Why is weed illegal?

[The Smashing Samurai]

Marijuana is not cyanide. There are instances of people on the substance who have made life-defining changes while on the substance which induced them to commit suicide and another case where the person in question pulled out a handgun and shot someone nearby according to Google.

So has social networking with cyber bullying. Your point?

Alcohol does the same thing. Still legal. People still drink it, despite the consequences. States still get tax revenue for it.
Cigarettes also do the same thing. Still legal. People still smoke them, despite the consequences. States still get tax revenue.
Marijuana is virtually harmless to the body. A much better alternative. Yet, for some reason, its illegal.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

So has social networking with cyber bullying. Your point? Alcohol does the same thing. Still legal. People still drink it, despite the consequences. States still get tax revenue for it. Cigarettes also do the same thing. Still legal. People still smoke them, despite the consequences. States still get tax revenue. Marijuana is virtually harmless to the body. A much better alternative. Yet, for some reason, its illegal.

It's legal.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

It's legal.

No, it is not. Not nationally. While many states allow it medically, in 48 states, its illegal to use in general.

Federally, its also illegal. It is illegal in the eyes of federal law.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

No, it is not. While many states allow it medically, in 48 states, its illegal to use in general. Federally, its also illegal. It is illegal in the eyes of federal law.

Oh yeah. It's generally banned because of its psychoactive properties. It's medically allowed in every state though.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

Oh yeah. It's generally banned because of its psychoactive properties. It's medically allowed in every state though.

Actually, marijuana can help with mental illness. While yes, the use of marijuana relates with anxiety, they are temporary.

Here are 10 facts of marijuana on this website, each packed with their own source that you can search up.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Actually, marijuana can help with mental illness. While yes, the use of marijuana relates with anxiety, they are temporary.

Here are 10 facts of marijuana on this website, each packed with their own source that you can search up.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana

Yes. And none of the points raised by the article contradict the ones I've cited in thread.

I was talking about Marinol (dronabinol) i.e. THC when I said that it's medically allowed in every state.

And it should be a controlled substance, not an OTC when observing similar medications that have psychoactive properties i.e. I think its positioning as a CIII is adequate. I'm fine with it being possibly a CIV, but not a CV because benzodiazepines are situated around CIV territory and I 'expect' that the use for it as a CIV would be for anxiety relief associated with a level of impairment that suggests that the person should not be behind the wheel while on the substance for the first time.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

Yes. And none of the points raised by the article contradict the ones I've cited in thread.

I was talking about Marinol (dronabinol) i.e. THC when I said that it's medically allowed in every state.

And it should be a controlled substance, not an OTC when observing similar medications that have psychoactive properties i.e. I think its positioning as a CIII is adequate. I'm fine with it being possibly a CIV, but not a CV because benzodiazepines are situated around CIV territory and I 'expect' that the use for it as a CIV would be for anxiety relief associated with a level of impairment that suggests that the person should not be behind the wheel while on the substance for the first time.

Sure, it should be controlled. Tax, regulated, and supervised just like cigarettes and alcohol. There is no point in keeping it illegal in terms of recreational use if a state keeps alcohol and cigarettes legal.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sure, it should be controlled. Tax, regulated, and supervised just like cigarettes and alcohol. There is no point in keeping it illegal in terms of recreational use if a state keeps alcohol and cigarettes legal.

How is it analogous to alcohol and cigarettes.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

How is it analogous to alcohol and cigarettes.

.............................................................................................

Please tell me you are trolling me.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

............................................................................................. Please tell me you are trolling me.

I'm not. Out of curiosity do you believe that any drugs should be regulated?

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

I'm not. Out of curiosity do you believe that any drugs should be regulated?

Yeah, I do. Marijuana, I believe, should just be legalized and regulated, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol is regulated. Kept out of the hands of minors, and an added pleasure tax to it.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Yeah, I do. Marijuana, I believe, should just be legalized and regulated, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol is regulated. Kept out of the hands of minors, and an added pleasure tax to it.

I see. Is it because marijuana is the only substance that you're accustomed with on a recreational basis that you want to see it as an over the counter product.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

I see. Is it because marijuana is the only substance that you're accustomed with on a recreational basis that you want to see it as an over the counter product.

I wouldn't say I'm accustomed to it. But I just don't see why alcohol, which is a substance just like marijuana, and cigarettes, which contains tobacco and is known to correlate with cancer, are both legal, and marijuana is not. Billions of tax dollars wasted on a substance that has less consequences than either of them.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I wouldn't say I'm accustomed to it. But I just don't see why alcohol, which is a substance just like marijuana, and cigarettes, which contains tobacco and is known to correlate with cancer, are both legal, and marijuana is not. Billions of tax dollars wasted on a substance that has less consequences than either of them.

I think I understand. Basically alcohol can be abused and has dangerous properties if abuse. And cigarettes can be abused and has dangerous properties if abused. Similarly, marijuana can be abused, but has no dangerous properties if abused. Therefore making it a better alternative to alcohol and cigarettes according to your opinion. Also the U.S. government wasted billions of money on capturing people who had possession of marijuana when there should be no reason why it should be restricted in the first place. Therefore, that money wouldn't have been wasted if they allowed it in the first place.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

I think I understand. Basically alcohol can be abused and has dangerous properties if abuse. And cigarettes can be abused and has dangerous properties if abused. Similarly, marijuana can be abused, but has no dangerous properties if abused. Therefore making it a better alternative to alcohol and cigarettes according to your opinion.

Exactly.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Exactly.

Okay.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

Okay.

Marijuana addiction and abuse should be treated as a mental condition, not a crime.

 

[LarsINTJ]

There are no innate addictive properties within drugs. People who become addicted are mentally vulnerable (usually due to prior abuse).

Here's an abstract way to elaborate:

Let's say the average person has an initial happiness rating of 70-80, this rating increases to 100+ upon taking a particular drug. After the effects of the drug wear off, their happiness rating goes back to normal - it was an interesting/enjoyable experience, but they possess no burning desire to do it again.

The average addict possesses an initial happiness rating of 20-30 which increases to 70-80 while utilizing a substance. Suddenly they feel what it's like to be normal and understand the extent of their prior misery after the effects wear off. Happiness 20-30 becomes unbearable, so they're driven to continually boost it through artificial means.

People can become addicted to anything which distracts them from painful introspection, not just drugs.

Imprisonment for having the wrong piece of vegetation in your pocket is monstrous and anti-productive, it takes a severe lack of empathy to support such things. Though if the 'War on Drugs' was funded voluntarily, few people would waste their money on it, so the remaining fanatics would be left with a massive bill... which they would probably drop after finding a tiny spot in their black hearts for the addicts. The same could be said about war in general.

I highly recommend this book if anyone wants to learn more about addiction.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

There are no innate addictive properties within drugs. People who become addicted are mentally vulnerable (usually because of prior abuse).

Drugs that create and/or trigger dopamine neurotransmitters or act on such receptors have a tendency to be more addictive than drugs that act by other mechanisms. It's the reason why a lot of psychiatrists initially prescribe Strattera to start the patient with instead of Vyvanse or Adderall. Strattera usually has a delayed onset of action requiring at least a week before patients notices changes in attention with peak serum levels being reached one to three hours. Whereas with Adderall, the onset of action can range from twenty to sixty minutes. Also mentally vulnerable is a funny term because it is difficult to tell with the side effects of taking said drugs whether the mental vulnerability comes pre- or post- medication due to the issues patients have while on them.

Arguing that there is no innate addictive property within a drug is ridiculous when you compare the effects of one established drug to another. There is a metric called cross tolerance that pharmacists use in order to establish relative tolerances one may develop going from a less addictive medication to a more addictive one or vice versa. However, I do agree in the sense that many psychiatric drugs raise attention however the serum concentration becomes tolerant within the system resulting in the psychiatrist to usually raise the prescription on a regular basis. When people are on medications that are responsible for highly elevating dopamine levels then they are induced a state of euphoria that is disproportionate at times than other medications often times leaving them to be classified as being highly addictive.

People can become addicted to anything which distracts them from clear introspection, not just drugs.

This is true. However, with medications certain drugs trigger more degenerate side effects for certain patients such as weight gain, sleep loss, and other factors resulting in them requiring the drug at higher potency to function at the same level in order to scale with the downsides of taking the medication. For a lot of psychoactive drugs that act on dopamine receptors there is a further chance that dependency is developed because the central nervous system no longer is as receptive to trigger a state of euphoria and the discrepancy between being on the drug versus being off the drug can be debilitating for patients who have been taking the medication regularly.

Similarly benzodiazepines can be relatively habit-forming to people prescribed them although these medications are oriented towards GABA and GABA receptors. Primary physicians however may prescribe Neurontin as an alternative medication although it's primary use is as an anti-convulsant / seizure medication. Although there is a 'person' component to an addiction, what also needs to be understood is that they are not wholly to blame for developing an addiction to certain medication or substances. Certain people have a genetic predisposition to develop habit-forming impulses and addictions leading them to be more susceptible to abuse even if they've never been an abuser in the first place.

This is not to deny that anyone can be an addict on anything. But you are being delusional if you are ignoring the fact that these substances are placed on varying control schedules because the highly restricted medications are well documented for having a more immediate onset of action and generate a more noticeable physiological effect in patients compared to their less restricted counterparts.

Imprisonment for having the wrong piece of vegetation in your pocket is monstrous and anti-productive...

I completely disagree. As far as marijuana goes the onset of action for inhalation is perhaps the most immediate and safest. However, oral consumption has the onset of action taking 30 to 60 minutes with peak effects occurring two to three hours after ingestion. Because of the delayed onset along with a delayed peak effect it is hard to gauge responsible consumption of marijuana especially when plants themselves can contain varying amounts of THC / CBD content along with various parts of the plant and various methods of consumption of the plant in order to instill mental disorientation.

 

[Thor]

The average addict possesses an initial happiness rating of 20-30 which increases to 70-80 while utilizing a substance. Suddenly they feel what it's like to be normal and understand the extent of their prior misery after the effects wear off. Happiness 20-30 becomes unbearable, so they're driven to continually boost it through artificial means.

Not always true - there are plenty of addicts who start something because it "looks cool" with their friends, try it once or twice, then they can't stop...

And overcoming one's limbic system and attempting to surpress the urge to set off dopamine and neurotransmitters for that "Feel-good" response can be tremendously difficult - that plus the pain of withdrawal is too much for many, which is why they are addicts. Certain drugs change the brain chemistry itself, which means yes, there is something innately addictive about it [it alters one enough to where a person cannot stop seeking the substance without help].

 

[smashbroskilla]

I think once they find a way to properly tax it (I live in Florida) it will be legal here in the next 5 years or so. I've been to jail for it twice when I was younger. I think the government could really care less about making it legal. They just want their cut. Califoria and Colorado's marijuana industry is booming right now it's unreal.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

I think once they find a way to properly tax it (I live in Florida) it will be legal here in the next 5 years or so. I've been to jail for it twice when I was younger. I think the government could really care less about making it legal. They just want their cut. Califoria and Colorado's marijuana industry is booming right now it's unreal.

Washington, not California. Recreational is still illegal. But both Washington and Colorado are both doing great.

 

[Game Boy Blue]

It isn't in Washington. Though I feel odd to assist in the farming, which is a job opportunity I was offered. I guess public exposer is needed now, at a gentle pace. I do not use it by the way.

(yay random post to improve my count!)

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

It isn't in Washington. Though I feel odd to assist in the farming, which is a job opportunity I was offered. I guess public exposer is needed now, at a gentle pace. I do not use it by the way.

(yay random post to improve my count!)

Washington State, not DC.

"In January, Colorado became the first state to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana. Earlier this month, Washington became the second."

http://news.yahoo.com/us-states-where-pot-is-legal-marijuana-134148042.html

 

[Claire Diviner]

Though not the only reason why it's illegal, Brian Griffin hit a nail on the head in the Family Guy episode, "420" with the following:

"Pot is illegal because William Randolph Hearst ran a smear campaign against marijuana in the 1930s to protect his interests in the timber industry, because hemp was poised to replace wood as an inexpensive raw material for the manufacture of paper".

Obviously, there's more to it than that, including being confused as an addictive substance similar to opium, causing fear due to minorities - namely, Chinese and other oriental countries - being associated with such narcotics. There's still more to the story, but it usually adds up to irrational fear of what was pretty much unknown, especially by the general public. I mean, even as recent as the 90s and early 2000s, we were always taught how bad and dangerous weed was to us. People are slowly realizing that marijuana is really harmless. I don't smoke the stuff myself, mind you.

EDIT: As of two months ago (a few days after this was posted), disregard that last sentence of my post.

 

[Chinaux]

Marijuana can cause anxiety for those exposed to it whether you smoke it or not. It may seem absurd, but it's true.

Personally I think it's illegal because it'd be hard to control/tax. That being said, either way people are going to smoke it anyways. It's not really going to make that much of a difference.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The War on Drugs started with Nixon. Many US soldiers in Vietnam were using marijuana and heroine to cope with the stress/horrors, the chain of command was in shambles and they essentially blamed it on drugs even though an extremely small percentage of veterans remained addicts after returning home.

 

[pants the terrible]

getting high feels good. it hurts no one. it can be performed with photosynthetic organisms being burnt. why is it illegal? because big businessmen in the timber industry dont want to admit hemp is useful as a constructable plant, and they pay lobbyists to buy out the congressional decisions, and the congressmen are happy to take the money in order to sign harmful documents.


TERM.

L-I-M-I-T-S.

NOW.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's legal in Colorado i see it becoming legal in most blue states.. Red states not so much but anything is possible

 

[Claire Diviner]

Though the video is old, seeing it reminded me of this thread, and so I've decided to share it as to show that the whole "marijuana being bad" thing is all about perspective shoved down the throats of the masses by those in positions of power, especially when compared to the views of alcohol.

I would also like to include a point in saying that the prohibition era treated alcohol in the same manner we treated marijuana for the last forever, and just as alcohol was legalized nationwide, so too will marijuana at the rate its acceptance is spreading.

 

[Ganreizu]

Marijuana can cause anxiety for those exposed to it whether you smoke it or not. It may seem absurd, but it's true.

Because it's still "illegal". Smoking causes anxiety because it can still result in negative effects completely unrelated to it's actual use if you're not in a state where it's "legal" (even if your state is decriminalized). Cops will still **** with you. Neighbors will still dislike you. Landlords will still use it as grounds to evict you (i think). Colleges will still put you on probation/suspension/whatever. Of course it causes anxiety. Ask anyone in california or colorado where my friends take blunt rides down the boardwalk with blunts while the police drive by if they have anxiety from it. Police officers in those areas put more priority on J-WALKING than they do weed smokers.

Personally I think it's illegal because it'd be hard to control/tax. That being said, either way people are going to smoke it anyways. It's not really going to make that much of a difference.

That's not why it's illegal. Colorado and california are showing us that it's easy to control and tax. Those states are also showing us that it IS making that much of a difference.

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/0814 Marijuana Tax, License, and Fees Report.pdf Here is the amount of taxes received in the month of August alone for marijuana in the state of Colorado. (the numbers, i'm quite sure, are lower than California) Compared to January 2014, tax numbers have far more than doubled and it isn't even federally legal. Apparently these states are also experiencing housing booms as well because people are flocking to be able to smoke freely.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Potentially problematic marijuana usage is a reflection of overarching cultural and societal issues, not an issue in itself. The forceful "redistribution" of wealth (theft) as a "solution" to everything is perhaps something we should address.

Being a responsible, psychologically-aware parent goes a long way if you wish to prevent behavioral issues such as crime and addiction. We should aim to prevent, not react when it's already too late.

In other words, taxing something or otherwise making it illegal does not fix underlying psychological damage. If it's not one form of dependency for that endorphin rush then it will be something else... or perhaps severe depression leading to suicide.

 

[Ganreizu]

Potentially problematic marijuana usage is a reflection of overarching cultural and societal issues, not an issue in itself. The forceful "redistribution" of wealth (theft) as a "solution" to everything is perhaps something we should address.

Being a responsible, psychologically-aware parent goes a long way if you wish to prevent behavioral issues such as crime and addiction. We should aim to prevent, not react when it's already too late.

In other words, taxing something or otherwise making it illegal does not fix underlying psychological damage. If it's not one form of dependency for that endorphin rush then it will be something else... or perhaps severe depression leading to suicide.

I can't tell if you're for or against.

Everyone has a bad habit. Get rid of one and you'll adopt a new one. If you consider weed to be your bad habit, it's still by far the better option compared to a multitude of other bad habits for most people. These issues really don't have anything to do with weed itself.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I can't tell if you're for or against.

Everyone has a bad habit. Get rid of one and you'll adopt a new one. These issues really don't have anything to do with weed itself.

Weed itself? What's the issue with marijuana? It's just a plant in the absence of human consumption.

I wouldn't take drugs myself since I deem them unnecessary, but others should be allowed to do as they wish with their own bodies, it's a fundamental aspect of self-ownership. Simply using marijuana in private does not harm anyone else, although it becomes a bit iffy when stuff like driving is involved, obviously the same can be said for alcohol.

 

[Ganreizu]

Weed itself? What's the issue with marijuana? It's just plant in the absence of human consumption.

Marijuana doesn't need to be consumed for it to be more than "just a plant", though? Unless you would consume hemp made clothes or paper that would be made far cheaper than what we use now. o.o

 

[LarsINTJ]

Marijuana doesn't need to be consumed for it to be more than "just a plant", though? Unless you would consume hemp made clothes or paper that would be made far cheaper than what we use now. o.o

Huh? What's the issue with marijuana in the absence of human consumption (usage)? Seriously, what is it?

 

[Ganreizu]

Huh? What's the issue with marijuana in the absence of human consumption (usage)? Seriously, what is it?

I think you're confused about something i said. Or i'm confused and we're confusing each other.

No i'm not high (yet)...

 

[LarsINTJ]

I think you're confused about something i said. Or i'm confused and we're confusing each other.

Maybe because you implied that there's an issue with marijuana as a plant then failed to clarify.

"These issues really don't have anything to do with weed itself."

I assume you're implying that the topics concerning addiction and its causal factors are irrelevant to whether weed should be illegal.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Interestingly enough, food addiction is actually far more harmful than marijuana. Obesity kills thousands of Americans alone every year.

 

[Thor]

Weed is illegal because there is a law against using, producing, possessing, and distribution of weed.

/thread

Joking aside, it's illegal because back when they made the drug classes (Class I, II, etc.), 88% of Americans thought it should be illegal. So it became class I. It hasn't moved since.

I haven't thoroughly read the literature [which is probably necessary here more than anywhere else, at least for an online forum], so I won't offer my not-fully-informed [though I've done a fair bit of reading] (and not very popular) opinion on how it should be classified.