Alcohol, Tobacco - New study suggest worse then pot, ecstasy

Post Reply New Topic

legalizing pot will:

-decrease use of alcohol (by providing an alternative that does not leave you hung over and unable to function the next day)
increase tax revenue

-create many jobs. not just on the harvesting and processing side but also in the way of entrepreneurs who would open coffee shops that would host smokers...which is again, another tax revenue.

-will decrease the number of drug offenders in jail substantially. this is more money the government can spend elsewheres and more space available in jail for real criminals.

-will take one item off the black market and make that one item that much safer because it has to follow harvesting proceedures and laws set up by the FDA.


the down side will be an initial boom of pot smokers....it's to be expected with anything that's made legal...curious people will go "hmm...it's legal now...guess i might as well try it" then again, there are people who will never try it and will never be interested in it. just like there are people who have never drank alcohol and never will. i'd say after the first 2 or 3 years of legalization, the number of pot smokers would drop down to a more moderate number comparable to that of alcohol drinkers.


keeping it illegal creates a dangerous black market, keeps money that could go to taxes from getting to the government, puts more money in the hands of gangs and other less than desirables who would take advantage of such an easy crop where your customers actually don't die and don't try to kill you to get the drug.

it would also more than likely result in a price drop of marijuana and probably the creation of a proof system similar to alcohol with similar pricings according to quality and strength (top shelf vs bottom shelf).



i fail to see a down side with this.

and Finally get some Cheech n Chong sequals

This statement is meaningless BS.
'Potential to addict' : what does this mean ?
I mean milk has the potential to addict, if you like drinking it enough.
I don't know anybody who has suffered withdrawal from milk, same with weed.

As far as i am concerened if you dont withdraw, then you are not addicted.
Withdrawal is something i know about.
I've never suffered withdrawal from weed; i've smoked enough it.

You clearly must be using some other form of definition of addiction.
A BS one.

I still don't follow this point. Its been stated by many members the reason marijuana is 'illegal' is because its dangerous. Alcohol and cigarettes are, too, so its still hypocritical. All or nothing. This is "prejudice" to only pick and choose. At one time, before alcohol would have even been considered illegal (before prohibition), ALL drugs were used. Weed had a following, just not the one you think it had.



Not at all. In fact, I think this position demonstrates how complicated humans have MADE life. Politics are complicated because of this "prejudice" created everytime you pass a bill. This is why I'm libertarian - I believe you cannot cure everyone by making everything illegal. You make one drug illegal for a "reason" then ALL drugs must be if they ALSO fall under that reasoning - if you don't, then you're being hypocritical and picking and choosing. 0 logic which leads to "complication" which leads to "prejudice" which leads to "more bills being passed to cover the loop holes" which creates "more loop holes." Politics is like building a house on sand, eventually it collapses under all the BS.

Keep in mind that every bill that passes, someone opposes. That means you have divided the people up, in some way or another, created prejudice to those who opposed the bill, and indirectly told them how to live, even if they dont want to (do you have ANY right telling someone how to live?)



True. You know why? One is illegal and one isn't. Generally, I think when you slap a label like 'illegal' on something, even if its not really that bad, the term 'generalizes' it so it becomes 'bad.' Legal = good, illegal = bad. Alcohol = good (what?), weed = bad (uhh? this logic doesn't work). I've many friends who 'drink' but turn their noses up me when they hear I smoke pot. I don't drink but I dont turn my nose to them. There's a lot of popular things in society but I dont think thats justification for anything. MTV is popular and its the most mindless crap on the t.v.



Super, so the solution to all of lifes problems is for Government to somehow CONTROL the problem by making it SO expensive, no one can afford it. What else would you like to hand 'control' and 'choice' over to the Governments? I think, perhaps, you enjoy them "thinking for you" but I personally can "think for myself." Its a neat ability I was born with. However, this one thing bothers me in that if I fail at something, I've no government to run and blame and kick out, I've only myself to blame (My belief is that if people stood on their own and were actually ALLOWED to make decisions, we wouldn't be so damn dependent and clueless). The day I here "Yup, my fault" is the day I know someone acknowledged themselves, that they, yes, can make mistakes. Its funny, history is showing the we want less government yet, we keep giving them all the power back! What were the founding fathers of 'America' fighting for?



Ya, its easy to make excuses and loop holes to turn your back on your values. Ask a religious person (who actually practices the faith that one should not kill another) and your 'idea' is discounted. I, for one, still call hypocrisy, as I do not believe this example (nor fit it). Again, you're trying to create 'loopholes' to justify this but it doesn't work. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. Somehow, you've used "many" to justify "death." How much is "many" and when does it turn "ok" to execute someone? Well, here we go, the debate is on. I say "19 people" and someone suggests "190" people then someone suggests that "killing" is "killing" so either we execute them all or none. This is consistent, its logical, and lacks holes. Either you executed based on the fact you murdered someone or you are put in jail based on the same reason. We can better debate "sentencing."

Lets continue: what if we set the number to 20? What happens if the person killed 19 but he killed all babies? Now what? People love babies, can we make an exception and execute him? What if they killed 20 people but they were all borderline criminals? Can we let him slip by and pretend he only killed 19? You're setting yourself up for HOURS and DAYS and MONTHS of discussion when it can and should be as simple as "he killed someone, death" or "he killed someone, jail." Oh, and if you do make an exception, ya, that'll open the flood gates (precedent is an amazing thing if you do your homework. I imagine you can find a hole in almost anything because the system is setup FOR holes.

If all drugs were legal, this topic wouldn't exist and billions would have not gone to the 'war on drugs' but rather some other war in another country ( )

On that note, I'm going to go, right now, and smoke some pot. After, I'll bask in my psychosis and scream s**t out the window like a good stereotype would (or play 1 song from "Guitar Hero" and then make some dinner).

If it was not for the trade in cocaine, the US dollar would be in even worse shape.
There is more heroin coming out of Afghanistan now that they have US 'aid'.
The US government makes more than a few dollars in such drug deals; otherwise it would be legalized and taxed tommorow.

i've experienced worse withdrawal symptoms from quitting smoking tobacco than i have from going extended periods without smoking weed.


the potential for addiction with weed is the same as any arbitrary act of entertainment. in fact, i'd say some entertainment is worse...have you see the negative effects of mmorpgs like world of warcraft or everquest? that's more of an addiction than pot.


"Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck toes for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some toes for marijuana?"

sad thing is i could see people sucking "toes" for mmorpg's.

i'm still waiting for a serious rebuff to my claims....

Took me a long time to get off tobacco and nictine chewing gum. Getting my sense of smell back didn't help; i used to have overloads and panic attacks; didn't realise it was because i was smelling things again.

I have no idea what mmorpg's are.

And now for a completely different point of view:

I have done real MDMA (knew the guy who made it so I knew it wasn't tainted with amphetamines etc.) and it is amazing. It gave me the ability to RELATE to people, and to feel good. I have severe anhedonia.

I have told all of my psychiatrists that I think MDMA should be studied for use for those of us who have problems both with relating to others and anhedonia. I am not suggesting that I or anybody else should go around perpetually stoned, but I am suggesting that this drug should be considered for study for people OTS or with depression.

That's what they had created MDMA for, back in the 80s before it had been hijacked and turned into a party drug. There's potential also for psychedelics suchs as LSD or Psylocybin in terms of therapeutic psychological treatments, and there with these (or at least Psylocbin, not sure about LSD) there's no risk of brain damage. If we have to go along a progressive path, psychedelics are a better candidate for legalization to start with, I think./

I'm no chemist, but I'd argue the opposite. In my anecdotal understanding, LSD is responsible for causing permanent changes in the brain, not necessarily in a good way. However, the only negative side effect that I know of for MDMA is perhaps lowering the amount of serotonin produced by the brain. This problem could be dealt with though. Although MDMA is very close in chemical structure to a stimulant, it is not nearly as dangerous as amphetamines are, a class of drugs which can cause permanent psychosis.

I used to do E in the 90s when it was cut with amphetamines, cocaine, narcotics, tranqs. and vetinary pharmaceuticals. I did it twice a week; every week until i was immune.
Had a great time, and for a brief spell never felt more 'in-tune' with others.
There's lots of studies done with it in various fields (ranging from marriage therapy to multiple sclerosis). It was popular in parts of Europe in the 70s with some psycho-analysts.

I would seriously not recommend it for depression.

I took a low dose of MDMA while I was on a high dose of Paxil and got zero effects. One of the persons in the group was sweating extremely bad and I forced him to drink water. Anyway one problem is the malfunctioning of the temperature regulation center
in the brain that could lead to a heat stroke in situations where your not careful.

The other problem is neurotoxic effects from metabolites. Research seems to indicate its from MAO-B oxidizing the MDMA. So a typical dose of deprenyl 5-10 mg will inhibited
MAO-B oxidation of MDMA. Other agents that seem to block the neurotoxic effects by another mechanism (after the toxin forms) is alpha-lipoic acid. The temperature regulation effects perhaps could be reduce with a drug such as aspirin(just a guess). I
took flomax when I was on reboxetine to counter the sexual side effects so it presumable will do the same for MDMA.

Psychedelics were legal until parts of the US government decided that Timothy Leary was public enemy number 1.



Yes, you can lower it to zero serotonin level. Then take MDMA and what happens ?
No amount of LSD will screw up your nuerology as much as this. It may feel like it, but ...

I'd rather have only one month to live and live every day on E, knowing it would kill me at the end of the month, (which it wouldn't, but just for the sake of argument) than live a long, miserable life, which is what I've been doing.
I'd trade quality for quantity any day.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any for at least 5 years.

EDIT: (was in reference to):

Apology for the misquote (yet again, )



Facts not in evidence.

Marijuana Use in Past Month -- No -- Yes
Alcohol -- 49.5% -- 86.3%
Cigarettes-- 27.2% -- 74.9%
Drugs other then Marijuanna -- 1.4% -- 24.6%
Nonmedical use of any psychotherapeutic -- 0.7% -- 10.5%
Cocaine - 0.3% -- 8.0%

(source)




So would legalizing and taxing the selling of artillery.



Machine1 these jobs take away from those held by people in industries in regards to question number 1. You have signaled alcohol consumption will drop as a result as these policies (although I do not follow for previous reasons or supply and demand reasons). Logically then the some jobs held by people in these professions (brewers, people who work for Budweiser, people who distribute to them) would be lost, along with the revenue.



Disclaimer: I smoked marijuana but it is a crime and the people who smoke it know that it is. Generally first time offenders are treated with a slap on the wrist, but sellers and large scale possessors are not. You very well may be right about some of the (relatively although not in absolute terms) innocents being caught up and sent to prison and this is unfortunate, however it is difficult to deny the connection between the rising prison population and the reduction in the crime rate.



First off this idea that Marijuana is this "safer" drug is that is the reason legalize it (in contrast to big bad tobacco, and alchohol) is preposterous. Marijuana has severe physical drawbacks (the medical evidence is clear on this) in it's effect on the brain. It also, like tobacco (although I worry less about tobacco then marijuana and alcohol), poses other health risks. In addition, and I know this is a big controversy to say, can be addictive. I realize it is not addictive in the physical sense that nicotine is addictive, but the physiological element is often much stronger. It is difficult for people to simply stop doing something that they have found comfort in.



I have a feeling this isn't entirely the case but it's late and I don't feel like running down sources. I do know that when 18-21 year olds were giving the vote they didn't vote in nearly the numbers that they were expected in nearly the national average.



It would certainly not drop belong the present level of users, or stay there. When prohibition was ended, alcohol consumption didn't take a slight up tick, it shot upward. Now the situation is somewhat different here in that most of the U.S. population oppose legalization, however that opinion skews older. If pot were legal then teenagers would not have to worry about getting caught, and hence would be likely to use it more because lower prices as mentioned in a moment. Do we really want the youth using marijuana more?



The people who run drug cartels are not idiots. They will not stand by when marijuana is legalized and do nothing. In fact, right now as mentioned in a previous report modern marijuana is a different variety the older stuff. These organizations will continue to use their efforts to push narcotics into the country. Why wouldn't they? People will continue to want to get "better stuff?" Human behavior will not suddenly change and sudden allow for the creation of a new static situation. Life is more dynamic then that.



Interesting. According to supply and demand, lower prices means increased usage. Interestingly, the drug cartels (not being idiots) have used the same tactic in the past. As the market changes, they will move new black market materials in at a reduced rate to adapt to the changing environment.
[/quote]

Last edited by jimservo on 25 Mar 2007, 11:15 am, edited 2 times in total.