I only used it because it's the only correlation between creationism and their apparent dis-allowance (is this a word?) of marijuana. And they aren't that different, both are substances that when taken alter the state of mind. It's like comparing apples and oranges, but under the assumption that they are both fruits. I could never see it becoming instantly legalized, I predict the same gradual acceptance over time. I personally think that would ease people into it.
The alcohol thing wasn't really directed at you, but some people are using it as the backbone for their argument.
That's impossible since people would smoke all of the plant. By the time it's offspring would bud it wouldn't know to produce different genes.
Wat? People farm that ****, evolution has little to do with it. It was an accident that the plant was addictive and delicious. Once people found it was fun, they start growing it and choosing for the qualities they want just like every other crop.
That raises a good point, and rarely mentioned... the fact that law enforcement is a fundamentally inadequate way to control what people put into their bodies. B. F. Skinner was a psychologist who introduced us to operant conditioning, which is the theory that incentives and threats (carrots and sticks) influence behavior and eventually thought. Most people believe this, you see it in most every school in the country and throughout the world. It has, of course, been debunked. Turns out, Skinner only tested his theory on mice and pigeons. I couldn't find a good convienient source without going into professional literature, which I assume most of you wouldn't want to read. Here's the best I could esily find (ignore the autism part): source Well yes, by what you said above. The entire system of making any drug a matter of legality is a flawed approach. The European countries you mentioned above DO have drug policy but it's in the form of public health approaches. This treatment of the issue does influence people's thinking of drugs and is far more effective than punitive approches, which do in fact make people want to indulge. This, by the way, leads me to the topic of the legal ramifications of getting arrested for weed. I don't have enough time right now to go into this but it's a simple fact that getting caught and punished for having weed can be far more destructive to someone's life than smoking it. This may or may not be the case with other drugs but with marijuana it's not really debatable. It's not hard to find some really tragic stories to illustrate this. Also one more quick point: to those of you who have said that only potheads would defend weed... ever heard of LEAP?
Truthfully, the only reason I held off on smoking for so long was because of the sense of legitamacy towads other non-smokers. It's unfourntunate that some people view smokers as a biased source, despite them having first hand experience with both sides of the argument.
i only agree to make it legal as long as they don't over do it. Smoking is bad period. smoke kills so basically weed smoke does kill because its smoke but if you found a different way to ingest the thc there would be no problem
I am indifferent towards the legalization of marijuana. I think that people exaggerate their like or dislike, which can be very irritating. Especially the people who brag about getting x amount of hits or those people who got sooo baked that one time. Overall, I am down with it as long as people don't brag about it like others do. I think a lot of health reasons seem understandable but with alcohol, over-the-counter drugs and cigarettes being legal - it should not make a difference. Marijuana is already in medical use in many states. Marijuana has not been re-introduced into full legalization because of the bureaucracy so many people have to go through. Not to mention the ignorance and myths that shroud when it goes through such places like Congress. I am aware a lot of people here are not American. I was just providing my point of view.
It's seems that you are kind of against freedom of speech... Anyway I think that it more likely to be declined because of the government's attitude than the actual cons of the plant. First, the straight edge guys would trash the government so much for even considering it. That's not new, but what representative wants to "tarnish" their reputation?
I know I'm tired of my representatives pandering to those darn straight edge kids. (sorry for the sarcasm, couldn't resist lol... but there's the politicaly influential groups and then there's the rest of us... you're on the right track but may I suggest you follow the money?)