about since there aren't any negative affects of it. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Jan 30, 2005 23:06:12 GMT -5
I'm not goin to say my experience with the drug or my actual view, but I will post the argument for keeping it illegal to keep the post balanced....
In terms of the studies referred to, I would love to be able to read some of them, so if anyone has some links to scholarly or scientific journals where the studies give any of the data aformentioned, I would greatly appreciate it.
In talking to a number of doctors alot of the medicinal affects that cause marijuana to be in any way effective are availble in other drugs. Marijuana from what i hear is not the best drug for medicinal purposes, but just a drug of choice based on affect, culture, cost, and etc etc.
Marijuana is addictive. Marijuana often(not always) leads to use of other drugs. The consistent high one gains from smoking weed, desensitizes the body, which then requires more potency to create the same effect. With cigarettes the addiction is not for a larger high, but for the nicotine, which is why tobacco is addictive but does not generally lead to harder drugs.
Just because alcohol and tobacco are legal does not legitimate the legalization of weed. Marijuana is an addictive, mind altering substance, and for the safety and health of citizens government should move to having less of these available, not say some of them are legal so lets make more of them legal.
Yes the government has its selfish reasons to keep it illegal, protecting tobacco market value, health, and public opinion but marijuana is not that debated a substance world wide, while yes it is legal in the Netherlands, its illegal in almost every other country world wide. The ease with which is grows makes it hard 2 enforce, but almost no other country has it legal.....and with all the moaning and groaning about government oppression, this is one thing the US is in a virtual consensus with the world community on.
There actually very few pluses for the legalization of marijuana minus the complaint about too much government. The purpose of law is to govern and protect its citizens from having choices that are harmful to its self and the wellbeing of the society as a whole(seat belt laws, speedlimits, drivers licesnses, curfews, taxes, drinking ages, etc etc) Other pharmeceutical drugs can play the same medicinal roles marijuana does, marijuana is addictive, it is mind altering, tobacco is being more and more outlawed, marijuana does lead to harder drugs, and marijuana is illegal in all our neighboring nations and virtually around the world. To legalize marijuana would cause enforcement and travel nightmares undermining the world community;s ability to enforce. It would undermind the already crippled tobacco market, go against the enforcement of tobacco legislation, and serve as a ready made training wheels for harder drugs.
I've known huge pushers and players in the drug world, and i've known runts in the game that just got gas money and then stopped, so now to the drug dealer comment. The people arrested are not the people making real money, the people making real money own companies and are "respected" by the commuity, so dont think there is a push to truly get to the source. I know a number of people that started out as petty drug peddlers, etc etc. Drug dealers start with weed. You move on from there, and no, weed is not a victimless crime. A close friend of mine's brother was murdered because of drugs. My cousin was recenlty murdered because of her boyfriends connections with drugs. I have a number of friends who have been affected by drugs in a variety of ways, and weed serves as a foundation for the selling market, the transistion to more expensive markets, and the dollar bill of the drug world. So, don't buy the victimless crime bit, it establishes the language for the rest of the market, therefore it affects everyone, the dealer, user, family, and friend, and people arguing for its legalization rarely use it for medicinal purposes...
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on Feb 2, 2005 1:01:58 GMT -5
Good points, Colour....but I still believe we'd be better off with it legalized, at least a little bit.
The original article was about a cancer patient (if I remember correctly, she was in the final stage) who used the drug to ease the pains and discomfort of her illness. I think that marijuana, in this case, should be legalized. Over the counter medicines and painkillers developed in labs would most likely never be strong enough to help this girl out, and that unfortunately limits the number of options they could chose.
Anyway, I do agree in the fact that weed does commonly lead to the use of more expensive, more damaging drugs....but the people who'd purchase it legally are most likely the people who already purchase it illegally. I know many people who smoke pot and have enough willpower and sense to keep away from the stronger drugs. So, I don't believe that the selling of weed legally would automatically lead to an increase of heroine or cocaine or any other stronger substance. It ultimately depends on the person.
As far as weed being a mind-altering substance, alcohol is another form of such a item (although it's not as strong), and it's been around for years. The amount of intake is what controls how strongly it effects or what damage it will do to the brain in the long run...not unlike alcohol. I believe there should be a legal limit for how much weed is taken in, just as there is a limit on how legally drunk you can be.
Sorry to hear about your cousin, however. Dealing drugs can always be a dangerous practice...but if the drug is legal, there would be lessened crime, since the substance can be accessed more easily than it was previously. Not to say that it would demolish altogether, since there are dealers who deal other items than weed out there, but it would ultimately be lessened than what it is now.
So, I still say that the use of marijuana should be legalized. There are too many people who already use it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 2, 2005 12:15:36 GMT -5
I kind of see where you are going...nice points(stand your ground) but i see where an opposing argument owuld come about by saying....
do u believe law should be dictated by a government's inability to enforce a law or the presence of a large number of law breakers....or should laws be made for the overall well being and stability of citizens?
what is the purpose and intent of law...
do you think if they abolished the age limit for purchasing and drinking alcohol and/or tobacco there would be no increase in use. Does availability and social stigma affect a product's use....i would be inclined to say yes. Make the legal age for drinking 15, and I am inclined to believe more 15 yr olds(and 12 yr olds) will drink and have more access. The problem with curbing alcohol and tobacco use is the positive social stigma associated with it. By legalizing marijuana, you would undermine the social stigma that does prevent some people from using mind altering substances...
an example.... condom use....to increase condom use...orgs do their best to make condoms more accesibile. yes some still dont use protection, but its much more available. also, they attacked the social stigma and tried to make contraceptive/condom use popular...which has resulted in more use.(not 100%) increasing availability and social stigma has increased use....see a parallel with legalizing marijuana
Right now everyone is trying to make tobacco socially stigmatized....its working in some places, but not entirely....giving in to marijuana, would shoot tobacco education in the foot.
your comments about alcohol are true, but as you already stated, its difficult to govern drunk driving, so should we make it legal? Or give ourselves something else to attempt to legally govern.
i have a friend that is at an ivy school grad program who is considering the publication of an article about the medicinal use of marijuana. my friend supports its legalization(to support your case).
in opposing oppinion, they have marijuana and marijuana derived drugs. The largest benefit to the use of marijuana is cost. there are other drugs that work better to ease pain et etc etc....not to mention the political statement of using it. a doctor will prescribe marijuana for political reasons(it will do the job but there are other drugs that will also do the job) the case gets media attention, has empathy, the science and medical jargon is too complex to understand and you get people polarized around it...
anyhow...the use of marijuana derived medication seems like an inexpensive and practical compromise...the job will be done, it will not contribute to street use, etc, and will be more controllable in terms of dosage, etc, and affect....
well....
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on Feb 2, 2005 13:12:54 GMT -5
What I suggested was not opposing the government's inability to establish and enforce the rules and limitations they place on us citizens, but the best way into making due with the situation we have here currently. As far as them punishing the law breakers...if marijuana was legalized, no one would be breaking the law...unless they steal it.
I can see somewhat to an extent as to your example with alcohol, but age limit, in this case has little relevance. Of course if we lowered the drinking age, children would drink. But the reason there are restrictions on age for such substances are to ensure that the individuals will be of a more sound and reasonable mind when they are of age to have the option of smoking or drinking. If they lowered the drinking age to 15, that would mean that the children should be responsible enough to take in those types of substances within their bodies. The legalization of weed would be avalible to those who the government believes to be responsible enough to handle the substance...the same people who legally drink and smoke tobacco.
Marijuana already causes lots of casualties as it is. I don't see how it would cause a drastic increase of accidents. With a legal limit, I believe people would become a little more responsible...but there would always be the same cases we see with drunk driving. But as I've mentioned, there are tons of cases with marijuana...and I don't see the government banning drinking altogether.
Excellent argument yet again...but I still believe that it shouldn't be banned.
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 2, 2005 13:23:01 GMT -5
8o) stand your ground...i see your point question...
i agree...the gov is not going to outlaw alcohol... but...
in the role of protecting and serving its citizens, should harmful mind altering substances be illegal? answer in theory not in praxis...?
oh i was not saying drop the age restrictions for other stuff...i was just using those examples to establish the logic that increase in availabilty will result in increase in use. thus legalizing marijuana will increase use(across age ranges)
random off subject...if they legalized crack...do u think use would go up....i would again argue yeh.
so based on these arguments...should marijuana be legalized because we have a problem with it, or because...its good for our society to have access 2?
ps next time u state your view say if u think it should be legalized in general or just legalized as a restriced medicine as difficult to get as ridlin/prozac/viagra/etc etc
|
|