Drugs - What do you think is acceptable, where is the line?

[BlackBaron2]

I'm in the camp that says "legalise, regulate and tax it"--for grass and other relatively "mild" things anyway.

 

As long as you're not hurting anyone else, it's truthfully not my problem.

[DrunkenGamer]

It seems the OP is quite under informed...

 

 

Weed is NOT addictive in any way.

 

NO ONE have ever overdosed on weed.

 

Weed has NEVER killed a single person and IS less harmful to your health than cigarettes.

 

Weed can be beneficial in many ways to stimulate creativity, help people relax, stimulate the apatite, sleep aid and pain reducer, while being a totally organic alternative to over the counter remedies for all of these things.

 

ALMOST ANYTHING can be made from hemp, which would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and logging (for paper products) to nearly zero.

 

By not addictive, I'm guessing that you mean that there are no chemical additives that make it addictive, because you can get addicted to anything. Anything at all. Porn, video games, etc. If your mind believes it needs it, and thinks that it can't function without it, then you're addicted. You can't say that it's not addictive in any way. It just hasn't been chemically altered to be addictive, like tobacco is.

 

I don't know about not overdosing on weed, but I guess I could trust you on that. Hard to believe it. I'm sure there have been cases of it happening, just nothing documented or official.

 

I've mentioned that cigarettes are worse than weed. But I'm sure that weed has become a factor in deaths in a lot of cases. Tell me that weed hasn't been implicated as a factor in a murder case or suicide attempt. Yeah.

 

Also, the usefulness of hemp is basically what keeps me on the fence about it. It surely has medicinal value, just as vicodin, percocet, and various other narcotics do. But then again, so does tobacco and alcohol. I know medicinal marijuana is used.

[marharth]

It seems the OP is quite under informed...

 

 

Weed is NOT addictive in any way.

 

NO ONE have ever overdosed on weed.

 

Weed has NEVER killed a single person and IS less harmful to your health than cigarettes.

 

Weed can be beneficial in many ways to stimulate creativity, help people relax, stimulate the apatite, sleep aid and pain reducer, while being a totally organic alternative to over the counter remedies for all of these things.

 

ALMOST ANYTHING can be made from hemp, which would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and logging (for paper products) to nearly zero.

 

By not addictive, I'm guessing that you mean that there are no chemical additives that make it addictive, because you can get addicted to anything. Anything at all. Porn, video games, etc. If your mind believes it needs it, and thinks that it can't function without it, then you're addicted. You can't say that it's not addictive in any way. It just hasn't been chemically altered to be addictive, like tobacco is.

 

I don't know about not overdosing on weed, but I guess I could trust you on that. Hard to believe it. I'm sure there have been cases of it happening, just nothing documented or official.

 

I've mentioned that cigarettes are worse than weed. But I'm sure that weed has become a factor in deaths in a lot of cases. Tell me that weed hasn't been implicated as a factor in a murder case or suicide attempt. Yeah.

 

Also, the usefulness of hemp is basically what keeps me on the fence about it. It surely has medicinal value, just as vicodin, percocet, and various other narcotics do. But then again, so does tobacco and alcohol. I know medicinal marijuana is used.

I do know for sure you can overdose on marijuana, but you have to use a ton of it to overdose.

 

When you smoke weed, its different from a lot of other drugs since you smoke it, it takes time to smoke and you can't just snort up a pound or swallow a bunch (unless you cook it into something).

So overdosing from smoking weed, not going to happen. However if you put weed in certain foods and eat them it is very well possible, so you can overdose on it.

[Karasuman]

Weed has NEVER killed a single person and IS less harmful to your health than cigarettes.

 

Sorry, but that in particular is an absolute load of bullsh**. Weed smoked in the same amounts as cigarettes is WAY worse for you. By this I mean that smoking 10 joints in a day for example is *far* worse for you than smoking 10 cigarettes in a day, especially since you can get cigarettes with filters. Joints and bowls don't have filters. It's one thing to support the legalization of weed and other rec drugs. I get that. But don't spout nonsense such as weed is better for you than cigarettes. That is quite untrue.

[JimboUK]

Problem with allowing only marijuana is after it becomes boring and you want more powerful drugs. You find a dealer who you purchase a more powerful drug and now you can be killed by the new more powerful drug that you are now addicted to. Simple as that.

 

This surely is an argument for legalisation? selling wacky backy in cafes and the like removes the dealers and the temptation to try something stronger, after all the dealer has an interest in getting people onto addictive substances.

[ginnyfizz]

I am not convinced by the argument that weed is not addictive or that it is totally harmless. Occasional use is one thing, and may well do no harm. There are genuine cases for it being used under medical supervision. But I have a friend who has been a habitual user over a quarter of a century. For one thing, he recognizes that he is an addict. For another, he is having to receive psychiatric treatment, and it is the opinion of his psychiatrist that his paranoia and psychosis has been caused by the habitual long term use of weed. That is the opinion of a medical professional, and it is an opinion that is increasingly prevalent among the professionals who have to pick up the pieces. Weed these days is more than likely to be turbo charged skunk. AND weed is higher in tar than tobacco, as well as being often smoked with tobacco, which kind of negates the less harmful than tobacco argument.

[marharth]

I am not convinced by the argument that weed is not addictive or that it is totally harmless. Occasional use is one thing, and may well do no harm. There are genuine cases for it being used under medical supervision. But I have a friend who has been a habitual user over a quarter of a century. For one thing, he recognizes that he is an addict. For another, he is having to receive psychiatric treatment, and it is the opinion of his psychiatrist that his paranoia and psychosis has been caused by the habitual long term use of weed. That is the opinion of a medical professional, and it is an opinion that is increasingly prevalent among the professionals who have to pick up the pieces. Weed these days is more than likely to be turbo charged skunk. AND weed is higher in tar than tobacco, as well as being often smoked with tobacco, which kind of negates the less harmful than tobacco argument.

Weed doesn't not have addictive chemicals in it, you have a higher chance of getting addicted to caffeine then to weed in a chemical sense.

If you do get addicted to weed, it is solely because you like it so much.

 

I would like to know about that psychiatrist, from what I know there is zero proof of any long term damage.

 

Weed has around 30 percent of the tar tobacco has... It has a lot less tar in it.

 

Weed has NEVER killed a single person and IS less harmful to your health than cigarettes.

 

Sorry, but that in particular is an absolute load of bullsh**. Weed smoked in the same amounts as cigarettes is WAY worse for you. By this I mean that smoking 10 joints in a day for example is *far* worse for you than smoking 10 cigarettes in a day, especially since you can get cigarettes with filters. Joints and bowls don't have filters. It's one thing to support the legalization of weed and other rec drugs. I get that. But don't spout nonsense such as weed is better for you than cigarettes. That is quite untrue.

It is very true, there are literally thousands of more deaths related to cigarettes then to weed.

The filter does little to help.

[Lisnpuppy]

I am an adult child of a recovering alcoholic. I also worked in a long-term drug and alcohol treatment facility for many years. I have seen first hand both in my own life and in my work how devastating drug and alcohol dependency can be. That being said, I am a supporter of drug legalization. The fundamental issues are not with the drugs, but why a person takes them and then why they can't or don't stop. Alcohol which is legal is just as bad if not worse in its addiction that any other drug available. My Father almost destroyed his life both in the literal and physical sense and came close to destroying that of myself and my Mother's.

 

Strangely both my Father (who has been sober now for 17 years) and I believe in legalization due to the violence associated with the drug trafficking. People will always seek out ways to remove themselves from life. If its alcohol or drugs, video games, food....there will always be addictions of some sort. I personally believe that violent crime associated with this thing will drastically decline should the U.S. legalize drugs and then sell and control them. (Not unlike Prohibition times) Once you take the money out of the market there will be little reason to need to protect the assets. Jailing someone for petty possession or other small drug offenses has done NOTHING to help the drug problem.

 

Education would be the key. Just as smoking has taken a sharp decline with the education of youth, having it open and describing its use, issues and dire effects from a young age will serve to help curb the abuse. As I said, individuals will always use and abuse to self-medicate or to hide from life. Only with the education to see this and someone in these people's lives can there be hope of their recovery.

 

@Ginny...MJ is not physically addictive in the same chemical way that other drugs are. However as with any mind-altering substance...the feeling you get is very addictive. I view drugs somewhat like my diabetes. Sugar isn't bad in and of itself. Over use is and some people lack the ability to control what they do or how their body react to a substance and must avoid it. I also was once told by a heroin addict, who had lost several fingers from her abuse and shooting up too much in them...that quitting smoking was harder that quitting the heroin. Pretty nice, huh?

[ginnyfizz]

OK...it is actually carcinogenic hydrocarbon content that is significantly higher in weed than tobacco - but the fact remains the same - weed is even more carcinogenic than tobacco, and is thus capable of causing respiratory damage. So it is not true to say that it has never damaged anyone - that friend also has lung cancer, BTW.

 

Now for the dependency issue, whether or not it is a chemical dependency or a psychological one, it is still ruining peoples lives. I work trying to get the long term unemployed back to work, and a considerable proportion of my 18 - 21 year olds have never been employed since leaving school at 16, under-achieved at school, and guess what? A lot of them turn up for appointments stoned, you can smell the weed on them, hell you can sometimes catch them round the corner lighting a spliff. They've been on the weed since they were in their early teens and they do not give a damn about education or employment, nor do they care that the government is effectively paying for their weed by giving them their dole money.

 

The psychological damage factor - again, whether weed causes it in the first place - and the absolute causal link is not proven, although my friends psych and his colleagues see plenty of cases where weed is involved - or whether it greatly accelerates and exacerbates psychotic tendencies in those already susceptible,the fact is that it is a factor in these conditions.

 

It is just not correct to say that weed is harmless, it clearly isn't.

 

Legalization - yes all that goes above being said, I see little point in busting the casual user who smokes the odd spliff once in a while. Otherwise you would have had to can my entire junior common room when I was at uni. I can entirely take on board the benefits of removing the traffickers and the violence from the equation. But would the tax take from legal weed cover the dole money of the increased numbers of off their heads,under achieving, no intention of ever working youths (of both sexes I mean)?

[marharth]

Hold on what?

 

 

Who said weed makes you a under achiever? There is no long term proof for weed brain damage that I know of, that doesn't make sense to say that based on short term effects.

If someone showed up to a job interview stoned like you claimed, they would have been arrested...

 

 

nor do they care that the government is effectively paying for their weed by giving them their dole money.

 

This is for another debate, BUT SERIOUSLY?

 

 

I think your misinformed about the long term effects of weed, it won't make you a under achiever, the main drug that does that is alcohol. A lot of drunks get unemployed, a larger number of drunks get unemployed then stoners.

 

If its ruining peoples lives, that's their choice. We could spend tax dollars on real education programs and not just "DRUGZ R BAD DO NOT DO THEM OR COPS NO LEIK U" kind of thing.