Are the French correct on cannabis?

No more dangerous and destructive than alcohol and far less addictive. Personal choice rules the day on that drug.

 

I can only go by my own experience with pot which leaves me so paranoid that even rabbits seem dangerous no criminal intent for me..

 

I smoked the stuff in my younger days in HS and for a bit after - cause that's what everyone did back in the day - I had the same issue with the paranoia - would not smoke a joint and go to the bar - just wasn't fun for me. Sitting back - playing a game of Chess - that is when it was enjoyable for me.

I know and have known many pot smokers - some on a regular basis - some more recreational - not big danger that I can see.

Think these folks saying otherwise don't have personal experience - they will say they tried it once - likely when they were already drunk - and things did not work out so well. When you are drunk - and then smoke the room will be soon spinning - and praying to the porcelain Gods not far behind.

 

Thank you for that well written post and the food for thought.

When trying to discover answers to issues, I often look at the extremes. For example, if we are going to declare drugs illegal and have a "war on drugs," then by all means make it a WAR on drugs - harsh punishments, life sentences, and the death penalty for certain blatant criminal actions. If we want to stop the usage, then make the punishments so severe that: 1. most people are too afraid to take the risk, and 2. those that do are permanently removed from society. Within a generation or two, drug usage would be reduced drastically.

On the other end of the extreme, if we aren't willing to have a real war on drugs, then we need to simply legalize everything, and then hold people personally responsible for their decisions and results of their usage. If a person becomes so badly messed up on the drug of choice that they can't take care of themselves and can't function in society, then whatever befalls them is what they deserve - no taxpayer funded bail-outs.

Your post makes me think there may be some middle ground here, so again, thank you.

 

Ignored as in the Forum Ignore Function? If that is the case, you'll be missing out. Anti-D is one of the more interesting members of PF.

 

Sorry but I don't believe you.

Just too uninformed to the point of absurdity.

Lol. But you are funny!

 

Yep it does that to some people. They generally don't like that effect.

Always made me want to work or get into an activity. If its good sativa. Indica puts me asleep..

 

Not a fan, but pot is is, in a word, a tangible evil.

 

Differently destructive & INCREDIBLY addictive. I don't understand what this means.

 

Google/Bing/Duck etc. can start you on your quest for understanding of pot's EXTREME dangers.

I believe you, and admitting your ignorance is the first step in overcoming the sociopathic pot pimps & the mountains of garbage propaganda they've spewed, putting millions of lives at risk by peddling gross misinformation for the sake of their convenience in ongoing addiction, but Google etc. can enlighten you when you're ready.

Lol. Thank you.

 

Pot is not incredibly addictive - you are in error.

 

~ Apparently cannibis is used by many to self-medicate for anger/rage issues. It is psychologically additive but not toxic. If you feel the need to leave sobriety cannibis is the safest bet. Just don't smoke it. Vaporized in a kettle and inhaled is the method many use in impoverished countries. Cannabis candy, cannibis cola, cannabis cupcakes , etc.

 

what are the EXTREME dangers associated with regular use of pot? You replied many times in this thread but mentioned nothing specific.

Addictive, destructive, or poisonous weed is not, at least not more than coffee, alcohol, or tobacco which are legal drugs.

 

I do disapprove of the drug just not as much as many others. The therapeutic index is like 30 thousand compared to something like 3 for alcohol so alcohol should be banned far more than pot.

But there are so many wonderful life experiences and I don’t know why people want to dull their life but it remains their life in the end.

Carl Sagan smoked it every day and still got stuff done. I can’t

Carl Sagan used it everyday and for him it seemed like a good thing but I often wondered if it contributed to his disease

 

If you are familiar with medical/pharmaceutical books, you know the two big ones are the National Formulary, and the US Pharmacopeia.

The former has been around since the early days of the Republic. For many years it included cannabis as a therapeutic substance. Judge Young took that into consideration in his decision.

 

Not addictive in the least. Trust me.

 

Thanks for your kind words. I wouldn't favor the extreme of the WAR on drugs including because experience has shown that all this repression doesn't really work. People have an attraction for the forbidden. They then become even more rebellious. And death penalty for drug offenses? Even if you are talking about the dealers, sounds a bit harsh. The whole proposal sounds like something out of the Philippines where they actually shoot and kill dealers on sight. Too much for a free country with due process constitutional requirements like the United States.

Legalizing everything might be a bit detrimental too in terms of the consequences of unrestrained use of some of the most damaging drugs. So yes, I think that Portugal's middle ground is interesting.

 

I am like you - not able to get stuff done - but - like Sagan - know people who did Science degree's smoking the stuff on a regular basis.
One study group I would attend - most of the folks in the group would smoke during the sessions - again - this was Physics and Chemistry.

You have folks that have never tried the stuff, and who have limited experience with people who are regular users, make claims like "It makes you stupid". These people don't have a clue what they are talking about.

 

For me it’s a weed and impossible to control anyway and for others a powerful creative tool. I hate it for myself but don’t see the advantage of focused and expensive criminal interest. IMO.

 

You are the one peddling garbage propaganda ... what is laughable is you saying "Google it" as if Google is not going to have a whole bunch of agenda driven organizations demonizing Pot via propaganda.

For Example - Drug Czar's have continuously claimed that Pot is rightly put on the same level as heroin.

This merely proves that these folks are idiots - and does not make your case.

 

My argument is somewhat more legalistic. In a Constitutional Republic - BY DEFINITION - the Gov't has no power "Of its own volition" to make law abridging essential liberty.

If it wants to do this - it must appeal to a change to the social contract - construct by which we the people give consent to the Governed.

The Bar however, is "NOT" 50+1 - or "Simple Majority Mandate - that some politician getting elected gives them the power to make law messing with essential liberty"

If SSM was the case - there would be no point in putting essential liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Govt.

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to SSM as "Tyranny of the Majority"

So what is the bar ? The bar is "Overwhelming Majority" 2/3rd's minimum - in the case of a change to the constitution the bar is 75% of States.

So the Gov't needs 67% to be in favor of criminalization of Pot - for such law to be legitimate. While this may have been the case 50 years ago after a State Sponsored Propaganda program known as "Refer Madness" - Today over 60% are against criminialization.

This does not even pass the giggle test for legitimacy. It illegitimacy of authority "FULL STOP" No questions asked .. do not pass Go - do not collect $200.

The point of this principles is that - if something is so bad - represents such a huge risk to society that Gov't needs to be given the power to punish those who would engage in that activity - then an overwhelming majority will agree.

Take Meth for example - this law is legitimate as an overwhelming majority agree.

You see how this principle works very well if we would just use it. It allows Gov't to legislate against the really bad stuff - but leaves things like "Sugar" "Skiing" - things which present a "risk of harm" but not a massive risk - up to the individual

And that is how things are supposed to work

The other factor is the huge damage that this bad legislation has done. When you turn 100 million people into criminals - you have just created a policing and justice system night mare - and that is exactly what happened.

12% of US citizens are regular users - roughly 40 million people In younger demographics it is as high as 20%. Then you have the occasional users and the people who tried it once - "and inhaled" - which accounts for at lest double the regular users - so my 100 million number is a low estimate.

How about - with the stroke of a pen - we turn 100 million US citizens from Criminals into Law abiding citizens .. Fancy that !

 

Pot is just not that much a threat to society. And while I don’t approve I favor the Dutch view that people will do it no matter what so let’s tax it.

 

Prohibition has been tried numerous times, and numerous times it has failed miserably. Perhaps it is finally time for the society of the united states to experience the full, overwhelming weight and cost of their desire to see illicit substances made legal for recreational use, and comprehend just what they are asking for. As those indulging in such substances die off in large numbers through overdosing, and left to decay where others must walk through their daily lives, the significance of their decisions will be made quite clear to them. No one will be able to claim ignorance, and that they had no idea of just how dangerous the use of such substances was. Eventually there will be no one left to become addicted or die of overdoses, and the matter will solve itself. That is ultimately what is desired, is it not?

If individuals wish to knowingly engage in reckless and criminal behavior, they will suffer the consequences of their actions one way or another. They are obviously being done no favors by their government fighting so hard to keep them alive through prohibitions and regulations, so perhaps it is time for a change of pace, and the consequences of their decisions made as plain as day. When children have to see their parents, siblings, and friends laying dead in the streets and on sidewalks as their bodies decompose while others have to walk over them, they will understand the true societal cost of the use of illicit substances. They will no longer question what is wrong with the recreational use of illicit substances, as they will understand why such narcotics were prohibited in the first place.

If the public does not wish to accept that there are certain substances that should not be used, then allowing them to experience the folly of their decisions is the most logical course of action. The more the matter is resisted and fought, the more they are glamorized and desired by the public. It would be the most logical course of action to engage in, seeing as how everything else has failed.

 

Exactly - which is why an overwhelming majority in this nation agree with you 60%+ and what you find with the others is a severe lack of education and/or experience with weed or weed consumers - or - the arrogant control freaks who are just that.

Research Scientist is one of the caps I wear - and I am no stranger to Statistics and higher level Math - the point of this self aggrandization being that I am able to read scientific material - using statistics - making inferences.

A few fast Facts - always fun. Read an article where Alcohol was said to increase the risk of accident by 70 Times - The risk for Pot was 1-2 as in 1 to 2 times the risk.

Ummm ... OK .. so what is it 1 = Zero higher risk than someone who has not smoked pot .. so .. a titch more than that - that titch being statistically insignificant - not representing correllation - never causation .

Things that make you go "Hmmmm" or in my case . make me point finger an go "BAD SCIENCE"

Second hand smoke was another EPA - engating in 1) Bad Science 2) Mass Propaganda Campaign - driven at least in part by conflict of interest w/r to pyramid building.

Like the Police Chief being against legalization of pot ... Like his opinion matters - 1) not representative of the individual officers who are not allowed to speak - 2) a massive conflict of interest ..

And Police Chief is going to stand there and say what .. Turning 100 million criminals in to law abiding citizens would not reduce the justification for increased budgets.

Give me someone who's opinion is not conflicted is preferable - but - if you must be giving the Chief of Police Opinion - Journalistic Standards "REQUIRE" that the conflict of interest be mentioned. ... as they do when covering a story that relates to the company that owns them...

Time to end this illegitimate activity.. as per the DOI - The point of this Document which is to state what constitutes "Illegitimacy of Authority" When - and on what grounds - we are justified in "removing from power" those who would continue to violate the citizens under such auspicies.

 

It is ubiquitous and far less dangerous than alcohol which is the drug of choice for most legislators in the US. And far less connected to most crimes. So understand proportions!! Whether c-19 or pot, why are Americans so bad at basic math? It’s embarrassing to me as an expat!!!