• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pot

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,281
40
91
Here's my point of view, you are free to disagree:

The problem with the current "war on drugs" is they have their heads in the sand. They spend billions of dollars trying to demonize marijuana, all the while hunting after a completely unrealistic ideal, the complete eradication of drugs. They can't, or don't want to, get their heads around the idea that drugs are here to stay. They already are here in the form of alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, pain killers etc... Too much of the anti drug movement is focused on morals, and not enough on scientific facts. Hence alcohol goes almost unnoticed, while pot, arguably less dangerous than alcohol, gets demonized into something 10 times worse than cocaine. While few would argue over the dangers of cocaine and heroine the debate over marijuana is much less clear. From what little I know it seems the science on both sides is somewhat suspect with large government funded studies sometimes clearly overselling the dangers of pot while other independent ones clearly underselling it. I would not be surprised if when the dust settles it turns out the dangers of smoking pot are significant in the long run, in the form of increased risk to lung cancer and the like, but less dangerous than cigarettes. In my opinion they need to start looking at this realistically, concentrate on the drugs that cause the greatest harm while putting out a level headed and truthful message about pot, in the long run it will help far more people than hurt. Kids know when they are being lied to, they know friends and parents of friends who have smoked for years without dying or loosing their job and becoming bums, so when they see an ad telling them this stuff is as dangerous as can be they naturally ignore it, along with the potential real dangers posed by marijuana. There also needs to be a stronger focus on those suffering from drug addiction, the current message almost seems to be "drugs are the most evil thing on the planet and will completely destroy you if you take them, so don't because if you do you're beyond hope and we won't even try helping you". Ok that's too strong but there does need to be a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation and less on heavy handed moral messages.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh and no I have never smoked it.

Here's a link to a site with some interesting figures (while some may find the site has too strong a liberal slant for them it's the numbers that are interesting):

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
49,812
550
126
You answers don't match the question in the title. Put the pipe down
 
Aug 26, 2004
14,685
1
76
not to mention the fact that they may not look as seriously at the warnings about drugs that really are bad...such as heroin, meth, etc. due to marijuana being overhyped the way it is...
 

TheLonelyPhoenix

Diamond Member
Feb 15, 2004
5,594
0
0
You know, I was just thinking to myself, "We haven't had enough threads regarding drug use and laws on ATOT".
 

imported_Lucifer

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2004
5,139
0
0
Let me give you some advice: Dont take the movie "Reefer Madness" too seriously. Why? Because its the most over exaggerated movie I have ever watched.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
4
0
Originally posted by: Locut0s
pot, arguably less dangerous than alcohol, gets deionized into something 10 times worse than cocaine.
????
aww, you fixed it :p

I sorta agree. I don't think they should fully legalize it, but certainly stop wasting money on those stupid commercials, and work harder on the DANGEROUS drugs like crystal meth and the like.

Never smoked, but my parents were hippies so they did.
 

BannedTroll

Banned
Nov 19, 2004
967
0
0
I smoked it quite often when I was younger. Every once in a while now.

Sheeple that believe that pot has significant addictive properties or health effects are misinformed. It doesn't take a very indepth look at the history of pot, medical publications and drug laws to realize that.
 

dsfunk

Golden Member
May 28, 2004
1,246
0
0
I think you copied and pasted that from 1987.

The cost is from keeping pot offenders in prison for no reason. The war on drugs as it is now, probably costs more overseas and is not for marijuana, but for other drugs
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,281
40
91
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Killer drug or over hyped?
How does the poll correlate to this?:confused:

(I may be a stoner, but I still have a few functioning brain cells. ;) )

Hehe it doesn't really, I sort of pushed two posts into one. If I'd posted two different posts on this topic I'd have gotten an instant ban ;) I made it a little clearer now.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
They could give two shits about what you put into your body if thier enviromental record is any indication. What they do care about is delegitimizing the ?counter-culture?. They find anti-conformist cultural practices, like smoking a joint, and punish those to delegitmize it.

I smoked 3x and hated it each time. But I take the libertarian view of what you choose to voluntarily ingest, is your business.

And If I ever sit on a drug case I will use my power of jury nullification and vote "not guilty."
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,281
40
91
Originally posted by: dsfunk
I think you copied and pasted that from 1987.

The cost is from keeping pot offenders in prison for no reason. The war on drugs as it is now, probably costs more overseas and is not for marijuana, but for other drugs

No doubt they spend a lot overseas but they also spend huge sums at home on media campaigns.
 

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
2
0
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: dsfunk
I think you copied and pasted that from 1987.

The cost is from keeping pot offenders in prison for no reason. The war on drugs as it is now, probably costs more overseas and is not for marijuana, but for other drugs

No doubt they spend a lot overseas but they also spend huge sums at home on media campaigns.
No kidding.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that they show "Drugs are bad" commercials right next to "Ask your Doctor" commercials? :confused:
 

dsfunk

Golden Member
May 28, 2004
1,246
0
0
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: dsfunk
I think you copied and pasted that from 1987.

The cost is from keeping pot offenders in prison for no reason. The war on drugs as it is now, probably costs more overseas and is not for marijuana, but for other drugs

No doubt they spend a lot overseas but they also spend huge sums at home on media campaigns.
I think that my tax dollars should not be spent on anti-weed commercials
 
Aug 26, 2004
14,685
1
76
Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Let me give you some advice: Dont take the movie "Reefer Madness" too seriously. Why? Because its the most over exaggerated movie I have ever watched.
that movie is hysterical...hard to believe anyone believed that tripe...
 

shimsham

Lifer
May 9, 2002
10,765
0
0
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: dsfunk
I think you copied and pasted that from 1987.

The cost is from keeping pot offenders in prison for no reason. The war on drugs as it is now, probably costs more overseas and is not for marijuana, but for other drugs

No doubt they spend a lot overseas but they also spend huge sums at home on media campaigns.
No kidding.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that they show "Drugs are bad" commercials right next to "Ask your Doctor" commercials? :confused:

nope. anti-depressants are more dangerous than pot could ever be(as far as ive read up anyway, if anyone knows different, please link it up).

pot: may suck out your ambitions and make you lazy

anti-depressants: may make you go shoot up your school/work
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY