If cannabis were to become legal

[Dravin]

A pothead is a person who doesn't do much more than weed. So if they're into pills, their name then changes to pill popper or junky. You need to learn the meaning of those names hehe

Merriam-Webster disagrees with your restriction of 'not more much than':

pot·head noun \ˈpät-ˌhed\

Definition of POTHEAD

: a person who frequently smokes marijuana

Linky: Pothead - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Of course that's moot, she wasn't saying anything about people who were into pills. She was saying that people who are for prescription use (implied) of marijuana (/implied), are potheads. Twas her way of saying it seems like it's potheads who are the ones in favor of medical use marijuana.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

Just to make sure we understand: MMJ, medicinal marijuana, the stuff available by prescription here in CO and 13 other states - it's marijuana in all it's forms. Someone might have made a pill out of it, but MJ dispensaries here sell the gamut - a gazillion blends for smoking joints, and also food additives like laced powdered sugar and brownie mixes and coffee blends and whatnot. Chocolate-dipped MMJ bananas. The list is endless.

I visit a guy who works in an office building that just opened a new dispensary down the hall from his office. The smell is almost overpowering. I came back to work after my last visit smelling like I just jumped out of Cheech & Chong's van.

If anyone is thinking we're fighting over legalizing the next oral medication in pill form, I suggest reading up a bit more.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[PrinceofLight2000]

Another thing I don't get is why scientists can't just isolate the THC and administer that. I would think that it's possible that you don't need enough THC to get high in order for it to do its job, and that would take marijuana itself out of the equation.

[dahlia]

You don't need a prescription for alcohol, though.

Because the distillers and brewers have great lobbyists, not because alcohol is less harmful.

Personally, I think alcohol causes more crime, more injuries, more family and work disruption than drugs, and especially more than marijuana.

I went to college (home of the 'Hash Bash') in the '70's. The people who had issues with drugs were doing more than MJ. But there are always people with issues with drugs/alcohol/maturity/life, in college and out. For most people with major life issues, a little MJ is the least of their problems.

I would be fine with legalized MJ. I think they are looking to do that in my state. Unless Pres Monson said that it was against the WoW, I can think of several medically-related reasons why I could get some. : )

In general, I don't worry about what other people do and I react really negatively to the use of scare tactics to frighten people who can't find out the facts for themselves. If MJ were legally available, most users would have a toke on Friday nights and be done with it - the same way that most people who drink don't go home and beat their wives in a drunken rage or run over grandma while under the influence.

[Dravin]

Another thing I don't get is why scientists can't just isolate the THC and administer that. I would think that it's possible that you don't need enough THC to get high in order for it to do its job, and that would take marijuana itself out of the equation.

They have: Does the Pot Pill Work? - CBS News

Edited June 17, 2011 by Dravin

[PrinceofLight2000]

Completely uncited statements alert:

They have. The complaint is that apparently it's a harsher high (with the high being the point of taking THC) and that smoking is a self regulating and softer high (you can toke some, get high and stop) delivering just what you need instead of popping a pill that hits like a ton of bricks and may be giving you more than you need at the moment.

You'd think though that with some research once could get past that (say some sort of nebulizer infused with THC?) but I don't know the technical details and challenges.

...so make smaller dosages/cut pills in half like we do with every other pill?

I really don't see why that would be so difficult.

[Dravin]

I finally found a cite so I replaced my post, just to make sure you found it: Does the Pot Pill Work? - CBS News

[NeuroTypical]

Another thing I don't get is why scientists can't just isolate the THC and administer that.

I'm no expert, but one reason is that it's easier on some patients to inhale a gas than it is to take a pill. My mom would have been a prime candidate for MMJ as she lay painfully dying of a degenerative illness. She was always nauseous - pills and liquids came back up. She had no veins left - an IV isn't a good permanent option for someone anyway. I don't know if suppositories were available - but the argument goes that a toke is a heck of a lot easier than sitting on your meds.

Anyway, that's the answer that makes sense to me - there are a lot of terminal cancer patients and such who could really use the option for end-of-life pain management.

It doesn't change the fact that the average person walking into our Colorado dispensaries with their prescriptions in their hands, is an 18-45 yr old man who appears to be in good health.

[FanOf31]

I personally think the healing and pain releiving effects of the plant is a gift from God as it does very positive things. People who get caught up in spending all their money and getting into mischief would probably do it anyway with or without the herb. It's just used as a scapegoat. Typically people who do only herb are not menaces to society. It's the others who do herb plus all the other hard stuff that is not considered, which is a joke in itself.

[NeuroTypical]

I can see that line of reasoning, but I don't follow it too far, for a few reasons.

There's the notion of a 'gateway drug' - MJ isn't really all that bad, but people who do it are usually 'passing through' on their way to something worse. You show me someone lying in a ditch dying of liver failure due to meth addiction, with a string of ruined relationships and a failed career trailing behind, I'll show you someone who started with weed. Yeah, not everyone who does a little weed ends up dying in a ditch. But even fewer people who have never done weed, end up there. Not-doing-weed is good insurance against dying in a ditch at some later date.

Then there's the association issue. You do weed, you run in some pretty guilty circles. You are only one degree away from prostitution and people jailed for petty offenses. Only two degrees away from kidnappers and convicted felons and gang bangers. Only three away from child prostitution and murderers and transational drug cartels. Yeah, you can claim to be clean and pure, but the things you're supporting with your dollar tells me another story.

Finally, there's very little 'healing and pain releiving effects' from MJ that can't be obtained elsewhere without all the downside of MJ.

So yeah, again, I think my mom could have benefitted from MMJ during her final span here on earth. But again, it doesn't change all those other less-happy facts I'm mentioning.

[honestabe]

Couldn't agree with you more AGstacker!!! I would go one further.....legallize all drugs (not joking)..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason there is a underground criminal element is that there is HUGE MONEY involved in the trafficking/selling of illegal drugs. Take away the money and the criminal element would fall. There isn't going to be anymore people using drugs after making them legal than there is now. It is a supply demand issue. IMO

Edited June 24, 2011 by honestabe

[FanOf31]

I can see that line of reasoning, but I don't follow it too far, for a few reasons.

There's the notion of a 'gateway drug' - MJ isn't really all that bad, but people who do it are usually 'passing through' on their way to something worse. You show me someone lying in a ditch dying of liver failure due to meth addiction, with a string of ruined relationships and a failed career trailing behind, I'll show you someone who started with weed. Yeah, not everyone who does a little weed ends up dying in a ditch. But even fewer people who have never done weed, end up there. Not-doing-weed is good insurance against dying in a ditch at some later date.

Then there's the association issue. You do weed, you run in some pretty guilty circles. You are only one degree away from prostitution and people jailed for petty offenses. Only two degrees away from kidnappers and convicted felons and gang bangers. Only three away from child prostitution and murderers and transational drug cartels. Yeah, you can claim to be clean and pure, but the things you're supporting with your dollar tells me another story.

Finally, there's very little 'healing and pain releiving effects' from MJ that can't be obtained elsewhere without all the downside of MJ.

So yeah, again, I think my mom could have benefitted from MMJ during her final span here on earth. But again, it doesn't change all those other less-happy facts I'm mentioning.

You have some very valid points. I agree that just the fact that it can put you in situations with shady dangerous people, it needs to be avoided. I 110% agree

[NeuroTypical]

..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason there is a underground criminal element is that there is HUGE MONEY involved in the trafficking/selling of illegal drugs. Take away the money and the criminal element would fall.

Again, here in CO where it is legal to cultivate, grow, harvest, sell, buy, and smoke MMJ, there is still an underground criminal element. There is still battling over territory. There are still armed robberies and aggrivated assaults committed in and around legal dispensaries. Places continue to be broken into. People continue to get robbed. Even though there's a legal avenue available, there is still illegal trafficking in the stuff. The legalized MMJ industry in this state is still closely related to kidnappings, child prostitution, murders, and transational criminal organizations.

It's been a few years since I watched the Godfather movies, but didn't the family go totally legit in one of them? And yet they still had enough violence and mayhem to fill a movie?

I dunno - maybe it does take a rocket scientist to grasp these facts.

[honestabe]

OBVIOUSLY, LMM It wouldn't happen overnight. You are talking about one state. My point being, do you still here about organized crime trafficking in alcohol? Do you still here about people robbing liqour stores etc, sure you do but it is way better now than during prohibition times. It is fine if you want to have your position on it but to snub my opinions shows your true ignorance and besides all of this...it was a hypothetical question by the OP. I'm not saying that legalizing drugs would solve the worlds problems, but it would solve a lot of the organized crime issues that you see today. Cartels are not going to be involved in something they cannot make money off of, therefore crime rate down. Government control, taxes and invest the money that is WASTED on the war on drugs and put it into rehab's and prevention. As far as what'as going on where you live. Another point being, there is still HUGE money involved in marijuana (legal or not) that is why there is still violence etc. Once again just my opinion coupled with what seems to me COMMON sense.

[Blackmarch]

Couldn't agree with you more AGstacker!!! I would go one further.....legallize all drugs (not joking)..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason there is a underground criminal element is that there is HUGE MONEY involved in the trafficking/selling of illegal drugs. Take away the money and the criminal element would fall. There isn't going to be anymore people using drugs after making them legal than there is now. It is a supply demand issue. IMO

No it would not. When has removing any 1 aspect in a criminal system brought that system to ruin?

So it gets legalized as recreational or loose control... Which means they wouldnt have to waste resources in smuggling it or hiding transactions as much from the law... Which let's them funnel cash to other lucrative illegal activities instead. So what does this solve and how does this help people avoid getting hooked on it?

Edited June 25, 2011 by Blackmarch

[honestabe]

Like I said before....look at the alcohol industry...prime example....enough said!!!! Are the Rockafellas & Kennedy's using there ill gotten wealth to funnel into other illegal enterprises!!

Edited June 25, 2011 by honestabe

[Blackmarch]

Like I said before....look at the alcohol industry...prime example....enough said!!!! Are the Rockafellas & Kennedy's using there ill gotten wealth to funnel into other illegal enterprises!!

good enough reason for me to vote against the wacky weed. I've been around too much alcohol for my care.

Now if we could magically switch the situation of alcohol and MJ around in all aspects I would... But I can't see how adding to alcohol problems is a solution that will work positively.

[honestabe]

That is your personal choice and right to vote against the "wacky weed"...but I know as most other people do that resistance is futile. My point in my other post is that we had people that made copius amounts of money off of bootlegging during the prohibition. Now that booze is legal, there isnt the element of organized crime & level of violence associated with the distrubution & sales of it. In no means am I saying that there is no more crime & effects of alcohol damaging peoples lives. To use alcohol is someones personal choice, just like it is to use drugs. I beleive the correct term is harm reduction. People are always going to use drugs but to throw people in jail etc over drug violations is ludicrous. The tax money that is wasted is better served elsewhere. Thats what is great about living in a democratic society...the majority rules. There is and always will be a supply and demand for illegal drugs. Its about looking at the issue with a realistic and fact based approach. The war on drugs is a huge waste of momey. The CHOICE to use these substances should be a personal one, not dictated by any government. I firmly beleive in "free agency"...just my opinion

[Vort]

I firmly beleive in "free agency"...just my opinion

This last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with your stated opinions preceding it.

[honestabe]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I didn't realize this site was linked with English class. If you read the post, you should get my drift. You can give me a "D" for my efforts. There is also improper grammar, run on sentences etc. I'm sure you understand the points I was trying to make. Just because you close your eyes the world doesn't disappear. It is what it is, it's not going away but there are ways to REDUCE the harm/violence that is done. That's all. See how I used an apostrophe in "That's".....I thought you would like that there VORT. :)

Edited June 25, 2011 by honestabe

[Vort]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I didn't realize this site was linked with English class. If you read the post, you should get my drift. You can give me a "D" for my efforts. There is also improper grammar, run on sentences etc. I'm sure you understand the points I was trying to make. Just because you close your eyes the world doesn't disappear. It is what it is, it's not going away but there are ways to REDUCE the harm/violence that is done. That's all. See how I used an apostrophe in "That's".....I thought you would like that there VORT. :)

Nothing to do with poor grammar or spelling. Your last sentence, wherein you extol the virtue of "free agency", suggests that legislating against legalized pot smoking somehow abrogates said "free agency".

This is false, of course. Laws against drug usage do not affect agency in the slightest. I simply wanted to point out that if you were making the argument that anti-marijuana laws somehow violate agency, you are wrong and have much to learn about the nature of agency.

[Still_Small_Voice]

My own opinion with marijuana is the following:

I am not for legalizing it, but I am not for incarceration of people convicted of possession of marijuana. Fine illegal distributors and those who illegally abuse the drug let them go in my opinion (if they are not also arrested for more heinous crimes).

If there is medicinal use of marijuana it should be closely regulated. I am not for people casually walking down the sidewalk legally smoking a marijuana cigarette in public.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Two cents from me, though I'm jumping in late - I'm all for legalizing it, medicinal or recreational. As long as it's not affecting me negatively, I don't mind. I don't want people walking down the sidewalks smoking it either, I'd say either do it in private, or possibly have marijuana-only smoking zones, similar to the smoking zones we already have (put them in the same zones even?).

And I'm guessing what Honestabe means by "free agency" refers to what Vort mentioned earlier, about sacrificing some individual liberties for the sake of a civilized society. Though this is obviously true, anarchy wouldn't help anything, I don't believe that forbidding the use of marijuana is one of those liberties that is necessary to be taken away in order for society to function.

[honestabe]

You are absolutely correct with your statement, one does not have anything to do with the other!!! I did not mean to "suggest" that one has to do with the other. I obviously have a hard time articulating what I was trying to say....god bless you VORT. I'll try this again....I believe people should be able to do whatever it is they want as long as it is not affecting other peoples rights. To be able to exercise their "free agency" without having to worry about legal consequences for something that is a personal choice. To throw people in jail for posession/use/paraphernalia is a waste of tax payers money and law enforcements time. My point is that by decriminalyzing/legalilizing drugs and putting the same structures in place as the liqour industry, prices of all drugs would decrease substantially. Therefore, crime rates would drop. An example...If all of a sudden it cost $500 for a pack of cigarettes, chances are normal good citizens would start breaking the laws to support their addiction. Not long after that organized crime would obviously get involved because of the profit margins ($$$$$$$$). These people (drug users not cartels) are not bad people they would be doing the same thing you or I would do if the price of food got to the point where we could not afford it. The major organized crime cartels would not traffic in the stuff for very long if there is not a lot of money to be made. Of course you are always going to have crime associated with just about every aspect of life. It isn't a solution to the problem but I think it would take us in the right direction. Just like any other legal drug(s) people still use or develop problems with, the burden is placed on the individual(s) to educate themselves and others about use & abuse, and the associated consequences. And yes I realize that the users personal choice effects society as a whole, but the way things are right now I believe is worse than what I am suggesting. As soon as I become President of the USA I will change all of this!!!!lol Until then thank god for democracy!!! Hopefully this clarifies the point I was attempting to make.

Edited June 26, 2011 by honestabe

[FanOf31]

There are prisons full of good people who were busted with a few pounds of weed. Our tax payer dollars are paying for them to be in prison, so both they suffer and we suffer because of this illogical law. Yes let's ruin people's lives who believe in "unity" and "one love" because, heaven forbid people be unified. It's a joke and if you don't think so, open your eyes. The law is supporting evil people's way of life and people are dying because it's illegal. Even if the church doesn't want members doing weed, it should STILL be legalized just to save innocent lives alone.