Perdiction: Medical marijuana Legal coast to coast By 2021

[Robcardu]

How can one person hold so much ingnorance? this is unbelievable.

 

[Line]

How can one person hold so much ingnorance? this is unbelievable.

I basically got the answer I thought I would. I find it funny when someone makes such bad points that I don't even have to attack them specifically to get across just how ridiculous they are.

 

[theweapon]

ignorance is legalizing weed to help reduce crime and everything.

sorry line i cant a PHD in a bunch of shit ok, so you use big words to obviously throw me off track.

yes im ignorant but i listen to you guys, more than what i can say for you.

YOU are ridiculous, you have your head far up your ass.

ever since this so called debate ive been disrespected called names etc. you guys are still wrong now go talk some more shit i dont care, tell me how ridiculous i am, i may not be a college grad but i have common sense and know how the world works.

its just not fucking possible you want legal drugs its not.
its like a twilight zone in this fucking forum where only the mods and admins are right and you got kiss ass VIP memebers to agree with you to get on your good side.

 

[tim290280]

Wow. Just WOW.

Some of the Dutchies here could probably comment on how effect drug control has become after legalisation. A few European countries have had great success in controlling heroin abuse, although I believe there were some downsides (like accumulating all the countries users in one city).

 

[BigBen]

ignorance is legalizing weed to help reduce crime and everything.

sorry line i cant a PHD in a bunch of shit ok, so you use big words to obviously throw me off track.

yes im ignorant but i listen to you guys, more than what i can say for you.

YOU are ridiculous, you have your head far up your ass.

ever since this so called debate ive been disrespected called names etc. you guys are still wrong now go talk some more shit i dont care, tell me how ridiculous i am, i may not be a college grad but i have common sense and know how the world works.

its just not fucking possible you want legal drugs its not.
its like a twilight zone in this fucking forum where only the mods and admins are right and you got kiss ass VIP memebers to agree with you to get on your good side.

Legalizing weed would shut down drug dealers becasue everyone would be buying their government approved drugs b/c the quality would be gaurenteed. think of my example of steroids. Who would you rather buy steroids from a street dealer or a pharmacist.

Dude the problem is that you have ZERO NOTHING backing up the way you feel but stereotypes and societal factors that you did not have control over. Your beliefs are yours becasue you chose to adopt them rather it was a conscience decision or not. weapon you believe what you do because you chose too believe it rather their was strong evidance backing your decision or rather it made you feel good. Your mind has been programmed a certain way since you were a child. Rather you know it or not it has been influenced and is still being influenced every day from other people, the news, yourself by what you choos eto accept or reject and believe and not believe. you are not in the twilight zone you are on an internet forum where people read, critically think, and come up with ideas of their own or agree with strong ideas of others. You do not have an argument besides "i feel" their is nothing backing that but your feelings and that is no basis for a debate. 4+5=9 because it does not because i like it to. i bring that up because the facts people are using to base their arguments against you are very well thought out and are not based on feelings they are based off of what has happened before in other countries.

My argument against your opposition weapon would be that their is no reason to think that the same result would happen in the united states that happened in other places of the world and they have no strong proof or evidence to say that people will act an expected way because they acted this way before. The theory behind legalizing drugs is really an intelligent economic theory, if people can buy a higher quality guaranteed product then the government will run drug dealers out of business unless the drug dealers began to find higher quality products and guarantee them. That is not the nature of most drug dealers. Is the problem you have with legalizing drugs the fact that drug use will then become acceptable and kill the hope of winning the war on drugs? The war on drugs will never be won because you cannot control people inside of their homes.

 

[Bulkboy]

Get the public hooked? You guys really are like an anti drug propaganda. You consider alcohol a social problem?

ye, get the public hooked. consumption will go up if its legalized, i dont think anyone can actually deny this. the point is that today, it exists a barrier against drugs, its generally viewed as ok to get shit wasted, however not so okay to inject a shot of heroine. its a powerful signal. if u legalize heroine, suddenly people wont view it as that bad anymore, and consumption will go up along with prices going down. some people sure enough, will be able to restrain themselves, other wont, and to me getting more of these people is just not of any interest.

im not against alchohol, its here to stay, i enjoy it myself and so does many others. im just saying that had it been introduced today it would probably come under more regulation, considering the amount of people who have developed severe problems with it, all the kids who suffer because their parents get wasted. i just think alcohol is enough, we dont need to legalize more and harder drugs.

Yes I can, because it's nonsense. Tell me how the economic costs of legalizing drugs will be more than what they currently are now, with the "war on drugs"? Come on Bulkboy, this is just laughable.

The war on drugs costs $40 billion dollars each year (1). This isn't even counting the fact that the average state (yes, times this by 50) spends a whopping $6.25 billion dollars per year to imprison drug related criminals!

Besides the one you live in, in what fantasy world is it even remotely possible that legalizing marijuana, or even drugs at all for that matter, would result in higher economic costs.

the societal costs totally would be higher, i really think so. think of it this way:

how many more overdoses would there be?

how many more people hurt or killed in traffic?

how much more violent crime?

how many more kids suffering because of abusive parents which then again the government has to take care off?

how many more people not being able to get a job or not pursuing a higher career because of problems with drugs?

and last but not least, how much more of a strain on the social service and health sector would there be? ie more people requiring health services, more people dependant on welfare etc etc...

all in all i would think that adds up to alot greater economic strain on society as a whole then the war on drugs currently being waged today.

 

[Line]

Since he comes back in 8 hours, I'll address this:

sorry line i cant a PHD in a bunch of shit ok, so you use big words to obviously throw me off track.

 

[Clint]

Since he comes back in 8 hours, I'll address this:

well done.

 

[Ironslave]

I'd apply the facepalm to Bulkboy's post as well.

ye, get the public hooked. consumption will go up if its legalized, i dont think anyone can actually deny this.

Not necessarily. Let's quit with the empty rhetoric, and look at statistics.

Reinarman C, Cohen PD, Kaal HL. The limited relevance of drug policy: cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco. Am J Public Health. 2004 May;94(5):836-42.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health. METHODS: We compared representative samples of experienced cannabis users in similar cities with opposing cannabis policies-Amsterdam, the Netherlands (decriminalization), and San Francisco, Calif (criminalization). We compared age at onset, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and other drug use. RESULTS: With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use. CONCLUSIONS: Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.

the point is that today, it exists a barrier against drugs, its generally viewed as ok to get shit wasted, however not so okay to inject a shot of heroine.

What on earth makes you think that would change?

if u legalize heroine, suddenly people wont view it as that bad anymore, and consumption will go up along with prices going down. some people sure enough, will be able to restrain themselves, other wont, and to me getting more of these people is just not of any interest.

Let's look at another article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

But in mid-1950s Britain, the spectre of drug addiction was a long way from the top of the public's concerns.

In fact, as the Times editorial states, in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts. History, regrettably, does not record the precise circumstances of the half-addict.

By contrast, in the US, where heroin was outlawed in 1925, it was said to be a "major social problem".

But who were this handful of heroin addicts?

According to Dr James Mills, a historian who has traced drug use through the 20th century, they tended to be doctors or middle-class patients who could afford to sustain a habit.

"In the 1930s, it was really the well-to-do crowd. The working classes might have a bit of heroin in the medicine prescribed to them but it wouldn't be enough to form a dependency," says Dr Mills.

Clearly, the fact heroin was legal and widely prescribed for common ailments such as coughs, colds and diarrhoea, as well as a pain killer, had not led to the sort of widespread dependency that opponents of legalisation fear it would do if legalised today.

im not against alchohol, its here to stay, i enjoy it myself and so does many others. im just saying that had it been introduced today it would probably come under more regulation, considering the amount of people who have developed severe problems with it, all the kids who suffer because their parents get wasted. i just think alcohol is enough, we dont need to legalize more and harder drugs.

Listen to the nonsense you're saying, how little faith do you have in society? Sure, people do have alcoholism, but that's a price to pay, and people need to take responsibilities for their actions. Did alcohol use skyrocket after prohibition and society became a bunch of alcoholic bums? Hardly.

the societal costs totally would be higher, i really think so. think of it this way:

how many more overdoses would there be?

how many more people hurt or killed in traffic?

how much more violent crime?

how many more kids suffering because of abusive parents which then again the government has to take care off?

how many more people not being able to get a job or not pursuing a higher career because of problems with drugs?

and last but not least, how much more of a strain on the social service and health sector would there be? ie more people requiring health services, more people dependant on welfare etc etc...

all in all i would think that adds up to alot greater economic strain on society as a whole then the war on drugs currently being waged today.

Do you actually believe this stuff, or are you just trying to be difficult?