You know what Alien Workshop? I think you have hit the nail on the head there! Everything in this discussion is relative. From my experience, weed is a drug, to the "gram a week" user its not.
So, theoretically, if I was to shoot smack once every couple of months, then that wouldn't count as a drug either? Of course not. A drug is a substance that affects the central nervous system and causes changes in behavior. That applies equally to alcohol, cannabis or crack. No matter how small the dose. Yes, any of the above in excess is a bad thing. Conversely, anything in moderation is not. And I have also had plenty of first-hand experience of the negative effects of drugs, thank you. And from what I have experienced, I can say without a second's doubt that the most damaging has been alcohol. Does anyone arguing against cannabis also think that alcohol should be criminalised? If not, why not?
I don't think alcohol should be illegal because it is just a drink. People who only drink alcohol to get drunk are using it as a drug, but that is not what it is intended for. If they made alcohol illegal, then it wouldn't be fair to the people that have the ocassional beer with dinner, or the people who have a glass of wine on special ocassions. Drugs, like weed, are used for one thing only, and that is to get high. That is why there is a difference.
OK, what about if I was taking speed in order to get more work done/stay awake longer/sharpen my reactions (ie: not for the pleasurable narcotic effect). That makes it OK then, and it shouldn't be illegal?
I think the main difference here is that one beer or glass of wine will not get you drunk. I don't know about you, but I use caffiene to stay awake longer.
A single glass will not make most people drunk, no, but it will cause a decreased reaction times etc. And two glasses is certainly enough to have an effect, otherwise drink-driving levels would not be set where they are. I hope I'm not coming across as a blinkered advocat of all drugs here. I'm certainly not trying to be. I may occasionally dabble (generally just hash), but my point here is that it is equally possible to be a sensible drug taker as it is to be a sensible drinker. I honestly cannot understand how anyone can draw a distinction between alcohol and other intoxicants. Yes, drugs cause damage, ruin lives and kill. I would never recommend taking drugs to anyone, yet equally I would not condemn anyone for it. At heart, it's a matter of personal liberty. As I said before "What right does any person, body or government have to dictate what I may take, smoke, snort or shoot into my own body if in doing so I do not harm another living soul?" THAT'S IT! - NO MORE I PROMISE
So if I wanted to inject air bubbles into my blood stream, then its ok in moderation? I feel sorry for you. If it's been anything like mine, im amazed you still advocate the use of any illegal substance. I partly agree with your comment, I think alcohol has a lot to answer for. But seeing people drunk, and then seeing people cutting themselves to get rid of invisible things on them after a bad trip, I can't agree totally. I can't see criminalisation ever hapenning, short of the world suddenly becoming Muslim or Jehova's Witnesses. But I do think a greater control needs to be put into effect.
It's a very noble sentiment, but here's a hypothetical scenario: You saw someone licking lead pipes, and knowing lead can poison you over time and cause brain damage, tell said person to stop because its dangerous. They respond by saying "lead can't be dangerous, because pencils have 'lead' and everyone chews pencils without getting ill" Nothing you can say will convince this person to stop licking the pipes, so what do you do? leave the person alone to die slowly, or try to help them realise the truth? While this is a very extreme example, it is (at least in part) relevant to my argument. If you want to smoke weed, chase the dragon or even inject morphine into your tear ducts. At least accept the reality of what you are doing.
I just want to make one more point. When you drink one glass of wine, does that mean you need another? What I am trying to say, is that when I drink coke, I only drink one can and no more. It should be the same with beer or wine. You only drink on can or glass, and no more. At least, that is how it is supposed to be done. I hope you don't think I am a lover of all things alcohol, because I am not. I am just making points that seem logical to me. They may be absurd to others, but that is the point of this discussion; to state your opinion and get the opinions of others. No need to "back off" anagrama, you are making some great points.
*yawwwwwwwwn* Why should we allow this when "we" have "chosen" to outlaw politics discussion? :smt067
re I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences with drugs, Tachikoma :smt009 . Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be a law/standard that will please everyone. There will always be people who believe alcohol and cannabis are abused. I, frankly, believe most drugs are misused/abused, and unfortunately for the more responsible people out there there will always be people that screw it over for the rest of us. I'm not saying I'm responsible, but I try to think about my actions before putting them into effect). Anyway, thanks for your opinions once again. Let's not keep this whole argumentative sentiment going on, we're all friends here :smt023 .
Re: re It's ok, I guess I have been, or at least seen the worse side of it. So my views *may* be slightly coloured by it. *ahem* I thought it was quite civil myself...
Getting in a late here. In regards to the gateway theory: I drank alcohol long before I ever had a joint. I got drunk when I was 13 on a fluke night, and then didn't touch it until I was about 16. I smoked weed the first time when I was 17, almost 18. Who's to say that alcohol didn't lead me to grass? I think it's a big cop out honestly. Nothing lead me to anything other than my own desire.
Marijuana is just a plant. How is that different than alcohol? What is it intended for then? How is it fair then to the people who occasionally smoke weed? That's actually not true since there are a lot of people smoke marijuana to regain their appetite or relieve pain from cancer or other ailments. You however meant recreational smokers and I'll admit that is true. There is a difference however between people who get high and people who abuse that high just the same people who drink and people who abuse that drink. That is why there is no difference between the two. It depends on the person.
Just as an aside note - the marijuana for medicinal use (appetite, painkillers, etc.) is a crock of bullshit, as every one of the chemicals in marijuana that holds any medicinal benefit has been synthesized for use in pills, etc. There's no real legitimate use for the stuff in society at all.
I beg to differ GSL. All of that synthesized crap has side effects and interactions with other drugs. Combine that wiht chemo and radiation and it can make the situation worse. I had a friend pass from cancer a while back and it was like this for him. The drugs made it worse for him while the marijuana didn't. I'm no doctor so I can't explain exactly why the marijuana worked better but it did.
Yeah, I'm going to have to pull rank on you here, young grasshopper. I love ya and I know you mean well, but your elders are going to disagree with you. Read around, even when marijuana wasn't "cool" there was still a valid comment in using it medicinally. 1: It's natural -- this is hands down better than *ANY* synthesized pill that will help you regain your appetite or kill pains that come along with cancer and AIDS. 2: Weed is a fraction of the cost of those drugs that don't work as well. I guess when you have a friend that can't leave the house b/c he's had stomach cancer for years it opens your eyes. I had to go buy the guy bags all the time b/c his medicine sucked so bad, or he couldn't afford it. Remember -- not everyone has good insurance, or can even afford the medicine when they DO have insurance. Finally -- you do realize that the pain killer they use when you have cancer is morphine, right? I'm convinced the only reason that's condoned medicinally is b/c it's given in an injection or an I.V. -- looks better than smoking a fat cone. I go w/ the tree hugger theory. Natural over synthesized is almost always better.
My bad - having never done the stuff (or had a disease requiring such treatment) I don't know how the natural stuff stands up to the synthetic. All I know is, like I said before, I hate the stuff because of the number of lives I know personally that have been ruined by the habit (and all these people were 'recreational' smokers who 'could quit any time they wanted to' as well) and it always just seemed to me, especially seeing the people in this state that are constantly lobbying for more accessible standards for our medical laws, that the whole thing about medical marijuana was just an attempt to make it easier for addicts to get a hold of the stuff. Not saying this is the case, but every proponent I've ever seen (and having lived in Eugene Oregon, a city renowned for its 'greenery', this is quite a few) really doesn't fit the bill as someone advocating medical use for people with cancer, etc., if you get my drift. However, it was my error in attempting to speak authoritively in something I have no firsthand experience with.
