Marijuana legalization

James Turner80 said:Why is there even so much noise surrounding marijuana?

I think some people might actually see this as a deeper conversation about fundamental human liberties.😉

Good for them.

Sam Green73 said:What we really need is education. We should be explaining to people just how destructive this stuff is through personal experiences. Hopefully, that might steer some of those on the fence away from using such an evil substance.

However, the core issue here is political rather than medical.
The real debate centers on the pros and cons of marijuana prohibition.

As it stands, the entire marijuana market is a monopoly controlled by criminals. (I hope that point is clear enough)

Basic economics tells us that monopolies are inherently bad.
And are we really suggesting that criminals are the right people to hand a monopoly over to?

If you follow that logic, then every single black market could be solved simply through legalization. I know that wasn't your intention, but that’s essentially where the argument leads. From a purely economic standpoint, if more people are using marijuana, we end up with a less productive and less skilled workforce.

Kyle Ross56 said:Maybe serious arguments and documentaries don't work on you, but perhaps something like this will. The core message remains the same.

Sakoman is just a charlatan, whereas those pamphlets about drug cartels present much more substantial arguments. Go to any hospital with a psychiatric ward and ask a doctor to show you a single patient for whom marijuana was actually harmless.

Sam Green73 said:Some people might see this as an argument regarding fundamental human liberties😉

It’s the exact same logic applied to pedophilia.

Joseph Kern11 said:If you follow that logic to its natural conclusion, the solution to any black market is basically just legalization. I know, I know—that’s probably not exactly what you were getting at, but when you strip everything else away, that’s really what it boils down to.

Look, that’s just not how it works. You don't fix the black market by just throwing more regulations at it. If you really want to tackle the underground economy, you have two real options: either tighten the screws with much stricter oversight, or—and this is the one people usually forget—just lower the tax burden. When you make it cheaper to play by the rules, people actually start following them.

Joseph Kern11 said:Look, if we’re being honest from a purely economic standpoint, there's a real downside to consider here. If a larger chunk of the population starts using weed regularly, we’re looking at a workforce that’s likely going to be less productive and less sharp. It's hard to build a high-functioning, highly educated labor market when people are constantly feeling sluggish or unmotivated. From a big-picture perspective, it just doesn't add up for the economy.

Honestly, looking at my own circle, I’ve noticed a pretty consistent pattern: most people I know who use MDMA—whether they’re doing it now or used to—are actually quite highly educated. We're talking people with college degrees, and honestly, quite a few even have PhDs. It's definitely not what you see in the stereotypes.
They weren't doing it every single day, nor were they hitting it on a weekly basis. It wasn't part of their regular routine at all.

Honestly, I’d be just as quick to send kids out to juvenile detention if they were caught smoking regular cigarettes on a street corner, but you just don't seem to grasp that not everyone fits into that "underage" category. It's a bit more nuanced than that!
I’m glad to see you finally came to your senses. Honestly, if you can't get a handle on your usage and actually keep things under control, it's much better to just stay away from it altogether.

Honestly, from what I’ve seen, most people I know who use are just doing it occasionally. They aren't some lost cause, either—they're actually pretty educated, high achievers, and incredibly efficient in their daily lives.

Honestly, if you look at it from a certain angle, the people who are constantly hooked on legal stuff—I'm talking about alcohol, cigarettes, and all that greasy fast food—seem to be in an even more pathetic state than those using anything else. It’s just a different kind of struggle.
So, why aren't you out there fighting to get that stuff criminalized? Seriously, what's the deal?
Do you have any idea how many people actually lose their lives to issues tied to alcohol, nicotine, and obesity? It’s honestly staggering when you start looking at the numbers.

Joseph Kern11 said:From an economic standpoint, if more people start smoking weed, we're looking at a less efficient and less educated workforce.

The way you generalize is honestly absurd. So, according to you, legalization means absolutely everyone starts smoking? I’m done responding to your posts... your worldview is just too narrow and closed-minded to engage with.

And one more thing: DRUG CARTELS!!!!!!!!

😲

Sam Green73 said:That’s not quite how it works. You tackle the black market through tighter regulation and/or tax cuts. Most people I know who use MDMA are college graduates or even PhD holders. They aren't doing it every single day or even every week. Honestly, if we were talking about minors smoking regular cigarettes on the street, I’d advocate for mandatory rehabilitation programs, but you seem to be struggling to grasp that not everyone is a minor.
It’s good that you’ve finally come to your senses; if you can't manage consumption responsibly, it's better to just stay away from it altogether.

But how many people actually fall into that category? How many people are going to start using daily just because cannabis becomes available and is socially and legally accepted? You only need to look at the example of the Netherlands to see the potential impact.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/solom2.htm

Sam Green73 said:The people I know who use it do so occasionally; they are educated and highly productive.
In reality, the people consuming legal substances like alcohol, tobacco, and fast food are far more problematic.
Why aren't you fighting to criminalize those instead?
Do you have any idea how many lives are lost to diseases linked to alcohol, nicotine, and obesity?

That’s beside the point, but if you ask me, cigarettes should be banned. As for alcohol and obesity, there should definitely be specific measures introduced to address those issues as well.

Joseph Kern11, you’re dodging again... just like your imaginary allies who apparently can't counter an actual argument regarding HUMAN AGENCY. Instead, you start dragging in all sorts of irrelevant nonsense. I don't even know how many people you've managed to pull into this debate—minors, suicides, even pedophiles—not to mention tossing out phrases like "the path of eternal fire" or "EVIL," terms that really belong in a sermon rather than here. Honestly, if you weren't constantly attacking everyone in sight, I might have put you on my ignore list by now, but I'll stick around just to see who else becomes your target.

On a more serious note:

Sam Green73 said:But the topic is political, not a health issue.
The real question is the pros and cons of marijuana illegality.

Right now, cartels hold a total monopoly on the marijuana trade. (Hopefully, that part is clear enough.)

The upsides of legalizing marijuana include shifting revenue from the black market into state coffers—much like we do with cigarettes—and ensuring quality control over the product (so people aren't buying literal clay or glass dust just to add weight). Plus, police could focus on actual crime instead of chasing down people for getting high...
As for the downsides, I don't see them. Even if it stays illegal, those who want to use it will continue to do so, and those who want to overindulge will still find ways. It would be virtually identical to the legal scenario.

Sam Green73 said:Do you realize how many people die from illnesses related to alcohol, nicotine, and obesity?

There it is again: individual agency...
If someone can't handle one or two drinks without being wasted every single day, that isn't my problem. If someone can't stop at one cookie and ends up eating the whole box, that isn't my problem. If someone "needs" to have a cigarette in their mouth at all times, they can deal with themselves.
As a legal, mentally competent adult, I have the right to my coffee and my cigarettes, my glass of wine, and my cookies or whatever other food might be bad for someone... By that same logic, I should have the right to buy marijuana "like a civilized person"—legally, at a store, in original packaging, with a fixed price tag and a consumer service number to call if there's a complaint...

Joseph Kern11 said:Sakoman is a total fraud, and using drug cartel propaganda as actual arguments is a joke. Just walk into any hospital with a psych ward and ask a doctor to point out one single person for whom weed was actually harmless.

Oh sure, typical... apparently every legitimate argument is just some lie from the narco lobby trying to move more product, god, what stereotypical nonsense... You want a psychiatrist? Well, if you’d actually watched the film I linked, you’d have found one. There’s a psychiatrist in there, but not some local guy from some tiny town, he's from Harvard. So maybe give it a watch.

As for the Netherlands, nice job, you didn't even provide a biased link since it came from the DEA.
We have a saying on this forum for those of us who actually follow drug news: "The DEA's biggest enemies are science and facts."

Looks like that applies to you too.

slypuma17 said:The usual argument about individual freedom and choice...

At the end of the day, an individual makes their own choices regarding both illegal acts and legal ones.
Let’s be realistic here—marijuana can be just as addictive as nicotine.
Since big tobacco companies run such massive propaganda campaigns (including pushing their own "scientific studies" to downplay nicotine's risks, much like how some people are doing right now regarding marijuana), they manage to keep their industry legal.
We all know nicotine is a drug, which is why the government tries to limit how many people consume it through legal channels.
I'm talking about things like smoking bans in public places or age restrictions... I'm not even debating whether people actually follow those laws or not.
So, if there's a push to restrict nicotine (and honestly, it looks like they might actually succeed in the long run), why on earth would we legalize marijuana?...

James Turner80 said:Look, if they're already attempting to ban nicotine—which feels inevitable given enough time—then why on earth would they move toward legalizing marijuana?

Because it isn't addictive, and it certainly doesn't pose the same health risks as nicotine. 🙂

Joseph Kern11 said:Check out this deep dive on drug policy... it’s a wild ride through how we handle everything from cocaine to meth... definitely worth a look if you want to see how the whole system actually functions.

You seriously didn't even glance at this part of the page, did you...?
Check out this link to Schaffer's plan... http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...plan/index.htm

James Turner80 said:At the end of the day, it’s all on you... whether you decide to follow the rules or just go rogue...
Let's not kid ourselves here, weed is just as addictive as nicotine...
It’s wild how big tobacco manages to stay legal just by flooding the world with high-end propaganda... especially when you look at those "scientific studies" they use to claim nicotine isn't actually harmful, which feels pretty similar to the way people are trying to spin the whole marijuana thing right now...
Let’s be real, we all know nicotine is a drug too, which is exactly why the government keeps trying to tighten the screws and cut down on everyone using it legally...
We're talking about stuff like banning smoking in public places or making it illegal to let minors light up... I'm not even questioning whether people actually follow those rules or anything...
So, since they’re basically trying to ban nicotine—and honestly, it looks like they might actually pull it off eventually... why on earth would they go ahead and legalize marijuana?

Because all that nonsense you just spewed here doesn't have a shred of truth to it... You're seriously claiming marijuana is as addictive as nicotine? Please, nicotine is easily one of the most addictive substances known to man...

So I was looking at this chart ranking how addictive different substances actually are, and honestly, seeing Nicotine sitting there at a 99 with Meth at 98 and Crack at 97 just hits different... then you see Alcohol trailing at 81 and Heroin right behind it at 80... even snorted Cocaine is up at 71 while Caffeine is hovering around 70... meanwhile, Marijuana is down at 22, MDMA is at 20, Psilocybin is at 19, LSD is at 16, and Mescaline is chilling at 15... kind of wild if you think about it...

Source is from:
Perrine, Daniel M. 1996. The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs: History, Pharmacology, and Cultural ContextWashington, DC: American Chemical Society

Before you go calling this total bullshit just because it bruised your ego regarding Heroin being the most addictive drug out there, maybe take a look at who actually published it... It’s the American Chemical Society, meaning actual scientists, not some political agency like the DEA...

Not to mention there aren't even recorded deaths from marijuana, whereas nicotine hits you at around 50-60 mg/kg... which makes it more toxic than arsenic and like twenty times more lethal than cocaine... turns out that's a pretty wild reality check.

So, you're saying because they're cracking down on smoking, we should go after weed too? Honestly, why stop there? Let's just ban everything that carries even a hint of risk—driving, hiking, swimming, the whole nine yards... Then we can all live these perfectly safe, mindless, beige little lives where nothing ever happens...

Whether big tobacco propaganda actually exists or not is pretty much irrelevant at this point, because people are dropping dead from smoking every single day right in front of our eyes... People don't die from marijuana. Ever. Unless there's some specific case I'm totally unaware of, in which case feel free to drop a link so I can see it for myself...

I don't even smoke, but when it comes to these public smoking bans... look, I get it if you want to ban it in government buildings, schools, or hospitals—that’s fine. And workplace bans make sense if you're stuck in an office with non-smokers. But banning it in coffee shops? No way. Get real. You just inhaled eighteen times more toxic exhaust from your own car and everyone else's on the drive over, soaked up a massive dose of UV rays and radio waves from cell towers, and then you walk into a place where people are basically pouring poison down their throats for fun, only to start whining about a little smoke? Give me a break. It's exactly like those drug prohibition zealots... just hypocritical, self-righteous wannabes who can only see one side of the story. If there's any reason I feel embarrassed about being a non-smoker, it's because I'm terrified people might actually mistake me for one of you...

I mean, more than half the people I see in coffee shops on a Saturday night are smoking anyway... so what? It’s democracy. If a tiny minority can't handle it, they can just go somewhere else. A business should be allowed to decide its own damn rules regarding smoking...

First off, DJ wasn't out there eating cacti or sipping water where hallucinogenic frogs bathe, and he definitely wasn't smoking weed. If he was tripping, he was tripping on hunger.

What else? Isn't all that stuff already legal in the Netherlands?🤔
It’d be great if we had little cafes like they do in the Netherlands instead of worrying about actual crime. We’ve got fields, meadows, farmland, and tourism everywhere! Where else would you go?
I think the Netherlands is going a bit overboard with all the legalization, but when it comes to soft drugs, I figure it's totally fine since it's easier to manage health and stay informed about your own well-being and all that.
Is decriminalization just for marijuana? Or are we talking more soft drugs? It would be cool to have a little pot plant sitting next to my philodendron 😁

Regarding all this bickering over how soft drugs affect your health—if someone is already predisposed to a disorder, they could be "triggered" by bad company, some loser, or just any kind of disappointment. Just look at what the Japanese man is doing, man! 😲 🙂
While on the other hand, they're totally cool 😳 🧐

...which (among other things) is proven by plenty of famous people who experimented with drugs and similar sketchy (s)tuff.

For more info http://en.wikipedia.org 😍

Come on, this isn't even a debate about which substance is more addictive versus less; we’re supposed to be sticking to the actual topic here. There isn't a single thing on this planet that won't cause damage if you overindulge, even if it’s objectively "the best" thing out there. Whether someone chooses to go overboard and in what specific way—well, that's entirely up to them. My take? Advice is fine, but bans are not, because a ban is just a direct assault on the freedom of choice.

We are, for the umpteenth time, circling back to the core issue: does an individual (an adult with full mental capacity)) have the actual RIGHT to decide what they eat, drink, or smoke, under their own responsibility?
That is my question to you, you pro-prohibition crowd: do citizens actually possess the right to make their own decisions, or are you all just viewing us as a bunch of immature children and simpletons who need a babysitter to decide everything for us?

Look, tomy108, if you’re going to be that paranoid, you might as well just stop sitting at your computer altogether—I mean, monitors emit radiation, right? And don't bother stepping outside because the sun is "harmful" too. As for the whole college thing, there isn't any direct proof that weed actually messes with your brain—there just isn't enough evidence. I was watching some new documentary on a satellite stream the other day, and when they asked the scientists point-blank if marijuana causes harm, they couldn't say YES, simply because the data isn't there. RESPECT. Also, watch what you eat, since that’s just as "dangerous" 🧐

Ugh, I honestly can’t believe how many clueless, mindless people are out there who have absolutely no grasp on things that are clearly bad for you—just pure, unadulterated nonsense. It’s honestly pathetic how ignorant some people can be.
Hey, hello everyone. Look, don't take this the wrong way, and I know I'm probably going to catch a ban for posting this, but I haven't been active on this forum much lately anyway, so whatever.

Honestly, what else am I supposed to be convinced of?
But since I’m already wasting my time reading this, I might as well contribute something...
Since everyone here seems obsessed with the benefits of marijuana, I thought I'd pivot for a moment and talk about the downsides.
Marijuana actually consists of 426 different compounds, including over 70 cannabinoids. Each one hits specific bodily functions differently...
"Once cannabinoids enter fatty tissues, they can interfere with cell division, which essentially weakens or prevents the formation of DNA, RNA, and proteins within the cell. This leads to decreased cellular activity. The actual damage cannabinoids inflict on various organs really depends on how long they stay present and in what quantity..."
It is well established now that marijuana definitely alters chemical functions in the brain. Not even the experts fighting for legalization try to deny that part...
Furthermore, smoke from marijuana has been found to contain 50% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, for instance.
A group of specialists in California studied the health status of 450 daily marijuana users who didn't smoke cigarettes.
"They found that marijuana smokers suffered from respiratory issues and other ailments more frequently than the non-smoking group. Research has suggested that consistent use of marijuana or THC can be linked to certain types of cancer, as well as issues with the respiratory, immune, and reproductive systems."
"It's known that marijuana contains the same—and sometimes even more—carcinogenic substances found in tobacco smoke. Studies have shown that someone smoking five joints a week receives roughly the same amount of carcinogens as someone smoking a pack of cigarettes every day."
So, there you have it.
And besides...
Some research suggests smoking marijuana can contribute to the development of head and neck cancers. Since there aren't enough high-quality studies specifically on that point, I won't dwell on it. But I mention it just to show that these studies, regardless of their scope, do exist...
It isn't certain either that marijuana damages the entire human immune system, yet studies clearly show it can hinder the function of lung defense station cells when fighting infections.
Speaking of lungs, it should be noted that smoking marijuana causes respiratory problems just as much as cigarettes do. It can lead to bronchitis, colds, and in severe cases, pneumonia.
THC has also been proven to damage nerve cells in the part of the brain responsible for memory.
Research conducted up through the year 2000 had already demonstrated that most regular marijuana users faced greater struggles with work capacity, memory, and concentration compared to those who don't use it or use it very rarely.
Later, research from Harvard Medical School showed that those previous findings weren't quite enough to prove in 90% of cases that marijuana definitively destroys the brain in every single person who uses it.
Still, that doesn't mean the case is closed...
While we're talking about the brain, I can safely note that nearly 60% of studies regarding the psychological effects of marijuana suggest that consumption can trigger schizophrenia. Most psychologists would likely agree with that statement.
Though, I'm not denying there are those who disagree.

Kyle Ross56 said:So, you're arguing that because measures against smoking are being tightened, we should tighten them against weed too? By that logic, we should ban everything. Yeah, let's just ban everything that was ever considered "dangerous"—driving, hiking, swimming, all of it. Then we could all live perfectly safe, monotonous, bland lives that barely qualify as living at all.

You're talking nonsense.
The way you're twisting my words and misinterpreting my thoughts is honestly ridiculous... I think anyone can see that.
What I actually said—and what I truly meant—is this: if we try to ban tobacco (which is perfectly legal) simply because it's harmful, then why on earth would we push to legalize a single drug (which is currently illegal)? It feels like everything is heading toward banning anything that negatively impacts a person, and marijuana just happens to fall into that category.

Now, regarding legalization.

Why is there such resistance even to the mere possibility of decriminalizing marijuana?

- I haven't been in favor of decriminalization because I don't believe Americans have the same mindset as people in the Netherlands, who seem capable of handling the legalization of soft drugs. The level of awareness and education in the Netherlands is incredibly high. Their latest official data suggests that addiction rates for both soft and hard drugs actually decreased following the legalization of marijuana and hashish. On the other hand, reports coming out of Oregon tell a completely different story. Over there, after soft drugs were legalized, the number of users and addicts for both soft and hard drugs rose significantly. In my view, the American mindset isn't quite ready to support legalization yet... maybe in thirty years, once our behavior shifts in other areas too. Until then, we have to realize we aren't quite at the same stage as certain parts of Western Europe. We are lagging behind those places in many respects, and I don't think we should try to skip the natural stages of social, communal, and health-related development. Given our current situation, legalizing marijuana would likely cause a massive spike in consumption and lead to more people becoming addicted to other substances.

I was speaking with Dr. Zora Itković (an adjunct professor at the University of Zadar). My opinion aligns with hers.
But at the same time, I want to point out the bolded text immediately.
What does that imply?
Can't you see that you can't just generalize about anything, including marijuana?
Some people seem hell-bent on trying to do exactly that.
Using examples like "I use it and still pass all my exams" just isn't a valid way to argue.
Until next time!

James Turner80 said:Since everyone here seems to be stuck on nothing but the positive side of marijuana, I figured I’d chime in and talk about the downsides for a bit.

Look, the topic at hand is legalization, not whether the stuff is good or bad for your body.

Do yourself a favor and go read up on Milton Friedman's take on these kinds of issues—it might give you some much-needed perspective.

We are in the politics subforum, not the health one.

Sam Green73 said:Look, we're talking about legalization here, not some endless debate over whether it's good or bad for your body...

You can't even bring up legalizing drugs without people immediately pivoting to health concerns, because that's basically the only card the prohibitionists have left to play to justify criminalization...

James Turner80 said:Seriously, what else are you guys gonna try to talk me into...
Since I'm basically wasting my time reading this anyway, I might as well contribute something...
Since everyone here seems obsessed with talking about how great marijuana is, I figured I’d jump in and actually mention some of the downsides...
So, apparently marijuana actually packs over 426 different compounds, including more than 70 distinct cannabinoids... and each one hits your system differently to mess with various bodily functions...
Once those cannabinoids hit the fat cells, they start messing with cell division, which basically chokes out the production of DNA, RNA, and proteins... eventually just killing the cell's ability to function. How much damage actually gets done to the organs really just boils down to how long they hang around and how much stuff is actually in there...
Let's be real, everyone knows marijuana definitely messes with your brain chemistry these days... but honestly, nobody even tries to whine about it, not even the experts out there fighting tooth and nail for legalization...
Plus, get this—the smoke from marijuana actually contains 50% more carcinogens than something like tobacco... turns out that whole marijuana myth is even wilder than people think...

It’s pretty wild how much you know about the marijuana myth... took you forever to Google all that up, didn't it?
I can't believe people actually fall for this stuff... some "expert" column claiming that certain behaviors are linked to specific substances when it's really just basic psychology at work... honestly, it's all just a bunch of noise to keep everyone panicking...

And this is what you're calling a source? Just some unsigned piece written by any random prohibitionist after a quick Google search through sponsored studies that were rigged from the jump... Does he even cite his sources?

And this too...
Check out this breakdown on the marijuana myth over at Erowid... it’s pretty wild how much misinformation is still floating around out there...

And yeah, the only research actually worth a damn is the independent, non-sponsored stuff—you know, away from all that pseudo-science backed by big pharma... I linked a documentary about MDMA a couple of pages back in one of my posts, check it out if you want to see how those government-funded "studies" basically just gaslight concerned parents...

Look, here are the sources:
The whole marijuana myth regarding mental health... it's honestly such a mess...Check this out—it’s from one of the founders of Erowid, which is basically the gold standard for everything psychoactive online. Just look at how many references they packed in at the end...

Honestly, cigarettes are way more destructive than marijuana...UC Berkeley...

And of course... The marijuana myth...Just hit "Footnotes" at the bottom and you'll see all the actual sources they're basing this on...

I just tore your entire post to shreds...

James Turner80 said:1. You're talking nonsense.
The way you're twisting my words and my logic is honestly hilarious... I think anyone can see what's happening here.
My point was this: if we try to ban things like tobacco (which is totally legal) just because they're harmful, then why wouldn't we legalize one specific drug (which is currently illegal)? It feels like everything is heading toward banning anything that negatively impacts people, and marijuana definitely fits that description.

2. Can't you guys see that you can't just generalize about everything, including marijuana?
Some people just insist on doing it.
Using examples like "I use it and still pass all my exams" isn't a solid argument.

1. Look, if you actually believe the government should decide for you by banning everything that's bad for you, then there’s something seriously wrong with your head. Like I said, if we follow that logic where everything harmful gets banned, eventually you won't even be allowed to drink water or eat bread. Just because the world is following a shitty trend doesn't mean we have to jump on board. My first post in this thread, and that second link I sent Tommy, explains exactly why prohibiting any substance is a terrible idea... it's morally wrong, it fails, and it's totally counterproductive.

2. And those stories like "I smoked every day and ruined my life, so don't smoke, it's pure evil" aren't generalizations? That's basically saying, "I messed up, so you guys will too"... how is that not a generalization?