This is something I've watched with some interest because it seems so superficial. All discussion of 'the people' etc aside, imho the banning of marajuana was a very calculated and financially motivated move, and Trey offers great information to support this. I never believed 'reefer madness' was a factual movie.
THC may remain in the system longer than alcohol; however, "it can build up" in ones system, what does that mean, if anything? If using that as a argument as to why it shouldn't be legalized , I'd suggest that texting and talking on cellphones don't remain in the body at all, and are responsible for quite a few high profile accidents and loss of life. Also, the long term use of alcohol is clearly notable for causing liver failure and reduced physical resistance to alchohol, and other physical effects. THC is a mentally addicting drug. Alcohol is a physically addicting drug. Lets say you're walking down the street and some criminal runs past and a old cop draws his weapon to stop them. Now lets say the cop is near to off duty, and is twitchy from years of a drink after duty. Do I want to be downrange of that? No way.
But is this any kind of valid reasoning for the topic? I don't think so. It's about as worthwhile as "THC remains in your system for much longer".
Alcohol vs pot being natural? I'd daresay 'fermented liquids' is like someone discovering that the moldy chunky milk from last year actually tasted good and won't kill you. As long as we're keeping the discussion to pot, I don't think naturally occurring has any validity.
Legalizing pot would put a dent in the criminals importing the drug from across the border. Homebrewing beer is popular. Home growing pot would be a problem for illegal pot traffic, I think that's a gimme. Would you deal with the gang, or grow it in your basement? Would the cops have nothing to do in the inner cities? Doubt the gangs would change overnight and the whole hard drug issue will still be there.
My opinion on 'WWCD' or what would california do? :lol: wwcd isn't any basis for any justification of doing anything, ever.
Growing up, I've been able to observe (perhaps even scientifically - ala 'messin with sasquatch' ) drunks and potheads at parties. Drunks are sloppy, rude, laughy, crybabies, beligerent. Alcohol removes inhibitions and is classified as a depressant remember.
The persons I've seen using pot, sat there at a party going 'wow'. My personal experience has been that I've never seen potheads fighting each other over some drug induced affront to thier perceived "insert reason here". In a stereotypical extreme, I'd rather give someone directions to the corner store to buy snacks, then having someone think they really can operate a 2ton vehicle while they're seeing double and vomiting on their shoes.
Going back to the reason in my mind pot was made illegal, was financial. Now until Trey posted his information, I knew you could make quite a few things from hemp, but nylon? Eye opener there. Of course DOW would want it illegal. So would the now legal alcohol manufacturers. If people could smoke some weed growing in thier back yard, they'd sell a lot less 6-packs.
A few months ago, this BBC show had this old lady in england. Raided many many times, but the cops couldn't find her stash. She made chocolates for her own consumption, ate one every day, and didn't feel the physical pains of growing old. Was she a wacked out hippy type? She looked like a typical english grandmother to me, but she self medicated with something like .6grams of THC per day. The drug companies here and probably everywhere crap themselves at the lost profits for their newest patented pain reliever thinking that people could consume a small amount of pot and get the same effects without a laundry list of possible side effects.
Amsterdam classifies pot as a soft drug, and others as 'hard drugs'. I don't see a problem with this. Do I have any personal problem talking with someone who's a known or self proclaimed pothead? No. Do I have a personal problem even telling a crackhead the time of day? You betcha. Discussing the legalization of pot I don't think should have anything to do with other drugs and their prohibition.
Bottom line, are the stated reasons why it's illegal even valid? Compared to alcohol, I don't see how pot can make the world any more evil then it is already. I can see that certain entities would have to come up with new manufacturing or something, or they'd loose money. But doesn't that spectre always loom in a free market?
Are there legitimate reasons why it should be a legalized, uncontrolled substance? I think so. Legitimize it and Tax it is one thing. It's a weed... If you could make paper and nylon and other items from it and not de-forest the country, that doesn't sound too bad either. Would it negatively affect foriegn illegal drug trade? I'd think it would.
orz I dislike long posts..
