Why are drugs illegal?

[GnarlyCar]

OK, I got your attention...

Let's really think about it, though. What is inherently wrong with the actual act of using drugs? Nothing. There's nothing wrong in making, transporting, or selling drugs either. What's wrong is the things that people might do under the influence of drugs, and that's what they should be punished for.

Would the use of drugs increase if they were legalized? No, because there's enough education out there right now that everyone knows how dangerous they all are. Does anyone actually think that the people who don't use drugs now are going to start just because they're legalized? They're not, because the reason they don't use them now has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with thier own set of values. The people with values low enough that they might want to use drugs don't care if they're legal or not.

I'm not saying all drugs should be completely legal. I think there should be an age minimum like there is with alcohol, and once you reach that, you do what you want. Sell it only in places like bars and liquor stores where kids aren't allowed, license the shit out of the sellers, tax the shit out of the buyers, and throw anyone who sells to minors in the klink for 20 years or so.

Now we can eliminate all these fuckin' money-pit "task forces" and "drug czars" whose only purpose is to shore up a political agenda for the party in power and grab votes from one of the largest voting groups, that being the old folks who still believe that if something's "morally wrong" there should be a law against it. We can also turn loose everyone in prison whose only crime was to come somehow in contact with drugs, buying, selling, using, etc., and commited no other crime. Imagine how much money our government could spend in more useful places if it didn't have to shell out 75k a year to house and feed every guy who got caught smoking dope a few times too often. Imagine how many gang-bangers would have to get real jobs. How many fewer gangs, period. Imagine how many fewer people would get killed, and how many fewer undercover agents put in danger in "drug deals gone bad". Hell, what could the government do if the entire budget of the DEA was freed up for other things?

In addition to the increase in available government money, there would be a hell of a lot more room in our prisons for the people who commit REAL crimes, and are now being put back on the streets due to lack of space. Rob a liquor store? Spend 15 to 20 in the Graybar Hotel, and not this 3 to 5 crap they're getting now. Rape someone? You get 20 to life in the dirtiest, nastiest, maximum security shithole in the country where your new name becomes Tiffany, and your poopchute becomes the equivalent of the Holland Tunnel at rush hour for the rest of your miserable, pathetic life.

But, I digress...

I guess what I'm saying is drugs don't rob liquor stores or rape women or kill people. People do, and they should be punished accordingly, while the guy who just wants to have a little fun can do just that.

Incidentally, I'm a 38 year old married father of 2 teens, who doesn't drink, use drugs, lie, cheat or steal. I'm also a recovering drug addict who's been squeaky clean for 22 years. My kids know all about how much dope I smoked as a kid, and why I don't do it now. I take great pride in the example I set for my kids, and my only regrets are ever having let them see me smoke cigarettes or get speeding tickets. Thank God my wife doesn't do either of those...LOL

My position on drug laws is purely from a standpoint of having our government spend our money a little more wisely, and not at all because I condone or endorse the use of drugs. My decision not to is my choice, and should be only my choice, and not the choice of a wrinkled suit whose never been close to a smoldering bowl of buds, and doesn't pay any attention at all to the idea that alcohol is a major factor in as many crimes as any other drug.

OK...bring it on...

[Commander-K25]

They do, however, degrade society and promote illegal activity. Drugs take control of people's lives and prevent them from being productive members of their community. They are a danger to public health, safety and sanity.

I'm all for individual choice, but when something is dangerous to a community as a whole, then it must be banned.

[GnarlyCar]

The same could be said for prostitution, but the state of Nevada seems to be doing OK.

Ultimately, the people who are using drugs now don't care if it's illegal or not, and the ones that don't use them have other reasons that have nothing to do with the law for not doing it, so the law itself isn't recognized by anyone other than politicians, and does nothing for society but cost money for enforcement, the lives of the people enforcing it and the lives of those who get caught breaking it.

Eliminate the law and let the government regulate everything related to the sale and use of drugs and they become safer for the user, and better for society in general, due to the increased revenue gained by the elimination of the enforcement organizations and the excess prison space, and the funds gained by their regulation.

[VasIndustries]

I too think drugs should be legal. I have often asked myself the same questions "Why are drugs illegal?" "Why should the government have say in what a person decides to injest?"

First off, I think that drugs are illegal, in the US at least, out of misunderstanding and fear. For most people, they only get one side of the story, the government's. Their stand is that "drugs are bad" and that they'll ruin your life, but they never detail the effects. I think this is because drug prohibition has very few legs to stand on. As a result of this vague and one-sided commercialism, people don't know anything about drugs. A person I know didn't want to take marijuana. He turned it down whenever it was offered. We presented the facts, but he abstained, and we stopped asking him. A few monthes later, someone else offered him ecstacy and he took it without so much of a second guess or an ounce of researching the effects. People like this are more common than you think. Disinformation and lack of proper information are really distorting people's outlook on drugs.

Drugs should be legalized. It is a moral decision and doesn't affect the government. Under controlled conditions, the drug only affects the person that decided to take it. Why is this negatively desired by the US? The person should have that right.

I seriously think that drugs will be a useful tool in the future. Drugs can give different perspectives to life and offers insights within. It has been documented that drugs like LSD have changed people's lives around for the better. It can produce a sense of well-being that lasts long after the drug. People have been able to stand up to and overcome their hardships, and they are the better for it. If this effect could be harnessed, I'm sure it'd help humanity. I'm sure this all sounds far-fetched and the ramblings of a hippie buddhist asshole, but such events have happened, and after looking at it logically, I'm sure anyone can see potential in it. If anyone wants to read more on this there is "The Beyond within" and any Timothy Leary book. I highly recommend the first title.

[Commander-K25]

You can't, however, deny the hard, physiological effects of drugs and their impact. Can you honestly tell me that someone hooked on heroin and crack is better off than if they weren't?

Repealing drug lwas may reduce some drug-related crime, but the point you're missing here is that drugs are illegal for a reason.

[VasIndustries]

At 5/20/03 11:41 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: They do, however, degrade society and promote illegal activity. Drugs take control of people's lives and prevent them from being productive members of their community. They are a danger to public health, safety and sanity.

I'm all for individual choice, but when something is dangerous to a community as a whole, then it must be banned.

The same could be said for TV or computers. That is, they can have addictive qualities, they can prevent production within people, they can interfere with mental health and sanity. The last one may need to be clarified. There are studies that constant TV and computer use can stir up A.D.D., eye problems, and clutters up mental thought patterns. It may seem illogical to compare a device like the TV to a drug, but to some people it really is as bad as say an addiction to Heroin.

Anyway, my point is that they can do these things, but they are accepted. Drugs can advocate illegal activities, but this is because they are misused, and as long as it is illegal and sold on the black market it will continue to do so, as well as support criminals.

I am not for people taking drugs in an unsupervised, uncontrolled environment, because I agree that it may free that individual of rules this society has come to embrace. Still, as my above post goes into greater detail on, drugs when properly used have benefits for the individual and the society of that individual.

[Apoptygma]

Drugs are Illegal because they are good Ok so do more drugs & feel good for yourself & everyoneelse OK

[Anarchy-Balsac]

because we have idiots in our government who want terrorists to get money and cartels to kill people, and to throw people in jail for little to no reason. that's why

[GnarlyCar]

At 5/21/03 12:18 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: You can't, however, deny the hard, physiological effects of drugs and their impact. Can you honestly tell me that someone hooked on heroin and crack is better off than if they weren't?

Repealing drug lwas may reduce some drug-related crime, but the point you're missing here is that drugs are illegal for a reason.

Just because drugs are bad for people is not a reason to make them illegal. I'm not missing the point at all. The government and citizenry that supports these laws are the ones who are missing the point. I won't deny the hard physiological effects of drugs, but the fact of the matter is that laws do not affect whether someone uses drugs or not. If the law was changed, all the same people would be using drugs and/or not using drugs, but our government wouldn't be wasting thier time and our money trying to put a stop to it.

You also said something about drugs promoting illegal activity. If the drug laws were lifted, 90% of that activity would no longer be illegal. Whether drugs are legal or not, people will still steal to get money for them, and we'd still want to enforce our laws regarding theft. But, if drugs weren't illegal, we would'nt have to enforce so many other laws that we're wasting time and money on now.

Look again at the state of Nevada. Prostitution and gambling are legal, and their crime rate isn't all that different from any other state. They don't have a population of gambling whore-mongers running all over the place and running the state. Just because prostitution and gambling are legal doesn't mean everyone's going to do them. There's no more people doing it there than anywhere else, the difference is that they don't spend any money or time trying to stop it.

We can't govern morality, and it's about time we quit trying.

[Nirvana13666]

I think all drugs should be legal. It is true that many people one way or another lose their lives through the process of production, transportation and especially in trafficking but I honestly think legalizing it would bring that high percentage down a considerable rate. There will always be a war on drugs and that war will always claim lives and cost money. The government has the power to regulate a person’s decision of who they can marry but not the power to find a resourceful way to allow drugs to be legal?

I do however agree with Commander when he points out how drugs can ruin a person’s life. People that are pro-drugs need to show that they control the drugs not vice versa. I am a drug user but I go to school and I have a well paying job. I don’t steal for money to support my habit or have uncontrollable attacks of anger and hurt people when I high. I know exactly where my drugs come from and I know all the documented effects of any substance I put into my body. If people should be more responsible for their choices and I believe that drugs are not everyone.

I also think that drugs like heroin and crack should stay illegal because they are man-made. If people want to chew on cocaine leaves it should be okay but if they want to snort it that should continue to be against the law.

You’d be amazed to find out that most of these harsh drugs were made but government scientists. Many governments around the world secretly support the drug industry and maybe they don’t want to legalize because they are making more money this way.

[Freakapotimus]

I don't think drugs are really illegal, but the government has drugs in schedules that regulate them, which is why drugs are called controlled substances.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/

That said, I think that drugs should be controlled and regulated, but people should have a choice in the matter. If someone wants to do herion, fine, let them. I think it's the stupidest thing ever, but their decision. There should also be more places to go that are easy and affordable for people with drug and alcohol related addictions.

[FUNKbrs]

you mean like amsterdam? then according to this report, I'm all for it.

http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/policy/dutch-stats.html

[D2Kvirus]

Alcohol is a drug, it has disasterous effects on people that get addicted, yet it is legal and an accepted norm.
Nicotine is a drug, it has disaterous effects on people that get addicted, yet it is legal and an accepted, if barely tolerated, norm.
Caffeine is a drug, and isn't considered to be one, for being so accepted.

So, why is weed, which has so far proven to have NO direct fatalities, NO addictive elements, and NO ill effects on people's behaviour illegal? The same can be said for LSD, MDMA, mushrooms - none are addictive, and none have detrimental effects.

And don't try the "Oh, one leads to the other" argument. I've smoked weed for five years, and haven't paused to think "Wait, I need something stronger." I've experimented with other drugs (except Heroin; no fucking way, thank you very much), yet don't dash around looking for a fix every time I crawl up the walls (besides, Coke didn't do much for me, and Ketamin is boring, and I sneeze the shit out in five minutes anyway).

If anything, shouldn't MORE people be encouraged to smoke a joint every once in a while, to chill the fuck out? Or how about a little mind expanding with some mushrooms. For both, you can function perfectly well, and think a lot clearer, yet drunken hicks call you "hippie" and try and kick your head in, although they can't make up their minds which one of the three they should be aiming at.

[Nirvana13666]

At 5/21/03 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Alcohol is a drug, it has disasterous effects on people that get addicted, yet it is legal and an accepted norm.
Nicotine is a drug, it has disaterous effects on people that get addicted, yet it is legal and an accepted, if barely tolerated, norm.
Caffeine is a drug, and isn't considered to be one, for being so accepted.

The government makes millions off of Nicotine that is why.

So, why is weed, which has so far proven to have NO direct fatalities, NO addictive elements, and NO ill effects on people's behaviour illegal? The same can be said for LSD, MDMA, mushrooms - none are addictive, and none have detrimental effects.

I agree show me one person who died off of an over dose of pot?

And don't try the "Oh, one leads to the other" argument. I've smoked weed for five years, and haven't paused to think "Wait, I need something stronger." I've experimented with other drugs (except Heroin; no fucking way, thank you very much), yet don't dash around looking for a fix every time I crawl up the walls (besides, Coke didn't do much for me, and Ketamin is boring, and I sneeze the shit out in five minutes anyway).

Same here..not everyone is the same but we all have to suffer beacuse of a the "bad apples".

[bumcheekcity]

Drugs are not a victimless crime. The big ones (crack/heroin) are made in the rainforests of Brazil by millionaires with BILLIONS of dollars inn the bank and private armies at their command. They will force an entire village to farm nothing but their opium poppy, and then they will kill the entire village after a year or so, so that they dont tell.

If nobodyu used drugs, there would be no little tribes in the rainforest getting shot all the time.

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/21/03 01:29 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Drugs are not a victimless crime. The big ones (crack/heroin) are made in the rainforests of Brazil by millionaires with BILLIONS of dollars inn the bank and private armies at their command. They will force an entire village to farm nothing but their opium poppy, and then they will kill the entire village after a year or so, so that they dont tell.

If nobodyu used drugs, there would be no little tribes in the rainforest getting shot all the time.

but if drugs were legal, then we would know who these bastards are when they walk into the store with a new shipment. Then we could replace them with legal manufacturers who release 100% of their operating information. The legal guys would make a shitload more money by cutting out the middle men and mass producing, and not worry about getting busted, while the illegal village killers would be relegated to doing business in some country where they have less competition, ie one with drug prohibition. Thus we stop the village killing drug cartels, and generate tax revenue on the legal trade, thus reducing taxes for non-drug users. Everyone wins, except the criminals.

[nitroxide]

The government will have you believe anything they want with enough negative words and abc after school specials people will accept what they are told"drugs are bad" i have done many drugs,i am a productive member of society,i dont lack anything in my life yet the projected image of a drughead is a loser getting high all the time thats the only way were shown.I dint do harder drugs because i needed a better high i did it cause i fucking wanted to its a choice and this choice is a birth right noone should be able to tell you what you cant do with your body.LOL...let them say tatoos are illegal.

The drug cartel is always shown as as violent and uncaring organization im not protecting them what they do is bad but many are just trying to make money,Can you blame the farmers for wanting to work with them when the alternative job is in some cases 65% less pay,they wouldnt even exist if it wasnt for prohibition there would be no town shootouts over possesion of land for drug production.Drugs are not harmful only people that allow themselves to let the drug control.I have never heard of someone dying of a marijuana overdose.The very reason drugs exist and continue to fluctuate in our society is because the government profits from it and if it were legal they would lose profit.

[GnarlyCar]

At 5/21/03 01:29 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Drugs are not a victimless crime. The big ones (crack/heroin) are made in the rainforests of Brazil by millionaires with BILLIONS of dollars inn the bank and private armies at their command. They will force an entire village to farm nothing but their opium poppy, and then they will kill the entire village after a year or so, so that they dont tell.

If nobodyu used drugs, there would be no little tribes in the rainforest getting shot all the time.

If drugs WERE NOT ILLEGAL, there would be no little tribes in the rainforest getting shot all the time.

Drugs ARE a victimless crime, and if they weren't illegal, there'd be no reason to hide deep in the rainforest to produce them, and thier production could be managed by legitimate businessmen who don't see fit to kill people to get it done. The reason these violent druglords are rich is because of the laws against it, and because of those laws, it takes a violent criminal to provide the product.
Why are they billionaires? Because they have to hide in the middle of nowhere to produce thier product and they expect to get paid for the trouble of doing that, on top of the grave risk involved. Take that risk away, and they don't get rich.

Produce drugs under controlled conditions right in the middle of town behind a legitimate storefront, and 75% of the overhead is gone. Structure the price in such a way that it would be about the same to the user (because that's what they're used to paying; the market will bear it), let the manufacturer make some decent money, and take the difference in tax revenue to use for drug education and any number of other things we never seem to have enough money for, like prison space and schools.

Something being wrong DOES NOT equal the need for a law against it. I think everyone would agree that adultery is wrong, but there ain't anyone sitting in jail right now for it, at least not in the US.

Drugs themselves do not make people do things they wouldn't already have the inclination to do. Drugs do not make people bad. People who are already bad use drugs. Not all drug users are bad, but most bad people are drug users. That's where the law is wrong. It turns the casual drug user into a criminal for no good reason.

I used a LOT of drugs in the few years that I used. A little speed, a little hash, and a LOT of weed. I still have many friends who are drug users, most of whom just smoke some dope from time to time. There's nothing wrong with it. I have to question the intelligence of anyone using crack or heroin or any shit like that, but the simple act of their using those things doesn't make them bad people, just stupid.

When are people going to realize that making things illegal does not stop people from doing it? Murder, rape, and theft are illegal, and people still do that. People should be punished for harming others, and that's what laws are for. The simple act of using drugs harms no one, in and of itself. It's the fact that they're illegal that's harmful to society.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 5/21/03 12:05 AM, GnarlyCar wrote: The same could be said for prostitution, but the state of Nevada seems to be doing OK.

The sate of nevada also has legalized gambling and a variety of other priveledges that other states dont have.
I guess they figured that if people go to nevada to have fun, might as well make it legal.

[mrpopenfresh]

If things like heroin where legal, just think what people would do. Instead of going to the coffe shop for a coffe to get their day started, they go in in for a quick line of coke. Just think what kind of people legalizing hard drugs would make.

On the other hand legalizing wouldnt make that huge of a fuss, but the acceptance... that would really screw up society.

[JudgeDredd]

Weed is Illegal because "pharmaceuticals" pull in more tax revenue, and earn American drug companies more foreign exchange than any other industrialized health scam.

[PreacherJ]

At 5/21/03 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
So, why is weed, which has so far proven to have NO direct fatalities, NO addictive elements, and NO ill effects on people's behaviour illegal? The same can be said for LSD, MDMA, mushrooms - none are addictive, and none have detrimental effects.

And don't try the "Oh, one leads to the other" argument. I've smoked weed for five years, and haven't paused to think "Wait, I need something stronger." I've experimented with other drugs (except Heroin; no fucking way, thank you very much), yet don't dash around looking for a fix every time I crawl up the walls (besides, Coke didn't do much for me, and Ketamin is boring, and I sneeze the shit out in five minutes anyway).

If anything, shouldn't MORE people be encouraged to smoke a joint every once in a while, to chill the fuck out? Or how about a little mind expanding with some mushrooms. For both, you can function perfectly well, and think a lot clearer, yet drunken hicks call you "hippie" and try and kick your head in, although they can't make up their minds which one of the three they should be aiming at.

Alright-

Weed does have detrimental effects. It contains seven times the amount of toxins and poisons that cigarettes do. How many people do you think died of lung cancer and had it blamed on weed? None, I'm sure, when big tobacco is soaking up most of the blame. Do a little bit of research before you spout stuff like this off. As for the effects on behavior, whether or not you can act fine under the influence of weed and whether or not everybody can are completely different things. Just because you don't know anybody who can't drive well when they're stoned doesn't mean that they don't exist. By that same token, just because the other drugs weren't your cup of tea doesn't mean that it doesn't affect other people either. You said yourself that you tried other stuff (except for heroin), and just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that there aren't other people who get exposed to it because they smoke weed.

Yes, most pot smokers don't move on. But basing your argument that none of them do on the basis that you didn't doesn't mean anything. Just because I'm not gay doesn't mean that you aren't, you know?

As for the other things, I hope to god that you aren't advocating people to drive on acid or mushrooms. That's a mistake with a big fucking capital "M." Once again, you might have been cool, but I myself have tried both acid and shrooms, and I was in no condition to drive. Now, using the same argument you did works for me, however, because my inability to drive while fucked up shows that not everybody can be a completely functional member of society under the influence of this stuff. Maybe weed/shrooms/acid helps you think clearer. But for many people, it doesn't, you dirty hippie :-P.

Sure, alcohol has a bad effect on your ability to drive and it's legal. But claiming that these drugs have no ill effect on your behavior is preposterous.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/21/03 03:06 PM, GnarlyCar wrote: Drugs ARE a victimless crime, and if they weren't illegal, there'd be no reason to hide deep in the rainforest to produce them, and thier production could be managed by legitimate businessmen who don't see fit to kill people to get it done. The reason these violent druglords are rich is because of the laws against it, and because of those laws, it takes a violent criminal to provide the product.
Why are they billionaires? Because they have to hide in the middle of nowhere to produce thier product and they expect to get paid for the trouble of doing that, on top of the grave risk involved. Take that risk away, and they don't get rich.

Drugs ARE NOT a victimless crime for as long as we keep them illegal. I am greatly in favour of what you have just said. Allowing registered persons (only doctors, in my opinion) to administer drugs would make life a lot easier for the police and the drug user.

Something being wrong DOES NOT equal the need for a law against it. I think everyone would agree that adultery is wrong, but there ain't anyone sitting in jail right now for it, at least not in the US.

I believe a billion people would disagree with you on adultery being wrong. I have never seen why the human male needs to attach itself to life with a single female only.

And yes. Something being wrong DOES require a law. It just deprnds on the severity of the crime. I believe having an atrocious singing voice and waking me up to a rendition of Frank Sinatra is wrong, yet my father is not in prison.

Drugs themselves do not make people do things they wouldn't already have the inclination to do. Drugs do not make people bad. People who are already bad use drugs. Not all drug users are bad, but most bad people are drug users. That's where the law is wrong. It turns the casual drug user into a criminal for no good reason.

I reckon drug users are victims who need help, not necesserily bad people. They have made bad decisions. Ozzy Osbourne, for example is a nice man. Utterly mad, but he seems like a very nice man but his liufe has been ruined by the sheer amount of drugs he took.

I used a LOT of drugs in the few years that I used. A little speed, a little hash, and a LOT of weed. I still have many friends who are drug users, most of whom just smoke some dope from time to time. There's nothing wrong with it. I have to question the intelligence of anyone using crack or heroin or any shit like that, but the simple act of their using those things doesn't make them bad people, just stupid.

In a previous patragraph you just said most bad people were drug users. I understood what you were/are saying but please make things like this clear. It seemed to me at first that you were saying all drug users were bad, then saying you took drugs. I understand you now though.

When are people going to realize that making things illegal does not stop people from doing it? Murder, rape, and theft are illegal, and people still do that. People should be punished for harming others, and that's what laws are for. The simple act of using drugs harms no one, in and of itself. It's the fact that they're illegal that's harmful to society.

It deterrs the law-abiding. If the was no law against murder, and I could get away with it scot-free. I might just have killed a few people by now. The simple act of using drugs harms the little rainforest man, who innocently gets shot because you take your junk. If it was legaised then nobody would be harmed, but the fact is that it DOES harm people, albeit because it it illegal.

[metaph0r3]

At 5/22/03 01:30 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

At 5/21/03 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
So, why is weed, which has so far proven to have NO direct fatalities, NO addictive elements, and NO ill effects on people's behaviour illegal? The same can be said for LSD, MDMA, mushrooms - none are addictive, and none have detrimental effects.

And don't try the "Oh, one leads to the other" argument. I've smoked weed for five years, and haven't paused to think "Wait, I need something stronger." I've experimented with other drugs (except Heroin; no fucking way, thank you very much), yet don't dash around looking for a fix every time I crawl up the walls (besides, Coke didn't do much for me, and Ketamin is boring, and I sneeze the shit out in five minutes anyway).

If anything, shouldn't MORE people be encouraged to smoke a joint every once in a while, to chill the fuck out? Or how about a little mind expanding with some mushrooms. For both, you can function perfectly well, and think a lot clearer, yet drunken hicks call you "hippie" and try and kick your head in, although they can't make up their minds which one of the three they should be aiming at.

Alright-

Weed does have detrimental effects. It contains seven times the amount of toxins and poisons that cigarettes do. How many people do you think died of lung cancer and had it blamed on weed? None, I'm sure, when big tobacco is soaking up most of the blame. Do a little bit of research before you spout stuff like this off. As for the effects on behavior, whether or not you can act fine under the influence of weed and whether or not everybody can are completely different things. Just because you don't know anybody who can't drive well when they're stoned doesn't mean that they don't exist. By that same token, just because the other drugs weren't your cup of tea doesn't mean that it doesn't affect other people either. You said yourself that you tried other stuff (except for heroin), and just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that there aren't other people who get exposed to it because they smoke weed.

Yes, most pot smokers don't move on. But basing your argument that none of them do on the basis that you didn't doesn't mean anything. Just because I'm not gay doesn't mean that you aren't, you know?

As for the other things, I hope to god that you aren't advocating people to drive on acid or mushrooms. That's a mistake with a big fucking capital "M." Once again, you might have been cool, but I myself have tried both acid and shrooms, and I was in no condition to drive. Now, using the same argument you did works for me, however, because my inability to drive while fucked up shows that not everybody can be a completely functional member of society under the influence of this stuff. Maybe weed/shrooms/acid helps you think clearer. But for many people, it doesn't, you dirty hippie :-P.

Sure, alcohol has a bad effect on your ability to drive and it's legal. But claiming that these drugs have no ill effect on your behavior is preposterous.

I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. People say that Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes...Let me educate you

When you smoke THC, your lungs expand. They move farther apart and thus gives you more room to breath. Less tar gets through this way.

When you smoke Niccotine, your lungs do the exact opposite. They move closer, giving less space for the smoke to get through. This way your lungs are resinated full of tobacco smoke.

And once and for all, the marijuana LEAVES contains for tar than tobacco. But, you do not smoke the leaves. You smoke the buds, which if grown properly is 100% pure nature.

And as for your statement on how everybodys different, you're right. Everybody is different. Some will smoke weed and it might lead to other things, some might not. But, you're forgetting a key factor. Why blame a plant on a persons behavior? If somebody becomes addicted to coke, its not because he smoked marijuana. It's because he is so dependant on a drug he will lie, steal and pawn anything just to get that quick fix. Don't blame somebodys problems on an herb...

[PreacherJ]

At 5/22/03 01:54 AM, metaph0r3 wrote:

At 5/22/03 01:30 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

At 5/21/03 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. People say that Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes...Let me educate you

When you smoke THC, your lungs expand. They move farther apart and thus gives you more room to breath. Less tar gets through this way.

When you smoke Niccotine, your lungs do the exact opposite. They move closer, giving less space for the smoke to get through. This way your lungs are resinated full of tobacco smoke.

And once and for all, the marijuana LEAVES contains for tar than tobacco. But, you do not smoke the leaves. You smoke the buds, which if grown properly is 100% pure nature.

And as for your statement on how everybodys different, you're right. Everybody is different. Some will smoke weed and it might lead to other things, some might not. But, you're forgetting a key factor. Why blame a plant on a persons behavior? If somebody becomes addicted to coke, its not because he smoked marijuana. It's because he is so dependant on a drug he will lie, steal and pawn anything just to get that quick fix. Don't blame somebodys problems on an herb...

I'm tired of sifting through anti/pro marijuana studies to defend my beliefs. If you care enough to sift through the several posts I made on this topic, go nuts. But for the record-

I did not say "tar". I said "poisons."

I didn't say that marijuana always leads to coke addictions. I merely stated that everybody's different, and that exposure to the drug element can lead to people trying other things, and then becoming addicted. If you're partying with your weed dealer, and he happens to deal coke as well, and he offers you some, and you try it, and you become addicted, didn't it all stem from you buying weed from him in the first place? That's what I meant, and it IS because he decided to smoke weed.

Bottom line-
Marjuana is harmful. Even the most benevolent of sites that claimed to have done research on the topic said that it contained at least 33% of the "tar" content in cigarettes in the buds of the marijuana plant. If you put enough smoke of any kind in your lungs, what the fuck do you expect? I'm tired of this "it's 100% natural" bullshit. So was the fucking bubonic plauge. Momma Nature can still kill you. Go hug a tree and leave me alone.

[metaph0r3]

marijuana being natural wasnt my point. a person can smoke 1 joint in about 4 hours for a good buzz. but then, another person smokes about 8 cigarettes in 4 hours. Who is going to live longer?

And again, why blame marijuana for somebodys coke addiction. yes, they may have started smoking marijuana with a coke dealer. but it is that persons behavior and own responsibility to choose to either take the coke or not.

Poisons? Name them

[PreacherJ]

At 5/22/03 02:26 AM, metaph0r3 wrote: marijuana being natural wasnt my point. a person can smoke 1 joint in about 4 hours for a good buzz. but then, another person smokes about 8 cigarettes in 4 hours. Who is going to live longer?

If being natural wasn't your point, then you shouldn't have said the "100% natural" line. Make your points clearer. As for the smoking amount, you once again have no basis, as I know people who smoke more weed than tobacco. There's also no way to tell how much longer who will live than the other. There's too many variables in life.

And again, why blame marijuana for somebodys coke addiction. yes, they may have started smoking marijuana with a coke dealer. but it is that persons behavior and own responsibility to choose to either take the coke or not.

I'm not saying the marijuana itself did it. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of "environment." I'm just saying that exposure to marijuana can lead to exposure of coke. What you appear to think I'm saying is that if you smoke marijuana you automatically try coke, which isn't what I said. Besides, now that we're on the point, you don't think that marijuana alters a person's judgment at all? You might be "Ultra-cool guy that weed doesn't really affect," but I have a few friends who have a lapse in their better judgement when they decide to do something potentially harmful and/or deadly and think it's hilarious because they're stoned.

Poisons? Name them

Carbon Monoxide, Ammonia, Actone, Benzene, Toulene, Acedaldehyde, and Benzopyrene, to name a few.

Now, once again, I'm done. Feel free to spout off whatever, but I'm not posting here again. I'm tired of the weed argument. If you did go back and read some of my posts, you'll see an exhaustive amount of info, and you'll notice that I actually support legalization.

Go weave me a hemp necklace or something. I'm tired of this crap.

[ichbincow]

mmm..Well I thought I would sit here and post arguments AGAINST drug useage and all the varoius causes and effects not only upon society as a whole but individuals---but reconsdering I come to this thought=1)Go right ahead kids (as that is the mentality I see mainly) please feel free to go right ahead and smoke your way to oblivion...shoot up..etc.---my thinking is that if you CANNOT control yourself you will eventually kill yourself/injure yourself physically and economically 2)Again I have no qualms in letting people do whatever drugs makes their brain cells light up PROVIDED in no way you endanger others do to your actions or lack of actions. 3)The laws which govern its regulations be strictly enforced meaning if your below the age of 18 you be severly fined and or spend time in a correctional facility etc..
My thinking is that ultimately the individuals who are doing whatever drugs are legalized will be affected adversely by them and will eventually destroy themselves in one form or another. I have no problems with this provided I (or others who choose NOT to use) are not affected and that those inviduals responsible for inrefering with my life due to the use/effects of whatever legal or illegal drugs be severly penalized.

[nitroxide]

Look at the poisons in cigarettes yet it legal

Carbon monoxide (CO): colorless, odorless, poison
Hydrocarbon (HC): toxic, with the potential to cause cancer
Nitrogen compounds (NO og NO2): poisonous, contribute to the formation of acid rain
Sulphour dioxide (SO2): When SO2 is mixed with water, acid rain is made
Lead: poisonous
Sot: causes cancer
Carbon dioxide (CO2): a greenhouse gas that traps the earth's heat and contributes to the potential for global warming

Just to name a few thre are many more alcholism is a huge problem among adolecents yet its still legal not for them but tell a child he cant do something and whats the first thing that child will want to do.
Everyday on the news they always have a new report about some product that is harmful...to much milk is bad for you take to little of it and its bad for you.Red meat is bad for you yet can help to cure cancer...to much eggs is bad etc.So what for arguements sake lets says it bad for you whose decision should it be if you want to subject yourself to drugs its your choice your life as long as your not hurting anyone who cares...either way prohibition is not the answer history clearly shows that.The basic term supply and demand.

[D2Kvirus]

I've got plenty of friends that smoke weed, and have done for several years, yet I'm still waiting for one to tell me that they think it's boring, and they'd rather just shoot up some skag instead. And they have friends who have done the same. And they have their friends. And so on.

Besides, isn't walking down the street more harmful than anything else? Considering all the crap that's been pumped into the atmosphere, it's a moot point claiming that there might be a bit of tar in weed. After all, if scientists have to dive to shipwrecks to get some pure iron or steel as a result of Hiroshima, I'll be skinning up without too much worry.