Colorado Voters Legalize Marijuana!

Thats review is pointing at another review, and that links from the US gov. So actually its two. But look them up if you'd like, they're plentiful

Legalization is about moving to end the mindset that it's somehow not morally reprehensible to organize drug raids, to break into the hosues of POC and incarcerate them or kill them. It's about the fact that somehow the cultivation of a plant is somehow a greater threat to national security than racist government officials and police officers who would rather shoot first and ask questions much, much later.

Everything else is very, very laughably secondary.

Depends on the initiative, Denver had "safer" which didn't argue those points but that it was safer to use then alcohol. Secondly, its not secondary, cause if it wasn't so safe in the first place you wouldnt think it was ridiculous to have drug raids over it.

If it argued those points, it wouldn't pass. It's a very profitable war for the government.

I disagree, tons of people think it is bad for you simply because of the fact that it is illegal. I saw one of these people on the news just the other day when they got asked "is marijuana a drug or plant". Knowledge is power blah blah blah.

Yes it is.

Of course they do. That doesn't make it any less of a laughable argument in terms of legalization. Sure, it's technically relevant because Americans are blissfully uninformed, but it's still laughable.

I don't really wish to make comparisons, but it's about as silly as the "but my religion!" argument in terms of marriage equality. Which is still - somehow - relevant. (A major difference being that not passing marriage equality isn't systematically murdering thousands of people, but hey, I did say I don't really wish to make comparisons.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/amendment-64-passes-in-co_n_2079899.html

Here's the official report.

And yea guys, not saying using ANY drug is good (or bad), but as I said earlier, prohibition never worked.

And I guess I'll give my opinion since I started this thread...

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for you. Drinking is bad for you. EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. This is and has always been a recreational drug, since the time of cavemen, even animals eat it. It has proven medicinal uses. So to each his/her own, but whenever the government is trying to protect me from myself I have to say stop and look at whats going on. This is a big step forward and is long overdue, I can only hope other states and eventually the federal government follow suit.

I looked it up, the Denver initiative, it passed and because of safer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPTcYBSygjU

I dont know how you can honestly think arguing health risk is laughable in a conversation about making whats nationally perceived as, and labeled as, a drug . Like i said, the only reason you think this is ridiculous is cause it is, because it isn't unhealthy. People wouldn't consider legalizing meth for these reasons.

The thing with marijauna is it was set on the road to legalization as soon as it was allowed to be 'medical use'

If meth gets allowed 'medical use' it probably will one day become legal for all use.

feel free to disagree but the tax benefit was the underlying factor and how it's a struggle to get gay/lesbian couples those same benefits as straight couples.

Many things come down to money in the end for many people.

Nice try with the slippery slope.

Methamphetamine is rarely prescribed, but legally approved for certain medical purposes. Speed has similarly been used for medical purposes for years.

Marijuana is on the road to legalisation because there's no rational reason for it to be illegal while tobacco and alchohol are legal.

If you don't believe me, Methamphetamine is called Desoxyn when prescribed legally and Speed is called Adderall.

Now to sit back and see if other states follow suit. I do wonder how much of a margin it would take for the Feds to legalize, or at the very least decriminalize, marijuana. Maybe if all the voting "battleground" states legalize/decriminalize marijuana, or perhaps say 35 states (70%) or would it only take 26?

And by the way, almost ALL substances are safe to use, key word here is USE. It's when someone ABUSES a substance does it actually have an adverse effect on the body. Most people would say food is good for you. You need to eat to fuel the body. Hell, even junk food is ok for consumption, but it's when a person over-indulges does it create obesety, diabetes, high blood pressure, high colesterol, etc. Moderation is the key, and Americans, again for the majority, have no concept of moderation. Give me what I want, give me more, give it now.

If you live in a big city, the amount of smoke from cars / factories is far more of a threat than second hand smoke could ever be, and outside it would be almost non-existant. To my knowledge there is no definitive proof that second hand smoke causes any problems, let alone can kill you, it is just theories (cue a googled post "proving" otherwise.....)

Yes, marijuana is relatively safe, although the problem is that you need to treat it with respect, the same as you should with alcohol. Issues arise when people forget this. You wouldn't wake up and have half a bottle of whiskey before work (I hope!), you wouldn't drive after 10 beers and you wouldn't drink to excess then look after the kids.

Finish your day, complete what you need to and relax with a fat joint, or bong or whatever. Wake and bake every day and you're going to start running into problems!

lol

http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13

People aren't going to be suddenly allowed smoke where they weren't previously allowed to. Most people will be respectful and *** will be ***. Furthermore, given the nature of the substance, there will likely be regulations similar to open-container laws and people aren't going to be smoking marijuana in public places (at least not when people are around). Your argument is irrelevant.

/yawn

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm


lol yourself, stop believing everything the government tells you. Think for yourself, it's not illegal yet.

Uhuh.

Challenge accepted:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Federal law trumps state laws. There are several states that have marijuana "legalized" for medicinal purposes. States "legalized" for any purpose. Local law enforcement may allow it but Federal authorities can still prosecute. Over recent years the Feds haven't done much in these states, but by law they still can. Be sure to smoke it up in the state parks not the federal... :P

Are people actually trying to argue Cannabis as being harmful?

You know the toxicity of THC and associated canniboids is well known. I's physically impossible for a human to OD on it via inhalation or digestion. You would either pass out from oxygen deprivation (inhalation method) or vomit (digestion method). You could in theory OD if you distilled it down to pure THC then injected in a large quantity of it dissolved in saline, would be one helluva big needle though.

Side effects of THC intoxication are pretty low key, nothing major nor remotely dangerous to the body. The only positively identified long term negative side effect comes from the carcinogens inhaled with the smoke, so lung cancer basically. Considering the legal recreational drug nicotine already does that, then this shouldn't be an issue.

Now the side effects of the recreational drug methylcarbinol on the other hand are amazing. That stuff has a high dose response curve and is easy to OD on. In any form it's a poison to the human body, it's intoxication effects consist of loss of judgement capabilities, loss of memory, emotional depression, anger, and it's the single most common date rape drug in the world. I mean seriously, that sh!t should be made illegal yet anyone can walk into stores and buy entire liters of the stuff.

OK, so now we enter into a google battle - no thanks.

Let me explain to you how these studies work.

They start out with an agenda, they don't aim to provide both sides of an argument, people are paid to prove something one way or the other. The more studies that are paid for, the more the "facts" build up.

You give me $1,000,000 and I'll write you a study that shows that black is white.

You give 1000 people $1,000,000 to the same end - now it's proof.

I'm not laboring this point any longer, I'm just trying to remove the fear people seem to have had implanted into them. Want to be on the safe side, fine, do that, avoid second hand smoke - won't hurt after all. While you're at it, move to the country, because those cars... causing far more damage than a smoker ever could.

Some of you would be scared of your own shadow if a "study" told you that you ought to be.

Saw a program on this. Legitimate businesses were periodically being raided by feds, whilst operating complete within state law.

Mental.

Actually, we're arguing the health risks associated with second hand smoke.

Methylcarbinol is a cleaner, and when used as such (following the prescribed safety instructions written plainly on the bottle) is safe to use, but yeah, it's nasty ***when used in an poorly vented area.

When comparing negative side effects of one substance or the other think about this:

Myself and the deputies I work with would rather deal with someone stoned than drunk. We fight drunks, have never fought someone stoned. The worst fight I had with a stoner was when I told him it would be three hours before breakfast was served. He frowned and said "***". Tell a drunk "no" and it's time to dance.

I imagine the ones on meth are even worse. One of the biggest arguments for legalising it is "I have never seen anyone put out a joint and go...... COME ON THEN... LET'S HAVE IT...FIIGGHHHTTTTT"

And how is the survey that has provided you with your all knowing knowledge of this subject any different? Chances are the source you are claiming to be 100% sure of your opinion from had an agenda of their own, just like the surveys you are slamming down now.

Science, on the other hand, can and has proven smoke, in any shape or form, is bad for our lungs. Agenda based surveys discuss the morality of smoking. Science argues what it does to our body. You can share ten million surveys showing this or that, but it doesn't change the fact that smoke does not do pleasant things to human lungs.

The only debatable point is how much your lungs can handle before you start causing damage because occasionally smoking, as you rightly said, will not kill anyone. The problem is the liver can handle a certain amount of alcohol, but people still over drink. Same way the lungs can handle a certain amount of smoke, but people still over smoke.

The only difference is people over drinking are only killing themselves (in regards to what they ingest or digest into their body, not what they do to people around them.) People smoking are slowly killing those around them. Think of it from this perspective. One person smoking won't do much harm to those around them. But you're not the only people in the world that smoke.

And yes. Just because you don't smoke in other people's faces, doesn't mean others don't - or won't.

You did state "to my knowledge there's no proof that second hand smoke causes any problems" to which you were met with said proof.

You posted a website that resembles something written by a person(s) who prefer to wear foil hats and started off with a quote from a Nazi propagandist. This is not a strong arguement to help your cause.

I've given you said information direct for the American Cancer Institute that shows risk factors as well as chemicals in second hand smoke.

Can you provide something from a REPUTABLE source to support your arguement?

i dont smoke the stuff (cant due to work anyway) but assuming the right amount of regulation i could see more positives come from this than negative:
-can be taxed and regulated
-removes those imprisoned for illegal possession from the prison system meaning less tax dollars and prison population
-legalizing the most common and least negative side effect way to "get high" could in its own way detur those who would consider other drugs to do so, since no trouble comes from doing it there is less of the "well if this first thing will screw me what do i have to lose" mentality

the cons could be that more people try it but honestly, anyone who wanted to would have anyway and this way with some regulation you may see less of the crazy cases where someone actually did die or get hurt from smoking the stuff due to buying it laced with something they didnt know about (fairly rare anyway)


and another side note: full regulation is an indirect way to deal with all the drug cartels coming through mexico