Marijuana.

[Ryong]

Personally, I don't think it'd increase the number of potheads. Just because people will be able to get it with less trouble doesn't mean they will. It's not because you can DO something it means you'll actually DO it. I'm okay with making it legal, honestly, if people want to screw with themselves, as long as they don't hurt others, allow them.

[Nique]

I'm more from the realm of 'you shouldn't smoke/ take any drug for recreational purposes' as a personal choice. Most of you know this.

What I don't care for is inconsistent laws. So yeah, I don't think its good for you but neither is a pack of Camels or throwing back a whole bottle of Gentleman Jack and apparently the government respects the rights of people to do that if they choose? It's all or nothing please. If not, then they can make more arbitrary decisions about actually important things.

[Fifthfiend]

I feel this

Originally Posted by Nique

I'm more from the realm of 'you shouldn't smoke/ take any drug for recreational purposes' as a personal choice. Most of you know this.

touches on a point I'd like to address which is that in relation to drugs "recreational" tends to get a lot of work heaped on its back when really a lot of the uses for drugs like marijuana, caffeine, cigarettes and other substances not officially recognized as pharmacological tools really aren't recreational at all, but rather are used in much more therapudic or... I'm not really sure of the word I want here - functional? ways. In fact I would argue that even the greater majority of the problematic use of such substances stems from their being used in that manner; actually "recreational" use such as it occurs really isn't nearly as bad a problem. At least in my experience/observation, addiction and dependency tend to stem less from people using a thing for fun than they do people trying to deal with actual, serious problems and situations.

I mean like with cigarettes yes there's "recreational" use in the sense that they're awesome when you're out drinking and hanging out and suchlike. But a lot of their use is driven by functional purposes such as they simply happen to be really good as a short-term method of relieving tension, nervousness and anxiety as well as increasing concentration, alertness and clarity of thought. There's a reason why emergency room doctors smoke like motherfuckers. For that matter even in social settings they're not purely recreational as if you've ever had social anxiety? Cigarettes are totally good at helping you get past that.

Even with marijuana, and setting aside the whole area of medical marijuana - if someone uses marijuana to relax and kill a headache after a stressful day, is that really "recreational"? I mean how is that any more recreational than popping a couple of advils, except for marijuana working a million times better?

[Nique]

It does become kind of a catch all term. Dependancy on substances like that tends to be harmful, of course.

Recreational implies... like, having a beer every once in a while? Not heavy useage?

[Fifthfiend]

Yeah I mean it's not an easy one to nail down exactly. Hell recreational even could cover some heavy users, it's not like there aren't some people who just want to party all the damn time. I just thought it was important to acknowledge that whatever the particulars of where someone draws that line, not all use of these substances is equal to recreational use.

[Seil]

, personally and as someone who hasn't even dared dabble in alcohol, want Marijuanna legalized because people should be allowed to shove whatever they want into their body regardless of my opinion, unless doing so actively promotes hurting other people or their property (Which is why I support the ban on PCP, but not Pot and Cocaine).

This.

'Cause if this happens, and what Krylo and Fifth have been saying is true, then why not? Why shouldn't we let people smoke pot? As long as it's not harming you, what's the problem?

I smoke. Some people consider me stupid for smoking and might encourage me to quit. That doesn't mean that they say "NO MORE SMOKES FOR SEIL." It just means that hey, they're a little worried about the effects of said substance and are looking out for me, instead of taking away my rights.

And I know we've had huge, long discussions about gun control, and everything else - to the point where I've peeved both Mes and Fifth - and everyone said that because they fully recognized the right to bear arms.

And what with what Krylo has been saying - that legalization actually - after a short while - causes the numbers of pot users to go down, then what's the harm? Why can't people exercise their rights?

[FloralVikings]

The thing is, we can talk, write congressmen, whatever, but it's not gonna change the law, because that would involve the government admitting that they've wasted millions of dollars. You could talk to every congressman there is, individually, and explain to them all the massive benefits of legalizing, and cite all the sources you want, and point out how it hasn't ruined countries where it has been decriminalized, and they wouldn't vote for it to be legalized.

Politicians are too worried about getting reelected to see what's right in front of their faces, and they think that taking a pro-marijuana standpoint would cause their constituency to turn against them. But that's a whole other discussion, right there.

It makes me sad to think that people like that are in charge. With something like a 96% incumbency rate.

[Azisien]

Cold, hard reason fights for the decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana. I best not touch that...Let's advance something new.

Let's say marijuana was legalized, hypothetically. What sort of regulation SHOULD be put in place? Naturally, I don't think the floodgates should just be opened and we all wish each other good luck.

For example, a prerequisite age to smoke it (or perhaps, purchase it)? As a prime example of where drug use should be prohibited: minors? Yet the highest concentration of potheads I can remember was back in high school. I'd hate to see more kids addicted to pot. And I'll just flat out say addicted. I know not all users are dependent on the drug, probably the opposite. I've witnessed grade 8 kids so addicted to pot, when they were forced to not smoke it for a single day, they were twitching and stuttering and sweating worse than some crackheads I've seen walking in downtown Toronto.

Since we presumably free up more funds from the anti-drug stuff for social programs etc to help drug addicts. Think it'll be enough?

[FloralVikings]

Pot has no addictive chemicals in it...
What you're talking about probably has something to so with some other drugs, because I smoked an average of 3 or 4 times a day the last quarter of sophomore year, and quit cold turkey with no effects like that.

As for regulations, there would probably be an age requirement, probably 21. There would also probably be a limit stores could sell, and which stores could sell at all.

[Kim]

Or we tax it, and use the money from that, rather than money from other stuff, for the drug addicts programs, but yeah, what you're saying makes sense.