SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Hey manxman what is "skunk"?
And Lord knows why you'd want to smoke one.
Just wondering since you used the term on the last page.
Hey manxman what is "skunk"?
that sticky ickyyyy
As a criminal justice major in both undergrad and grad school, a former drug user/experimenter, and someone who has lost a close family member to a drug overdose, I tend to agree with you on some levels...
BUT
The reality is that marijuana should be DECRIMINALIZED not outright legalized. One shouldn't have a "record" that prevents them from getting a job 20 years later when they're caught with 25 bucks worth of pot in their late teens/early 20's, and taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for overcrowded/re-building of jails either. It's basically unfair to everyone involved. In some instances, people with mental illness and social anxiety issues; along with outright addiction problems, need to be treated in a more intense fashion. That would be something that I would like to see, and something that would also cut down on the prison/jail rates and save everyone money.
The downside and main concern is that marijuana is indeed a "gateway drug," meaning that it will almost always lead one to experiment with other substances that are more dangerous. The percentages of those who experiment with pot definitely back this up. That is a big worry and can actually be deadly once teens start using prescription pills, cocaine, heroin, etc. And as much as some will roll their eyes at this thought, it happens...in every town, every single day of our lives. Once you legalize marijuana, other windows with substances come into question, and it becomes socially acceptable on a much wider level.
Another concern is that the tar and resin found in marijuana is indeed very dangerous, as the levels amount to that of a cigarette x about 15-20 for the average sized joint. In all reality it isn't entirely "harmless," although I do hear your concerns with the laws being too harsh. That would be something that I would agree with entirely, and is exactly why I firmly agree with decriminalization but not outright legalization. You may feel differently, which makes it one of the more controversial subjects in today's society.
I'm philosophically libertarian and conservative as a result of experience and pragmatism. I agree it's a contradiction but one which I navigate reasonably well. It boils down too enforced change usually resulting in negative effects and therefore things should be left as they are.
This is where we disagree. I think that legalising cannabis could be extremely harmful to others for a number of reasons.
This we'll agree on. And yes I am conflicted on this issue. Which is why the still illegal but largely decriminalised is a compromise I find fairly reasonable.
When you find where I said it was "evil", you will let me know won't you?
But they also have to be pragmatic. And how far would you take this ideological position of yours? Do you legalise cannabis but keep skunk illegal? How about Ecstasy and acid. By your definitions, they should all be legalised. How about Coke, heroin and meth? They all fit the definition of limited laws, govt not interfering in our lives, only harming the user. And that is the logical extension of your argument. If alcohol is legal then cannabis should be too. If cannabis is legal then skunk should be too. Etc, etc.
My belief is rather than start down the slippery slope, this is a less harmful place to fight the battle (and bear in mind I'm in the UK where cannabis use is largely decriminalised).By and large, there is little to prohibit you or anyone else using in your own home. And I'm absolutely fine with that. What you do their is your business. But there is still enough of a prohibition that it tends to keep use in the home, it gives people pause before starting and it doesn't become a culturally accepted norm in all quarters of society. That might change in the future but that doesn't mean I should give up the fight in the present.
Weed doesn't hurt others. That's a fact. It can combine with other behaviors to harm others, but it's those behaviors that should be illegal. (Smoking in living room - legal; smoking in living room and driving car - illegal)
You didn't say that weed was "evil," I was exaggerating in reference to your earlier post about a glass of wine with lunch being OK -- but it was a post that clearly implied a difference between the two and was snarky in tone, without any clear reason. (Post #30 -- where you dismiss the notions that alcohol is worse for you than weed and that alcohol is more of a gateway drug than weed.)
As for other drugs, I have no idea what skunk is -- but in general I think slippery slope arguments are pretty weak arguments. We're not talking about heroin, coke, etc., we're talking about weed. But if you want to talk about those, my guess is that the conversation will be short, because my answer is that I don't know much about them and I'm not arguing that they should be legal. I am certainly open to arguments that they should be, and unlike many people who oppose marijuana, I'm not going to argue that they must remain illegal simply because of my own mistaken beliefs about the drugs.
I know what it is, at least broadly, but I don't play gotcha' games.
Gotcha games? Yeah you got the wrong guy.
Just trying to understand your post.
Ok apologies. Skunk is a stronger form of cannabis stemming from cultivated hybrids. It's reportedly more dangerous but also more intense for the user (supposedly).
Skunk Cannabis: Top 10 Facts About The Drug
Marijuana a "Gateway" Drug? Scientists Call Theory Half-Baked - HealthPop - CBS News
I doubt legalizing marijuana would have an impact on the number of people that go on to ruin their lives with drugs. The people that are at risk of such behavior are not letting laws get in their way right now. The people that would start smoking once they aren't forced to jump through hoops, break laws, and/or deal with shady characters are highly unlikely to go "Wow this smoking pot thing kicks ass; I should try meth!!!".
Never heard of this, but the article did bring to mind a couple other benefits that I've seen result from weed's semi-legalization in California. (Legal for "medical" purposes -- and virtually anything qualifies as a medical purpose. and can be grown/sold by collectives, or something, but you don't actually have to do anything to buy from these coops.)
And not looking to debate further, really, just throwing it out for consideration.
I had a license for a year or 2, partly curiosity, partly so I could buy easily. And what I witnessed was a safe method of purchase and very high quality product. people in the store were knowledgeable, could talk about the effects (there are 2 main strains, apparently, with markedly different effects for users), strength, etc. no buying froma guy on the street (which I had never done), no buying from a friend of a friend of a friend (which I had done occasionally) -- in other words, far more accountability and higher quality.
This parallels what I'd imagine happened post-prohibition. Decrease in criminal activity, improvements in quality of product / product safety.
The product can be taxed (at least to cover regulatory costs). and standards can be put in place, which I think would be especially useful for edible products (because it's much harder to monitor how much you're taking in and the effects)
Never heard of this, but the article did bring to mind a couple other benefits that I've seen result from weed's semi-legalization in California. (Legal for "medical" purposes -- and virtually anything qualifies as a medical purpose. and can be grown/sold by collectives, or something, but you don't actually have to do anything to buy from these coops.)
And not looking to debate further, really, just throwing it out for consideration.
I had a license for a year or 2, partly curiosity, partly so I could buy easily. And what I witnessed was a safe method of purchase and very high quality product. people in the store were knowledgeable, could talk about the effects (there are 2 main strains, apparently, with markedly different effects for users), strength, etc. no buying froma guy on the street (which I had never done), no buying from a friend of a friend of a friend (which I had done occasionally) -- in other words, far more accountability and higher quality.
This parallels what I'd imagine happened post-prohibition. Decrease in criminal activity, improvements in quality of product / product safety.
The product can be taxed (at least to cover regulatory costs). and standards can be put in place, which I think would be especially useful for edible products (because it's much harder to monitor how much you're taking in and the effects)
First they want cannabis legal next thing you know they'll be asking for hash.
I remember the same d!ckhead argument about hashish back in the early 70's..."super powerful!!!!! murders going way up because of hash intoxication!! BAD BAD BAD!!!"...ridiculous on its face, this actually was official policy for a number of years. Of course hashish is just the exact same pollen that's on leaf marijuana with the exact same effect on the user. The artificial hysteria though kept everyones' minds and eyes off the introduction of preposterously dangerous LEGALLY manufactured drugs like Quaalude.
Hashish gathered in Asia is culled from Asian marijuana, cannabis INDICA. Of course, what is the strain of marijuana that is being bellowed about and hysterically deemed "dangerous"? "SKUNK WEED!!!!!" aka cannabis indica...once again, used for over TEN THOUSAND YEARS IN THE FAR EAST. Documented. That doesn't seem to stop blind sheep blinded by the constant far right flow of disinformation, misinformation and outright LIES from continuing to bleat out these paranoid delusions of theirs.