But are these drugs illegal because of any type of testing, or are they just illegal because the law was put in place decades ago for some irrational reason?
[quote]
I’m not arguing that weed is a bad drug in and of itself. The danger is that because it’s not legal, and therefore not regulated, you have no idea where it’s coming from. Perfect example is Rupert–the Hospital and RCMP are having big issues with people coming in overdosed on “pot” because it was laced with something harder, often meth. That’s what makes weed dangerous, and that’s why an idiot like the guy in this video is far more dangerous an influence to children than a few beer commercials during a hockey game.[/quote]
And if there was more research done, and more facts put out there about marijuana, these people would KNOW that their pot is being laced with something. I don’t smoke weed, but I’d be able to tell if my bud was laced. The issue isn’t the Marijuana itself, it’s the other, harder drugs out there. And maybe if the government would focus on the harsh drugs, which are getting our youth/whoever into trouble, instead of focusing on how bad being a stoner is, it might not be so bad. And as for the last statement, why are we saying that this drug is bad and deserves to be illegal anyways? Doesn’t alcohol cause far more havoc than marijuana ever has? When have you ever seen a stoner beating the snot out of his wife? When do you see the stoners getting into accidents because they’ve had far too much to smoke at a smoking establishment. When do you see stoners blitzed and naked in the middle of the street peeing? Fact is, there are FAR harsher drugs out there that ARE legal. And no research into WHY marijuana is illegal is being done. The government as a whole has done so much propaganda slinging in the past how many decades that to go back on it now they would look absoloutely foolish. Sadly enough, marijuana will never be legalised. Why? Because there are too many people, in government, like the rest of the flock. Who think marijuana is bad by default.
Personally, I don’t like stoners. But I’d rather be hanging around with a mellow dope smoker than an obnoxious drunk. Or someone strung out on coke or heroine or extacy.
Greg smokes a great deal of cannabis and is probably not impaired. I once took Robaxacet for my back and I became more impaired than I ever did smoking pot. The next time I took it there was no impairment. It takes longer to build tolerance with cannabis, however it does work the same way as Robaxacet and many other drugs. What you want is zero tolerance. That might work for alcohol, but waiting three weeks or more for cannabis to clear my system before I can drive? I wait an hour and a half which is plenty of time for the “euphoric” effects to wear off.
Marijuana is a natural herb that has been smoked for millenniums.
It only became a problem when a puritanical, protestant America lost the war on alcohol to some Catholic Chicagoan-Italian man with a penchant for tommy guns. Suddenly it became the norm for all people to think that smoking a joint some how made you a social pariah, that you went “insane” when you inhaled.That’s kind of funny when you see how much alcohol has become “the untouchable” in these debates. It seems to me those broken windows at Subway were crashed by some drunken losers, rather than a delirious group of stoners looking to vent their substance-heightened depression.
MiG, you are right that the debate, if fronted by yahoos like this, will be lost.
However, I tend to think that the debate in mainstream is a non-starter, anyways. You cannot expect a group of people who are raised to believe a certain way will be swayed by their own. It just doesn’t work like that.
It’s why the US auto industry is failing. Every man in charge in that industry grew through it with the understanding you must have oil to have a car. And the bigger that car, the more oil it uses, the more status that owner holds in society. Hence, a reluctance to build smaller and greener. Only now, when backed in to a corner, do they consider change.
What you need is a crossover personality, someone who appeals to a majority of people because he/she has traits that all people can admire.
Instead you do have the fringes all over this debate so that it will never move from where it stands: on one side the sleepy-eyed, ignorant man with an ugly black and green t-shirt who asks ridiculous questions, and on the other side a pontificating, self-righteous man who has solutions for all, and answers to none.
what is worse for you home grown pot plant or cigarettes that are spiked with nicotine to make you addictive to it? and why would that be more legal then the pot?
Thats my two cents.