Skip to main content
Topic: Should Pot Be Legalized? (Read 12375 times)

Should Pot Be Legalized?

I've never tried it, don't drink any alcohol, but have no problems with other people doing so.

What's your take on legalization?

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #1
Never tried it, but certainly trying to keep it up as a topic. This is your second thread about it.

I have tried a Central Asian variety that was called anasha by the dealers. It was non-different from tobacco. It didn't look like tobacco, but it felt like it. I have also tried dry tree-leaves, dry juniper needles, and dry ordinary lawn in pipe. They all are like tobacco.

I think tobacco laws should apply to those things.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #2
Incidentally, I since discovered the origin of the gateway drug nonsense:

The primary basis for this "gateway hypothesis" is a recent report by the center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), claiming that marijuana users are 85 times more likely than non-marijuana users to try cocaine. This figure, using data from NIDA's 1991 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, is close to being meaningless. It was calculated by dividing the proportion of marijuana users who have ever used cocaine (17%) by the proportion of cocaine users who have never used marijuana (.2%). The high risk-factor obtained is a product not of the fact that so many marijuana users use cocaine but that so many cocaine users used marijuana previously.


I think tobacco laws should apply to those things.

I suppose you mean that tobacco is more or less treated as a softdrug all over the world, but unlike marijuana it's a harddrug. Dutch drug policy remains the only one in the world that vaguely approximates any kind of rational approach. Its lack thereof is mostly caused by pressures from neighboring countries, including Belgium.


Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #4

I think tobacco laws should apply to those things.

I suppose you mean that tobacco is more or less treated as a softdrug all over the world, but unlike marijuana it's a harddrug. Dutch drug policy remains the only one in the world that vaguely approximates any kind of rational approach. Its lack thereof is mostly caused by pressures from neighboring countries, including Belgium.

I don't know what softdrug and harddrug are. I mean that they are not medical drugs, they are all narcotics. The distinction I would make is culturally-historically-kind-of-acceptable-for-adults because it doesn't kill - even the harmful effects are arguable when the substance is used in moderation - and, on the other hand, outright poison, such as the thing called spice, sniffing gasoline, and derivatives like heroine.

A ban on alcohol would radically impoverish popular culture. A harsh ban on other drugs would force all the traffic underground, it would corrupt policemen, and it would drive up the abuse of alcohol among the overall population. To me it looks like there has to be one or some legal drugs besides alcohol, to prevent worse evils.

But it's highly debatable to what extent they should be legal. For example in Europe we can still select among vodkas and rhums on open shelves, but we don't get to see cigarettes in shops any more. To ask for it, you have to know your preference. This arrangement would be meaningless when choosing wines, for example. I think the best option, to treat all "legal narcotics" alike would be to have special shops for them, just like we have apothekes.* Right now we have alcohol and tobacco both in ordinary grocery stores and specialized shops. They should be restricted to specialized shops only, or at least to separated sections with a separate salesperson.

* Yeah, I know it's not a proper word in English. So sue me. "Drug store" is absolutely preposterous.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #5
I don't know what softdrug and harddrug are. I mean that they are not medical drugs, they are all narcotics. The distinction I would make is culturally-historically-kind-of-acceptable-for-adults because it doesn't kill - even the harmful effects are arguable when the substance is used in moderation - and, on the other hand, outright poison, such as the thing called spice, sniffing gasoline, and derivatives like heroine.

In its simplest definition, softdrugs aren't physically addictive while harddrugs are. That's not entirely a binary proposition, but you should further refine the definition by including long-term (physical) damage. For example, caffeine is mildly physically addictive, but given its lack of negative consequences it would be silly to classify it as a hard drug. If someone used as much marijuana as some people drink coffee it'd severely affect their ability to function in society, so depending on usage patterns marijuana would take on aspects of a hard drug.

Perhaps it's more sensible to speak of hard and soft use. In that sense all softdrugs are fine if used irregularly and most harddrugs are too, again if used irregularly. The obvious example would be an irregular glass or two of alcohol. On the other hand, softdrugs are inherently less dangerous and damaging, even if abused.

In short, treating every drug as if it were heroin is deeply irrational and deeply counter-effective. The softdrug and harddrug terminology is one way to move toward a classification system based on actual medical science instead of a bunch of scaremongering nonsense.

A ban on alcohol would radically impoverish popular culture. A harsh ban on other drugs would force all the traffic underground, it would corrupt policemen, and it would drive up the abuse of alcohol among the overall population. To me it looks like there has to be one or some legal drugs besides alcohol, to prevent worse evils.

Ergo, softdrugs. Alcohol and tobacco then are pretty much the only readily available harddrugs.

I think the best option, to treat all "legal narcotics" alike would be to have special shops for them, just like we have apothekes.*

* Yeah, I know it's not a proper word in English. So sue me. "Drug store" is absolutely preposterous.

Apothecary is a perfectly valid English word, although it would now be called a pharmacist. I don't know what's preposterous about a drugstore. The word "drug" in that context simply means as much as "chemical". You go by the drug store to buy cleaning supplies such as rubbing alcohol. What's preposterous is the lack of drug stores in Belgium. Instead you have pharmacies incompletely fulfilling the same role for exorbitant prices, leaving you baffled as to where to get certain supplies at all.

The difference between a Dutch drogisterij (drugstore) and an American drugstore is that American drugstores typically have a pharmaceutical counter inside.  In the Netherlands an apotheker (pharmacy) is usually a separate establishment.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #6
For example, caffeine is mildly physically addictive, but given its lack of negative consequences it would be silly to classify it as a hard drug.

I saw this one this morning...
Quote
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A few weeks before their prom king’s death, students at an Ohio high school had attended an assembly on narcotics that warned about the dangers of heroin and prescription painkillers.
But it was one of the world’s most widely accepted drugs that killed Logan Stiner — a powdered form of caffeine so potent that as little as a single teaspoon can be fatal.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/powdered-caffeine-scrutinized-after-prom-king-dies/

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #7
Ah, interesting point. Going from coffee to concentrated caffeine is a bit like going from coca leaves to cocaine, I suppose. I didn't even know you could just buy that.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #8
Forbidden things are better when... forbidden.
I'm against legal things.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #9
So far as  I know, this site is legal. Bye-bye!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #10
When I mentioned the caffeine to my wife, she said we should watch this episode of Saved by the Bell.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbPbMhlqVcA[/video]

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #11
I don't know what's preposterous about a drugstore. The word "drug" in that context simply means as much as "chemical".

What's preposterous is that both narcotics and medication are called drugs and nobody thinks there's a problem.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #12
The use of a term like narcotic is no less problematic. You seem to be using it as a synonym for recreational drugs, which is something I can't get behind. Neither is the American definition of a narcotic as a more illegal recreational drug. It doesn't say anything about the drug an sich, only about its legal status or about the way it's most frequently used. Or if you are using the term "properly", you're overlooking stimulants like XTC. Either way, words like softdrugs and harddrugs cover significantly more theoretical ground.

Besides, among the languages I speak such hypothetical ambiguities exist only in English and French. If there is a correlation to the French-American practice of prescribing way too much medicine, I'd say it's a symptom, not a cause.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #13
Not so odd at all.

drug
drəɡ/
noun
1.
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
"a new drug aimed at sufferers from Parkinson's disease"


Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #15
@Frenzie

Softdrug and harddrug probably convey the distinction I want to make close enough. However, there are still three things distinguished, not two.

1. Softdrugs (culturally ingrained and not directly lethal, even though addictive)
2. Harddrugs (sometimes lethal on the first try, and poisonous in any case, should be illegal under any circumstances)
3. Medication

In English they are all called drugs, and this gives a hint that behind the messy policy we see in America there probably lurks a conceptual problem - they are literally not understanding the distinctions they need to make in order to comprehend the problem and tackle it.


Not so odd at all.

drug
drəɡ/
noun
1.
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
"a new drug aimed at sufferers from Parkinson's disease"

Exactly what I am talking about. Incidentally, each and every substance ingested has a physiological effect. It's beyond me how anyone can think this passes as a definition.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #16
Softdrug and harddrug probably convey the distinction I want to make close enough. However, there are still three things distinguished, not two.

1. Softdrugs (culturally ingrained and not directly lethal, even though addictive)
2. Harddrugs (sometimes lethal on the first try, and poisonous in any case, should be illegal under any circumstances)
3. Medication

The terms refer exclusively to recreational drug use, although it certainly includes some relevant concerns when making a choice between e.g. marijuana and opioids for medicinal purposes. I apologize for not making that clearer.

Exactly what I am talking about. Incidentally, each and every substance ingested has a physiological effect. It's beyond me how anyone can think this passes as a definition.

I think the principle of charity requires that you interpret the definition as a physiological effect beyond what can be expected from simply digesting food. Although I suppose that includes spoiled food. ;)

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #17
So far as  I know, this site is legal. Bye-bye!

That's the problem... :)
Were the site illegal and everybody would be happier except Frenzie always running from the police...
Even so, one can always die from DnD overdose... this stuff is dangerous..
A matter of attitude.


Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #19
No I do not agree with it's use nor be legalised as there will still be people making a disgusting profit out of the weakness of others.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #20
On the topic of concentrated compounds that are basically fine until you start concentrating them in powdered form: sugar.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #21
Due to health issues I have sweetners for my tea and coffee!  :D
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #22

No I do not agree with it's use nor be legalised as there will still be people making a disgusting profit out of the weakness of others.

Legalization will open wide-scale production, lowering costs and all of the absurdities associated with illegal production and sale.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #23
I say yes it should be.

Considering how worthless my state gov't is (cannot even adequately fund it's damn public schooling system), the tax revenue to be garnered from it would be tremendously helpful.

Re: Should Pot Be Legalized?

Reply #24

Due to health issues I have sweetners for my tea and coffee!  :D

I don't drink tea, but coffee is meant to be drunk strong and black.

My wife drinks tea with thyme in it.  :o
==========================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/are-we-really-eating-too-much-sugar.html?mabReward=RI%3A6&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&region=Footer&module=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article