Why isn't Marijuana legal?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Atheus
At some point within the last 100 years, someone decided that it is wrong to derive pleasure from taking substances into your system - before the 1st world war it was legally and socially acceptable to use morphine and cocaine and whatever else you might want.

I'm really not kidding in my earlier post. I guess I should have mentioned it was an offshoot from the temperence movement, but mostly these drugs can be directly linked to racist fears about a negative reference group. Opium to the crazed Chinaman (which I find funny because anyone who has ever tried Opium knows that 'crazed' is the last thing you're going to be), cocaine to the black man, and marujuana to the dirty dirty mexicans.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: eskimospy
You do realize that the Democratic party has been far more amenable to the legalization of some drugs than the Republican party, right? A lot of the people who are ganging up on chess are in fact left wingers, such as myself. It's more like people ganging up on an authoritarian, why does it have to be left/right?
You're stating the obvious. Why is a criticism of the democrat party considered an endorsement of the republican? I just think it's funny that the only one advocating it to be illegal (to this point) is a "leftie", and his reasons are consistent with the whole "we know what's best for the people" notion.

If you use the search function you will find a dozen other threads similar to this one where die hard Republicans are making the same arguments. My point was that the problem is with authoritarianism instead of a political party and so it seems sort of silly to single one out for criticism.
You expect it out of republicans. My point was just that there are many on the other side of the aisle that are more than happy to pick and choose which personal liberties we get to enjoy.

As Arkaign posted, it's also a power thing. I mean, how will police departments (and their unions) get new toys if they aren't making these easy MJ busts? Chasing down real criminals is hard work, and doesn't pay!

 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
I changed political parties cuz the republicans were such fucking nazis with medical marijuana.

FUCK YOU JANET NGUYEN. FUCK YOU.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
You can grow it for free and it makes you feel good? Hell, what could be more illegal?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
No, there are no good reasons.

Originally posted by: chess9
I never advocated making it illegal, however there are a lot of good reasons why it IS illegal. LOL! You potheads can kill yourself with MJ, cheeseburgers and potato chips all you want. Go for it. By the time this generation is 40 they will be keeling over from heart attacks given the current levels of obesity. Hmm...nothing like some prudent cleaning of the gene pool.

-Robert

Hey, the baby boomers smoked waaaaaay more pot than any generation to come after ;)
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Because you will get emphysema, heart disease, possibly diabetes, and cancer. By the age of 50 you will be sucking down 5 lpm of supplemental oxygen and will be facing probable death before the age of 70.

It's my body and I'll fuck it up if I want to.

Also this is highly exaggerated - compared to cigarette smoking you intake a tiny amount of smoke, which is unlikely to do more damage than driving down a high traffic road with the window down.

Should we also pay for you to eat 10 double Macs a day so you can weigh 400 pounds and look like a Sumo wrestler?

Also pay? You're not suggesting that you are somehow paying for my drugs are you?

Just say no to drugs.

No.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atheus
At some point within the last 100 years, someone decided that it is wrong to derive pleasure from taking substances into your system - before the 1st world war it was legally and socially acceptable to use morphine and cocaine and whatever else you might want.

I'm really not kidding in my earlier post. I guess I should have mentioned it was an offshoot from the temperence movement, but mostly these drugs can be directly linked to racist fears about a negative reference group. Opium to the crazed Chinaman (which I find funny because anyone who has ever tried Opium knows that 'crazed' is the last thing you're going to be), cocaine to the black man, and marujuana to the dirty dirty mexicans.

Interesting idea - is there any research to support this? I thought that, far from banning opium due to 'crazed' Chinese, they knew exactly what the opium was doing to them and so were very keen to feed them more of it. Hence the opium wars. And were there even that many Mexicans in the US 100 years ago? All that 60s 'reefer madness' propeganda was full of white and black people.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atheus
At some point within the last 100 years, someone decided that it is wrong to derive pleasure from taking substances into your system - before the 1st world war it was legally and socially acceptable to use morphine and cocaine and whatever else you might want.

I'm really not kidding in my earlier post. I guess I should have mentioned it was an offshoot from the temperence movement, but mostly these drugs can be directly linked to racist fears about a negative reference group. Opium to the crazed Chinaman (which I find funny because anyone who has ever tried Opium knows that 'crazed' is the last thing you're going to be), cocaine to the black man, and marujuana to the dirty dirty mexicans.

Fear of Mexicans was only part of it, the main force behind it was big corps lobbying against it because hemp is superior to cotton it every single way possible.
Dow, Corning,... they all played a major part in making it illegal

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
There are plenty of other consumable items that will produce the same symptoms. Should we outlaw them as well? You want to live in a free society there are consequences. Those happen to be not everybody will live a healthy lifestyle.
The "right wingers" ganging up on Chess9 on this issue is lulz.;)

Chess9 is a perfect example of what's wrong with the modern democrat party. Whether it is foi gras, trans fats, or MJ, THEY know what personal liberties and freedoms we need and don't need.
[/quote]
I think you're confusing three different issues.

I'm a lefty and I try to apply a consistent set of standards to liberty issues such as this one. My standards are:

Is the liberty sought dangerous to others or does it impose significant costs on others? In this category I'd place PCP. Also, allowing people to operate motor vehicles without adequate insurance would be such a liberty. Or not buckling your kid's seat belt.

In this category I'd also place food preparation using trans fats. My opinion is that if people want to use trans fats - clearly marked, and with health warnings - in their own food preparation, let them. If people want to purchase food items containing introduced trans fats, and the presence of trans fats are boldly displayed with health warnings on the label, let them. But if the presence of introduced trans fats in a food item is NOT made clear along with health warnings, I think that falls under the category of playing Russian roulette with other people's health, and I have no problem with the government reasonably limiting the use of trans fats in food.

I'd also place abortion at some point during the gestational period in this category.

Does the liberty sought entail cruelty to animals? Dog- and cock-fighting would fall into this category. Gavage-based foie gras would, too. But if gavage isn't used to produce the foie gras, let people eat all the foie gras they want.

Does the liberty sought entail a cost to society much higher than the benefit? I can't think of any specific examples, but a drug that had a high likelihood of making the user a vegetable would qualify.

Does the the liberty NOT involve informed consent?Assuming the other categories don't apply, there are activities people may want to engage in where the risk of personal loss is significant and/or the risk is low but the size of the potential personal loss is large. In such cases, my opinion is that it's reasonable for government to require that people be sufficiently educated on the risks, potential losses, and possible safety procedures before they're allowed to engage in the activity. I'd include in this category certain voluntary medical procedures. Or the use of certain recreational drugs.




 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.

and this is why I love Cali

(and you need a medical rec to do this)
 

DarrelSPowers

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
781
1
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.

Yeah true, it is a blanket statement but I feel that there's some merit to it. Unfortunately, CA's liberal drug policy isn't a national one, and the influences of one state's local policies are often felt far differently on the opposite of the country. I've heard stories of traffickers moving California's "medical product" across the country for their own profit, and they can't all be bullshit.

Not to knock the enterprising nature of America's potheads, this is something I don't really approve of and I'd like to see changes on a national level, though CA is a step in the right direction.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Atheus

Interesting idea - is there any research to support this? I thought that, far from banning opium due to 'crazed' Chinese, they knew exactly what the opium was doing to them and so were very keen to feed them more of it. Hence the opium wars. And were there even that many Mexicans in the US 100 years ago? All that 60s 'reefer madness' propeganda was full of white and black people.

They were very willing to sell it to the Chinese in China, but they didn't want them using it here. Also, the opium wars took place about half a century before opium prohibition took hold.

I guess I should have generally been more clear as there are two sides to the fearmongering. One was that a member of these negative reference groups would steal/rape/murder/whatever while they were high on it, or that by taking the drugs decent white folk would turn out just as bad. With opium for example the original laws only prohibited smoking it, as the Chinese did, instead of taking it other ways as the white people did. Hell, the case with crack is pretty similar as well. While Mexicans weren't as prevalent as they are now, there were still plenty of them in the US, and xenophobia was a powerful tool for making marijuna illegal as well. (also industry concerns).

There are some good books on the subject, I'll have to see if I can remember what their names are. For the most part as far as I understand however, it is fairly widely accepted that racism played a significant role in outlawing these drugs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.

Yeah true, it is a blanket statement but I feel that there's some merit to it. Unfortunately, CA's liberal drug policy isn't a national one, and the influences of one state's local policies are often felt far differently on the opposite of the country. I've heard stories of traffickers moving California's "medical product" across the country for their own profit, and they can't all be bullshit.

Not to knock the enterprising nature of America's potheads, this is something I don't really approve of and I'd like to see changes on a national level, though CA is a step in the right direction.

Marijuana is still only quasi-legal here in CA. The medical marijuana distributor near my house in Ocean Beach was recently raided by the federal government despite being in full compliance with state law, they had a license and everything. The feds sent the owners packing off to prison because federal drug laws trump state ones.
 

DarrelSPowers

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
781
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.

Yeah true, it is a blanket statement but I feel that there's some merit to it. Unfortunately, CA's liberal drug policy isn't a national one, and the influences of one state's local policies are often felt far differently on the opposite of the country. I've heard stories of traffickers moving California's "medical product" across the country for their own profit, and they can't all be bullshit.

Not to knock the enterprising nature of America's potheads, this is something I don't really approve of and I'd like to see changes on a national level, though CA is a step in the right direction.

Marijuana is still only quasi-legal here in CA. The medical marijuana distributor near my house in Ocean Beach was recently raided by the federal government despite being in full compliance with state law, they had a license and everything. The feds sent the owners packing off to prison because federal drug laws trump state ones.

Exactly, people like those owners I think are a lot more courageous than me. I honestly believe I should have certain rights, but I don't have the balls to put my job and livelihood on the line. I guess all I've got the balls for is running my fingers on the subject in an internet P&N forum. Damn I'm a shame.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
Top 5 reasons:

1. The Tobacco lobby would never allow the competition for those needing an oral fix.
2. The cotton lobby would never allow the competition. Hemp is a far more durable fiber than cotton, and is easier to grow.
3. The paper lobby would never allow the competition. Better paper can be made from pot than from trees, more economically, and it takes less land to grow the amount needed for the same amount of paper.
4. The pharmaceutical industry would never allow it. They make too much money selling inferior drugs. Studies have shown THC is 3x more effective in treating ADD than Ritalin. It also has antibiotic properties, and is effective even against MRSA. But big pharma would rather you waste time & money on less effective, more expensive drugs.
5. The police state govt needs to keep people in a state of fear.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: glugglug
Studies have shown THC is 3x more effective in treating ADD than Ritalin. It also has antibiotic properties, and is effective even against MRSA.

link?
 

DarrelSPowers

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
781
1
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: glugglug
Studies have shown THC is 3x more effective in treating ADD than Ritalin. It also has antibiotic properties, and is effective even against MRSA.

link?

I'm inclined to believe the ritalin statistic, simply due to the number of my friends growing up who "got ADD" and ditched the ritalin to become huge stoners.

I'd like to see some "studies" too though.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: glugglug
Top 5 reasons:

1. The Tobacco lobby would never allow the competition for those needing an oral fix.
2. The cotton lobby would never allow the competition. Hemp is a far more durable fiber than cotton, and is easier to grow.
3. The paper lobby would never allow the competition. Better paper can be made from pot than from trees, more economically, and it takes less land to grow the amount needed for the same amount of paper.
4. The pharmaceutical industry would never allow it. They make too much money selling inferior drugs. Studies have shown THC is 3x more effective in treating ADD than Ritalin. It also has antibiotic properties, and is effective even against MRSA. But big pharma would rather you waste time & money on less effective, more expensive drugs.
5. The police state govt needs to keep people in a state of fear.

1-3 are 100% true as well as 5 IDK about 4

its kinda sad actually hemp is such an amazing plant (for reasons other then getting high) it can be used for so many things, yet we cant grow it here :(
 

buck

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
12,273
4
81
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: glugglug
Studies have shown THC is 3x more effective in treating ADD than Ritalin. It also has antibiotic properties, and is effective even against MRSA.

link?

I would love to see a link as well, especially to the later claim.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: piasabird
In some places like Korea they sell a kind of THC tablet. GI's use to abuse it all the time.

When you buy weed you do not know if it has fertilizer in it or some kind of harmful pesticide or if it is a hybrid product with intensified harmful effects. In fact there has not been sufficient study of what the effects of the natural product are. There is a lot of misinformation by the government about Marijuana. It is not like there are that many good public studies with large populations. If it was legal, perhaps with improved development a more mellow product can be developed with fewer side effects.

I would hope that legalized cannabis would be required to meet government purity standards and that the government would also require producers to provide potency information (percentage of THC) on the package.

Govt purity standards? What, like all of the food imported from China that is never tested.
Stuff from Mexico?
Have you read about all of the e coli contamination of our produce?
Our federal safety agencies are pathetic, and have gotten worse under Republican leadership.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.

and this is why I love Cali

(and you need a medical rec to do this)

Medicinal marijuana is legal in California thanks largely to the efforts of one man, my personal political hero, Peter McWilliams. Sadly, he was a martyr to his cause.

Anyone interested in knowing what REAL libertarian philosophy looks like should read his book, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do. Available in print from Amazon or for free online.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
America - land of the "not so free."

Again, even if you personally think MJ should be legal here, there arent many places where it is legal. So making blanket statements about our country due to a policy that most of the world is in agreement with is very small-minded.

Here in CA, not only can you walk into a store and buy medical grade herb, but you can posses up to 28.5 grams with the only fear being a ticket and some drug classes. I think that is about as liberal as you are going to see drug policy for a long time.

and this is why I love Cali

(and you need a medical rec to do this)

Medicinal marijuana is legal in California thanks largely to the efforts of one man, my personal political hero, Peter McWilliams. Sadly, he was a martyr to his cause.

Anyone interested in knowing what REAL libertarian philosophy looks like should read his book, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do. Available in print from Amazon or for free online.

Vic, Peter McWilliams sounds like he was a brilliant guy, but the real godfather of medical marijuana in California is Dennis Peron. Link