Poll: Should they legalize pot?

[I Max95]

think about it like this
tobacco is legal now and if it was illegal crime would go up same with alchhol
but marijuana is illegal now in most states and in that scenario it is the lesser of two evils
Marijuana kills KILLS! and if something that destroys lives can be taken away from the general population we have the obligation to

i once got into an arguement with my brother over why is it illegal to not wear your seat belt while driving
for the exact same reason, with it on it saves lives

with marijuana illegal lives are saved and even if it brings are economy back you cant put a price on human life
legalizing it would only give people a new slow suicide method alongside alchol, and Tobbacco

if i could i would get rid of every drug out there economy be damned

Please do explain to me how marijuana kills.

Go on, try it.

And you know what happened when some asshole tried to ban alcohol, right? The people rightfully rose against, some more then others, the latter making a fuckload of money. You know, the mafia, and all.

If there's any cause worth fighting for it's personal liberty. If my country tried to ban alcohol, even though I'm not much of a drinker, I'd be out there smuggling it and violently protesting.

so your saying people should be given the right to commit suicide?
i disagree when you know a substance is going to kill at least some of its users all that can be done to keep that substance away from the general public away from law abiding citzens should be done

and im not for prohibition again since that would only hurt people im against the marijuana atticts (criminals) being alowed to continue their bad habit

as to how it kills well its foriegn smoke in the lungs it causes the same problems as pure tobacco with it killing lung cells and im to understand it also causes cancer and kills brain cells its a deadly product
also it has an intoxicating effect giving it the same potential as alchhol to cause car accidents

 

[Plurralbles]

car accidents attributed to pot? Really? Are you serious?

Face the facts, guy.

"Crash culpability[that's, "responsible for"] studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids[THC stuff] in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes."

Crash culpability studies On-Road Performance Studies Driving simulator studies

SUMMARIES
"At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.
To date , seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected. The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.

[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents.
In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.
"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002.
Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa.
Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.
"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving. Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000.
Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear. 3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.
Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.
"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods. With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds)
The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.
"Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor function. [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively".


REFERENCES: D. Gieringer. 1988. Marijuana, driving, and accident safety.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 93-101.

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES "For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis. There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.

REFERENCE: C. Hunter et al. 1998. The Prevalence and Role of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants in Non-Fatal Crashes. Adelaide: South Australia: Forensic Science, Department for Administration and Information Services.
"Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] were tested for alcohol and other drugs. Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury."

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims
impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
"Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash. While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065. ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES "Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence."

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.
"This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O,Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance.
Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.
TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000) DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES
"Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly. In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.

REFERENCEs: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving:
A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks:
TRL Limited.

now if anyone would like to debate that all of these studies are not to be trusted then please tell me how your unscientific opinion that you might have gained from a school, "don't do drugs, mmkay" campaign is to be taken over the results of studies done by teh UK and US departments of transportation...

Of course, all of this is fuckig irrelevant because of course you shouldn't be drivign when under the influence of any drug that affects the mind.

Feb 27 2009
Driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident, according to an extensive study of 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003.
A study by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research published in the British Medical Journal found that seven percent of drivers involved in a fatal highway crash used marijuana.

And nine years after all of those cited studies France appears to have found that it instead triples the risk of fatal accident. Hmm... I find this interesting.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/pot_driving.htm

it found that most of the marijuana fatalities also had alcohol in their system so.. I don't know how they can claim it's pot that is doing it.

The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.

But 2.9 percent of the people had both marijuana and alcohol so... yeah. This is as unscientific a study as on can make.

 

[Billion Backs]

so your saying people should be given the right to commit suicide?
i disagree when you know a substance is going to kill at least some of its users all that can be done to keep that substance away from the general public away from law abiding citzens should be done

and im not for prohibition again since that would only hurt people im against the marijuana atticts (criminals) being alowed to continue their bad habit

as to how it kills well its foriegn smoke in the lungs it causes the same problems as pure tobacco with it killing lung cells and im to understand it also causes cancer and kills brain cells its a deadly product
also it has an intoxicating effect giving it the same potential as alchhol to cause car accidents

About the suicide, yes, yes I think people should have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. If you're not the one who owns your own body, then who the fuck owns it? The government? Do you realize what it means to say that you don't own yourself? Self-ownership is the ultimate freedom.

There's no such thing as "marijuana addicts". Marijuana is not chemically addictive, unlike alcohol and tobacco. Of course, there are plenty of potheads who smoke it every day - but if that's an addiction, it belongs to the same shitpile of "addictions' as video game addiction, internet addiction, sex addiction, and so on. Frankly, I find all of those things bullshit. If one likes doing something so much they want to spend all their time - possibly harming other activities in their life they might not like that much - it's their own damn business. You're the one who should be defining what's right for you.

Smoking marijuana doesn't do the damage smoking tobacco does. The chemicals are different, obviously, and while inhalation of any foreign smoke/gas/whatever might have some effect on your lungs, there is plenty of said foreign smoke on the street or elsewhere. And no, you cannot get throat or lung cancer from marijuana alone. Neither does it "kill braincells". There unfortunately have not been too many studies done on marijuana that weren't awfully biased either pro- or against- marijuana use, but all they could find so far is a correlation between the use of marijuana and certain mental illnesses.

And there's quite a difference between correlation and causation.

Either way, very little conclusive information was found, so unless there are more studies it's kind of pointless to argue. And surely I don't have to remind you that various legal substances, alcohol and tobacco included, are conclusively proven to have adverse health effects which were known for decades. And people still use them. Guess what? They fucking like it, and it is - and should be their freedom to use it.

When it comes to driving... There's a reason why it's illegal to drink and drive, talk on the phone and drive, and so on. Any distracting activity can cause problems, and in this case it does not just affect you - it affects other people on the road.

Frankly, it would be funny to see someone drive while high on pot. They'd probably drive at about 10 lm/h because, well, if you know - you know.

There is even medicine that has side effects that would make it unsafe for you to drive. I don't see how intoxicating effects of any kind potentially leading to a car accident can be used against something. Alcohol has been available in our culture pretty much forever, and guess what? Most people don't drive drunk. Those who do either get home fine, get arrested, or kill themselves/others in a crash.

Same thing for the argument about coming to work high. Alcohol has been freely available, and guess what? At most jobs, if you show up drunk, they'll kick your ass out. Okay, maybe they'll just send you home if it's a one-time occasion, but normally you'd just get fired.

Responsibility is responsibility. How many of those who own guns legally, say, in US, use them for illegal activities? Most don't. A random gun owner isn't necessarily a gun-toting maniac the same way a random alcohol-drinker isn't necessarily a criminal. As statistics go, the responsible people tend to be the majority, the ones who, you know, don't drink and drive (or at least get caught doing it) and don't murder people with their guns.

If pot was legal, why would the laws for driving be any different then the ones for alcohol? It's not exactly hard to tell if someone's high. They might act a lot more normal then a drunk person, especially with some self-control, but you could still very easily establish if they're high or not, the same way you can generally establish if someone's drunk or not.

Don't restrict, educate.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

Do.
I can't think of any reason to justify my answer other than 'I would like easier access to it.'

People in general are stupid but i don't think pot is in any way the cause.

Legalise it and kill at least some of the black market and wasting our tax dollars on fighting it.

Is your avatar from Yume Nikki?

No its from hellsing and what is yume nikki?

 

[Sebass]

Keep in mind that changing the legality of a substance is endorsing it. No matter what the government says, to chance the status of something from "Not okay" to "Okay" is to give the go-ahead, which most people will take as encouragement.

Like when mephedrone was legal still legal, the same people who used illegal drugs used mephedrone and the people who would never use illegal drugs did not use mephedrone ..? People don't take drugs because "it's bad for them". Not law dictates how people view something. Djeez, you talk about others like they're todlers, incapable of independant coherent thought. There might be a teenager here and there that's pretty fucking dim, but most people have brains that process information that is given to them and if, in the case of for example tobacco, the government fairly warned about adverse health risk, this would make 90% of the people who didn't use drugs, stay of drugs when they would be legal.

Besides, doesn't matter if more people use it if the net balance of healthproblems decreases now does it? You seem to argue that the inherent use of a drug in itself is bad, but it's not. And the bad part is where legalisation can offer more than prohibition.

(I find the thought of soccermoms around the world suddenly changing into drugfiends hilarious .. Well, changing prescription to non-prescription drugfiends that is)

And here is the MAJOR hole in that argument; if legalising drugs will stop gang violence or whatever, then why aren't you arguing for the legalisation of every drug? The points remain consistant. If you use that argument for weed, you have no reason not to use it for every other drug.

Well, every drug would be a bit of a stretch as there are some nasty nasty chemicals out there, but large portion .. Yeah ofcourse.

This is by the way a question for other pro-legalisation people out there:

I've been wondering, if drugs ever do get legalised, how would this effect prescription drugs? Because people self medicate with illegal drugs and use prescription drugs recreationaly. This would create a very bizarre situation where you would be able to buy weed, amphetamines and opiates for enjoyment, but would still need a prescription for the same substances for medicinal purposes. I suppose the quantities available for purchase would be a big factor but still ..

 

[Dr.Sean]

Do it for capitalism and the free market.

 

[Tomster595]

Umm, this is pretty off topic, but I've always wondered. Why is it that they call it "pot?"

 

[Canid117]

I honestly do not care.

 

[Zero47]

It's a clear case, the Dutch "gedoogbeleid" has proven itself time upon time again. Besides that the so called war on drugs has also proven to drive youth towards drugs rather than to steer them away from it. If you take into account that the average marijuana dealer will have acces to other drugs, methamphetamine in particular, it is irresponsable to potentially drive teens (or anyone for that matter) into the arms and malicious smiles of these scumbag drugdealers. The only argument that remains against the regulation of marijuana is an ignorant conservative stance with little to go for it. Alcohol is a much nastier drug which has proven to be more dangerous to both your long and short-term physical health. Marijuana may be potentially more harmful to your mental, naturally awareness must be spread around this. The notion that marijuana would become even more popular if it becomes regulated is absurd, everyone is aware of the substance, dealers are so widespread that everyone could obtain it,

 

[capin Rob]

Pots all good, I don't smoek it though.

 

[Nykal]

I voted no, for the simple reason that both of my parents use to be hard core hippies and have done really bad things in their lives and my experiences tell me drugs are bad. My mom stopped doing her old drugs of choice(cocaine,LSD,Shrooms) and now is a strict pot and cig smoker, whereis my dad stopped doing hallucinogens and is now a recovering alcoholic/perscription drug abuser. which means I seen the worst of all kinds of drugs and addictions.

In my experiences, Stoners, while under the influence are better to be around, they are generally really funny and usually in a good mood, but extremely forgetful, dont make much sense, and very lazy. But when sober, they tend to be really moody, still forgetful and lazy, and dont care about much else other then to high again, which comes at a higher priority then providing food and generally neccesities and paying bills.

alcoholics on the other hand tend to have extreme mood swings, where one minute their very happy then the next they turn violent. I have been in more then a few fist fights with drunks (which usually ands up with them on the floor and me laughing my ass off, but thats besides the point >.>) mostly by saying something they disagree with no matter how wrong they are. but sober drunks tend to be quite humble and forgiving, usually because the know they did something wrong but cant quite remember, and usually are productive memembers of society, barring severe alcoholics and people suffering from alcoholism, but the biggest problem is they dont usually stay sober that long.

I have nothing good to say about cigs, there just all around horrible. I believe that we should split the world in two parts, one that has no laws, and one that has many strictly enforced laws, that way the people who want to do whatever can go to one, and the people who like laws can go the other. from time to time the people in the lawful half of the world can vacation to the lawless half and have a blast without effecting anyone who doesnt like what there doing. to bad that can never happen *sigh* anyway sorry for the gigantic post, its just something I feel strongly about.

 

[Yureina]

Why not? It does not affect me either way.

 

[Plurralbles]

"See, I think drugs have done some *good* things for us, I really do. And if you don?t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a Favor: go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your cd?s and burn em?. 'Cause you know what? The musicians who?ve made all that great music that?s enhanced your lives throughout the years...
Rrrrrrrrrrrrreal ------ high on drugs."

I wonder if the fact that I've commented in this thread a lot has made it seem like I'm a pot head... I'm not. I am a cigar and pipe smoker of the tobacco variety. I'm responsible(as much as one can consider, "responsible" in that if you're strict about it you'd call any amount, "irresponsible") but for myself I responsibly consume a cigar in a rare occasion where I feel I could use some quiet outside time with a bowl and a coke or water on the side. Not everyone is a chain smoker. not everyone, and even, not even the majority of marijuana users will be the chain smoking types. They will be averaging one or two every week, perhaps up to twenty if you count a rowdy weekend. I don't see why teh government should be against the health risks that come with such infrequent use. You can't OD on it, so it's not like you'll ever take too much. Just get high off your ass for a while and then you'll go back to work monday and be fine.

Come on everyone, surely if Michael Phelps can get high, you can survive it too with daily exercise and smart use.

Oh wait... People suck and are too stupid to handle themselves.

I forgot.

 

[theguitarhero6]

I believe if they let people drink I dont see a reason to not let you smoke. From experiance, ive seen that alcohol is waaay more influential than smoking is.

 

[Autumnflame]

The main issue is why are people smoking it?
are they using it as a crutch to help with stress, anxiety. ect.
better to deal with the problems than turn to a drug for relief.

not having a problem is better than needing to medicate yourself to deal with it.

bordem? more productive things to do.
spirtual. spirituality is about something outside of you. not tricking your brain into a high state with chemicals

pain. medicinal use i can accept becasue its controlled. and regulated.


again. dealing with your problems is better than having them and coping with drugs and alcohol.
the drugs and such just mask the pain for a while but when your not high its still there.

Dealing with stuff is hard. but you learn move on let the scars heal and deal with life as it happens