Why does capitalism criminalize things like cannabis?

[Leaf]

Someone posted that criminalization of cannabis makes too much sense for the state to legalise it. I believe you, but can you please explain how exactly..?
It's probably really obvious but I always love it when you guys explain it.
Thanks.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Well people's biggest suspicion over the criminalization of cannabis is that it would be very difficult for the state to tax.

Check this out:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

I suggest you all read this if you are interested in the legalization of the PLANT. Notice the stress on plant. The page explains things from a US perspective but it is useful all the same.

[OneNamedNameLess]

It's probably really obvious but I always love it when you guys explain it.
Thanks.

:wub:

[New Tet]

I partly agree with the above; it's criminalized in many countries because it can't be controlled (the exception being Holland, where it's legal in some places to sell and consume). But there might also be a purely moralistic dimension to its prohibition, especially in he U.S.

[OneNamedNameLess]

I would also like to add that it's criminalization is a bit of a loss for capitalists. Just think of the potential market which would open up if it was legalized. We could buy pre rolled joints and the like; accessories would increase in production; then there is the cafe culture and so on. Opportunities for corporations and small business would boom. The market would become huge for cannabis. Did Richard Branson not say that if the plant was legalized Virgin would contribute to it's distribution or something?

On the other hand, tobacco and cigarette sales would surely decrease, especially in the long run. The state would lose a lot on taxes if this occurred. In addition, as I said before, almost anyone can grow the drug indoors and outdoors depending on your geographic location. Taxing it would be very difficult.

[el_chavista]

The capitalistic Empire may apparently "criminalize" drug traffic, human rights and free press violations. Actually this is a fake moral that afford them the blacklisting of the "enemies of the democracy" (their left-wing enemies).

But in the case of drug traffic the empire's immorality has no limits. There is a suspicion that they are using the money from drug selling to finance their expensive military interventions as the economic crisis course continues on.

Even Salim Lamrani is aware of this:


ALVARO URIBE AND THE US DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ARE THEMSELVES INVOLVED IN NARCOTRAFFICKING

Actually, the only high ranking officer involved in drug trafficking is Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe, as shown from an 'impeachable' source: an intelligence report from the US Department of Defense (September 1991) detailing the covert links between Uribe, the Medellin cartel and paramilitary forces.

According to the 'confidential' document, Alvaro Uribe is included in a list of 104 "criminals, murderers, traffickers and suspect lawyers" as a "Colombian politician and senator who is a collaborator of the Medellin cartel".

The report also says that "Uribe was linked to a business dealing with smuggling narcotics to the USA [...], has worked with the Medellin cartel and is a personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria" (Cool.

A memo from Thomas M. Kent, a lawyer for the US Department of Justice, reveals that the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) -- which is a branch of the Department of Justice -- has cooperated with Colombian narcotraffickers and paramilitaries on a regular basis and that its officers are "corrupt agents of the war on drugs".

This document is an implacable accusation against the DEA and affirms, among other things, that many of its officers are at the beck and call of the Colombian drug dealers, that they are accomplices in the murder of informants and that they are directly implicated in money-laundering operations linked to the death squads.


The memo adds that these corrupt agents are protected by the highest government powers (9).

Kent's memo, dated December 19, 2004, is based on the testimony of DEA's agents in Florida, expelled from active duty after they denounced corruption cases. According to the USAmerican lawyer, these agents confronted "huge risks for their careers, their safety and that of their families" after revealing "the names of those directly involved in criminal activities in the US and in Bogota" (10).
According to Kent, a DEA agent was involved in criminal activities for his collaboration with the Death Squads of the the paramilitary organization Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), which are responsible of several thousand murders.


The memo exposes "his implication in money-laundering for the AUC".
Far from being brought to trial, this agent was promoted and "now he's in charge of numerous investigations on drug trafficking and money laundering".

The lawyer says that the officers from the Department of Justice buried this compromising case file in the archives.

"In June 2004 the OPR [Office of Professional Responsibility, a DEA branch] and the DEA itself [...] asked the agent in charge of this case to submit all the information [...]. A week later, the investigation on money laundering was closed" (11).

Kent's memo details three more cases of DEA agents' involvements in Colombia. These officers were part of a conspiracy to murder informants who had testified. "They provided astonishing revelations on DEA agents in Bogota. They said that the agents helped in their drug smuggling activities. They specifically mentioned that the agents provided information on investigations and other activities in Colombia", the lawyer wrote.

These agents in Bogota meet with the informant after his confession. "He was murdered after the meeting", the memo says. "Other informants [...] who worked with the DEA team in Florida were murdered, too. Each murder was preceded by an identity request procedure from a DEA agent" (12).

The DEA agents in Bogota worked to avoid that various informants could travel to the USA to testify. While in charge of taking care of the informats' transportation, the officers detained them. The memo explains that "the informants were held in prison for nine months while the accusations poured in. When it became clear that the DEA agents in Bogota were lying, the informants were released. One of them was kidnapped and murdered in Bogota, where he was hiding" (13).

Additionally, DEA agents in Colombia prevented a meeting between an informant and a group of agents who came from Florida related to an investigation on them. No means were excluded. "One agent from Bogota traveled to Washington and said that the informant was a pederast. The investigation was classified. The agent was requested to support his accusation, and couldn't provide any proof" (14).

DUBIOUS MORAL LEGITIMACY IN WASHINGTON AND BOGOTA.

Kent's revelations are overwhelming both for Colombia and the United States and cast seroious doubts on their moral legitimacy to declare themselves judges on this issue. As for Uribe, the report from the department of defense is implacable against him and it shows his implication with organized crime and international drugs trade.

Uribe is not the only politician or officer with a dirty trail. A retired Colombian army general, Pauselino Latorre, who was in charge of intelligence services, as well as his nephew, Leobardo Latorre, ex-attorney for the antinarcotis unit, were arrested in january 2008 charged with money laundering of one million US dollars and association with drug mobs. They worked out a system to export huge amounts of cocaine (ten tons per month) not only to the US but also to Europe and Africa.

source:
Bill Conroy, «Leaked Memo: Corrupt DEA Agents in Colombia Helps Narcos and Paramilitaries. Internal Justice Dept. Document Alleges Drug Trafficking Links, Money Laudering and Conspiracy to Murder», The Narco News Bulletin, 9 de enero de 2006. http://www.narconews.com/docs/ThomasKentMemo.pdf

[Sarah Palin]

It was made illegal as a corporate tactic. Harry J Anslinger spearheaded the movement to make pot illegal. Now, back then, it was a very racist world, and he created a bunch of lies about how it made black folks think they were equals to white folks, and about it making Mexicans go crazy and kill white women, etc...
In reality, he was a part of the Dupont family, they of course make plastic based products. Hemp, was a major competitor for them, in fact, it would probably have easily beat them out. Sure enough, hemp got outlawed along with weed when Harry took his cause to congress.
This is all pretty much a matter of public record, you can verify all of this easily enough, there was even a documentary on the subject.
The reason it is still illegal today, is because it's profitable.
The police can take everything you own over a drug charge. They can then auction this stuff off, and they get to keep the money and use it as they please. Plus they get a big check from the government every year for new toys to "aid" in the drug war.

[Radical]

It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.

[Misanthrope]

It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.

Who told you this, DARE? Your health class teacher?

If that was in fact why Cannabis is illegal, why isn't alcohol illegal? I mean, how many crimes are alcohol related, how many have died from alcohol related incidents? No one has died from Cannabis. Cannabis is illegal because capitalism is legal.

[mykittyhasaboner]

A short answer: in the US, it was originally made illegal to persecute and criminalize African-Americans and Latin-Americans; as the use of marijuana was associated with these social groups. It grew from there..

Also, its funny that people think governments (the US government in particular) cannot produce or distribute their own cannabis just because they made it illegal. The US government has a monopoly on the growing of cannabis, and have distributed it to certain individuals and organizations.


It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.
Lol, using this logic alcohol and all kinds of prescription drugs should be illegal.

[Nwoye]

It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.
reefer madness!

[eyedrop]

I'm not really buying the arguement about how it would be hard to control for the capitalists, as almost anyone can produce it for themselves.

The same thing applies to alcohol, it's really easy to make it with just a minimum of capital, but the state is still quite succesful of only allowing corporate produced alcohol to be sold. Privately produced alcohol is moonshine (or whatever fits in your country).

[apawllo]

Prison-industrial complex. The 13th amendment gives the state the right to enslave anyone who breaks the law. So long as marijuana possession is a federal offense, every person who commits that crime is free labor for a couple of decades. The War on Drugs, obviously, has led to an increase in prisoners. From 1900 all the way through the mid-70s the government was incarcerating 110 people per 100,000. Since then the rate has climbed steadily and is continuing to do so. It's now at 445 people per 100,000. Minorities, men, and the working class have much higher rates of incarceration. Rather than addressing the issues at hand, more and more prisons are built to house these "criminals." Just another example of the system's smoke and mirrors.

[Muzk]

It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

Seems to be true. But if you come with such a thing as "Why isn't alcohol illegal" Well, what do you think would happen with the AT LEAST 50% (of men) who drink alcohol? Riot.

[New Tet]

[...]and he created a bunch of lies about how it made black folks think they were equals to white folks[...]

There might be some truth to that because every time I smoke herb I think I'm better than a capitalist.

[New Tet]

It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.

Schizophrenia runs in my family and I can state from experience that one of my family members, who suffers from that illness, becomes quite unhinged when he consumes pot. Also, when I was a young buck, I witnessed several people my age react very badly to marijuana whereas in me it always has a soothing, mildly hallucinogenic effect and a tendency to over-intellectualize commonplace experiences.

[Radical]

Who told you this, DARE? Your health class teacher?

If that was in fact why Cannabis is illegal, why isn't alcohol illegal? I mean, how many crimes are alcohol related, how many have died from alcohol related incidents? No one has died from Cannabis. Cannabis is illegal because capitalism is legal.

Alcohol is legal because its been PROVEN to be good for you when drank in moderation.


Schizophrenia runs in my family and I can state from experience that one of my family members, who suffers from that illness, becomes quite unhinged when he consumes pot. Also, when I was a young buck, I witnessed several people my age react very badly to marijuana whereas in me it always has a soothing, mildly hallucinogenic effect and a tendency to over-intellectualize commonplace experiences.

Are you honestly putting up that argument????

Cannabis makes people with mental health problems worse and theres LOTS and LOTS of evidence and research on this.
Cannabis increases anxiety and depression, both are some of the main factors that increases problems with people of mental health. You're ignoring all evidence and siding with a little "hunch" you have of your brother. Its fucking shocking and irrational to base your opinion off of a "guess".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

I dont think alot of the people on the left get it at all. I think people advocating the legalisation of Cannabis just ignore all the fucking health factors it includes. As much as I hate Capitalism. Its illegal for a very good fucking reason.

[Misanthrope]

Alcohol is legal because its been PROVEN to be good for you when drank in moderation.




lol okay. Just evade the fact that marijuana has been proven to kill cancer cells and has been used medicinally throughout its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Breast_cancer

[apawllo]

I dont think alot of the people on the left get it at all. I think people advocating the legalisation of Cannabis just ignore all the fucking health factors it includes. As much as I hate Capitalism. Its illegal for a very good fucking reason.

I think most individuals understand at least some of the health issues associated with smoking marijuana. And you're correct, it can be hazardous to a person's health in several ways. Still, that in no way justifies making it illegal nor should it permit the actions which take place in the United States currently.

In fact, perhaps the opposite is true. The Dutch smoke marijuana at less than half the rate that those in the United States do. I'm not quite sure why some are so quick to assume that making a readily available product illegal will make people not want to try it. :confused:

[New Tet]

[...]
Are you honestly putting up that argument????

Cannabis makes people with mental health problems worse and theres LOTS and LOTS of evidence and research on this.
Cannabis increases anxiety and depression, both are some of the main factors that increases problems with people of mental health. You're ignoring all evidence and siding with a little "hunch" you have of your brother. Its fucking shocking and irrational to base your opinion off of a "guess".

I'm not putting up any argument. I stated my experience with weed. I agree that people with mental health problems should avoid the use of anything that can adversely affect them, including marijuana. However, I think that pot is not at all bad for people who are mentally healthy.

[Pawn Power]

racism

[MetJeBrood]

I live in Holland so i don't really have troubles with the fact but i think it's due to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry makes alot of profit by keeping (soft) drugs illegal for e.h. marihuana gives people apitite, a good sleep en makes people happy but by just pharmaceutical crap you can have 6 types of dopes for that and so the capitalists sell more

[Radical]

lol okay. Just evade the fact that marijuana has been proven to kill cancer cells and has been used medicinally throughout its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Breast_cancer

I never said anything about Medical Cannabis. I would look at the research done revolving Medical Cannabis. However, I think if Medical Cannabis was superior to the other forms of medication, it would already be used.

We're not talking about medical cannabis here. We're talking about legalising it ALL.

And I seem to be the only person here that is well-aware of the mind-altering effects Cannabis has on people.

Cannabis being illegal is nothing to do with profit. Its illegal because its a health hazard. Even if I was to support Medical Cannabis, I would NEVER advocate its use through smoking.

[Manifesto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YtPi2QZSY
The reason its illegal.

[OneNamedNameLess]

It is criminalised because Cannabis contains a mind-altering chemical called THC. About 25% of people have a gene which reacts to THC that can then easily trigger mental health problems. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels increase drasticly.

I strongly urge everyone who smokes weed to purchase a grinder which collects THC crystals. Takes a while to gather enough for a joint but fuck me it's worth it. It's a pity the best of things are always the worst health wise. Take deep fried food for instance.

[Nwoye]

I dont think alot of the people on the left get it at all. I think people advocating the legalisation of Cannabis just ignore all the fucking health factors it includes. As much as I hate Capitalism. Its illegal for a very good fucking reason.
But it's totally legal for me to punch myself in the face, despite it having no health benefits and being detrimental to my well being. Just like you can't legislate that I'm not allowed to punch myself in the face, you can't legislate that I'm not allowed to burn a plant and inhale the smoke from it.

[Misanthrope]

I never said anything about Medical Cannabis. I would look at the research done revolving Medical Cannabis. However, I think if Medical Cannabis was superior to the other forms of medication, it would already be used.

We're not talking about medical cannabis here. We're talking about legalising it ALL.

And I seem to be the only person here that is well-aware of the mind-altering effects Cannabis has on people.

Cannabis being illegal is nothing to do with profit. Its illegal because its a health hazard. Even if I was to support Medical Cannabis, I would NEVER advocate its use through smoking.

uh..

You said alcohol was legal because it was medicinally valuable. Marijuana is way more medicinally beneficial than alcohol.

Well, you are wrong. If marijuana was legal then patients could grow there own medicine, putting pharmaceutical firms out of business and out of power. For a "Marxist" you sure have a lot of faith in the market and the state..

Oh yes, you are the only one "aware" of the "mind altering" substance known as marijuana. :rolleyes: Please, you are just buying into capitalist propaganda, don't claim knowledge when you only bare ignorance.

Yes.. marijuana criminalization has nothing to do with profit, the capitalists and the state just want the best for the proletariat!

give me a break

[Radical]

uh..

You said alcohol was legal because it was medicinally valuable. Marijuana is way more medicinally beneficial than alcohol.

Well, you are wrong. If marijuana was legal then patients could grow there own medicine, putting pharmaceutical firms out of business and out of power. For a "Marxist" you sure have a lot of faith in the market and the state..

Oh yes, you are the only one "aware" of the "mind altering" substance known as marijuana. :rolleyes: Please, you are just buying into capitalist propaganda, don't claim knowledge when you only bare ignorance.

Yes.. marijuana criminalization has nothing to do with profit, the capitalists and the state just want the best for the proletariat!

give me a break

I never said Alcohol was medically valuable. Please show sources.
I'm not wasting my time talking to an imbreed that knows nothing about the health hazards of cannabis. I have absolutly no faith in any Capitalist government. However there are policies that I agree with. Which you already know.

"Oh yes, you are the only one "aware" of the "mind altering" substance known as marijuana. :rolleyes: Please, you are just buying into capitalist propaganda"

Now please show sources that shows this "propaganda" is wrong.

[9]

Please, you are just buying into capitalist propaganda"

I nearly peed myself due to the sheer irony of this comment. You believe that the capitalists have made marijuana illegal to protect the public's health?! And it is everyone else who is buying into capitalist propaganda? :lol:

Part of the reason marijuana is kept illegal is because it is a plant - not a man-made chemical - and therefore, it cannot be patented by the pharmaceutical companies.
Honestly, your argument is hilarious. You think that the drug laws are actually based on keeping people safe? I spent over six years of my life, of which I remember very little, addicted to benzodiazepines - perfectly legal - which psychiatrists continually prescribed for me due to some minor, quite typical anxiety I dealt with in my teenage years. My brother spent nearly five years of his life addicted to oxycontin - perfectly legal - which he obtained largely via doctor's prescriptions. All sorts of prescription drugs, which have been tested solely by the very pharmaceutical companies who are seeking to push them, are perfectly legal and routinely prescribed and constantly result in all sorts of detrimental health effects, including death. Yet this scarcely does anything to limit their legality. Amphetamines, as well as methamphetamine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethamphetamine_%28medical%29), are routinely prescribed to children as young as six and seven in the United States because they can't sit obediently in a desk for eight hours in a row five days a week. But surely, the capitalists would not allow this if it weren't explicitly for the purpose of keeping people safe!

[mykittyhasaboner]

Radical, your argument is locked in such a mess of contradictions that its worthless to be picked apart in it's entirety, but this post of yours in particular just doesn't register with me.

I never said anything about Medical Cannabis. I would look at the research done revolving Medical Cannabis. However, I think if Medical Cannabis was superior to the other forms of medication, it would already be used.It is already used. Even in the United States, the government has issued medical marijuana to people before. Because it is generally criminalized, they cannot use this method on a wide scale, except in places like California where laws have been enacted to allow such medical cannabis use.

Now I know your not going to believe me, and will be demanding to see my sources like a broken record...even though you haven't shown any...so here.

Skip to about 4:20 (this is purely coincidence, no pun intended,lol).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ33kp2LccE

We're not talking about medical cannabis here. We're talking about legalising it ALL.
There is little difference between high quality cannabis that is used for medical use or recreational. The shitty stuff is generally grown outdoors and poorly cared for a number of reasons; like the lack of an indoor growing facility with lights and controlled temperature. This isn't a problem for countries where cannabis is decriminalized, like Holland for example.

And I seem to be the only person here that is well-aware of the mind-altering effects Cannabis has on people.Mind-altering? Definateley; but your making an incoherent leap in logic by concluding that such mind altering affects are inheretly harmful.


Cannabis being illegal is nothing to do with profit. Its illegal because its a health hazard.This is pathetic. Then why isn't tylenol illegal? What about alcohol and liquor? Tobacco products? Firearms? For fucks sake the list goes on; there are so many health hazards that are perfectly legal in most countires, and yet cannabis is illegal. Your head is up your ass on this one.

I'm sure it's a health hazard to lock a human being in a cell for just wanting to get high, or for using a medicinal substance....so why doesn't the government care about their health? Their social freedom and financial security? Why is the government not concerned about health hazards when they arrest criminalized drug users and then use them as a super cheap labor source and pay them cents on the hour?


Even if I was to support Medical Cannabis, I would NEVER advocate its use through smoking.So you don't support medical cannabis? Then what was the point of trying to paint a difference between medical and 'other' cannabis? If you don't support the right for someone to utilize medicinal substances, what other rights are you against?

[GPDP]

Guys, I wouldn't bother listening to the incoherent ramblings of a neo-Malthusian who advocates population control through forced abortions.

[Comrade Akai]

Well, I hate repeating things that others have already said (as it does not contribute much and only annoys people), so I ask you...is recreational cannabis bad for you or not?

[MetJeBrood]

Alcohol is worse for you're body then cannabis so then also alcohol should be forbidden.
And it's still about the fact that pharmaceutical industry makes alot of profit by keeping (soft) drugs illegal for e.h. marihuana gives people apitite, a good sleep en makes people happy but capitalist can have more types of drugs to prevent it. And weed doesn't make you crazy all fakking republican bullshit.

[Radical]

So you don't support medical cannabis? Then what was the point of trying to paint a difference between medical and 'other' cannabis? If you don't support the right for someone to utilize medicinal substances, what other rights are you against?

I support Medical Cannabis through the form of eable naturally grown use. I'm against smoking, therefore any form of smoking consumption would be illegal.

There is a huge difference between naturally grown cannabis and "artifcially" grown cannabis. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels in Cannabis drasticly increase.


Guys, I wouldn't bother listening to the incoherent ramblings of a neo-Malthusian who advocates population control through forced abortions.

Please show sources as to where I said I advocate forced abortion. When you cant, shut the fuck up.

[TheCagedLion]

I never said Alcohol was medically valuable. Please show sources.
I'm not wasting my time talking to an imbreed...

And that's where I stopped caring about anything you have to say

[mykittyhasaboner]

I support Medical Cannabis through the form of eable naturally grown use. I'm against smoking, therefore any form of smoking consumption would be illegal.
You can't make cannabis legal, then make smoking it illegal. That is quite pointless.


There is a huge difference between naturally grown cannabis and "artifcially" grown cannabis. When Cannabis is artificially grown, the THC levels in Cannabis drasticly increase.
What huge difference? You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. There is no such thing as "artificially grown cannabis". There is cloning, hydroponics, or straight soil and water but the only artificial "cannabis" are replicants versions of THC, but that is not cannabis.

Also, you have provided no evidence to suggest that because THC increases (supposedly) in cannabis that is "artificially grown" it's any more or less harmful. Stop hypocritically complaining.

[Comrade Akai]

You can't make cannabis legal, then make smoking it illegal. That is quite pointless.

He's referring to how there are many ways to use cannabis that are much better for your health than smoking it. Additionally, the plant itself has many non-drug uses that could benefit society.

[mykittyhasaboner]

He's referring to how there are many ways to use cannabis that are much better for your health than smoking it.
Obviously:rolleyes:....but you can't make consuming cannabis legal, and at the same time make smoking cannabis illegal. That is really stupid; which is why it fits in with Radical's entire argument.

[Comrade Akai]

Obviously:rolleyes:....but you can't make consuming cannabis legal, and at the same time make smoking cannabis illegal. That is really stupid; which is why it fits in with Radical's entire argument.
Isn't it possible to make smoking it illegal while strongly promoting its other uses?

[blake 3:17]

I'm not really buying the arguement about how it would be hard to control for the capitalists, as almost anyone can produce it for themselves.

For sure. I think we have to look at the particular histories of it.

My answer is racism. Cannabis was banned in Canada many years before it was in the US due to the racist propaganda of early feminist Emily Murphy and her book The Black Candle. In the US, Harry Anslinger was the biggest motivator. His wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

One of the things you learn studying the criminalization of drugs is how relatively arbitrary the capitalist state is. Anslinger idientified weed as a way of justifying his career in the state apparatus and then milked it. Anti-Mexican and anti-black sentiment made this realitively easy.

[Misanthrope]

I never said Alcohol was medically valuable. Please show sources.



Alcohol is legal because its been PROVEN to be good for you when drank in moderation.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1527519&postcount=17





I'm not wasting my time talking to an imbreed that knows nothing about the health hazards of cannabis. I have absolutly no faith in any Capitalist government.

At least when you realize you don't have any argument you keep the stereotyping unique. Usually when I debate about cannabis I'm a pot smoking hippy but now I'm an "imbreed".

Yeah, obviously you do have faith in a capitalist government. You think they made cannabis illegal because it is "hazardous to our health", i.e. you think they are implementing laws to protect the working class people, how absurd.



However there are policies that I agree with. Which you already know.




"Oh yes, you are the only one "aware" of the "mind altering" substance known as marijuana. :rolleyes: Please, you are just buying into capitalist propaganda"

Now please show sources that shows this "propaganda" is wrong.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

http://www.abovetheignorance.org/faq.html (http://www.abovetheignorance.org/)

[Nwoye]

but it's totally irrelevant whether or not it's good for you. I shouldn't be able to forcibly stop you from doing something just because it may be kind of bad for you. as i said before, you're totally allowed to punch yourself in the face if that's what you want to do - despite that being detrimental to your well being. So why can't you inhale some smoke from a burning plant, even if it's bad for you?

[Comrade Akai]

but it's totally irrelevant whether or not it's good for you. I shouldn't be able to forcibly stop you from doing something just because it may be kind of bad for you. as i said before, you're totally allowed to punch yourself in the face if that's what you want to do - despite that being detrimental to your well being. So why can't you inhale some smoke from a burning plant, even if it's bad for you?
I suppose the most one can do within the limits of morality is try to convince them that it's bad and move on with their lives. You make a good point, comrade.

[9]

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1): 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity: (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1) 365,000
Alcohol: (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1) 85,000
Microbial Agents: (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1) 75,000
Toxic Agents: (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1) 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1): 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#adr): 32,000
Suicide (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#suicide): 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1): 29,000
Homicide (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#homicide): 20,308
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1): 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#nsaid): 7,600
Marijuana (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#marijuana): 0


(2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."
(Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories." Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)
Source:
Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, pp. 1238, 1241.


(2000): "Illicit drug use is associated with suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis. An estimated 3 million individuals in the United States have serious drug problems. Several studies have reported an undercount of the number of deaths attributed to drugs by vital statistics; however, improved medical treatments have reduced mortality from many diseases associated with illicit drug use. In keeping with the report by McGinnis and Foege, we included deaths caused indirectly by illicit drug use in this category. We used attributable fractions to compute the number of deaths due to illicit drug use. Overall, we estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17000 deaths in 2000, a reduction of 3000 deaths from the 1990 report."
Source:
Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, p. 1242.


(2003): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2003, there were a total of 31,484 deaths from suicide in the US.
Source:
Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 5, Table C.


(2003): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2003, there were a total of 17,732 deaths from homicide in the US.
Source:
Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 5, Table C.


(2003): "In 2003, a total of 28,723 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). The category 'drug-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths due to mother's drug use."
Source:
Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.


(2003): "In 2003, a total of 20,687 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category 'alcohol-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome."
Source:
Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.


(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)
Source:
Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.


(Average 1982-1998): According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications.
Source:
AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20, from the web at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/ffull/jlt1125-1.html, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001.


An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.
Source:
National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.


The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2003, HIV disease was the 22nd leading cause of death in the US for whites, the 9th leading cause of death for blacks, and the 13th leading cause of death for Hispanics.
Source:
Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Smith, Betty L., BsED, Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Leading Causes for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55, No. 10 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, March 15, 2007), p. 10, Table E, and p. 12, Table F.

[Ovi]

Alcohol is legal because its been PROVEN to be good for you when drank in moderation.



Are you honestly putting up that argument????

Cannabis makes people with mental health problems worse and theres LOTS and LOTS of evidence and research on this.
Cannabis increases anxiety and depression, both are some of the main factors that increases problems with people of mental health. You're ignoring all evidence and siding with a little "hunch" you have of your brother. Its fucking shocking and irrational to base your opinion off of a "guess".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

I dont think alot of the people on the left get it at all. I think people advocating the legalisation of Cannabis just ignore all the fucking health factors it includes. As much as I hate Capitalism. Its illegal for a very good fucking reason.
So smoking weed is bad for your health. Ok. But since when does the state give a shit about our health?
If that were so, coke and McDonald's owners should be hanged by their guts in Time Square NY. Hell, most capitalists should be hanged by their guts if they gived a shit about our health. :D

[The Idler]

Governments make cannabis illegal for various often hypocritical false reasons. This doesn't mean it is not harmful to your health. Nor does it mean it is revolutionary to support its use. You can support its legalisation without supporting its use.

[8bit]

Well people's biggest suspicion over the criminalization of cannabis is that it would be very difficult for the state to tax.

Check this out:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

I suggest you all read this if you are interested in the legalization of the PLANT. Notice the stress on plant. The page explains things from a US perspective but it is useful all the same.

It's actually harder to grow weed than it is to brew your own liquor, and yet, we have no problem legalizing alcohol.

One of the big reasons why certain individuals wouldn't want it to be legalized is because it presents a severe threat to the profit margins of the drug testing business. Cannabis is pretty much the only drug which can be accurately tested for after a period longer than 48 hours. Most other drugs: Crack, cocaine, LSD, PCP, Alcohol, etc... are water borne, not fat borne, and thus, usually leave the body within 48 hours.


Cannabis makes people with mental health problems worse and theres LOTS and LOTS of evidence and research on this.
Cannabis increases anxiety and depression, both are some of the main factors that increases problems with people of mental health. You're ignoring all evidence and siding with a little "hunch" you have of your brother. Its fucking shocking and irrational to base your opinion off of a "guess".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

I dont think alot of the people on the left get it at all. I think people advocating the legalisation of Cannabis just ignore all the fucking health factors it includes. As much as I hate Capitalism. Its illegal for a very good fucking reason.

Did you actually read that Wikipedia article? You do realize it pretty much debunks every myth about the negative health effects of Marijuana, right?

[bobroberts]

It was originally banned for racist nonsense about black men dating women and to allow the law to go after mexican immigrants, as well as being a threat to the timber industry. Since then the drug war has basically been used to target racial and political minorities, expand state power over our lives. Various industries who benefit from it's prohibition lobby to keep it that way.

[9]

So smoking weed is bad for your health.

Actually, one cannot even say this definitively as it is untrue. Certainly, smoking marijuana can be bad for your health, but that is all a matter of individual psychology, quantity smoked, frequency of use, and method of ingestion.

[Ovi]

Actually, one cannot even say this definitively as it is untrue. Certainly, smoking marijuana can be bad for your health, but that is all a matter of individual psychology, quantity smoked, frequency of use, and method of ingestion.
Most likely alcohol is far more dangerous and the deaths caused by marijuana (if any) won't ever come close to those caused by alcohol. Weed is also knowed to be a soft drug (unlike alcohol). But that's irrelevant. Banning has nothing to do with some health policy of the government as someone here suggested (there is no such thing as a health policy!)

I never said anything about Medical Cannabis. I would look at the research done revolving Medical Cannabis. However, I think if Medical Cannabis was superior to the other forms of medication, it would already be used.

We're not talking about medical cannabis here. We're talking about legalising it ALL.

And I seem to be the only person here that is well-aware of the mind-altering effects Cannabis has on people.

Cannabis being illegal is nothing to do with profit. Its illegal because its a health hazard. Even if I was to support Medical Cannabis, I would NEVER advocate its use through smoking.
I would never advocate or advertise anything that can damage ones health. I would keep it for myself :D

[9]

Most likely alcohol is far more dangerous and the deaths caused by marijuana (if any) won't ever come close to those caused by alcohol. Weed is also knowed to be a soft drug (unlike alcohol). But that's irrelevant. Banning has nothing to do with some health policy of the government as someone here suggested (there is no such thing as a health policy!)

Most definitely true that alcohol is immeasurably more dangerous - scroll up five or six posts to see the US annual death statistics. Alcohol kills roughly 500,000 people per year in the US alone. Marijuana, which has been used in one form or another for millennia, has never claimed a single life. Which is pretty remarkable. Particularly when one considers that even caffeine has resulted in a number of deaths.


I would never advocate or advertise anything that can damage ones health. I would keep it for myself :D

I realize this last part was not in response to me, and I don't mean to nitpick, but it is important to understand that virtually all medical/medicinal substances and treatments carry health risks. Which is to say they can all damage one's health. However, I suspect if a loved one or friend of yours was diagnosed with cancer (just as an example), you would 'advocate' chemotherapy treatment. In which case, you would be advocating something that can damage one's health. And I suspect if your child was to undergo surgery (as another example), you would surely and obviously 'advocate' anesthesia. In which case, you would again be advocating something that could damage one's health.
The point, ultimately, isn't whether something can or cannot damage someone's health, but rather, whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

[Ovi]

Most definitely true that alcohol is immeasurably more dangerous - scroll up five or six posts to see the US annual death statistics. Alcohol kills roughly 500,000 people per year in the US alone. Marijuana, which has been used in one form or another for millennia, has never claimed a single life. Which is pretty remarkable. Particularly when one considers that even caffeine has resulted in a number of deaths.



I realize this last part was not in response to me, and I don't mean to nitpick, but it is important to understand that virtually all medical/medicinal substances and treatments carry health risks. Which is to say they can all damage one's health. However, I suspect if a loved one or friend of yours was diagnosed with cancer (just as an example), you would 'advocate' chemotherapy treatment. In which case, you would be advocating something that can damage one's health. And I suspect if your child was to undergo surgery (as another example), you would surely and obviously 'advocate' anesthesia. In which case, you would again be advocating something that could damage one's health.
The point, ultimately, isn't whether something can or cannot damage someone's health, but rather, whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
Obvously when I said I would not advocate anything that can damage ones health I meant anything that makes you more sick, as you said. I find promoting (and later condemning!) any drug as iresponsable; what one does it's his own business, no one should forbid him that nor convince him to do it (like alcohol or tobaco ads).

[fiddlesticks]

Got a few good laughs at this thread. It is true, marijuana can be dangerous for people who have pre-existing medical conditions but I have never heard of it ever making a healthy person go nuts. Nothing from reefer madness was true, and it is illegal because back in the beginning of the twentieth century Harry Anslinger, William Hearst and other people were afraid marijuana would become too much of a threat to their own businesses. Hopefully, it wont be illegal for very long because marijuana dispensaries are popping up in the states where it has been decriminalized. People are finally realizing how useful the plant is.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516 <state marijuana laws

In my opinion the benefits of marijuana far outweigh the negatives. History tells is it is harmless, marijuana has only been illegal for 1% of the time it has existed after all.

[cleef]

People are going on about the health benefits / risks as a justification for why it should be illegal/legal, when at the end of the day that shouldnt even be the issue. What i decide to put into my body is nobody elses fucking business, if it kills me slowly good! As long as you are not harming somebody else then no one else should have control over what you do to yourself

[The Idler]

I've still to persuaded that the government and corporations support the prohibition for anything other than the reasons they publicly state.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I've still to persuaded that the government and corporations support the prohibition for anything other than the reasons they publicly state.

and those reasons are?

[Radical]

Obviously:rolleyes:....but you can't make consuming cannabis legal, and at the same time make smoking cannabis illegal. That is really stupid; which is why it fits in with Radical's entire argument.

Did I ever say I want to just ban smoking cannabis? No I did not. I said I want to ban SMOKING. That means Cannabis, Tobacco, Heroine and every other drug that people use through the smoking consumption.

And by "artifical" Cannabis I simply meanun-naturally grown cannabis. Such as using lights and heaters.

[gorillafuck]

Isn't it possible to make smoking it illegal while strongly promoting its other uses?
Yes, it's possible. It's just really stupid.

[Radical]

So smoking weed is bad for your health. Ok. But since when does the state give a shit about our health?
If that were so, coke and McDonald's owners should be hanged by their guts in Time Square NY. Hell, most capitalists should be hanged by their guts if they gived a shit about our health. :D

Theres a difference between food, alcohol and smoking as I've already stated before.

Food is healthy in moderation.
Alcohol is healthy in moderation.
Smoking is NEVER healthy in moderation.

[Ovi]

Theres a difference between food, alcohol and smoking as I've already stated before.

Food is healthy in moderation.
Alcohol is healthy in moderation.
Smoking is NEVER healthy in moderation.
First of all I'm not talking about "food" but about mc donalds food. About using all sorts of synthetic substances that smell well, taste great, but they're toxic as hell. Why is that allowed if they care about our health? Alcohol in moderation? I don't know of any sort of laws that restrics how much you can drink (or none that actually works). Many thousands of people die each ear due to alcohol overuse (moderation you say? shoudn't they force us to be healthy by forbiding alcohol overuse then?).

Want more? Let's see: using way to much pesticides that end up in our food and can have damaging effects on the our health and cause birth defects, pushing the oil industry which is responsable for the pollution and smog in all the big cities that kill thousands, promoting unhealthy things (alcohol, tobaco, pills when they're not needed), using polycarbonates that leaches bisphenol A for baby bottles...When did the government care about our health last time? I fail to remember. It's not their job today and it never was. At least when it comes to smoking, everyone knows that it can damage their health more or less(smoke of any kind contains harmfull substances), but who knew that baby bottles can? Or what do people know about pesticides in their food and their effects? Not much.That's where the state could do something usefull though they won't since they don't give a shit.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Did I ever say I want to just ban smoking cannabis?
Yes. You say so in this post as well.

No I did not.
Yes you did. Just admit it.

I said I want to ban SMOKING.
Precisely.

That means Cannabis, Tobacco, Heroine and every other drug that people use through the smoking consumption.
So you want to stop people from smoking. Good luck. This has little to do with the topic of discussion. Which is, please let me remind you, why cannabis is criminalized.


And by "artifical" Cannabis I simply meanun-naturally grown cannabis. Such as using lights and heaters.
:lol::rolleyes: Just because it doesn't use the sun, and Earth (soil) doesn't make it "artificial". There is essentially little difference, except that the quality of any plants grown in a controlled environment (using lights, indoor area, possibly hydroponics) are far better.

[gorillafuck]

Even if cannabis was not legal to smoke but legal to use other ways (putting the stupidity of that aside), that would be ridiculously hard to enforce. Most people who are arrested get caught with cannabis in their possession or with cannabis in their car, not while they are actually smoking it.

Cop: "You're under arrest"
Beatrice The Stoner: "No sir, I wasn't going to smoke it. I'm going to make brownies."
Cop: "Oh, then carry on."
Beatrice The Stoner: *arrives at friends house and lights up a joint*

[mykittyhasaboner]

Even if cannabis was not legal to smoke but legal to use other ways (putting the stupidity of that aside), that would be ridiculously hard to enforce. Most people who are arrested get caught with cannabis in their possession or with cannabis in their car, not while they are actually smoking it.

Cop: "You're under arrest"
Beatrice The Stoner: "No sir, I wasn't going to smoke it. I'm going to make brownies."
Cop: "Oh, then carry on."
Beatrice The Stoner: *arrives at friends house and lights up a joint*
Yup. This is exactly why that idea is hopelessly flawed.

They would have to make bongs, pipes, papers etc illegal, which they are in most places, like here; yet I still manage to buy them from gas stations. There's no hope for Radical's crazy drug policy which I bet he wishes he could force everyone to comply with.

[Radical]

Even if cannabis was not legal to smoke but legal to use other ways (putting the stupidity of that aside), that would be ridiculously hard to enforce. Most people who are arrested get caught with cannabis in their possession or with cannabis in their car, not while they are actually smoking it.

Cop: "You're under arrest"
Beatrice The Stoner: "No sir, I wasn't going to smoke it. I'm going to make brownies."
Cop: "Oh, then carry on."
Beatrice The Stoner: *arrives at friends house and lights up a joint*

This is why I'm for the criminalisation of SMOKING. If smoking was completly criminalised, it would be much easier to enforce.

[mykittyhasaboner]

This is why I'm for the criminalisation of SMOKING. If smoking was completly criminalised, it would be much easier to enforce.
Do you really lack simple logic? Or are you purposely pushing this insane idea just to troll?

[gorillafuck]

This is why I'm for the criminalisation of SMOKING. If smoking was completly criminalised, it would be much easier to enforce.
No, it wouldn't be. Even if all smoking was criminalized my example of what would happen with marijuana is still what would happen when someone is caught with it. Whether the smoking of all substances is criminalized wouldn't make a difference as to whether it can be adequately enforced with pot smokers.

Really the same goes for all drugs. People are usually caught with possession of it, usually not while they are actually in the act of consuming it. So if it is a drug that can be smoked but also consumed in non-smoking methods then it would be near impossible to enforce because people could so easily lie about what they were planning to do with it.

[Outinleftfield]

Im skeptical over the supposed mental health danger. It smacks of refer madness.

Psychiatry is in its infancy. Our understanding of marijuana is too. Ive known bipolar and schizophrenic who find that weed makes them mellower and gets rid of the voices. I dont discount that some people might experience other effects though. There are even some studies that have shown bipolar people benefit from marijuana. Not sure about schizophrenia.

However, studies linking pot to mental health problems are fishy. Some run tests on the effects of pure THC. NO marijuana is pure THC. It has about 60 psychoactive chemicals, including CBD which has proven anti-psychotic effects. It could be that pure THC causes psychosis but the CBD usually outweighs these effects to the point of the net effect alleviating psychosis. Ironically Marinol which IS pure THC is perfectly legal as prescription medicine. The other studies tend to point out that most schizophrenics smoke weed and most started before they were diagnosed and that therefore that must be causing it. Applying that same logic nicotine causes schizophrenia because most schizophrenics started smoking cigarettes before being diagnosed. But it is generally thought by mental health professionals that this is to relieve stress associated with the condition because some symptoms start long before diagnosis. The same might be true of pot.

The psychotic episodes some people get could have to do with the different chemicals in different plants. Ive heard of a very bad type of weed that causes most users to huddle in the corner thinking they're going to die for hours when they aren't in any real mortal danger. It probably has too high of a THC-CBD ratio. If marijuana was legal the ratio could be regulated and displayed on products. In some cases this could also have to do with dealers lacing the pot with various drugs and chemicals unknown to the customer.

[The Idler]

and those reasons are?
The government genuinely believes it is harmful even if it isn't?

[mykittyhasaboner]

The government genuinely believes it is harmful even if it isn't?
So you think the government criminalizes marijuana because they believe it is harmful? It's not hard to tell how this kind of logic is obviously flawed, why is the same not done with alcohol for example?

There are plenty of reasons why marijuana is criminalized, as outlined in this thread, but any harmful effects derived from consumption of it is absolutely not a reason why it is illegal. The government can go on and on about how harmful marijuana is as justification for it's prohibition, but it doesn't require much intelligence to do a little research and find that there are no known cases of death as a direct result from smoking marijuana, and it is debatable (as well as incredibly subjective) that the consumption of cannabis has any serious adverse affects on the body. In fact it has many medicinal purposes, so please tell me how you can possibly think this?

[Pawn Power]

And apparently smoking pot doesn't cause lung cancer (http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/).

[originofopinion]

Cannabis influences Hemp, Hemp is better that cotton [environmentally and sustainably], thus the Cotton industry will fall. Making Capitalists in the Cotton industry less wealthy. Cotton is Huge in America, A country full of Crazy Capitalists and Cotton users.

Also Fertilizer and Pesticide businesses would lose lots of profit, because Hemp requires none of those products.

[9]

This doesn't mean it is not harmful to your health. Nor does it mean it is revolutionary to support its use. You can support its legalisation without supporting its use.

Who ever claimed that smoking pot was "revolutionary"? What difference does it make whether a person smokes pot? It isn't revolutionary, it isn't counterrevolutionary, it doesn't have anything to do with revolution. Its no different than going out and having a couple drinks. Someone who enjoys going out and having a couple drinks occasionally presumably doesn't do so because she thinks its revolutionary. Its merely a social/recreational activity that some people find pleasurable. I fail to see the relevance of your argument.

[Revy]

It does make you wonder whether the motivations of the drug policy are based on profit. Almost every drug out there is banned. They haven't gotten to salvia yet, but I'm sure they will.

Marijuana has been noted to be beneficial in the treatment of depression. The pharmaceutical companies, all too eager to promote antidepressants like Zoloft, Prozac, Celexa, Lexapro and Paxil (known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), which have been proven to increase risk of suicide (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121300452.html), are not happy about the encroachment of this grassroots (pun intended) medical alternative. Ever been on withdrawal from an SSRI? I have witnessed someone I know break down in tears, crying for no reason, because they weren't taking their antidepressants.

Given the relatively low cost of marijuana, the fact that it can be grown by people in the community rather than by a corporation, it is easy to see exactly why the continuance of this drug policy into the present day has been enforced so strictly, it at least partially explains why.

[mykittyhasaboner]

It does make you wonder whether the motivations of the drug policy are based on profit. Almost every drug out there is banned.
And most end up as Schedule I or II as well.
They haven't gotten to salvia yet, but I'm sure they will.

Totally criminalized in Florida now. It wasn't until like the end of last year possibly stretching into the beginning of this year. No headshops can carry the stuff anymore.



Given the relatively low cost of marijuana
I'd say it is way overpriced since it isn't regulated, the price of it greatly varies from country to country, even 'state to state'. However I see what your saying though, as a dime bag is cheaper to buy than a prescription, and a small cultivation of cannabis is cheaper to produce than Zoloft.

[Comrade Corwin]

I don't think this should be a discussion of whether or not marijuana is profitable or a great taxable product for the state, I think this should be a discussion of whether or not people of our ideology should support the use and distribution of Marijuana or drugs of its ilk. This is the eighteenth millionth time I've seen this thread started and every time, my point of view changes. This is apparently a subject that we are obsessed with so why not have the same conversation with differentiating results.

Now I got my view of drug use from years of analyzing this subject, which apparently out-ranks Jesus, and I consider my Communist ideology to support my belief that cannabis is anti-revolutionary on a work ethic standard. Karl Marx is often quoted for claiming that religion is the "opiate of the masses". This meaning that organized religion distracts people from the real issues such as revolution. Why do you think that he phrased it that way? Because he considered recreational drug use, such as opiates, were used to be a distraction from that which is more important including revolution, workers' duties, etc. So by today's standards, as opiates have been universally criminalized for recreational use, the phrase could now be changed to "the marijuana of the masses" for a modern interpretation.

I believe that marijuana should be studied for medical purposes, but just like alcohol, drugs are a terribly waste of recreational time as they weaken the mind of the revolutionary. People say it is not addictive, but I have never seen a subject so radicalized without reason. Look at the criminal organizations that have arisen. They use disgusting corruption and hideous violence that cripple the fabric of society to simply get people a product that gets you high? How pathetic is that? I haven't even seen such strong organizations to get the starved people of the world food, but you are willing to have a few people shot so you can light up? For the same reason that the Mafia should have been destroyed instead of giving into their demands, so should the war against the drug cartels be fought until it is won even after the fall of capitalism.

I can't believe someone brought Virgin into this discussion...

[mykittyhasaboner]

I don't think this should be a discussion of whether or not marijuana is profitable or a great taxable product for the state, I think this should be a discussion of whether or not people of our ideology should support the use and distribution of Marijuana or drugs of its ilk.
People of "our ideology" should support the right for someone to get high if they want to, not to mention the right for someone to utilize medicinal technology.


This is the eighteenth millionth time I've seen this thread started and every time, my point of view changes. This is apparently a subject that we are obsessed with so why not have the same conversation with differentiating results.Maybe your talking about a different forum, cause this issue isn't talked about a lot on revleft. Not that it should be really, it's so inconclusive, and those who argue against cannabis use do so on a moralistic and biased pretension.


Now I got my view of drug use from years of analyzing this subject, which apparently out-ranks Jesus, and I consider my Communist ideology to support my belief that cannabis is anti-revolutionary on a work ethic standard.Well it's too bad your conclusion doesn't have much basis in reality. Since you can base your argument off of your "years of analyzing the subject", I can too. The fact is if you smoke weed, your more likely to want to chill out then do school work/employed work, but that doesn't mean it's "anti-revolutionary on a work ethic standard"; whatever the fuck that means. It's very possible to be a regular pot smoker, and have decent grades in school, a job, as well as political activity. I don't see how much more of a work ethic you need.

Karl Marx is often quoted for claiming that religion is the "opiate of the masses". This meaning that organized religion distracts people from the real issues such as revolution. Why do you think that he phrased it that way? Because opiates are some hard core drugs that make you lay down all day and not do anything. Of course he used the phrase in a prerogative way against religion mainly and apparently opium. Though marijuana is no opiate, and is nowhere near as addictive or harmful to your body and/or consciousness. Either way, the quote is meant to denounce religion, mainly mono-theistic religions, as counter productive and addictive, kind of like opium.

Because he considered recreational drug use, such as opiates, were used to be a distraction from that which is more important including revolution, workers' duties, etc.No, this is a meaning that you are attributing to his words. If he meant that, he probably would have said "religion is the liquor of the masses" or something; its not like opium was a common recreational drug in Europe during the 19th century. While these drugs may be a "distraction", who's to say one can't be sober for periods of important political work, and high off their asses when there on their own time?

So by today's standards, as opiates have been universally criminalized for recreational use, Wrong, opiates are distributed on a wide scale via pharmaceutical companies. Whether it's recreationally used or not, is beside the point, that opiates aren't universally criminalized. In fact straight up opium is legal in a handful of countries.


the phrase could now be changed to "the marijuana of the masses" for a modern interpretation.
Pfft.

I believe that marijuana should be studied for medical purposes, but just like alcohol, drugs are a terribly waste of recreational time as they weaken the mind of the revolutionary.According to you, but maybe not so someone else. Your just trying to push your morals on everyone, so just quit it.


People say it is not addictive, but I have never seen a subject so radicalized without reason.Wtf does that have to do with marijuana being addictive or not? Marijuana: no physical addictive properties, no withdrawal, and minimal after affects; yet because the subject is radicalized "without reason" (theres plenty of reason to radicalize an issue when it's dealing with peoples health :rolleyes:) it's addictive? What kind of argument is this?


Look at the criminal organizations that have arisen. Your just making your position look worse. If the shit was legally available in the first place there is little logical reason for such an encompassing black market system of gangs, drug dealers, etc.


They use disgusting corruption and hideous violence that cripple the fabric of society to simply get people a product that gets you high? How pathetic is that?About as pathetic as your inability to understand the factors at work here.


I haven't even seen such strong organizations to get the starved people of the world food,Socialist movements throughout history have lifted (or at least attempted to) entire populations out of utter poverty, even in bourgeois countries there are organizations to fight poverty, however useless they are.


but you are willing to have a few people shot so you can light up?:rolleyes:

For the same reason that the Mafia should have been destroyed instead of giving into their demands, so should the war against the drug cartels be fought until it is won even after the fall of capitalism.Wow. OK quick fact, not all of the black market is equivalent to the MAfia or drug cartels. Pathetic strawmans. Many people who participate in the black market (mainly to sell whatever illegal substance they have) do so because the legitimate market cant fulfill their needs, ie feeding their family, paying for their cost of living. You spit on working people who are trying to survive, albeit by illegal methods, by equating them to drug cartels or the mafia.



I can't believe someone brought Virgin into this discussion...:confused:

[Comrade Corwin]

If you are to say that my ability to understand the utilization of a drug on society is not based on fact, than my good man, you have no ability to claim yours to be factual either. All you've said is that you disagree with me and my apparently moralistic high ground. I have heard no evidence to the contrary to assert that the recreational use of marijuana has any positive effects beyond medicinal and until we all become doctors, I don't see us handing out Vicodin for kicks. Now, please, don't argue semantics and claim that Vicodin has more hazardous additional effects, or whichever, than marijuana because if I have to read through another argument that has as much eye rolling as a seizure victim with no point in sight, I will feel tempted to devour your soul. If that were possible... or there were souls. That is an argument for another day.

Now on your claim that black marketers are simply men and women trying to feed their families and that I viciously attacked them without reason because I am a bad, bad man, I think you should read up on the lumpenproletriat. That should give you a better perspective on how the there isn't simply bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The world is much more complicated than that, and you shouldn't be making poorly chosen alliances with just anyone.

And by the way, our ideology is not based on middle class notions of letting people run around doing more of what they want. It is a vehicle in which to give people more of what they need. To think that we should fight for the right of people to light up simply because they want to is a very dangerously individualistic notion. Not that there is no room for the individual, but there is a time and place. Responsibility to the greater good takes a much higher priority and I am arguing on whether or not recreational marijuana use would help, not hinder in the slightest, the progress of society to aid its people as a whole. Do not argue whether or not society is more important. I don't have the time to debate two very different subjects in one thread.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If you are to say that my ability to understand the utilization of a drug on society is not based on fact, than my good man, you have no ability to claim yours to be factual either.
Your inability to understand the utilization of a drug in society isn't based on facts. It's based on a personal view of yours that recreational cannabis is somehow wrong. None of your "facts" or arguments have been relevant towards proving this point either, so I have no other option but to assume your arguments aren't based on fact.


All you've said is that you disagree with me and my apparently moralistic high ground.Then I guess you didn't read much of my post, since I said more than that.


I have heard no evidence to the contrary to assert that the recreational use of marijuana has any positive effects beyond medicinalPositive effects beyond medicinal? Well the medicinal properties of cannabis are more than enough of an argument for its legal production and distribution. Other than that, it gets you high. For some people that is a positive effect, others like yourself, choose to pick at the imperfections of people's choices from a moral high horse. Not one bit of your argument has any merit in any other type of conviction besides moralism: in that you shouldn't "light up" because it's wrong, apparently. Seriously what are you getting at? Does everything substance need to have a completely positive effect on humans without even side effects in order for it to be "acceptable" enough for you?

Recreational effects of cannabis (Wiki): The psychoactive effects of cannabis, known as a "high (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/high)", are subjective and can vary based on the individual and the method of use. Some effects may include an altered state of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness), euphoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria), feelings of well-being, relaxation or stress reduction, increased appreciation of humor, music or art, joviality, metacognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition) and introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection), enhanced recollection (episodic memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory)), increased sensuality, increased awareness of sensation, increased libido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido), creative or philosophical thinking, disruption of linear memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linear_memory&action=edit&redlink=1), paranoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia), agitation or anxiety, and increased awareness of patterns and colour.

All but the latter (paranoia, agitation or anxiety, disruption of linear memory) seem to be effects that are likely to be desired by one who is consuming cannabis.


Now if you want to take a look at the flip-side of the topic, the uses of cannabis that aren't drug related, Wikipedia should suffice:

Hemp is the natural, durable soft fiber from strains of Cannabis sativa that grows upwards of 20 feet tall. These plants are not valued for recreational uses as the plants that are cultivated for hemp produce minimal levels of THC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC), analogous to attempting to get drunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk) from low-alcohol beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-alcohol_beer). Cannabis[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#cite_note-naihc.org-77) plants intended for any drug cultivation cannot be hidden in a hemp field either, as the size and height of each are significantly different.
Hemp producers sell excess seeds as a health food, as they are rich in heart-healthy, essential fatty acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acids), amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids) (both essential and nonessential), vitamins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamins) and minerals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals). Hemp "milk" is a milk substitute beverage also made from hemp seeds that is both dairy and gluten-free.[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#cite_note-78)
Hemp is fairly easy to grow and matures very fast compared to many crops, most notably trees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trees) used for paper. Compared to cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton) for clothing, hemp cloth is known to be of superior strength and last longer. The fibers may also be used to form cordage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordage) for industrial-strength ropes. Hemp plants also require little pesticides and herbicides due to its height, density and foliage. This also makes hemp plants very environmentally-friendly.
Hemp can be utilized for 25,000 very durable textile products,[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#cite_note-naihc.org-77) ranging from paper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper) and clothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing) to biofuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuels) (from the oils found in the seeds), medicines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis) and construction material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Composite_materials). Hemp has been used for many civilizations, from China to Europe (and later North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America)) for the last 12,000 years of history.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#cite_note-naihc.org-77)[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#cite_note-79)





and until we all become doctors, I don't see us handing out Vicodin for kicks.Uh, what? Vicodin has nothing to do with this.



Now, please, don't argue semantics and claim that Vicodin has more hazardous additional effects, or whichever, than marijuana because if I have to read through another argument that has as much eye rolling as a seizure victim with no point in sight, I will feel tempted to devour your soul. What are you on about?


eye rolling:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: does this bother you?


If that were possible... or there were souls. That is an argument for another day.I'm not even sure what your arguing.


Now on your claim that black marketers are simply men and women trying to feed their familiesWrong, you misconstrue what I said. I said that most people active in the black market are regular working people, and to equate them with cartels is inaccurate. Try and keep up now.


and that I viciously attacked them without reason because I am a bad, bad man,No, I didn't say you were a bad man or anything about you personally, stop flattering yourself. I said that you misrepresent working people as cartels and gangsters.

I think you should read up on the lumpenproletriat. Thanks I know what the lumpen proletariat is, and it only proves my point; that the majority of people who rely on the black market for their source of income are disenfranchised workers who don't have any other way to make money.


That should give you a better perspective on how the there isn't simply bourgeoisie and the proletariat.thanks for the advice :rolleyes::lol:

The world is much more complicated than that, and you shouldn't be making poorly chosen alliances with just anyone.Poorly chosen alliances? So allying with poor workers relying on illegal methods to survive is poorly chosen?


And by the way, our ideology is not based on middle class notions of letting people run around doing more of what they want."Middle class notions?!" How many times are you going to take what I say and add your own spin to it? I never said anything about letting people running around and doing what they want, I acknowledged that individuals have a right to consume drugs if they so please.


It is a vehicle in which to give people more of what they need. To think that we should fight for the right of people to light up simply because they want to is a very dangerously individualistic notion.No it's not, its a notion that your uncomfortable with because of your moral standpoint that "lighting up" for the sake of it is wrong.


Not that there is no room for the individual, but there is a time and place. Apparently that time and place is hard to be found according to you, since "lighting up" is such a horrible crime against decency.

Responsibility to the greater goodWow this reeks of absolute moralism. Who the fuck are you to say that because of the "greater good" people shouldn't get stoned?


takes a much higher priority and I am arguing on whether or not recreational marijuana use would help, not hinder in the slightest, the progress of society to aid its people as a whole.Maybe you should stop thinking in such a way, because it's not very logical. Recreational marijuana use will do little of either, since it's just a recreational drug. It wouldn't be smart to get stoned then go out and do political work and try to make allies among our fellow workers, and nobody is suggesting that. However, if someone on their own time wants to smoke weed, there's absolutely no problem with that, and that's something you just don't seem to understand. I really don't know what your getting at by arguing against this. Also it's simply one issue amidst an entire society of problems, so why does marijuana use have to be of such importance as to whether or not society will progress?



Do not argue whether or not society is more important. I don't have the time to debate two very different subjects in one thread.It seems you don't have time to debate anything, well with any legitimate arguments anyways. To be honest I have a hard time arguing with you because I don't understand your "reasoning" (I use this term very loosely here) one bit.

[bobroberts]

Alcohol is a harder drug than marijuana, and Marx was a drinker. I guess Marx had a counter-revolutionary work ethic. Opiates at the time he wrote that famous line were used as medicine and legally available. The line about religion being the opiate of the people was more about religion being one of the outlets of oppressed people, as a way for the people to relieve their pain. It wasn't meant as an attack on religion by comparing it to a dangerous narcotic (opium wasn't thought of such at the time), but to get the point across that to get rid of religion you need to get rid of the horrible and oppressive conditions which drive people into religious faith.

[Comrade Corwin]

Alcohol is a harder drug than marijuana, and Marx was a drinker. I guess Marx had a counter-revolutionary work ethic. Opiates at the time he wrote that famous line were used as medicine and legally available. The line about religion being the opiate of the people was more about religion being one of the outlets of oppressed people, as a way for the people to relieve their pain. It wasn't meant as an attack on religion by comparing it to a dangerous narcotic (opium wasn't thought of such at the time), but to get the point across that to get rid of religion you need to get rid of the horrible and oppressive conditions which drive people into religious faith.

I suppose Marx didn't have a incorruptable work ethic, but then again he was strictly an intellectual and much of what he spoke on was hypocritical considering his living situation during his years of a being a political writer. He didn't live a life to emulate, really. Anyway, it is his words we should be willing to die for, not his drinking habits.

That is what I am saying! I'm not saying that marijuana is bad for your health or entirely of the mind, as I know that there are a few people who can find a way to function as productive workers outside of their recreational drug use. Marx did speak negatively on organized religion on the grounds of it being a drug, as he compared it, was all a distraction. Distraction from the real work of the revolution. The fact is, that many use drugs, religion, etc. to escape the harsh reality but that is reactionary to our cause as revolutionaries. You have to be sober minded to truly be affective.

There is no arguing with some about how they will live their lives. They will run themselves into the ground, and believe it their right. I don't believe that subtracting from the efforts of those trying to bring about revolution is sound, but I guess that is not my right to say. I suppose for once, I'll have to agree to disagree. In the end, we'll see who is on the front lines of the revolution and who gets left behind in the dust when it happens.

[Comrade Corwin]

Also, I support the use of cannibis for medicinal purposes, but not recreational. That is my conclusion and unfortunately, as much as I've tried to find a proper debate, I haven't found any evidence to condone any drug as a positive alternative in recreational use. I cannot condone its recreational use as a moralistic bastard or revolutionary.

:rolleyes:

[Revy]

I cannot condone its recreational use as a moralistic bastard.

Indeed.

I can't believe you posted this argument about how Marx referring in a metaphorical context to religion being the opiate of the people means he was against the recreational use of drugs.

"Opiate" in that context, as stated above, referred explicitly to the medicinal use of opiates. Religion, according to Marx, was a psychological "treatment" for the drudgery of capitalism, for only which revolution is a cure.

[Comrade Corwin]

That makes sense about the metaphorical usage of opiates. Thank you for your insight.

However, you must stop being high and mighty simply because you wish people to have more access to drugs. That won’t make you a hero even if recreational drug use is considered to be acceptable by the majority. You are simply arguing violently over the lighting up and ingesting the burning remains of a hallucinogenic plant. However, if in the end the people decide it fair to use marijuana, I will be forced to oblige. I am merely their servant as a revolutionary, after all.

[gorillafuck]

However, you must stop being high and mighty simply because you wish people to have more access to drugs.
You're the one who's asserting that you find it "wrong" or "unacceptable" with really no basis.


That won’t make you a hero even if recreational drug use is considered to be acceptable by the majority. You are simply arguing violently over the lighting up and ingesting the burning remains of a hallucinogenic plant.How is he being violent in any way at all? It's actually kind of difficult to be violent over an online forum.

And marijuana isn't a hallucinogenic. Hallucinogenics are things like LSD, Mushrooms, etc.

[Comrade Corwin]

Tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis) is a minor hallucinogenic. It alters memory and perception, but rarely will cause hallucinations. You are right; LSD and mushrooms are more obvious hallucinogens, however.

When I said " arguing violently", I meant they argued adamantly to the point of being disrespectful and belligerent. I suppose a better adjective would be "childish", but I don't want people to assume I consider them to be children or I to be above them in any way. However, I have had people threaten my life over this subject, so I suppose violence or the meaning to cause harm is not as hard to occur over the internet as it was once thought.

Yes, I think it is unacceptable and all my life experiences have led me to this conclusion and I am not simply going to have my opinion keel over and die because I've had five people argue against me. That is the point of debate, and if I can learn something on the subject I'd like that. Whether or not that will change my opinion is uncertain, but I doubt I can change the opinion of those on here. It seems they never had the intention of ever changing their minds. If that is the case, there is no point discussing this subject.

[Revy]

The worst I did was quote a portion of what you wrote and write "Indeed". If I was being a troll I would have gone on an all out assault. I wasn't trying to bully you, I just think your view on this issue doesn't make sense.

[gorillafuck]

Where is your evidence that marijuana hinders revolutionaries?

[Comrade Corwin]

Well, apparently I'm the only opposing view that doesn't claim marijuana makes you bleed out of the eyes or something else exaggerated. I figured that was an improvement. No pleasing some people, I guess...

I'm sorry, I can't recall a good experiment using a revolutionary force doped up on marijuana to test their effectiveness. I guess I don't have an example of where it has hindered revolutionaries, but I don't know where it has helped either. However, from personal experience knowing people who have done pot, I'd much rather risk my life on the front line with someone comfortable being sober 24/7 than someone who is known to enduce false euphoria.

People have used marijuana to escape harsh reality and relax. However, this changes human perception. Our perception of the cruelty and dissatisfaction we face everyday is what fuels us to be revolutionaries. Any minute we dabble with our perception is a minute we waste unprepared and unwilling to fight. People must suffer and feel it every minute of every day to be fueled for change. To subdue them with false euphoria is foolish and a delaying tactic. I have always strived for a more sober society, which is more aware of when things are the way they should be. I think legalizing marijuana for recreational use would be a major step back.

[9]

Well, apparently I'm the only opposing view that doesn't claim marijuana makes you bleed out of the eyes or something else exaggerated. I figured that was an improvement. No pleasing some people, I guess...

I'm sorry, I can't recall a good experiment using a revolutionary force doped up on marijuana to test their effectiveness. I guess I don't have an example of where it has hindered revolutionaries, but I don't know where it has helped either. However, from personal experience knowing people who have done pot, I'd much rather risk my life on the front line with someone comfortable being sober 24/7 than someone who is known to enduce false euphoria.

People have used marijuana to escape harsh reality and relax. However, this changes human perception. Our perception of the cruelty and dissatisfaction we face everyday is what fuels us to be revolutionaries. Any minute we dabble with our perception is a minute we waste unprepared and unwilling to fight. People must suffer and feel it every minute of every day to be fueled for change. To subdue them with false euphoria is foolish and a delaying tactic. I have always strived for a more sober society, which is more aware of when things are the way they should be. I think legalizing marijuana for recreational use would be a major step back.

The thing that I find so troubling about this mentality, aside from its fixation with workerism, is that it assumes that any activity people do for their own pleasure is counterrevolutionary or counterproductive to revolution. By this same logic, revolutionaries should no longer sleep because sleeping is a delaying tactic which people use to escape from reality and relax, and it can thus change human perception, and hinders someone's ability to be on the "front lines" of revolution "24/7".
The thing is, being a revolutionary does not preclude being a human being. If it did, there'd be no hope for the movement. No one is going to dedicate every second of every minute of every hour of every day to "revolution". It is not healthy and it is not a healthy way to live. Human beings need leisure, they need pleasure. We cannot spend our entire lives immersed in our jobs, and then come home and spend all our time immersed in "revolutionary activity". If we attempt to live this way, for the vast majority of us, burn out is inevitable and will occur almost immediately. We are not machines. And people who profess the sort of workerist self-depriving behavior you're advocating... I honestly have to wonder if they have ever had a full-time job.
When I get home from a busy day at work, I want to relax. Maybe I'll sit in front of the television for an hour, or get online and sit in front of the computer for an hour. Or maybe I'll go out to the bar with some friends and relax that way. I don't do it every day, but I have to do it some days to sustain myself.
And frankly, I find your idea of revolutionary behavior so completely detached from the working class, that I struggle to understand how you can actually think that communism - by such rigid standards of behavior - is anything close to a viable ideology. It sounds more like idealism.

[fiddlesticks]

I'm sorry, I can't recall a good experiment using a revolutionary force doped up on marijuana to test their effectiveness. I guess I don't have an example of where it has hindered revolutionaries, but I don't know where it has helped either. However, from personal experience knowing people who have done pot, I'd much rather risk my life on the front line with someone comfortable being sober 24/7 than someone who is known to enduce false euphoria.

I think it is safe to say smoking marijuana has zero effect on revolutionary forces.



People have used marijuana to escape harsh reality and relax. However, this changes human perception. Our perception of the cruelty and dissatisfaction we face everyday is what fuels us to be revolutionaries. Any minute we dabble with our perception is a minute we waste unprepared and unwilling to fight. People must suffer and feel it every minute of every day to be fueled for change. To subdue them with false euphoria is foolish and a delaying tactic. I have always strived for a more sober society, which is more aware of when things are the way they should be. I think legalizing marijuana for recreational use would be a major step back.

To say that everyone that uses marijuana is subdued and less aware of the things around them is a little absurd because marijuana effects different people in different ways. No two people will feel and act the same while high. From my personal experience, I am even more aware under the influence than I am sober. It is a bringer of creativity. I don't see whats wrong with allowing people to smoke if they would like to, it can't be a step back because it is one more freedom being withheld from the people.

[mykittyhasaboner]

This is probably your worst post yet.

Well, apparently I'm the only opposing view that doesn't claim marijuana makes you bleed out of the eyes or something else exaggerated. I figured that was an improvement. No pleasing some people, I guess...
No that isn't an improvement. Your argument is about as bad as ridiculous propaganda/scare tactics like "marijuana makes you bleed out of your eyes".


I'm sorry, I can't recall a good experiment using a revolutionary force doped up on marijuana to test their effectiveness. I guess I don't have an example of where it has hindered revolutionaries, but I don't know where it has helped either. However, from personal experience knowing people who have done pot, I'd much rather risk my life on the front line with someone comfortable being sober 24/7 than someone who is known to enduce false euphoria.

False euphoria? Please clarify what you mean.

Risking your life on the front line...do you think revolutions are just violent conflicts? Who says you have to be at war to be a revolutionary? Besides that, you claim that marijuana smokers cant handle being sober 24/7; what do you think weed is crack? We don't frantically scratch and mumble obscenities until we get our next fix, marijuana isn't very addictive.


People have used marijuana to escape harsh reality and relax.
Among other things.


However, this changes human perception.
OH NO OUR PERCEPTION HAZZ BEEN XCHANGEED!!!!!!111111


Our perception of the cruelty and dissatisfaction we face everyday is what fuels us to be revolutionaries.
So according to you people have to feel shitty, dissatisfied, and victimized...all the time, in order to be a revolutionary. That's fucking stupid.


Any minute we dabble with our perception is a minute we waste unprepared and unwilling to fight.
:lol: I thought you were just a bit too biased towards your own morals but after this you must be an extremist. Seriously how much more of an idealist/moralist puritan can you be if you claim that people shouldn't "dabble with their own perceptions". Were you born a communist? Did you ever have stupid political/other beliefs when you were younger or before you were a communist (well supposedly you are)? Then guess what, you've changed your perception before. If you never "dabbled with your perception" you would never come up with new ideas, and that sounds pretty lame.


People must suffer
This in itself is crazy talk.


People must suffer and feel it every minute of every day to be fueled for change.
No people must develop class consciousness and become politically active to be fueled for change.


To subdue them with false euphoria is foolish and a delaying tactic.
Subdue? What are they being subdued from by smoking weed? I wont address "false euphoria" here, since i already have. Smoking weed isn't a "delaying tactic". Your perception of this drug is insane.


I have always strived for a more sober society,
Sounds like a boring society.

which is more aware of when things are the way they should be.
Quick fact: one of the effects of marijuana is a heightened sense of awareness.

things are the way they should be
SO what are the way things should be? How are people supposed to be aware of the "way things they should be"? Do you even know what the fuck your talking about?


I think legalizing marijuana for recreational use would be a major step back.
Explain how, please. You haven't made any argument for this.

[Comrade Corwin]

I do not like the use of drugs for pacification or dealing with one's problems. It affects the mind in a way that is completely uncontrollable. That is what makes a drug a drug. Marijuana affects people in different ways, but so does alcohol and other legal drugs and I don't support using them to make yourself comfortable either. You don't have to be psyched out to be happy and therefore it is not worth legalizing marijuana, in my opinion.

I think it is safe to say that revolutionary forces are 100% negatively affected by smoking weed. Look, I can make nonfactual generalities too.

How in the world can I not be biased towards my own morals!? That is like claiming that I agree with my own opinion. Of course I would!

For the last time, my opinion is not being formed off of baseless morals, but from personal experience and the facts proven by science. Some here believe that the positive effects outrank the minor negative affects, but that simply is not my belief. I'm no evangelical trying to persuade others with leaps of bloody faith; I'm here expressing my personal opinion. Do I think it would be great if the world followed my beliefs, well who in the world doesn't feel that way?! Will I kill everyone if they don't follow my way of thinking? Even if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't dare attempt to!

If you disagree with me, just go light up somewhere in a corner in protest or whatever you want to do. I don't give a damn. We will see whose philosophy is best when it is tested. If we do legalize marijuana and it goes poorly, I sure as all hell hope we don't live long enough to regret it. If it is not a regrettable decision, then I hope we live long enough to enjoy it.

[Comrade Corwin]

Oh, and by the way, I think legalizing marijuana would be a step back when going towards a more aware and sober society because marijuana in no way makes you more sober! You don't have to be a freakin' genius to figure that out. Do I know what I'm talking about? No, I just saw a bunch of people talking nonsense and patting each other on their backs and thought I'd join in the fun. Of course I know what I am talking about. It is obviously that you don't understand what I am saying and I can't help if you don't at this point. I'm not sure, but I believe I've spelled out my take on the subject as best I can and for the life of me I cannot find a single person on this thread that wants to repectfully debate my what I believe. You can yelp and shout that you are right because of the sake of being right, and that is your right. Hahaha! I suppose if I were looking for a good debate or discussion I should have found other more sober people to engage! This is the most infuriating thread I've ever participated in.

Just believe yourselves to know everything and don't repond to my last two posts. I cannot debate on this thread anymore. I've finally lost my calm and cannot regain it.

[gorillafuck]

I do not like the use of drugs for pacification or dealing with one's problems.
That may be the case for some people, but most pot smokers do it because they just enjoy it, just like they enjoy doing other things. Some people have different coping mechanisms and because smoking pot is what it is for some people doesn't mean the purpose it serves for everybody is to cope with things.


It affects the mind in a way that is completely uncontrollable. That is what makes a drug a drug. Marijuana affects people in different ways, but so does alcohol and other legal drugs and I don't support using them to make yourself comfortable either. You don't have to be psyched out to be happy and therefore it is not worth legalizing marijuana, in my opinion.Alcohol and other drugs are legal and apparently society hasn't fallen into a drunken frenzy. In fact, alcohol prohibition was terrible, just like how marijuana prohibition is too.


I think it is safe to say that revolutionary forces are 100% negatively affected by smoking weed. Look, I can make nonfactual generalities too.You've been doing that this whole time.


For the last time, my opinion is not being formed off of baseless morals, but from personal experience and the facts proven by science.Well then bring these scientific facts to the table. You haven't been and it would really help further this discussion a lot if you did.


I'm here expressing my personal opinion. Do I think it would be great if the world followed my beliefs, well who in the world doesn't feel that way?! Will I kill everyone if they don't follow my way of thinking? Even if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't dare attempt to!Yes you would I have proof!


If you disagree with me, just go light up somewhere in a corner in protest or whatever you want to do. I don't give a damn. We will see whose philosophy is best when it is tested. If we do legalize marijuana and it goes poorly, I sure as all hell hope we don't live long enough to regret it. If it is not a regrettable decision, then I hope we live long enough to enjoy it.
Oh my yes it will be enjoyed.

[9]

"Communism: a more aware and sober society.":)
Don't they have churches for things like this? Celibacy too!

[mykittyhasaboner]

Oh, and by the way, I think legalizing marijuana would be a step back when going towards a more aware and sober society because marijuana in no way makes you more sober! You don't have to be a freakin' genius to figure that out.

Yea you would have to be one, but I guess you aren't a genius. When your wrong, your wrong. Lets compare the decriminalized laws of Portugal or Holland to the US:


"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[Comrade Corwin]

You have not proven in your last statement in comparison to Holland and Portugal to the U.S. that marijuana made you sober or even made a positive effect. That merely shows that usage rate goes down when you don't tempt causeless rebels with criminalization. I'd actually support decriminalization if it got rid of all the potheads.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You have not proven in your last statement in comparison to Holland and Portugal to the U.S. that marijuana made you sober or even made a positive effect. That merely shows that usage rate goes down when you don't tempt causeless rebels with criminalization. I'd actually support decriminalization if it got rid of all the potheads.

Your out of your mind, or are you just normally like this? Nobody suggested that marijuana makes you sober. You said that "legalizing marijuana would be a step back towards a more sober society" when in fact countries like Portugal and Holland have lower drug usage rates; effectively proving that their society is "more sober". Just accept that your wrong.

"Causeless rebels" is probably the stupidest thing I've seen you equate marijuana smokers as. Your not going to get rid of all the "potheads" ever, so get used to it. Get your head out of your ass.

[Comrade Corwin]

"Originally Posted by Comrade Corwin
Oh, and by the way, I think legalizing marijuana would be a step back when going towards a more aware and sober society because marijuana in no way makes you more sober! You don't have to be a freakin' genius to figure that out.

mykittenhasaboner:
Yea you would have to be one, but I guess you aren't a genius."
I figured you wanted to debate whether or not marijuana makes you more sober. I thought that you must be an idiot, but I suppose I slightly misinterpretted. I'm glad you are not an idiot, honestly.

I assure you that my head has never been in my ass, and if I were capable of such a acrobatic trick, I'd probably have a world record and I wouldn't be here discussing such things as drug legalization with you. But lets put that aside, shall we...

I suppose the facts you've provided prove that drug usage goes down when drug usage is legalized. I guess I was wrong to think that making something illegal would properly keep it at bay. I admit I was wrong. I wonder if that will work with murder and theft. A wonderful experiment, don't you think?

I call all those who rebel for the simple sake of rebellion, causeless rebels. Kind of a general term, really. I suppose all those who faught to legalize marijuana in Holland and Portugal sort of disbanded and went about normal lives after the excitment had been removed from getting high illegally. That is pretty causeless, as far I can see. I guess you can't always get rid of all of the druggies, but then again you can't get rid of all criminals and poor choices. That would be rather impossible.