Debate and Discussion

Cannabis
isukun at 2:10PM, Sept. 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I'm not so sure I would want all drugs decriminalized. There are some drugs which do have adverse psychological and physical effects on people. I don't think anything should be legalized where there are several well documented cases of people going on killing sprees while strung out. MJ's not one of those drugs, though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
qqq at 3:05PM, Sept. 16, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
isukun
I'm not so sure I would want all drugs decriminalized. There are some drugs which do have adverse psychological and physical effects on people. I don't think anything should be legalized where there are several well documented cases of people going on killing sprees while strung out. MJ's not one of those drugs, though.
I don't think there's any drug but oxygen to be shown to cause that. And that's of course because dead people can't fire a gun.

One case is not a proof, there have been people doing that that just ate a sandwich, is that a proof a sandwich makes one a killer? One needs a control group.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
Insizwa at 3:27PM, Sept. 16, 2009
(offline)
posts: 284
joined: 4-9-2007
I'm curious to know about these drugs that make people go on killing sprees. Any specific ones? Most of the ones I know about are completely legal and easy to get to, like mercury for instance. The point is it's a free country, and that gives you the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people). The government has no right to say, what we can and can't do to ourselves.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:01PM
qqq at 4:16PM, Sept. 16, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
Insizwa
I'm curious to know about these drugs that make people go on killing sprees. Any specific ones? Most of the ones I know about are completely legal and easy to get to, like mercury for instance. The point is it's a free country, and that gives you the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people). The government has no right to say, what we can and can't do to ourselves.
So clearly by your own logic it's not a free country as the government does do that?

'Free countries' don't exist, it's a label all countries put in themselves but none live on to.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
ParkerFarker at 11:16PM, Sept. 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,451
joined: 4-29-2009
qqq
Insizwa
I'm curious to know about these drugs that make people go on killing sprees. Any specific ones? Most of the ones I know about are completely legal and easy to get to, like mercury for instance. The point is it's a free country, and that gives you the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people). The government has no right to say, what we can and can't do to ourselves.
So clearly by your own logic it's not a free country as the government does do that?

'Free countries' don't exist, it's a label all countries put in themselves but none live on to.

Yeah a real free country would have no laws, no authorities, just people living in it. Doesn't sound too fun.

“We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.” - Blackadder
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:39PM
BffSatan at 4:27AM, Sept. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
Insizwa
I'm curious to know about these drugs that make people go on killing sprees. Any specific ones? Most of the ones I know about are completely legal and easy to get to, like mercury for instance. The point is it's a free country, and that gives you the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people). The government has no right to say, what we can and can't do to ourselves.
PCP is one, but there are some others. I think meth causes violence, I've heard some pretty bad stories about people being hacked up by people high off meth.

These kind of drugs should not be legal, but things like weed are fine. I agree that as long as something does not harm other people it should not be restricted.

I should also point out that alcohol is often linked to violence yet weed is not. hmmmmmmmm…
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM
Insizwa at 9:38AM, Sept. 17, 2009
(offline)
posts: 284
joined: 4-9-2007

Someone
PCP is one, but there are some others. I think meth causes violence, I've heard some pretty bad stories about people being hacked up by people high off meth.


Damn, maybe I need to rethink my proposal. Alright, I say as long as your drug use doesn't negatively effect anyone (but yourself), go for it. I know diamond drillers who are chronic meth and cocaine users yet still are still productive members of society.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:01PM
qqq at 7:43PM, Sept. 17, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
ParkerFarker
qqq
Insizwa
I'm curious to know about these drugs that make people go on killing sprees. Any specific ones? Most of the ones I know about are completely legal and easy to get to, like mercury for instance. The point is it's a free country, and that gives you the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people). The government has no right to say, what we can and can't do to ourselves.
So clearly by your own logic it's not a free country as the government does do that?

'Free countries' don't exist, it's a label all countries put in themselves but none live on to.

Yeah a real free country would have no laws, no authorities, just people living in it. Doesn't sound too fun.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that a free country allows you to say any thing you want, but not necessarily act all things. And that a free country allows you to set your own rules in your own home on your own land you bought.

In reality, all countries have absurd escape clauses like that you can't say ‘indecent’ or ‘disrespectful’ or ‘obscene’ things (extremely vague what that means), well, guess what? Blasphemy about God or walking outside without observing the hijab is considered indecent in Iran, just like it's indecent here for a woman to go bare-chested but a man can. Iran calls itself a free country too by the way.

Calling yourself a free country is just ego stroking, there are no free countries as long as TV Stations can't use words like ‘fuck’ on prime time and comic regulation authorities praevent the depiction of bad endings (yeah, really, until the 80's) and homosexual relationships:

These were the de facto rules of comics 50 years back:

Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
No comic magazine shall use the word horror or terror in its title.
All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.
Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

And there are enough things today that people will consider stupid and absurd tomorrow, like that a film suddenly no longer is all ages but 15+ because it features two women or two men kissing instead of the usual diagonal coupling, boy are people going to have a laugh about that in 50 years.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
isukun at 1:23AM, Sept. 18, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
PCP is one, but there are some others.

A pretty bad one, too. There have been a number of cases in the DC area and around here in LA where people have killed under the influence of PCP. Considering the nature of some of the cases, I'd have to say the murders wouldn't have happened without the drug influence. People change drastically under the influece and often don't even remember what they did. Sure, drugs don't flip a murder switch in people's heads, but many do remove the mental barriers we put up to control our actions. There is a reason why a lot of rapists and murderers are strung out or drunk when they commit their crimes.

Damn, maybe I need to rethink my proposal. Alright, I say as long as your drug use doesn't negatively effect anyone (but yourself), go for it.

Which was pretty much what I was getting at.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
cartoonprofessor at 5:25PM, Oct. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Look at your founding fathers…
Ben Franklin grew, experimented with, smoked and heavily promoted the growing of, cannabis.
So too, did Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, and jsut about every early american politician of note.

They did this for many reasons…

1, the cannabis plant produces one of the strongest, yet lightest fibres of any plant. The British empire became an empire because of it (used in ropes, sailcloth, etc, which was essential to their powerful British navy).

Henry Ford built a car out of it for goodness sake.

2, medicinally, it is very beneficial for illnesses from the common cold to pain relief, to alzheimers.

3, the seed itself contains more amino acids than any other known food source.

4, and they knew, that it's uses both in medicine and industry were not only very profitable for their fledging country, but very easy to grow. For example, cotton requires heavy use of insecticides and pesticides and uses a lot of water. Hemp on the other hand grows in very poor soil (enriching it as it grows), needs very little water, and requires no insecticides or herbicides.

The main ‘dude’ who initiated legislation to illegalize this ‘miracle plant’ was a major stakeholder in DuPont. Hemp was teh only stumbling block to DuPont's synthetic fibres becoming the main source of fibre for industry.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
mlai at 10:31PM, Oct. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
I don't know if it's mentioned already, but using hemp to make paper makes better, whiter, and longer-lasting paper than wood-paper, with less production cost and less chemicals.

Oh, and hemp is a grass. We wouldn't be cutting down precious trees anymore to make paper. We'd be cutting grass.

Which is of course why hemp will never be accepted as raw materials for paper. The lumber industry can't have that.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Product Placement at 10:39PM, Oct. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Is there a country out there, that's taking advantage of hemp since it's such a great source of fiber, amino acids, pain relief and paper?

I'm inclined to ask that because while America will rigorously attempt to prohibit cannabis cultivation, those same rules don't apply everywhere. Sounds like a great idea for a small country to gain a competitive edge in the global market.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
Hawk at 9:16AM, Oct. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
These last several posts (especially cartoonprofessor's) have been touting hemp as some sort of miracle plant. I'll openly admit that it's hard for me to not feel like there's some degree of exaggeration going on. Would we really have outlawed it in the first place if it was such a cornerstone of our civilization? Tobacco's not nearly as useful and it's still legal for some reason.

My other point is that there's a lot of talk about the alternative uses of cannabis but we know good and well that the people pushing for its legalization aren't going to make paper. The critical part of the argument is whether or not society will be affected if people are legally allowed to smoke it. Why are paper and rope such big factors in the pro-cannabis side?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
mishi_hime at 11:25AM, Oct. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,767
joined: 7-17-2006
hotcakes
My hypothesis is that everyone who visits internet forums are either uninformed or pro-cannabis legalization.

Prove me wrong?

This is a debate?
Seriously?

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
cartoonprofessor at 5:20PM, Oct. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Hawk
These last several posts (especially cartoonprofessor's) have been touting hemp as some sort of miracle plant. I'll openly admit that it's hard for me to not feel like there's some degree of exaggeration going on. Would we really have outlawed it in the first place if it was such a cornerstone of our civilization? Tobacco's not nearly as useful and it's still legal for some reason.

My other point is that there's a lot of talk about the alternative uses of cannabis but we know good and well that the people pushing for its legalization aren't going to make paper. The critical part of the argument is whether or not society will be affected if people are legally allowed to smoke it. Why are paper and rope such big factors in the pro-cannabis side?
Exaggeration?

No, not really. Talk to anybody who has researched the properties of the hemp plant… it IS a miracle plant, in that converting back to it…
would save thousands of hectares of forest currently used to produce (lower grade) paper…
free up food production land currently being used to grow biofuel crops like corn. (This land with quality soils should be for food, not biofuel. Hemp grows in very poor soil and makes excellent biofuel. It also helps make poor soil good soil)…
destroy bigpharm control over our ‘health’ (one main reason hemp was made illegal was because the pharmaceutical companies could not make money from a medicine that anyone could grow in their backyards)…
and save the environment in many other ways (pesticide/insecticide-free farming for fibres, oil, seed protein, etc, etc, etc)

Get the award-winning Canadian documentary out called, ‘The Union’.

It explains a lot.

Oh, and would society be better off if people could smoke it?

You bet!

It's legal availability would reduce people's dependance on alcahol which would substantially lower domestic violence and death from violent crime, alcahol-induced accidents and health issues, etc.
And don't bring up the health issues from smoking it. If it was legal, people would eat it, drink it as tea, etc with no health side-effects whatsoever (something most people do not do at the moment because it is so expensive).
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
Insizwa at 3:46PM, Nov. 10, 2009
(offline)
posts: 284
joined: 4-9-2007
Did you guys know about 14 states in the US have already decriminalized non-medicinal marijuana to a certain extent?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:01PM
slimredninja at 12:08PM, Feb. 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 11-18-2006
As a user for over 22 years I will say its only minor harmful side effect is increase in appetite which for some people (just not me) is a good thing. I have a successful business that employees 8 people I'm incredibly responsible and never smoke when working used for recreational purposes its very safe and tends to make people laugh and enjoy things more. I would strongly suggest reading the Emperor wears no clothes the best book about hemp ever its a real eye opener.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:48PM
Zad at 5:22PM, Feb. 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 163
joined: 2-6-2007
Agh, removed my post. Sorry!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
LOOKIS at 9:44PM, Feb. 25, 2010
(offline)
posts: 82
joined: 1-4-2010
The main reason it should be legalized is that it can be easily grown in most of the United States. It's silly to make something illegal that anyone can grow.

Drugs like methamphetamine and LSD require chemistry labs to produce them so at least the claim can be made that they are not natural.

But marijuana you just drop a few seeds in your backyard, then dry the plant and bake it into brownies or smoke it.

As others have pointed out, it's never killed anybody. It helps sick people feel better. No one has ever gotten into a car accident because they were driving recklessly on marijuana. It doesn't make you want to fight with people.

The one negative thing about it is that it can make you unconcerned about problems and therefore you don't solve them. Instead you get high. Don't have a job and can't pay the rent? No problem. Just get stoned.

But the fact that marijuana reinforces slackerdom doesn't mean that vigorous, problem-solving people should be forbidden to use it. How about a law that pot can only be sold to people who have a job?
………………. LEAVE THIS SPACE BLANK …………………
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:39PM
Sea_Cow at 6:44PM, March 11, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
Any president is seen drinking a beer with his buddies? Hey, what a nice guy. Barack smoked weed in college? He has to apologize. I did my research now, and the pot was illegalized in the thirties because it was basically superior competition to alcohol, tobacco, etc. in every way. Only a lot of it was grown on foreign soil so it was more expensive for the American government. And this is still holding true today. I was looking at some of the ludicrous bullshit on abovetheinfluence.com. There, I saw a post describing a girl's experience with marijuana. It was something along the lines of this:

“My life was perfect. I had a 4.0 GPA, my parents loved me, and I was set for a happy future. However, I would smoke marijuana with my friends on weekends. One night we got busted, and my whole life fell apart. I was rejected by all the colleges I applied for, my parents are now paranoid about me, and I have a felony on my permanent record.”

So essentially, she maintained a perfect life while smoking pot. But then the law found out, and oh look, her life got ruined. If it was legal, I'm pretty sure she would still be just dandy.
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:27PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved