• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

when is obama gonna legalize weed?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

it would do good for the ecomony and society

O RLY?

So poor people taking money away from their mortgages, bills, and necessities to purchase a heavily taxed marijuana is going to create more foreclosures, car repossessions, higher credit card debts, and starving homeless people, and that is going to save the economy? Is that what your saying?

So only poor, underprivileged people smoke weed?

Even so, wouldn't it be better to have the people spending the same amount of money where the government can tax it, and take away the under the table aspect of it?

Decriminalization does not increase use.
 
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?

I can't talk about the others.... but that's not a stereotype, and many studies have shown that mary jane causes cancers....
 
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLO
LLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLv

Wow whoever said that bullshit has never been to jamaica
 
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

Sadly the states legalizing it doesn't do all that much. The states are receiving pressure from the Federal government to, if "legalizing" it, to keep it for only medical or only decriminalize.

Making it truly legal, would imply you could walk into a store and buy it.

There is no true problem in doing that, however, this is one of the few issues where unfortunately, the Constitution provides no real help. Sure, this is an issue that belongs to the states to decide, but we have the damn DEA and Federal drug controls that rank substances. At the current status, no matter what the States do, the Federal government can swoop in and arrest anyone and everyone they desire. Because Federal law trumps State law if the Federal government has a law that negates State law.

Federal government can go in and say that they won't prosecute anyone, but with any national entity, it will remain illegal in their eyes as the state boundaries wouldn't matter for such a matter. So while drug testing is really only for illegal substances, you'd still be subject to drug testing if working for a national corporation even if living in a state where it is basically legal, or even truly legal.

So at this rate, states decriminalizing or legalizing weed is only good for two people: those with health conditions that can benefit from marijuana... of which there are MANY, ranging from localized pain, such as back problems and headaches, to persistent pain, cancer therapy, neurological conditions, any quite a few others. It's a natural beneficial chemical to our body, which can work as a systematic anti-inflammatory, and/or as a mental health agent, which can have wide uses.
And those that can be more closely grouped in with pot heads.
State legalization helps no one else, that would like to treat it as they would alcohol.

It does indirectly help them though. The best thing that will likely come out of individual state's legalizing marijuana, is putting pressure on the Federal government and changing attitudes across the country. It would very slowly reverse the stigma, and get people pressing their politicians into voting for it, and as time marches on the politicians themselves will warm up to the idea. This mostly will just come with time. Right now they are still of the age where it was always the evil dope and associated with problematic counter-cultures. As we march on, we'll start getting more politicians that weren't around those times, and don't have as much negative stigma.

It's going to be awhile, sadly. Unless all of the politicians really throw us all a crazy surprise sometime soon, it won't likely be for at least another decade. At least, that's my hopeful nature showing. I really don't expect it until at least 20 more years.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

it would do good for the ecomony and society

O RLY?

So poor people taking money away from their mortgages, bills, and necessities to purchase a heavily taxed marijuana is going to create more foreclosures, car repossessions, higher credit card debts, and starving homeless people, and that is going to save the economy? Is that what your saying?

What are you talking about? This isn't something addictive like coke, meth, heroin, prescription pills, or even ALCOHOL. Nobody sells their house for a weed addiction. If people buy things they can't afford, that's to be blamed on their personal irresponsibility, not an addiction that doesn't exist.
 
Originally posted by: Tsaico
I would agree with legalizing it, treat it just like alcohol, and tax it as much as cigarrettes. It would still be cheaper then what people pay for it now. (or so I hear) Of course, where to grow it in large fields like tobacco is going to be the harder part. People constantly running into your fields to steal it would be annoying for farmers.

Is that a problem with corn or tobacco? 😉

Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

it would do good for the ecomony and society

O RLY?

So poor people taking money away from their mortgages, bills, and necessities to purchase a heavily taxed marijuana is going to create more foreclosures, car repossessions, higher credit card debts, and starving homeless people, and that is going to save the economy? Is that what your saying?

Oh, sweet, sao123 is already here for his obligatory marijuana thread fail!
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

it would do good for the ecomony and society

O RLY?

So poor people taking money away from their mortgages, bills, and necessities to purchase a heavily taxed marijuana is going to create more foreclosures, car repossessions, higher credit card debts, and starving homeless people, and that is going to save the economy? Is that what your saying?

You can stop idiocy from running rampant in the world. Addictive personalities will always exist, and thus addicts will always exist. If its legal or illegal, it doesn't matter.

If its legal, a lot of white-collar execs will buy into it. And a lot of office workers, teachers, star athletes, and even politicians, will all buy. That's extra tax income for the government. They could make a killing on the sales tax.
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Take the stigma away, tax the shit out of it, and watch it fall into obscurity. Hell, government subsidized "weed" farmers for a few years would all but ensure that nobody smokes it ever again.

seriously.

For the first few years, the amount used would skyrocket as it would be super easy to get a hold of.
But, the first notion is - would it be government-subsidized growers, or would it be whatever farmer wants to grow it and sell product directly to corporations, most likely already popular corps like whoever owns Malboro and the other groups? They've already shown interest in taking up whatever the market wants by doing trials of Snus for those who want nicotine to use discretely in places where smoking is not legal, like public places, or easy to use at work without requiring a spit cup.

If it were public corporations selling it, likely some corps would want to only buy premium crops, or buy a lot of varieties and sell it under different brands/labels.

If it were government subsidized, likely it would all be brown ass shag product.

Regardless, the same effect will be the result. Everyone who wants it legalized would run to the stores frequently buying a lot of product. But as a few years passed on and it became easy to find, the glory would fade. Those who like it would continue to purchase it, but for many it would become something almost like alcohol. Maybe enjoy it from time to time on weeknights, but likely more commonly a weekend product for the majority of the working population, and as the stigma fades, so would popularity. But they aren't quite tied. The stigma comes from so many seeing it as the evil of society. The popularity within some circles come from the fact that it's so readily enjoyable, because for many, it has to be enjoyed on rare occasions due to the stigma, and due to the "scarcity" of product - having to grow through dealers, it being illegal so it cannot be enjoyed everywhere, and having to even know who to get it from and have a place where it can be used, that and drug testing for many, are all factors that add to the popularity. With the rare use of it, you glorify it because you seek to really enjoy it when you use it.

If you can go into a convenience store and purchase it whenever you want, you will have stuff at home for whenever you want, can toke up on your way home from work, and likely could smoke as you walk down the street (barring city legality of smoking anything in public). The popularity would fade because the population will be used to it - it's there whenever you want it, and can use it frequently. It'll become like cigarettes and alcohol, depending on the person one or the other. Like alcohol for the ones who seek to use it as either a social or relaxing drug, and like cigarettes for the crowd that become addicted and have to take smoke breaks frequently just to stay calm.

But then again, it not being a stimulant, that might take away that possible effect. Many cannot really stay stoned all day while working at the office or at the restaurant, and I bet, while legal, many employers would seek to keep it out of the workplace. But drug testing would be inefficient, because if its legal, can a company really dictate that you cannot use it while not at work, as long as its not before work? That might cause some trouble but likely nothing too bad, and nothing that would last and employers become smarter about its use during work hours.

Eh because legalizing cigarettes and alcohol have made them be used at an all time low now ?

first of all, Dope, when smoked, is still an intoxicant. And even if legallized (like alcohol)

1. It would be illegal to drive under the influence (cant smoke one while driving, cant drive after smoking 1.

2. It would be illegal to smoke one at work, since workplaces and schools are "substance free zones"

3. Cigarette smokes are rightfully shunned, and hopefully Dope smokers will remain having that same stigma about them.
 
ATTENTION EVERYONE:
IGBT and sao123 are the resident anti-marijuana types of ATOT. They are closed minded and will never change their stance.

Now that this is known, please continue with the marijuana legalization discussion.
 
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?

I can't talk about the others.... but that's not a stereotype, and many studies have shown that mary jane causes cancers....

And many studies have shown no cancer causation, while some have even shown it to reduce tumor growth in the lab.
 
Originally posted by: invidia
We can just take away all the bonuses of CEOs and top level executives for 2009 and then we'll have a zero deficit
But who would be left to run those companies into the ground and take the money and run?
It takes brass balls to do that, and they don't have those in the mailroom.
Those are people judged on their performance, not like the monied elite at the top who are judged by the people they put on the Board of Directors.


 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

Who other than septuagenarians actually call marijuana "dope"? 😕

I do, my girlfriend does. I know several people that do actually and they are all between 20 and 50 years old.

KT
 
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?

He didn't have much of that anyway, so I doubt he considers it much of a drawback.
 
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?

That is why I drink alcohol till I puke! Then go for a drive. 100X safer than firing up a doobie.
 
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?


..don't confuse the dopers with facts. they just wana get high.
 
Originally posted by: dakels
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

it would do good for the ecomony and society

O RLY?

So poor people taking money away from their mortgages, bills, and necessities to purchase a heavily taxed marijuana is going to create more foreclosures, car repossessions, higher credit card debts, and starving homeless people, and that is going to save the economy? Is that what your saying?

What are you talking about? This isn't something addictive like coke, meth, heroin, prescription pills, or even ALCOHOL. Nobody sells their house for a weed addiction. If people buy things they can't afford, that's to be blamed on their personal irresponsibility, not an addiction that doesn't exist.


In case you didnt know it... people dont have to be addicted to something in order to have a strong desire for it. otherwise... there would be no desire to legalize dope to begin with.
if you want something bad enough, addicted to not, you are going to spend money on it.


if you havent learned anything from the current state of the economy, personal irresponsibility is a problem running rampant, and our tax dollars being wasted to solve it.
The last thing we need is a NEW way for people to be legally fiscally irrepsonsible.

 
Originally posted by: cheezy321
ATTENTION EVERYONE:
IGBT and sao123 are the resident anti-marijuana types of ATOT. They are closed minded and will never change their stance.

Now that this is known, please continue with the marijuana legalization discussion.

thank you for saving me the trouble.
I was going to do a whole writeup myself, but this will suffice.
 
Obama will legalize weed as soon as he pays my mortgage and gas. Well, he's paying for the mortgage, I guess only gas left.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: dakels
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

it would do good for the ecomony and society

O RLY?

So poor people taking money away from their mortgages, bills, and necessities to purchase a heavily taxed marijuana is going to create more foreclosures, car repossessions, higher credit card debts, and starving homeless people, and that is going to save the economy? Is that what your saying?

What are you talking about? This isn't something addictive like coke, meth, heroin, prescription pills, or even ALCOHOL. Nobody sells their house for a weed addiction. If people buy things they can't afford, that's to be blamed on their personal irresponsibility, not an addiction that doesn't exist.


In case you didnt know it... people dont have to be addicted to something in order to have a strong desire for it. otherwise... there would be no desire to legalize dope to begin with.
if you want something bad enough, addicted to not, you are going to spend money on it.


if you havent learned anything from the current state of the economy, personal irresponsibility is a problem running rampant, and our tax dollars being wasted to solve it.
The last thing we need is a NEW way for people to be legally fiscally irrepsonsible.

Your argument is that we should ban stuff because people will probably be fiscally irresponsible with purchasing it... Are you serious?
 
While I agree that legalizing and taxing weed might be a good idea, it'll not likely happen anytime soon.

True, the tax revenue could make a huge dent in the deficit...and taking the criminal penalties out of it would allow governmental agencies to reduce the number of cops involved in busting people for pot, reduce the number of prosecutions and jailings for pot, as well as taking the money out of illegal sales...BUT, there are too dammed many bible-thumpers who would have a shit-fit over the idea...

PLUS, there needs to be a more accurate test for pot. Right now, if you smoke weed, you'll probably test dirty for as much as 30 days.
There needs to be a test that can differentiate between the pot you smoked last night or last weekend, in the comfort of your own home, and the pot you smoked within the past couple of hours.
DUI is DUI, whether it's beer or bud...and testing for bud needs to be better.
 
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: IGBT
the dopers want this bad. he said he would sign a bill if it crosses his desk.

Who other than septuagenarians actually call marijuana "dope"? 😕

I do, my girlfriend does. I know several people that do actually and they are all between 20 and 50 years old.

KT

That's funny, I don't know anyone that calls it dope, but I do know people that call it reefer 😛
 
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: DannyLove
Once the typical sterotypes of this so called "dope" drug are gone, we'll see it legalized.
My thoughts on this is, not anytime soon, and not on a federal level, more like state and local first, if possible....

But to the OP, you are right, the amount of $$ that can get generated from this "drug" would sooth and save our economy.

You mean the stereotypes like:

It makes people lazy
It impairs people's hand-eye cooirdination
It gives you lip lung and throat cancer
It is a powerful depressant
It is a powerful immune system suppressant
It is a genetic mutagen
It causes brain damage in long term users

You mean those silly little stereotypes?

I can't talk about the others.... but that's not a stereotype, and many studies have shown that mary jane causes cancers....

What cancers?
If we're talking about smoking marijuana, yes it is possible it could cause lung cancer in some individuals, depending on amount smoked through a lifetime and their genetic predisposition. Some people can go a lifetime smoking a pack a day and not get lung cancer (my grandma is one such person that I personally know to have smoked a pack a day for a LONG time, smoked my whole life to be sure and possibly smoked her whole life, not really sure. though she did require triple bypass surgery, that got her to quit finally).
And some people can smoke a pack a week or less for only a year and end up with cancer.

But the point I want to make: there have also been a few studies that have linked marijuana, if using it in healthy methods, to actually reverse tumor growth and possibly be an anti-cancer agent (or at least anti-tumor, which if it hits tumors in time before they spread cancer over a large area, or system-wide, would definitely negate that problem before it happened). This has been shown to be the case in any organ that has a role in, or is affected by, hormone activity. Many of the worst cancers, such as pancreatic cancer, can possibly be hit hard by marijuana.

But as for the other stereotypes. They are all bullshit. Being a mutagen is the same as being cancer-causing. It's tough to say marijuana is anti-tumor yet a mutagen. That doesn't add up. And it's likely not the case that THC/Cannabinol are carcinogenic, but rather combustibles in the leaf, as basically any combustible material likely would contain. Hell, as I stated earlier, THC has had a few studies that directly infer it is an anti-tumor agent, and one UCLA study carried the suggestion that may indeed be the case as well. This is because these studies suggest it is a chemical that encourages apoptosis in aging cells, which is the natural cell death. Tumors and cancer is the growth of cells that have their naturally programmed apoptosis stopped. So these cells don't die after hitting the time period in which they normally would die, and they also replicate at an unnatural rate.
If an agent can encourage apoptosis, you can consider that agent anti-tumor.

Laziness? HA. This, like many of the other suggested stereotypes, are all linked to the problems of correlation vs causation. These individuals that become lazy after taking up pot smoking... what were they like before hand? Are they naturally inclined toward laziness, and/or have an addictive personality? What is their lifestyle?

There are MANY individuals who lead successful, hard-working lives, that enjoy marijuana. I personally know a few. I also know a few who are rather lazy.

There are many factors that contribute to these stereotypes. I'm going to go as far as saying that marijuana isn't linked to any of them. The person may very well have become the same person without taking up marijuana in their lives. Most of the studies that have suggested these as facts, have an opposing study that suggests they are not factual. Some might end up being true. Hell, drinking too much coffee may cause things we haven't discovered yet. There are far too many things we don't know about the brain. But I will say the number of people who counter these stereotypes are proof enough that for many cases there are other factors at play.
 
Back
Top