Pot should be nationally legaized (with one caveat)

Legalize all drugs and provide them free of charge to anyone who wants them.

Let them destroy themselves.

 

I would support the idea of the federal government repealing the laws that criminalize pot under federal law, while allowing the states to decide for themselves. They could do as they see fit.

 

I guess I want mandatory sentencing laws and tort reform...For those that abuse substances. I want tort reform because lawyers that go after corporations looking for an out of court settlement for a case they cannot win but can draw out for years. I've worked in the military, oil and gas, and defense industries all my life...And these stupid lawsuits hurt the corporation which filters down to the workers on the floor. When you are stagnated in a job with no raises for a couple of years because of pending lawsuits...And many times you cannot find a better paying job, when you've invested ten to twelve years at a company, you cannot leave and start over with another company at the same level you were at. No one wants to take a step backwards.

 

Marijuana is not known to trigger long-term psychosis. There is a link between marijuana and psychosis, but:

1) it is no less reasonable to believe burgeoning psychosis might lead to pot use rather than the other way around.
2) any study of this nature is also likely to group alot of harder drug users into the group of marijuana users.

I've known a lot of pot smokers. I've smoked a lot of pot (full disclosure). I've seen it in other people and I've experienced it with myself where habitual marijuana use and anxiety/depression can form a bit of a feedback loop that makes a person's mental state progressively worse. That said, I believe that is only mildly psychologically addictive and not physically addictive, so problems that arise can be dealt with much easier than other drugs. I also believe, as hinted at above, that if marijuana were to major psychosis, it would only be in people who were already at severe risk and used heavily, and with these people prohibition and criminalization is more likely to hurt than help.

 

Yep, I took it that way.

Cheers,

(cough*cough)

 

CBD is actually more medicinal in cannabis, than the THC.

 

Your knowledge is appreciated. It's been 35 years since I indulged and grew the stuff. My point is, when you just isolate the active ingredients for medicinal purposes, and call it THC or CBD or whatever, then require a subscription, it tends to take the "recreation" out of it. We do not see the marketing of opiate candy and cookies do we?

 

The pro pot people are people that already have brain damage from pot. Why would anyone pay any attention to what they say.

 

Pro pot people are by in large those that actually have regular firsthand experience with its effects. To anybody that has regularly smoked pot and drank alcohol, it is blatantly obvious that alcohol is FAR more taxing on the mind and body. To somebody that only has experience with alcohol and knows about pot through its decades long demonization and maybe trying it once or twice, its easy to conclude that all people that smoke pot are therefore brain damaged. Unfortunately, that conclusion is rooted in abject ignorance.

 

Because not all of us who are pro pot/pro freedom are partakers. For that matter there are those of us who personally disagree with people doing drugs, while supporting their right to screw their lives up. This is of course before we look at the actual medicinal and non-consumption uses.

 

I'm not sure that creating the liability I propose creates a motive for any provider; it removes that motive via extensive liability.

 

Granted.

As one who personally prefers decriminalization, for any/all purely intoxication focused usage, the 2 can be legislated easily.

 

I don't think we have anything close to the body of research on pot that we do on booze, so the current crop of users are really guinea pigs being sent out to psychosis and addiction (among other possible harms) by the cheerleaders so they can have easier access to a high.

But I agree that the WOD is a disaster, and thus support decriminalization along with strong liability for selling pot which proves damaging/dangerous.

Win/win, right?

 

If marijuana's not dangerous, as you claim, then you have no issue with my liability proposal, right?

 

The only difference between now, & say 50, maybe 45 years ago, is the potency.

You have a point though.


It's only recently that the Anti-evil-WEED! "Research" has had any real honest Rebuttal publication in large enough doses as to be helpful.

 

Hysteria? Wha?

If you're saying pot's not dangerous, then why do you oppose my proposal?

Something fishy/skunky smelling here...

 

Why? Why isn't an informative warning label enough? Then let adults make their own decisions.

 

Yes.

Of course, adults can sign waivers, or (sadly) be coerced into so doing, but no one under 21 could with any legal meaning, and this would be a huge step toward safety.

However, marijuana use for (legitimate) medical reasons should be legal, as I've said.

We need safe marijuana, much, much, much more research, and an absolute ban on use for anyone under 21 without compelling reason.

 

Why place the onus upon the provider?

 

Why? Why not?

You're providing a potentially dangerous product, you as the provider take on liability. Easy peasy.

 

All this is great, and if the liability I propose - your wife can always sign a waiver since you're so sure about a lack of danger - can bring about greater access via various delivery systems, what's the problem?

Win/win!

 

What harm does marijuana cause? I have already done the research on this but am interested to see if our information is alike.

 

We're in the same page here.

More research, safer strains = good news.

 

Another thing I've witnessed, at least among the wake & bake crowd, is an inability to process strong emotions - like anger - without the drug.

I see enormous emotional retardation in long-term users, and have a friend currently slipping closer and closer to psychosis since he abandoned drinking in favor of heavy pot use.

Of course, this is all anecdotal; more research needed!

 

I don't think it will, but think it's unreasonable to make bottle shops pay for the hospitalisation of alcoholics.

My caveat is that any state can pass whatever prohibition on it they like.