Comments on: The plant.

The plant.

The Jesse Helms — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:39:14 -0800

Why is Marijuana Illegal? Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug. The actual story shows a much different picture.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:42:14 -0800

WTF is the DOJ talking about?

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:45:44 -0800

From the government hearings link, "Drugs sold lawfully in the United States are the safest in the world. This is because our nation, through its laws, insists on careful deliberation before allowing drugs to be sold as medicine. To date, marijuana does not meet the scientific requirements." Ummm, Vioxx anyone? And I'm sure there are plenty more "safe" meds that have been pulled after being sold for years because they've been found to be really quite dangerous.

By: PurplePorpoise

PurplePorpoise — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:46:00 -0800

Why is Marijuana Illegal? Plastics! rayon, nylon, &c&c&c

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:46:52 -0800

Everything on that DOJ link also applies to alcohol and cigarettes. (I'm not advocating use or bannination of anything, simply puttin' that out there.)

By: scheptech

scheptech — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:48:18 -0800

In other words, illegal for historical reasons, and now entrenched interests keep it that way. What I don't follow how it's possible to ignore the lessons of prohibition. Exactly the same problems derive from prohibiting pot now as from alchohol back then. The key problem: a general distain for the law is engendered among regular, otherwise entirely non-criminal folk.

By: digaman

digaman — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:49:12 -0800

Silly DOJ. It's now becoming obvious what potheads always believed: that smoking marijuana causes the growth of new brain cells. Which, under Bush, is probably treason.

By: GoodJob!

GoodJob! — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:52:02 -0800

In May of 2003, an Ontario Canada appeal judge ruled Canada's pot possession laws void, meaning that pot was then a legal substance. I am not sure of their current laws since moving to USA. I do know however that the sale of beer has never been permitted in Ontario convenience stores ( unlike NY state) Go figure.....

By: acetonic

acetonic — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:06:11 -0800

You know, heroin junkies don't constantly beat me over the head with thin arguments for why their drug of choice is good for them, why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? It may be "natural" but so are cancers and hurricanes.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:06:34 -0800

Should marijuana be used medically? Of course. Should it be used for fabrics? Most likely. Should it be used recreationally? That's a whole 'nother question. Should it be used by teenagers? No way.

By: darkness

darkness — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:10:02 -0800

What the links fail to mention is the UN Single Convention on Narcotics, which in 1961 made it illegal in most of the world.

By: The Bellman

The Bellman — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:10:30 -0800

That's right, acetonic, and that's why I know you'll join me in my call to outlaw cancer and hurricanes NOW! Join me in the war against . . . um . . . nature. . . oh wait, my sarcasm seems to have gone horribly awry . . . Damn you George Bush!

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:10:49 -0800

You know, heroin junkies don't constantly beat me over the head with thin arguments for why their drug of choice is good for them, why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? Um... because marijuana is not physically addictive, not impairing in the same way as alcohol, and less likely to cause cancer due to consumption rates. It's hardly comparable to other legal drugs, let alone heroin.

By: teece

teece — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:11:43 -0800

Should it be used recreationally? That's a whole 'nother question. No it's not. It's an obvious 'yes.' Pot is easier on you than either tobacco or alcohol. Anyone that says different is either lying or mistaken. It is almost impossible to OD on pot. There is no rational reason to ban pot. /says non pothead. Teenagers? Don't even bring them up. They irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal for adults.

By: plexiwatt

plexiwatt — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:14:06 -0800

acetonic, this is all about keeping it in private. Keeping an activity which does not infringe on the rights of others private for an individual to choose, or not choose, to partake of.

By: caddis

caddis — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:14:25 -0800

Should it be used by teenagers? No. However, I come from that wacky libertarian (small "l") contingent who believe that the government really ought to not be our nanny. Helmets, seatbelts, drugs, prostitution, pr0n, etc., these are areas the government should stay the Hell out of.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:15:06 -0800

darkness: Yes, the UN conventions. That august organization where all nations participate in an egalitarian manner, to come to a rational consensus, guided by fairness and justice. We all know what happened to the Netherlands, after they de facto permitted cannabis retail. Once thriving with merchant activity, now equivalent to a 3rd world country after all those sanctions.

By: oncogenesis

oncogenesis — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:15:43 -0800

Why is Marijuana Illegal? [...] it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug. And why is this even an acceptable reason to criminalize something? Our birthright as human beings is sovereignty over our own bodies. I reject the notion that government exists to save me from myself. Fuck the Nanny State. Marijuana, absinthe, heroin, cocaine, et al: complete legalization now.

By: any major dude

any major dude — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:15:55 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:18:19 -0800

Should it be used by teenagers? No. Unless they're musicians.

By: sveskemus

sveskemus — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:21:55 -0800

any major dude: You can grow apples anywhere. Yet they are not illegal.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:23:16 -0800

any major dude: You can grow apples anywhere. Yet they are not illegal. But apples don't get you high... unless you use them to smoke weed.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:23:17 -0800

You know, heroin junkies don't constantly beat me over the head with thin arguments for why their drug of choice is good for them, why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? Actually, heroin's not that bad for you. As long as you had a pure supply of heroin at your disposal, you could live your whole life as heroin addict with few long-tem consequences. The reason so many people die from heroin isn't because heroin is some mythical "killer drug" - it's a product of it's illegality, and the lifestyle that goes along with it. People OD because it's impossible to gauge the purity of street heroin, so sooner or later you'll hit a strong batch and kick it. At least that's what my father always used to tell me. He's been counseling heroin addicts going on 20 years.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:25:14 -0800

I know this is totally anecdotal, but my veteran-pothead brother has finally blown off the weed after many decades, and he reports he doesn't miss it. Does he know something the DEA doesn't?

By: daksya

daksya — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:25:56 -0800

acetonic: why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? Well, heroin and cannabis are two different kettle of fish. Comparative harms. [scroll down; self-link]

By: darkness

darkness — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:27:48 -0800

You know, heroin junkies don't constantly beat me over the head with thin arguments for why their drug of choice is good for them, why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? Someone who smokes pot isn't necessarily a "junkie" any more than someone who drinks a beer on sunday while watching the game is an alcoholic. And someone who supports the legalization of any specific thing doesn't have to partake in the same. I think beer should be legal, but I don't drink. I also think abortion should be legal, but I'm male (and have never been party to an unwanted pregnancy). Gay marriage is fine with me, but I'm straight. And nobody is "beating you over the head" here anyway. Don't wanna hear the arguments? Click off to somewhere else, nobody is forcing you to read this webpage.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:29:51 -0800

An Outrageous Medical Pot Bust

By: solotoro

solotoro — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:30:47 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product. You can brew beer anywhere, too.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:33:18 -0800

I work with teens in the UK, and am an ex-pot user. /declaration. The best argument for legalisation is to limit access to vulnerable teenagers. That's why we regulate booze - to protect those without the maturity to control their consumption when it can do harm. Lets not pretend dope has no downside: for many who start when they are barely in their teens, the effect on mood, development, education etc is profound, and often negative. Legalise it, regulate it, undermine the black market by making it profitable for bars and clubs to sell it. And protect the youth. This will likely happen at some point in the next 10-20 years, in my guess (been saying that for a coupla decades now...)

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:35:23 -0800

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." - Martin Luther King Also what I said when paying my fine for posession of less than an ounce. Luckily I live in Oregon. Many, many others have been (and still are) imprisoned. "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln BTW - The lethal dose for marijuana is a 1 kilogram brick, dropped from 10 meters, onto your head.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:38:15 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product. We have a winner! solotoro: Ever grown weeds? Of course you have - and you didn't even mean to. Ever tried to brew decent (hell, shitty even) beer? Yeah... much...much harder.

By: darkness

darkness — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:39:42 -0800

mullingitover: did you really have the pot to arouse the conscience of the community? Me thinks not ;)

By: darkness

darkness — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:45:45 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product. I call BS on this. If pot was fully legal, Philip Morris would be growing weed the next day, and have joints on the shelves in 2 months.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:50:42 -0800

By: verb

verb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:53:06 -0800

You know, I've said it before and I'll say it again... I don't think that a prohibition on pot makes any sense. I've known enough people who used pot now and then to recognize the difference between a pothead and an occasional smoker. For those keeping score, it's the same as the difference between someone who has a few beers, and someone who gets smashed every weekend (or every few nights after work...) on martinis, or beers with the guys, or whatever. That said, though, I'm really sick of people who smoke pot and wrap themselves in revolutionary rhetoric, as if the very act of rolling a joint is some sort of blow for freedom, a tiny war waged against the tyranny of the man. You're using a recreational drug for your own entertainment. It's illegal. Get it legalized or find a new hobby.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:53:16 -0800

mullingitover: did you really have the pot to arouse the conscience of the community? Me thinks not ;) I did what I could. In an informal survey, my colleagues reported feeling "incensed", and "outraged" at the miscarriage of justice.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:55:03 -0800

I think I see the word "partake" used more often by marijuana advocates than I do in any other context. Maybe we should change the spelling to "partoke." (I agree that pot should be legal.)

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:58:59 -0800

I like me some some pot from time to time but can we pleeeeeeeeeease not liken pot legalization to the civil rights movement in America??? Please?

By: uftheory

uftheory — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:06:01 -0800

Maybe if more stoners made it to the voting booth this wouldn't be a problem... Oh man... I thought it was Super Wednesday -Carey

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:26:01 -0800

That DOJ link is scary beyond words: have you noticed that of all the cited articles almost none comes from a scientific publication? It's all "Washington Times" or NYT. Or other pamphlets from anti-drug agencies. It's a hack job, and a pretty mediocre one with that. And I'm no pothead. I'm even rather doubtful about its purported innocuousness, having witnessed the effects of heavy, long term use on some people. But, then, the effects of heavy, long term use of tobacco or alcohol are indeed not that peachy either.

By: dsword

dsword — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:38:57 -0800

mullingitover: Are you seriously quoting Martin Luther King as a justification for smoking weed? Did you also say that when you got a parking ticket for parking on the street the night they came through doing street cleaning? Let's not compare apples and oranges, here (or cigarettes and joints, I suppose). Let's be honest. You weren't carrying that weed around in protest. Why don't you go down to a poor black neighborhood and suggest that everybody go carrying drugs around and happily accept the consequences? That's the real problem with--or, perhaps, the real motivation behind--drug laws. They are designed primarily to imprison the lower classes. As Chomsky once observed, "if the underclass cannot be cooped up in urban reservations and limited to preying on itself, then it can be imprisoned outright."

By: baphomet

baphomet — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:41:41 -0800

That said, though, I'm really sick of people who smoke pot and wrap themselves in revolutionary rhetoric, as if the very act of rolling a joint is some sort of blow for freedom, a tiny war waged against the tyranny of the man. You're using a recreational drug for your own entertainment. It's illegal. Get it legalized or find a new hobby. Lighting one up for you, man. Another important aspect of the senseless and asinine prohibition on marijuana, previously discussed in the blue.

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:47:12 -0800

By: hardshoes

hardshoes — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:48:15 -0800

4:20? too late...

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:51:11 -0800

I like me some some pot from time to time but can we pleeeeeeeeeease not liken pot legalization to the civil rights movement in America??? Please? posted by basicchannel at 3:58 PM PST on October 14 [!] This is probably directed at me, so allow me to clarify. This isn't about civil rights, but unjust laws and our obligation to break them.

By: davejay

davejay — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:55:42 -0800

You know, heroin junkies don't constantly beat me over the head with thin arguments for why their drug of choice is good for them Nah, they just beat you over the head when they mug you for money to buy more heroin.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:56:23 -0800

I had a friend give up marijuana for two weeks, due to legal reasons (mandatory drug tests). At the end of the two weeks, he told me that his life had improved tenfold. I wouldn't have put much importance on it from anyone else, but coming from him -- it pretty much amazed me. This man loves his drugs. I got off my ass and started riding my bike a lot. I felt great. I wouldn't put much on this coming from anyone else, but I love my sloth.

By: oncogenesis

oncogenesis — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:56:39 -0800

basicchannel: I like me some some pot from time to time but can we pleeeeeeeeeease not liken pot legalization to the civil rights movement in America??? If you looked at some US prison statistics (and more), you might change your mind on that.

By: stenseng

stenseng — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:04:45 -0800

I like me some some pot from time to time but can we pleeeeeeeeeease not liken pot legalization to the civil rights movement in America??? Please? Actually, I think it's an apropos comparison - yet another set of unjust, unethical laws that have ruined the lives of millions of Americans. Oh, you forgot about those folks, right? You thought this was all about people just "wantin' their legit high, man?" Think about the number of people who have done, or are currently doing time for possession, sale, etc. of weed. And think about it in the context, not of the lax blue state laws where you likely live, but the really draconian fucked up, "failure to communicate" pot laws of much of the country past and present, all over a goddamned weed.

By: spigoat

spigoat — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:09:53 -0800

Very detailed reference about many aspects of this topic.

By: Devils Slide

Devils Slide — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:11:17 -0800

As long as you had a pure supply of heroin at your disposal, you could live your whole life as heroin addict with few long-tem consequences. Using it intravenously (particularly sharing needles) can cause major problems like HIV, hepatitis, and endocarditis. Even if you don't share needles and use clean needles and syringes, the impurities and germs in heroin (it's not exactly produced and stored in sterile conditions) can cause endocarditis. I realize you said "pure supply", but I don't think pure "clean' heroin exists because heroin isn't produced by any drug companies (that I know of).

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:12:26 -0800

can we pleeeeeeeeeease not liken pot legalization to the civil rights movement in America??? Well, since you asked so nicely, Wikipedia has a very nice and concise definition of civil rights: "Civil rights can in one sense refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class, or it can refer to laws which invoke claims of positive liberty." I very much think that the fight against drug laws all fall under the realm of civil rights because they are all related to "positive liberty." The rub, I suppose, is whether or not you view marijuana use as a positive liberty, but to dismiss the issue as "certainly not a civil rights issue" so offhandedly seems pre-emptive and rather lame.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:13:07 -0800

If the founding fathers could chime in, I'm sure they would be just as outraged by this as they would have been about the prohibition of alcohol. As has already been mentioned many times, the entire illicit drug trade and all of the crime that comes with it are direct results of the prohibition of drugs. I would even go so far as to say the the entire model for "crime as big business", mafia, gangs, etc. was only feasible and maintainable as a direct result of alcohol prohibition.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:16:10 -0800

What? Pot is illegal? Oh, shit.

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:17:04 -0800

Eh, just more of the same for the Black and Brown. If it wasn't weed it would be something else. The incarceration problem is actually apart of the Civil Rights Movement continuum. Conflating the issue with pot is a hilariously (stoned?) distortion. And yes... it is always obnoxious white guys invoking MLK Jr on behalf of THC. You are not the savior of the Black Man and to suggest as much is at best dishonest.

By: dsword

dsword — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:24:03 -0800

basicchannel: You are not the savior of the Black Man and to suggest as much is at best dishonest. but more than likely it's incredibly offensive and/or dangerous.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:27:44 -0800

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:29:42 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product. Right, totally different then tobacco. (or alcohol, for that matter)

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:29:42 -0800

For the record: I'd rather pot be legal. I just find the legalization debate, in its current incarnation, distasteful... perhaps a wee bit nauseating (nothing a packed bowl wouldn't cure, I'm told).

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:31:45 -0800

The best argument for legalisation is to limit access to vulnerable teenagers. That's why we regulate booze - to protect those without the maturity to control their consumption when it can do harm. It's much easier for teenagers to get beer then weed, in my experiance.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:34:22 -0800

But to be honest, don't you think smoking pot would be a lot less fun if it were legal? Be honest.

By: afroblanca

afroblanca — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:38:39 -0800

Pot is illegal because the people who profit the most from its illegalization are the people who make the laws. It never hurts for a politician to be seen as "tough on crime," right? Certainly nobody wants to appear "soft on crime." What gets me is that your everyday momandpop are so happy to fork over so much of their tax money to the "drug war." You gotta imagine that at some point someone's going to look at the bill and get a serious case of sticker shock. (or buyer's remorse, for that matter)

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:43:03 -0800

Maybe if more stoners made it to the voting booth this wouldn't be a problem... Yeah, right, 'cos every Democrat is just waiting for the stoner masses to rise up so that they can put forward serious legislation legalising marijuana. Not like the repubs would unleash the attack hounds of hell on anyone proposing it. You could have "The Million Stoner March" walk right past Congress at midnight carrying giant blazing (purely symbolic, not real) spliffs like torches, and all you'd get out of the Dems is "Quiet night, isn't it?" as they studiously studied the sky. The republicans, of course, would be calling for surgical airstrikes :) Only way you'll get the republicans to decriminalise is if Bush were to light up live on TV. At that point, repubs will do a 180 so fast you'd think they'd been practising their handbrake turns. ... not that I'm cynical or anything, you understand :)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:44:38 -0800

And yes... it is always obnoxious white guys invoking MLK Jr on behalf of THC. I'm black (or half black, actually) and I believe that Comparing pot users to blacks of the 50's and 60's is totally reasonable. In fact, the excesses of the war on drugs affect poor blacks at a far disproportional rate. Lets not pretend this is all some tidy restriction. Lots of people have their lives ruined needlessly over this. Lots of poor people and lots of poor blacks and Hispanics. I don't how MLK would feel about these Laws but Al Sharpton at least seems to be opposed to the harsh "Rockefeller drug laws". The war on drugs is a deeply immoral and deeply destructive to the lower classes in the United States.

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:53:42 -0800

I love how pot is now public enemy #1 insofar as the pot activists are concerned. I thought The War On Drugs = The War On Meth, nowadays? You people are so dated!

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:55:00 -0800

don't you think smoking pot would be a lot less fun if it were legal? Having been to Amsterdam a few times...... uh no.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:59:44 -0800

The cannabis legalization debate is philosophically distasteful. Pragmatic approaches bear earlier fruit than a tight consistent rationale which takes things too far too fast. A sincere argument would entail that cannabis, like other vices, has potential and realised risks, but the overall calculus when applied to society tends to support the notion that society can bear the cost of cannabis use. But this is a dangerous argument to make, in the world of media-driven sensationalism and soundbites. All the prohibitionists have to do, is show some poor teenager whose depression was putatively exacerbated by cannabis and then went on a shooting spree, as happened earlier this year. Or focus on poor, destitute families where cannabis use exists and let innuendo construct the message. So, the public reform argument centers on why society ought to bear the cost? This has been analysed in various government studies, like the Canadian Senate's 2002 report which recommended legalization, or the 1995 French state-appointed Commission Henrion which suggested the same, albeit after a two year trial period. This debate occurs in the political sphere, where philosophical rigor and cogency has never been the driver. The reformers argue as required so as to bear fruit. If admitting that cannabis use can be generally OK is politically troublesome, then 'harm reduction' and 'treatment-centered approach' becomes the public mask of the reform movement. After all, the reformers want to see cannabis made legal, not just talk about it. They have to work the stage as it is set up.

By: dsword

dsword — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:16:35 -0800

delmoi: I must agree and disagree. An honest comparison may be made between a black from the 50's or 60's and a black (or brown) person of today who lives in an area that suffers from outrageous police harassment and who gets caught and thrown in prison for possession. However, such people are usually not doing so "out of protest," in the sense that mullingitover had in mind. I don't know all of the psychological factors that contribute to a person's propensity to do drugs, but I imagine a less-than-free life is definitely one of them. There was a Daily Show investigative report once about this idiot "Libertarian" who was going around giving toy guns out to kids. He went to Harlem, and his reception was definitely not sunny. People told him how they felt. Had he gone around handing out drugs of any sort, I'm sure the reaction would have been the same: parents would have been horrified, worrying that this person was going to get their child killed or thrown in jail, or otherwise ruin their life by corrupting them with substances that have ruined so many others. They would not have stopped to welcome him as somebody standing up for their rights. You're right, though. The war on drugs is unconscionably immoral and destructive to the lower classes. It's enlightening to realize, then, that a major argument in favor of the war on drugs is that "using drugs is wrong." It certainly tells you about perspectives on what's "right" and what's "wrong."

By: any major dude

any major dude — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:19:07 -0800

To those who say you can grow your own apples - how long do you think it takes from planting an apple tree to getting some apples? First you need the land to do it then you need the patience to wait. All you need to grow marijuana is a pot - hence the name. As far as tobacco - again, you need a backyard and the right climate. It's not a weed - then there is some processing involved. As far as those who say you can make your own beer obviously never tried to make their own beer. First you have to buy about 20 different utensils - learn how to use them - find a place to store them, then you have to give up the beter part of a day at least once a month to make it. A lot of work for something you can buy at the grocery store for not much more than it costs to make yourself.

By: any major dude

any major dude — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:26:43 -0800

delmoi wrote: Right, totally different then tobacco. (or alcohol, for that matter) Are you really that ignorant of the process of making alcohol and tobacco? Tobacco is like wine, there are only certain places on earth that make the really good stuff and have you ever drank homemade whiskey? If you have wink at me with your good eye. There are some serious skills involved in making these products. Pot needs no skill at all.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:33:47 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product. Right, totally different then tobacco. (or alcohol, for that matter) Weed is a weed. It grows whether you want it to or not. It generally doesn't need much care. Tobacco is a crop, and requires lots of care and preparation.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:38:19 -0800

There was a Daily Show investigative report once about this idiot "Libertarian" who was going around giving toy guns out to kids. He went to Harlem, and his reception was definitely not sunny. People told him how they felt. Had he gone around handing out drugs of any sort, I'm sure the reaction would have been the same: parents would have been horrified, worrying that this person was going to get their child killed or thrown in jail, or otherwise ruin their life by corrupting them with substances that have ruined so many others. They would not have stopped to welcome him as somebody standing up for their rights. I saw that segment And, uh, toy guns are not illegal. Now, if this guy had been handing out toy crack pipes, I think you would have a better point. That said, I think the reaction would have been generated mostly by perceived racism. Are you really that ignorant of the process of making alcohol and tobacco? Tobacco is like wine, there are only certain places on earth that make the really good stuff and have you ever drank homemade whiskey? Do you think growing good weed is easy? I'm not talking about a delicious bouquet, I'm talking about feeding a nicotine addiction. "Ditchweed" is not superlative in the pot-smoking culture. As far as making alcohol, it can't take any more work then making meth, which idiots seem to have no problem doing.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:45:33 -0800

A sincere argument would entail that cannabis, like other vices, has potential and realised risks, but the overall calculus when applied to society tends to support the notion that society can bear the cost of cannabis use. Society already bears the cost of cannabis use. The argument is whether it should also bear the cost of criminalizing otherwise harmless cannabis users.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:03:55 -0800

callmejay : "Society already bears the cost of cannabis use." This relies on a presumption that cannabis use wouldn't rise substantially, and that current users who moderate their use, won't escalate it.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:06:50 -0800

It's a presumption that the costs of any increased usage would be less than the current costs of illegality. That's the economic/pragmatic (as opposed to moral) argument as I see it.

By: pieisexactlythree

pieisexactlythree — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:22:59 -0800

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him... Luke 4:20

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:30:12 -0800

Should it be used by teenagers? Fuck do I care. Do you really think laws are stopping kids from smoking pot?

By: zardoz

zardoz — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:33:55 -0800

But to be honest, don't you think smoking pot would be a lot less fun if it were legal? Be honest. No. It wouldn't be less "fun"--it would take a load off my mind. I wouldn't have to worry about going to jail, or at least a hefty fine if I'm lucky. Occasionally weed can make one really paranoid, and legalization would lessen this effect, I think. The "fun" I get from weed has nothing to do with its illegality.

By: brandz

brandz — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:47:50 -0800

former regular pot smoker here but haven't smoked pot in years. i do believe it should be legalized. that being said, i don't think legalization will happen in my lifetime with the waves of recent cigarette smoking bans everywhere. i think it's all going in the wrong direction.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:56:29 -0800

Let's be honest. You weren't carrying that weed around in protest. Isn't carrying weed around for any reason an act of protest, given that it's against the law? (and this thread is making me laugh my ass off) (and, no, i'm not stoned) (but I think gyan is)

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:06:31 -0800

People who believe that marijuana should be illegal think so differently than me, I have no idea how to communicate with them. It's such a differing concept of liberty, equality and justice, that I can't reconcile it sufficiently to gain any empathy.

By: dsword

dsword — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:12:29 -0800

VulcanMike: Isn't carrying weed around for any reason an act of protest, given that it's against the law? Funny definition of protest, given that rape and murder are also illegal, not at all to compare the two. delmoi: And, uh, toy guns are not illegal. They might as well be for Blacks in New York, where it's illegal for Blacks to carry wallets. But that wasn't the point to begin with, it was about outsiders telling a group that's generally preyed upon about what they ought to be doing. I think the reaction would have been generated mostly by perceived racism. Racism or complete ignorance, the effect's the same.

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:12:31 -0800

And now I want to get stoned and eat tacos.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:28:17 -0800

callmejay : "It's a presumption that the costs of any increased usage would be less than the current costs of illegality. " Then the legalization of cannabis is supported by the fact that lot of people are breaking the law. Had prohibition been successful in containing cannabis usage to 0.1% of the population, would legalization still be tenable?

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:34:02 -0800

Man, it's totally because, like, William Randolph Hearst was all sensationalist and racist and shit. He knew that black jazz music guys and, like, mexicans totally knew about The Kind and it would totally freak out white America and they would buy papers. So Dupont called Hearst and was all like "Dude, it is so good that you're making the public afraid of hemp. Because we have, like, these totally new synthetic fibers to sell but no one will want them because hemp fabrics are superior in every way." Then the paper companies got into it because you can make as much paper with 4 acres of hemp as you can with like 5,100 acres of trees. Plus the defense company death dealers and the Feds hate pot because it stops war, man.

By: lasm

lasm — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:35:27 -0800

Weed is a weed. It grows whether you want it to or not. It generally doesn't need much care. Tobacco is a crop, and requires lots of care and preparation. Weed may be slang for marijuana, but it is certainly not a weed in the proper sense. There are few places in the world where it's feral. With tobacco, the leaf is harvested but with marijuana, the flower is. Marijuana needs lots of light, an uninterrupted 12 hour dark period for flower development, and has specific ph and nutrient requirements. Pests can be a big problem, especially spider mites, which can wipe out a crop quickly. It needs lots of water, but too much humidity will cause bud rot so the plants also need good ventilation. During the flowering stage, male plants must be removed or else pollination occurs and the flowers seed, thus reducing quality and quantity. It may be easy to grow leaf, but difficult and time consuming to grow good flowers. Making methamphetamine is probably easier than growing high quality marijuana. I'd equate growing pot to brewing beer. It may be easy to make, but damn difficult to make well. There's no way homebrewers are cutting into the market share of commercial breweries. It's much easier to pick up a 6 pack of great beer than it is to spend a month or more brewing. If marijuana were legalized, we'd probably see a similar situation. Some people would grow their own, but most would still buy it.

By: If I Had An Anus

If I Had An Anus — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:38:39 -0800

By: dilettante

dilettante — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:39:41 -0800

The marijuana laws are broken so frequently that the FBI may relax its hiring standards regarding past drug use. From Richard Clarke: "We have to recognize there are a couple of generations now who regarded marijuana use, while it's technically illegal, as nothing more serious than jaywalking".

By: AllesKlar

AllesKlar — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:28:12 -0800

I wonder what would happen if >SOME HOW< we had a 6 month "trial period?" As long as we established metrics beforehand, it could be a fair assessment of would could happen. The data could be acquired by an independent company, sans political affilation (if possible.) Kind of like an ROI calculation, see if the economic impact out weighs whatever make believe social costs might occur. 6 months is probably inadequate, but seems short enough to garner feasibility. Obviously if things went ape shit, the government would have to step in, but I'm guessing everyone might just chill the fuck out.

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:50:38 -0800

I'm with AllesKlar, let's let the cat out of the bag for 6 months. I'm sure he'll gladly hop right back in after said period of time. Won't you please think of the kittens.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:08:18 -0800

I wonder what would happen if >SOME HOW< we had a 6 month trial period? as long as we established metrics beforehand, it could be a fair assessment of would could happen./i> Well, it would be a problem because then everyone would try to get in a life-time supply of pot-smoking in that six months. It's just like at the end of that movie Minority Report where everyone who had wanted to kill someone for the past several years was free to do it, and there was an orgy of bloodshead in the streets.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:08:52 -0800

Oops.

By: AllesKlar

AllesKlar — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:18:05 -0800

You're right! Smoking a bunch of marijuana is equivocal to mass murder ;)

By: gompa

gompa — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:41:02 -0800

I wonder what would happen if SOME HOW we had a 6 month trial period? We did this in Canada. Summer of 2003, as GoodJob! noted. Society collapsed. Within months, Canada was being feted by a radical British journal. Gays were permitted to marry not long after. The situation is so bad now that I've personally witnessed everyone from corporate lawyers and newspaper editors to school teachers and psychologists partake of the demon weed. I fear that I could leave my house this very moment and within minutes procure a sack full of the stuff and be high as a kite and possibly buy a transfat-laden Jos Louis or two, and all with essentially no risk of incarceration. My only hope is that the DEA's noble crusaders continue their valiant efforts to round up my country's revolutionaries and bring them to justice in America, where saner drug laws prevail.

By: gompa

gompa — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:51:35 -0800

Almost forgot: Last fall, one of Canada's most respected writers was reduced to starring in a pro-marijuana propaganda film on the national public TV network. Oh the humanity!

By: AllesKlar

AllesKlar — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:51:58 -0800

Gompa- Lucky bastard.

By: Tryptophan-5ht

Tryptophan-5ht — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:06:43 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product.. i guess thats why every stoner i know buys it from someone instread of growing it themselves?

By: spazzm

spazzm — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:00:27 -0800

[...] why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? That's what they want, you stupid troll.

By: teece

teece — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:08:35 -0800

lasm probably just earned him/herself a visit from the DEA ... knows a little too much about growing pot, methinks ... ;-)

By: uncanny hengeman

uncanny hengeman — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:19:24 -0800

Pot remains in part outlawed because those other drugs that are now legal--booze and butts--earn too much money for their owners and makers. I am sure those organizations that have money invested in legal drugs lobby to make sure their consumers don't drift to othezr drugs. Long, anecsotal story short: Friend of a friend driving across Australia. Has a fair bit of marijuana with him. Stops for the night at a one-horse town. Sells some 'erb to some locals. Local hotel owner notices patronage is very low that night. Rings cops. Tells them there's marijuana in town. Cops find friend of a friend and find marijuana and bust him. How spewin' would ya be?! What a funny way to get busted. "Swing it back, bring it back, just like this And if you with my sh*t, then blaze up another spliff And keep the motherf*ckin blunt in your pocket, loc Coz Doggy Dogg is all about the zig zag smoke"

By: recurve

recurve — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:21:38 -0800

But apples don't get you high Ever made apple jack? That's what Johnny Appleseed was really selling. But to be honest, don't you think smoking pot would be a lot less fun if it were legal? Be honest. posted by delmoi You're right. I'd get some nasty pleasure if wine were illegal. There are some serious skills involved in making these products. Pot needs no skill at all. posted by any major dude The product put out by professionals is far superior to what you can grow by tossing seeds out your back door and forgetting about them. Flip through a copy of High Times and you'll see what I mean. lasm probably just earned him/herself a visit from the DEA ... knows a little too much about growing pot, methinks ... ;-) posted by teece He or she already thought of that methinks.

By: lasm

lasm — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:56:39 -0800

lasm probably just earned him/herself a visit from the DEA ... knows a little too much about growing pot, methinks ... ;-) Nah, just check good ol' Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,750,000 for how to grow marijuana. (0.09 seconds)

By: 31d1

31d1 — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:13:45 -0800

This is a really important book to read if you are interested in any of this. Drug Warriors And Their Prey, by Richard L Miller.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:51:35 -0800

The misinformation in this thread is terribly amusing. I rather suspect that those users who know the truth about growing pot are staying silent, because the first rule of growing is this: tell no one. I also rather suspect that most of those users who know the truth about using pot are staying silent, because it's still just too damn risky to broadcast information like that. Which means that most of the people in this thread are people who are not growers, are likely not users, and if they are either, are too stupid to know when to keep their mouths shut for their own personal safety. At any rate, everything you could ever want to know about pot is on two websites: Overgrow and Erowid.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:23:38 -0800

Legalize pot. Then wait 15 to 20 years and watch the wave of lawsuits by people suffering from lung cancer about how the companies which manufactured and distributed marijuana didn't provide sufficient warnings of the health risks in getting high. Those bastards.

By: RedEmma

RedEmma — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:33:35 -0800

But to be honest, don't you think smoking pot would be a lot less fun if it were legal? Be honest. um. no. i would really like not having to feel like a criminal when i go make my buy. i would really like to be able to go down to the smoke shop and buy a bag instead of having to call every possible connection i can think of when my regular one goes dry. i would like to be able to grow plants in my house. illegality is a pain in the ass. and just to counter the usual "i quit and my life is way better now" testimonials.... i didn't start smoking regularly until i was around 30. and i have gone through times where i smoked too much, and times where i've been dry. currently i smoke about a bowl a day. but over and over again (and since i have kept a journal for the last 15 years, i know it for sure) i have found that when i have blamed pot for various problems--laziness, inability to complete a project, a screwup at work, forgetting to return a call or do something, an erosion of my writing--i have found my blame to be unfounded. there are certain personality traits and issues i have always had. smoking pot has never seemed to impact me either way. i no longer get the "munchies," it doesn't make me not wanna work out, and it doesn't make me not want to work. what pot does is help me manage my anxiety and keep me focused during certain tasks (like writing of certain types or research or more mundane household chores). it is useful for me. i have definitely seen that people who smoke high quality weed all day long suffer for it, but that's the same with the overuse of anything.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:36:03 -0800

Which means that most of the people in this thread are people who are not growers, are likely not users, and if they are either, are too stupid to know when to keep their mouths shut for their own personal safety. Honest question: do really you think that admitting to being a weed smoker on a forum such as this one is likely to have direct legal repercussions?

By: ubersturm

ubersturm — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:39:51 -0800

Postroad, I'd be shocked if tobacco [and possibly alcohol] companies haven't made plans to leap into the market if pot ever gets legalized. I'd expect that they have names trademarked, plans for the conversion of some factories and fields to marijuana growth and processing, etc. - like darkness, in the event of legalization I think we'll see Camel joints and Marlboro joints and such as soon as the first crop matures. Sure, you can grow pot on your own [I'll leave the argument over the level of difficulty to others]- but I think if you could buy a box of decent joints at the local convenience store for a reasonable price, very few people would bother to grow their own. Even now, there are very clearly far more people smoking pot than growing it. Seems to me that home growing might become something along the lines of home brewing - connoisseurs developing new strains for fun.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:04:47 -0800

I think people are missing an almost certain consequence of legalization: the development of safer consumption methods, like cheap portable vaporizers or inhalers. The only reason most people still collect raw plant matter and burn it, is because no commercial venture has the incentive (marketing is illegal; so is paraphenalia) or the means (possession is illegal for everyone barring some white coats at NIDA et al.). Legalization will open the door. The current vaporizers available in Europe (Volcano..) cost hundreds of dollars and not many people know about them. I'm envisioning portable cigarette-sized inhalers which accept cannabis-extract cartridges. No smoke, no tar.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:27:53 -0800

> As long as you had a pure supply of heroin at your disposal, > you could live your whole life as heroin addict with few > long-tem consequences It's theoretically possible. The reality is somewhat different though. Take a look at the epidemiological work done with English heroin addicts in the 60's and 70's, and you'll find they die at a rate somewhat equivalent to street heroin users. However, I think this is less to do with the drug, and more to do with the personality profile of those who use it. > Nah, they just beat you over the head when they mug > you for money to buy more heroin. If they outlaw heroin, only outlaws will use heroin...

By: lastobelus

lastobelus — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:39:52 -0800

I agree one hundred per cent with dash_slot. The best way to protect young people from the harmful effects of drugs is for drugs to be legalized, regulated, & taxed heavily enough to recover their cost on society but not so heavily as to make a black market particularly profitable. By having sale of substances controlled by government, as alcohol is in Canada, you reduce the competitiveness of the industries that produce them, which is generally a good thing. Quality & thus safety is ensured, price is strictly controlled, reducing the incentive for advertising & deceptive marketing. Since making substances legal reduces their cultural cachet, they end up being "advertised" less heavily by popular media as well. Selling them in boring, un-marketed government outlets further reduces their glamour, and even results in there being a certain degree of stigma associated with their purchase.

By: lastobelus

lastobelus — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:04:32 -0800

As long as you had a pure supply of heroin at your disposal, you could live your whole life as heroin addict with few long-tem consequences. This is not true at all. Long-term heroin use can have some serious harmful health effects. For one, it can completely destroy your digestive system. Some people smoke their whole life with no long-term consequences, but (finally by now) no one would try to claim that in general smoking is not harmful. Trying to justify legalizing substances by asserting they are harmless only hurts the cause, because everyone knows that any substance worth using is NOT harmless. The reason to legalize drugs is because they CAN be harmful, and legalizing, controlling & taxing them is the best way to manage & mitigate that harm. And, to be brutally honest, I think a large part of the reason non-American countries are tending towards legalization is that it has become increasingly obvious that the American war on drugs is a flimsy excuse for a progrom of racism & "culturism", and regardless of how we feel about drug use itself we simply don't want to be associated with that.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:46:04 -0800

If the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" don¹t include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on. - Terence McKenna why can't you potheads deal with your addictions in private as well? Why can't you Alkies stop crashing into families cars and killing them? Actually I don't smoke dope. (I don't smoke anything in fact) But I'm in favor of legalization. If it were legal I'd be eating hash brownies tomorrow. As it is, it's just too hard to get ahold of and I don't care enough to work at it.

By: pointilist

pointilist — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:50:59 -0800

I want to support the position for the de-criminalization of pot but not the legalization of it. The reason- to keep productuion and distribution out of the hands of the hands of the big corporations. I think everyone will be happier and safer.

By: pointilist

pointilist — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:01:07 -0800

short version of why pot is illegal: You can grow it anywhere. There's no way a corporation can turn it into a product. This seems naive to me. It would be so easy to sell. I'll go back to playing catch up now.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:19:56 -0800

Honest question: do really you think that admitting to being a weed smoker on a forum such as this one is likely to have direct legal repercussions? Admit smoking? It won't lead to legal repercussions. It may lead to workplace or interpersonal repercussions. Admit growing? That could lead to legal repercussions, especially in the USA.

By: beth

beth — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:25:47 -0800

I think it was Bill Maher who pointed out the dichotomy: if you're white and rich, a drug problem is a health problem - you go to rehab. If you're poor and not white, a drug problem is a legal problem - you go to jail.

By: celerystick

celerystick — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:02:29 -0800

yeah I dunno I clicked on the "actual story" link and it sent me straight to sme site somebody made called Christians for Cannabis and I felt immediately confused and overwhelmed by all the incoherent decontextualized bible snippets whoa... kind of like like a powerful hit of hashish boing down the rabbit hole. please dont do that to me again.

By: lasm

lasm — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:05:35 -0800

Five Fresh Fish, you assume much. Not everyone on this site resides in the USA or one of its lapdog countries.

By: nonmerci

nonmerci — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:18:42 -0800

I think I see the word "partake" used more often by marijuana advocates than I do in any other context. Maybe we should change the spelling to "partoke." (I agree that pot should be legal.) posted by kirkaracha at 3:55 PM PST on October 14 [!] It's funny you say this, since I use 'partake' almost exclusively when offering to smoke [weed] with someone.

By: nonmerci

nonmerci — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:23:39 -0800

It's much easier for teenagers to get beer then weed, in my experiance. posted by delmoi at 5:31 PM PST on October 14 [!] Not these days, or maybe that's just in the stoner-filled state of Oregon. Getting weed was/is always quite easy for me; far easier than getting alcohol, unless I have an older friend buy it for me.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:57:48 -0800

lasm: WTF? Learn to read.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:09:20 -0800

Former Seattle police chief calls for legalization (of all drugs).

By: BuzzKill

BuzzKill — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:27:51 -0800

It should be pointed out that marijuana and hemp are completely different things. Marijuana has been bred for THC content whereas hemp has been bred for fiber. Hemp that you grow for fiber or seed won't give you a buzz if you smoke it. So really hemp shouldn't be banned. This may give more weight to the argument that the ban had some economic motivation.