legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

Comparing apples to oranges is not very inspiring of confidence in your sincerity. Studies have shown that marijuana is not as toxic as other drugs which may be fatal if consumed to overdose, cause physical addiction instead of merely "psychological" addictions, nor does marijuana lead to death if someone tries to abstain from it as in the case of other drugs.

 

Again, this is a non-issue if a vaporizer is used. This is a device that also works with tobacco. It filters the smoke down to the active ingredients.

In the case of pot, it's like inhaling THC without the tar and such.

 

Yes legalize them all. At the very least, truthful information will be available. Right now, there is vast ignorance as to the properties of certain drugs as can be witnessed by those who think drugs like Marijuana cause crime. Drug users generally want to be left alone to enjoy their high. Because drugs are illegal their cost is exorbitant. Yes drugs are habit-forming (like alcohol and cigarettes) but their high cost causes addicts to seek $$$ by stealing. If they were legal (drugs) they would be affordable and readily available and could be controlled just like alcohol. There would be no need for drug cartels or addicts committing crimes.

 

Yes...'vaping' is a great alternative for both tobacco and marijuana.

 

Is it immoral to enjoy a euphoric mind altering effect? At what point does it become immoral to have certain feeling, or at what point does it become immoral to create a certain feeling other through the use of substances?

 

Why isn't near beer as popular as hard beers?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Punishing people for the wrongs committed by others because of the commonality of the substance they choose to ingest is wrong.

 

Which specific drugs will cause that to happen?

Also, a marijuana overdose is possible. Here's why. Hashish has extremley high THC levels, which means that somebody can overdose on that stuff.

Also, just please check out this article that's posted over here.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/03/medical_marijuana_overdose_dabbing.php

That may not be true.

With high-dosage edibles, it's easy to become "uncomfortably high," and with a recent trend called "dabbing," it's also easy to become so high that the user passes out. And passing out leads to the only recorded method of marijuana-related death.
"Dabbing" is a simple concept: a small amount of super-high concentrate -- hash oil, wax, or another compound where so much of the marijuana plant's plant material is removed that what's left is between 50-to-80 percent active ingredients, a sort of grain alcohol to a bud's wine -- is put on a heated surface. A puff of smoke is emitted, and then the user inhales the entire puff of super-concentrated smoke.

The effects are immediate -- and they're intense. Folks who have used cannabis daily for 30 years report, "I am high again!" Other people not so used to the magic plant usually need to sit down for a minute or two before they can talk again. In other words, "dabbing" is a way to ingest a lot of medicine very quickly -- and a way to get really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

It also may be dangerous, as California NORML's Dale Gieringer writes in a recent letter to O'Shaughnessy's, the marijuana medical journal published by veteran journalist Fred Gardner.

"In the past couple of years, there have been repeated occasions in which 911 teams have had to be called in due to cannabis overdoses," Gieringer writes, going on to describe people passing out from high-concentrates at High Times Cannabis Cups in LA. The most authenticated record of someone dying from marijuana use, by the way? A man who became so incredibly high on hashish he passed out -- and then died after hitting his head on a hard floor.

"Things like this never happened until the popularization of hash oil in recent years," he adds. "The dangers are dire enough to merit a special warning."

 

Yes, but most people that are marijuana users do not drink marijuana tea or eat marijuana that's put within some foods, or use some vaporizers for their marijuana. Most people that use marijuana, just simply smoke marijuana. Therefore, legalising marijuana is not some good "harm reduction" strategy, because while this drug paraphernalia (such as those vaporizers) will most certainly become legal when marijuana becomes legalised, some people, most people actually, will not use those sorts of things. So, it wouldn't really do that much in regards to the harm reductions, since only a very small percentage of marijuana users actually use those safer methods, such as those vaporizers. Therefore, a lots of health care costs will rise.

 

Only those drugs that, from that perspective and alternative, should be schedule I:

 

It depends on a lot of things. Vaporizers right now aren't especially expensive, but they cost enough to represent a small subsection of the pot market.

If pot was legalized, more companies would produce vaporizers, and the price of them would fall. This would lead to more people buying and using them.

Overall, I'm not disputing the fact that a higher consumption of pot would lead to a higher amount of health ailments, but if Portugal is any indication, when all drugs were decriminalized, their drug use for every drug did not rise significantly. Overall, drug use stayed about the same as before, while drug-related crimes fell dramatically.

The street value of drugs also fell a lot.

 

The same could be said of alcohol; not everyone drinks in moderation or simply because they like the taste.

 

Other than alcohol and benzos, which specific drugs will have some fatal withdrawal symptoms? Does crystal meth and heroin have those sorts of fatal withdrawals symptoms?

Also, why doesn't marijuana cause some, if any, physical withdrawals symptoms, while almost all other drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, heroin, crystal meth, benzos, cocaine, crack, prescription drugs, and even caffeine, are actually physically addictive? What properties does THC not have, that some (well, most actually) other drugs do have, that results in some sorts of physical addictions happening?

 

What do you mean, other than alcohol or benzos? A drug is a drug and should be treated as a drug based on its known effects, not some probable effects.

 

Frankly, whether marijuana causes cancer is beside the point and none of your business. What do you think gives you the authority to tell other people what they may do with their bodies?

 

Why doesn't smoking marijuana cause some physical addictions symptoms, but some other drugs do cause those sorts of things to happen? Which specific properties does weed not have, that some other drugs do have, which causes those physical addictions symptoms to actually happen?

 

Some Europeans that drink some alcohol with their meals, are just drinking their alcoholic beverages for some purely aesthetic purposes, but not because of alcohol's specific mind altering effects.

Do most people that drink alcohol in America drink to get drunk, or will most Americans that drink some alcohol, do so in some moderate quantities? I'm simply just trying to compare weed and alcohol with some good statistics.

Now, do most people that smoke marijuana smoke it to the point of intoxication, or not?

 

Are you claiming that even drinking in moderation produces no "buzz"?

 

Here's the huge difference between alcohol and marijuana.

Well, my friend keeps arguing that alcohol isn't really some drug, because "people don't always get drunk when they drink alcohol, but they always get high when they smoke marijuana". He also argues that while it's possible to drink alcohol without becoming drunk, it's impossible to smoke marijuana without becoming high.

That's totally true. Alcohol is way safer than marijuana is because only a very small percentage of drinkers drink to get drunk, wheras most, if not almost all, marijuana smokers, smoke marijuana to become stoned. Therefore, a drinker who drinks in moderation and controls their intake is not intoxicated and they're not a danger to society, wheras a stoned person is a clear and present danger to society, because they can commit some crimes or start some car accidents while they are stoned, and their judgement is impaired, unlike somebody that simply drinks in moderation and has some glass of wine or beer.

 

I think getting drunk and getting high are not necessarily the same. Simply getting a buzz with alcohol may be more appropriate as an analogy.

 

Well, what exactly do you mean by this statement?

Also, marijuana is actually more easier to become addicted to, than alcohol is, because it has a way stronger euphoria than alcohol has. 1 out of 6 marijuana smokers will become dependent and regular users of this substance, whereas only somewhere around 15% of people that drink alcohol will become some alcoholics.

 

I thought I qualified it with the second sentence. You are confusing getting high with physical addiction. Alcohol can be deadly if consumed to overdose, is physically addictive, and can be deadly if an addicted person tries to abstain from consuming it. It should be a fixed Standard for Schedule I drugs, in that alternative.

 

By suggesting that alcohol should be some Schedule 1 drug, are you stating that you strongly believe that alcohol should be illegalised, and that we should bring back the prohibition of alcohol?

 

Dependency is not addiction. It is important to know the difference, though why one should be thrown in a cage for ingesting a substance to which he is unlikely to become dependent nor would be all that harmed by said dependence, I have yet to see you explain.


Also, 1 in 6 is a little less than 17%. That's not a huge difference.

 

I am only stating that a more consistent and rational Standard would include that criteria for drugs in Schedule I, in that alternative. My rational position is that our federal Congress is no longer delegated any social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States, since the repeal of that only Delegated, social Power.