|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:20 pm
Weed
Should it be legal for medical AND recreational use? Please give intelligent and well thought reasons as to why you agree/disagree.
Remember, this is a debate thread, bring the gun to the gun fight instead of having empty pockets and bitter tongue. Just wanted to get that out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:44 am
I most definitely think medical is a must. It has been proven to ease the pain of terminally ill people so well, I don't think it fair to not let them use it. Now, for recreational use, I am for. I think the same information and knowledge will cover both topics, so I'm going to just talk about this as it's the more debatable side. Many people believe that cannabis is a drug. I understand where they are coming from, because it does impair one. On the other hand, so does alcohol. Many people believe it is a gateway drug, but I disagree. I have personally known and lived with an ex-drug addict. He was on everything but meth. Weed was not a gateway drug for him he claims, but it actually helped him to get off the harder stuff. I'm talking cocaine (to the point where he would wear dresses to school), heroine, E, acid, absolutely everything but meth. The term "gateway drug" is an opinion. It cannot be proved scientifically, and should not be used against it in a debate. As to it being a "drug" and illegal. It is only considered a drug because it is illegal. Tobacco is not considered a drug, though it has been proven to cause cancer, while cannabis has actually been proven to FIGHT certain types of cancer. Many people have said that this is not true, but the research has been done. (I can provide links if asked for). There was an old study done on monkey's, where they were made to wear masks and cannabis smoke was pumped into them, and they died from it. This is one of the biggest studies done that has caused people to fear it, making them believe that you can OD on it. It has been proven that they did not OD from the weed, they died from smoke inhalation. (again, can provide links if needed) As to the reason it is illegal. It was a hate campaign. For money. Quote: William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp. In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business. THE CONSPIRACY Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: 'marihuana' and pushed it into the consciousness of America. MEDIA MANIPULATION A media blitz of 'yellow journalism' raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst's newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marihuana. The menace of marihuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality. Films like 'Reefer Madness' (1936), 'Marihuana: Assassin of Youth' (1935) and 'Marihuana: The Devil's Weed' (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marihuana laws could be passed. Examine the following quotes from 'The Burning Question' aka REEFER MADNESS: a violent narcotic. acts of shocking violence. incurable insanity. soul-destroying effects. under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax. more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana! Reefer Madness did not end with the usual 'the end.' The film concluded with these words plastered on the screen: TELL YOUR CHILDREN. In the 1930s, people were very naive; even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. They told their children and their children grew up to be the parents of the baby-boomers. On April 14, 1937, the Prohibitive Marihuana Tax Law or the bill that outlawed hemp was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the only one that can introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. The Chairman of the Ways and Means, Robert Doughton, was a Dupont supporter. He insured that the bill would pass Congress. Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, testified too late on behalf of the American Medical Association. He told the committee that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marihuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marihuana was hemp. Few people, at the time, realized that the deadly menace they had been reading about on Hearst's front pages was in fact passive hemp. The AMA understood cannabis to be a MEDICINE found in numerous healing products sold over the last hundred years. In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since. Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marihuana made users act extremely violent. In the 1950s, under the Communist threat of McCarthyism, Anslinger now said the exact opposite. Marijuana will pacify you so much that soldiers would not want to fight. Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet's energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels. We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves. We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices. from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_marijuana_illegalAlso, here's an interesting fact. Did you know that hemp continues to be the number one cash crop of America?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:38 pm
That IS correct. However, let me add on to this, just so we are all clear.
Hemp =/= Cannibus Just so people know.
I would also like to input that it being a Gateway drug can't be proven, but it can be proven that it ISN'T a gateway drug. Cannibus is a single plant with no chemicals or substances that could make it addictive in any way. If you become addicted or turns into some kind of gateway effect, it is only mental and your fault.
Another problem people want to say is that it's bad because of the smoke, and is just as dangerous as cigarettes. However, cigs are more addictive and contain plenty of harmful chemicals that can be consumed, even WITH a filter. Sure, you can get all natural cigs with herbs and such, but it doesn't seriously cause problems and can easily be fixed with simple regular smoking or intakes to clear the smoke out of the body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:32 pm
Really I don't have much to add because I think most things have been said. I am for the legalization for both reasons. Honestly, I rather have weed legal than alcohol. As for the gateway drug issue, I don't believe it is a gateway drug. There are many other drugs: caffeine, chocolate, etc that don't lead people to want to use other drugs. My assumption from my psychology classes is if you want to do more serious drugs you already have it in your mind to do so. Weed or no weed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:24 pm
Not sure if anyone has heard of it, but there is a completely legal kind of weed out now. You can buy it in some stores, you need to be 21 or older though. You can't smoke it around minors, and I don't think you can smoke it in public either. It's called k2. The reason it's legal is because during the growing process it's sprayed with some kind of chemical that causes it to not contain any THC. Unfortunately, it's pretty expensive, $45 a gram (where I live at least). It's really strong though. Just an interesting bit of info. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:57 pm
I rather buy the illegal stuff. Its insane to spend all that for just some pot without THC. Taking out the THC is so pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:52 pm
It's not pointless. There are still plenty of natural elements that will get you high, it's not just the THC. I had some of this stuff and it got me higher than anything with THC ever had. But it's just way too expensive. I give it another two years though before cannabis is completely legal.
This is kind of coming away from a debate...buuuut idc. What is the name of the strongest stuff you've ever smoked? I think the strongest stuff I've ever had was called Afgani Kush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:08 pm
Dragoness Arleeana It's not pointless. There are still plenty of natural elements that will get you high, it's not just the THC. I had some of this stuff and it got me higher than anything with THC ever had. But it's just way too expensive. I give it another two years though before cannabis is completely legal. This is kind of coming away from a debate...buuuut idc. What is the name of the strongest stuff you've ever smoked? I think the strongest stuff I've ever had was called Afgani Kush. I say pointless because you don't NEED to take the THC out in the first place. Besides cost, you also have to go through the idea that your consuming the chemical within the weed which probably makes it more harmful than it was before. It's easier to make weed better, but I think the reason the weed you got made you high because of the well treatment of it since they are allowed to grow it and supply it with the things that can make it grow and become more potent like age or CO2 or something of the such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:51 pm
Captain_Shinzo Dragoness Arleeana It's not pointless. There are still plenty of natural elements that will get you high, it's not just the THC. I had some of this stuff and it got me higher than anything with THC ever had. But it's just way too expensive. I give it another two years though before cannabis is completely legal. This is kind of coming away from a debate...buuuut idc. What is the name of the strongest stuff you've ever smoked? I think the strongest stuff I've ever had was called Afgani Kush. I say pointless because you don't NEED to take the THC out in the first place. Besides cost, you also have to go through the idea that your consuming the chemical within the weed which probably makes it more harmful than it was before. It's easier to make weed better, but I think the reason the weed you got made you high because of the well treatment of it since they are allowed to grow it and supply it with the things that can make it grow and become more potent like age or CO2 or something of the such.They need to take it out so that it can be legal to smoke. That doesn't seem completely pointless to me. And yes, I agree that it's most likely worse for you now. I honestly haven't done all the research on it though, so I have no idea if it's something that stick with the plant, or washes off, or what. I've only jsut had it the one time, had to try it for myself. :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:10 pm
Dragoness Arleeana Captain_Shinzo Dragoness Arleeana It's not pointless. There are still plenty of natural elements that will get you high, it's not just the THC. I had some of this stuff and it got me higher than anything with THC ever had. But it's just way too expensive. I give it another two years though before cannabis is completely legal. This is kind of coming away from a debate...buuuut idc. What is the name of the strongest stuff you've ever smoked? I think the strongest stuff I've ever had was called Afgani Kush. I say pointless because you don't NEED to take the THC out in the first place. Besides cost, you also have to go through the idea that your consuming the chemical within the weed which probably makes it more harmful than it was before. It's easier to make weed better, but I think the reason the weed you got made you high because of the well treatment of it since they are allowed to grow it and supply it with the things that can make it grow and become more potent like age or CO2 or something of the such.They need to take it out so that it can be legal to smoke. That doesn't seem completely pointless to me. And yes, I agree that it's most likely worse for you now. I honestly haven't done all the research on it though, so I have no idea if it's something that stick with the plant, or washes off, or what. I've only jsut had it the one time, had to try it for myself. :p It's just that the THC doesn't need to be removed. It's not like you can OD on THC. But pretty much, THC is just something within the plant. However, it doesn't make it dangerous but actually makes the plant more effective in it's job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:57 pm
I...know all of this. I know what THC is and what it does and that you can't OD on it. I'm quite aware of all of this. You said it was pointless to remove it. It is NOT pointless. It is the key "ingredient" that actually makes it illegal. So There IS a point in removing it. It makes smoking it legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:26 am
Dragoness Arleeana I...know all of this. I know what THC is and what it does and that you can't OD on it. I'm quite aware of all of this. You said it was pointless to remove it. It is NOT pointless. It is the key "ingredient" that actually makes it illegal. So There IS a point in removing it. It makes smoking it legal. I'm speaking on a medical point of view, I could care less about law issues. The point I'm trying to make is that you're better off getting the normal stuff considering it's most likely healthier and way more cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:19 am
Captain_Shinzo Dragoness Arleeana I...know all of this. I know what THC is and what it does and that you can't OD on it. I'm quite aware of all of this. You said it was pointless to remove it. It is NOT pointless. It is the key "ingredient" that actually makes it illegal. So There IS a point in removing it. It makes smoking it legal. I'm speaking on a medical point of view, I could care less about law issues. The point I'm trying to make is that you're better off getting the normal stuff considering it's most likely healthier and way more cheaper.That is not at all what you made it sound like. You said you would rather but the illegal stuff, that taking out the THC is pointless. You never once even hinted that you were speaking from a medical PoV. The entire concept of K2 is moot for most medical uses anyway. THC is one of the reasons it is used for cancer patients, as it is specifically what helps fight nausea. But again, this doesn't make the removal of THC pointless. People who are prescribed medical marijuana aren't going to have to worry about getting "legal weed" as they can anyways. K2 is not meant to be used medically, so taking a medical standpoint and saying that it's pointless is...pointless. It's not meant for medical use, so there's really no point in trying to argue a medical side to it. K2 is meant for general consumption, and removing the THC is in no way pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|