What would happen

[Bugz]

That isn't my point.

Cars have been legalized for a long time. As have alcohol, cigarettes etc.

You make them illegal and suddenly, everything goes wrong ( prohibition anyone? )

HOWEVER, if you have a harmful substance, which is currently illegal and society has ways to deal without that substance (and to deal with those who have illegally), then you should keep that substance illegal.

I am completely against the justification of weed with arguments such as 'but alcohol is legal!'

 

[kirennia]

You do not legalise something that has the potential to harm others TBH.

That's a very totalitarian view. As ez said, cars do harm people regularly, as does alcohol, smoking, cuttlery, electricity, gas, fire... the list could go on. It's all about weighing up the pros and cons and tbh I can't see the harm in it at all.

It allows people who want to smoke it, do so more safely then before, not having to go through dealers which push harder drugs on them and with people who don't want to smoke it, well if it's restricted to cafe/home use then they wont ever have to be bothered by it. It'd also stop so many people from drinking heavily and seriously, I have yet to see a stoned person get violent. Okay so they can be more of a harm to themselves but hey, if they're stupid enough to hurt themselves, clense the genepool and all that.

As for stoned people driving, just enforce the same restrictions as drink driving. At least all their crashes would only be at 5mph anyway...

 

[Laddey]

Chronictank, good point mater.

Bugz you just talk shit man, nah im only kidding. Some good points i never thought of have cropped up.

That's a very totalitarian view. As ez said, cars do harm people regularly, as does alcohol, smoking, cuttlery, electricity, gas, fire... the list could go on. It's all about weighing up the pros and cons and tbh I can't see the harm in it at all.

It allows people who want to smoke it, do so more safely then before, not having to go through dealers which push harder drugs on them and with people who don't want to smoke it, well if it's restricted to cafe/home use then they wont ever have to be bothered by it. It'd also stop so many people from drinking heavily and seriously, I have yet to see a stoned person get violent. Okay so they can be more of a harm to themselves but hey, if they're stupid enough to hurt themselves, clense the genepool and all that.

As for stoned people driving, just enforce the same restrictions as drink driving. At least all their crashes would only be at 5mph anyway...

You said what i thought

 

[tris-]

i think youll find people drive stoned now. it wouldnt make more people drive stoned just because weed was legal. imo.

we already know the devastating effects of alcohol and tobacoo but that has been kept legal and instead the government pretend they are trying to discourage people smoking and drinking.

 

[Bugz]

That's a very totalitarian view.

I probably didn't explain it as well as before.

We have a lot of legal things which harm people.

Why do we want to add another to the list?

Perhaps if we could measure the pro's and con's - but that would be NIGH impossible.

So keep it illegal IMO.

 

[Aoami]

I probably didn't explain it as well as before.

We have a lot of legal things which harm people.

Why do we want to add another to the list?

Perhaps if we could measure the pro's and con's - but that would be NIGH impossible.

So keep it illegal IMO.

If Weed was made was made legal it wouldn't be a harmful substance (not majorly anyway). All this stuff in the press about spliff getting stronger isn't just the usual media shit, it's true. If it was legal, it would be regulated and any over counter the stuff would be weak, which is harmless. If people still wanted stronger weed they'd have to keep going to their dealer.

 

[Huntingtons]

tris- of course people would, pretty sure that in the 30'ies in US with the ban of alcohol alot of people didnt drive drunk compared to when it was legal. IMO! (anyway, i didnt say they dont drive stoned now, but alot more would)
as mentioned alot of times, weed can lead to harder drugs whereas alcohol can only lead to more alcohol, alcohol creates less crime than harder drugs (partly because its legal, partly because its easy to get a hold of and is cheap).
however, the money used on buying weed could be used to fight drug travelling etc. so that would be a good thing. PROS and CONS, curse thee!

 

[tris-]

what sdo you mean "weed can lead to harder drugs"?

says who? and what kind of people is that in relation to exactly?

some people MAY take weed and then at some point later take cocaine, who can say its linked?
there is nothing to say weed is a gateway. you wouldnt believe the amount of people who have actually smoked pot at some point. you might be hard pressed finding someone who hasnt, which may give the impression it leads to doing other things.

 

[Aoami]

tris- of course people would, pretty sure that in the 30'ies in US with the ban of alcohol alot of people didnt drive drunk compared to when it was legal. IMO! (anyway, i didnt say they dont drive stoned now, but alot more would)
as mentioned alot of times, weed can lead to harder drugs whereas alcohol can only lead to more alcohol, alcohol creates less crime than harder drugs (partly because its legal, partly because its easy to get a hold of and is cheap).
however, the money used on buying weed could be used to fight drug travelling etc. so that would be a good thing. PROS and CONS, curse thee!

Only time i've taken coke and mdma i was pissed as fuck, so dont say alcohol doesn't lead to harder drugs cos i wouldnt do them when sober

 

[Huntingtons]

some people i know personally started doing weed and then started on harder drugs. im not saying it definitly does, but it sure can.
says me and experts (aka. experts! løl)
did you feel aimed since you ask what kinda people..? im not saying anybody in particulary but i dont know what you mean else than you felt threatened or whatever so help me out!

/edit

true aomi, know people who did that as well, but in my experience its alot less since alcohol is out on such a broad scale. that might happen for weed as well if legalized

 

[tris-]

nope. i do not feel threatened. i just dont understand how you can say at all that weed can/will/would lead to harder drugs.

weed is not like any other drug afaik, its got its own unique feelings. so how can you go from that to coke and say "weed made me want to do coke". one makes you chilled the other makes you tripping balls for 24 hours straight.

the only reason i would not do harder drugs is because of the chance of becoming addicted.

 

[Huntingtons]

theres different ways of "leading to harder drugs". one can be the lust for rushes. group pressure is another. carelessness a 3rd, being stoned not giving a damn a 4th. its about the personality as well, not only the drug

(oh yeah, aomi, do you smoke weed as well?, i dont know many who have tried hard drugs by alcohol without also smoking weed (not in the instance of taking coke or whatever but on occasions)

 

[old.Tohtori]

i think youll find people drive stoned now. it wouldnt make more people drive stoned just because weed was legal. imo.

People drive drunk too, with great precicion aswell. Doesn't make it a good idea.

I probably didn't explain it as well as before.

Hey, don't explain, don't you know that explaining is frowned upon in these parts

 

[Aoami]

(oh yeah, aomi, do you smoke weed as well?, i dont know many who have tried hard drugs by alcohol without also smoking weed (not in the instance of taking coke or whatever but on occasions)

Not often

 

[Aoami]

People drive drunk too, with great precicion aswell. Doesn't make it a good idea.

That has no relevance to what Tris wrote!

 

[old.Tohtori]

That has no relevance to what Tris wrote!

I thought tris- was arguing that legalisation, as it would bring more people behind the wheel stoned, wouldn't change a thing as people already drive stoned.

More people behind the wheel stoned=bad thing, i believe.

 

[Aoami]

He said it wouldn't make more people drive stoned. Not coded or anything, just there in plain English

 

[old.Tohtori]

He said it wouldn't make more people drive stoned. Not coded or anything, just there in plain English

But it was in reference to stoned driving, and as it would be legal, MORE people would be on the roads stoned as more people would use it.

Doesn't mean i'm saying "legal weed would 'cause people to drive more", just that legal weed would make more drive by % logic.

 

[Marc]

nope. i do not feel threatened. i just dont understand how you can say at all that weed can/will/would lead to harder drugs.

weed is not like any other drug afaik, its got its own unique feelings. so how can you go from that to coke and say "weed made me want to do coke". one makes you chilled the other makes you tripping balls for 24 hours straight.

the only reason i would not do harder drugs is because of the chance of becoming addicted.

A lad I went to school with is now a smack head. At school he used to drink cider with us at weekends. Its so obvious that alcohol leads to hard drugs

 

[Lamp]

They'd have to legalise cocaine otherwise it wouldn't be fair

 

[Lamp]

tbh as seen with the 24hr drinking we brits cant moderate ourselves in anything (obece britain anyone?). I love amsterdam and the vibe over there is ttally non threatening and great but in the UK we seem to have an air of impending violence about everything that shows the folks roaming the streets are not really capable of behaving responsibly...when they see as being boring they'd rather go beat a car to death, rape its owner and puke down the front of a kebab shop.

i do think legalizing drugs is a good idea, i think legalizing them in this country wouldn't work.

So true.

 

[Raven]

I like it the way it is really, if I want it I can get it, not that I smoke it very often anymore.

If it was legal it would be taxed to fuck anyway.

Like anything, in small amounts it is fine, there is no danger from the odd joint now and again.

 

[Ezteq]

i used to think weed would lead (yay a rhyme!) to harder drugs but then i thought of drinking and how when i went to a pub i'd have beer or wine, now that could lead to harder stuff (i.e. spirits) but in my case it never did as A) cant bear the taste of em and B) cant afford them and C) dont like the effects of them.

so i'd say its pretty similar, if i was going to drink hard liquor i'd do it whether or not i started on beer/wine. In my younger days (and i mean like 16 lol) i'd drink whiskey/southern comfort/vodka i hated them and they'd always make me sick but i wanted to be dead 'ard didn't i lol, little realising that passing out in a pub toilet covered in sick is not considered "cool" anyhoo i grew up...ha sorry no i didn't lol, i grew out of it.

however being in a pub gives you the option to drink harder stuff without any foward planning, whereas if you drink a beer at home your not suddenly going to go rar im going on to whiskey! then get dressed, go to the shop and buy some...cba! doing weed does give you the opportunity to get hold of harder drugs but the will has to be there in the first place to try them.


i think this might just about make sense if you squint a bit while reading it and tilt your head north west.

 

[Zedenz]

This country can barely deal with its alcohol problem without adding another legal psychoactive.

Personally I know for a fact that if it was legal and thus easier to get hold of, I would of gotten no where near as much done in my youth. Droughts were always very productive periods.

 

[Chronictank]

This country can barely deal with its alcohol problem without adding another legal psychoactive.

Personally I know for a fact that if it was legal and thus easier to get hold of, I would of gotten no where near as much done in my youth. Droughts were always very productive periods.

if by youth you mean teens, i would think it would be under the same rules as cigarettes so you shouldn't be smoking it before your 18 anyway

If you are then it is either the fault of the person giving you it, or you have crappy parent(s)/guardian(s)

 

[Zedenz]

if by youth you mean teens, i would think it would be under the same rules as cigarettes so you shouldn't be smoking it before your 18 anyway

If you are then it is either the fault of the person giving you it, or you have crappy parent(s)/guardian(s)

No I meant like between the ages of 18-21 primarily, as in college days and what not. At least thats how it was for me anyway.

Not everybody on this forum is still a spring chicken you know!

tbh even now, I'd probably suffer badly if it was legalised, except now I have a lot more to lose naturally. It's easy to fall back into old habits if you're given the opportunity.

 

[Ezteq]

tbh this is what would happen!!!

YouTube - Reefer Madness
[youtubevid]bM_vLk1I6G4[/youtubevid]



yeah yeah i dig it up wherever possible but its too damn irrisistibubble tbh.

 

[Raven]

Bit like those stupid TV adverts of today.

 

[Iceforge]

But it was in reference to stoned driving, and as it would be legal, MORE people would be on the roads stoned as more people would use it.

Doesn't mean i'm saying "legal weed would 'cause people to drive more", just that legal weed would make more drive by % logic.

Depends really.... From what you are saying, it sounds like people would drive stoned because it was legal, but ofc driving while stoned shouldn't be any more legal than driving under influence of other mind altering substances, like the most known: Alchohol.

Driving after smoking weed is dangerous and stupid, and it is just as easy to test as alchohol, just a little patch applied to the neck for 30 seconds iirc and voila, you know if the person is currently high or not.

And I don't think legalizing it would make a much higher % smoke than now.

Because, lets face it; Most who do not smoke weed are doing so due to other reasons that legaslation. I don't think there is a large group of people anywhere that REALLY want to smoke weed, but never do it, due to it being illegal.
Some of those who smoke it now might smoke it more frequently if it was legalized and it would be a lot safer for those who did smoke it, due to purity being secured.

I am very pro legalization. The only reason that weed is illegal is due to habit. Alchohol and normal cigerattes are both far more dangerous (you can't even compare them when it comes to actual damage to your body) and addictive than weed ever has been (legalization can also assure that no other addictive creating and damaging substances are added to the mixture)

It's just like Psilocybe, which is also a non-dangerous, non-addictive and impossible to over-dose substance which is illegalized due to habit rather than common sense.

 

[Lamp]

I've got another question. What would happen if you ate your own head ?