Posted on 03/18/2013 7:39:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
The gateway claim is nonsense - research shows that the correlation between earlier marijuana use and later use of other drugs can be explained by a "common-factor" model, that is, a third factor that causes both results, such as individuals' opportunities and unique propensities to use drugs, or more broadly a social or psychological predisposition towards anti-social behavior. (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010/index1.html, http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors253.pdf)
Also note that the same sort of correlation between earlier marijuana and later harder drugs also exists between earlier alcohol and tobacco and later illegal drugs - so if marijuana is a "gateway" so are alcohol and tobacco.
And without legalizing cocaine and heroin, there will still be illicit drug trade.
But quite a lot less - which would be a good thing.
Even with legal alcohol sales, there are still home distillers who face tax revenuers.
How many? Are they anywhere near the problem that the illegal marijuana trade is?
Neither are alcohol or tobacco. Should we ban them?
Cocaine use is pretty high (if you’ll pardon the expression) among the bar scene. And plenty seem to know girls who will put out for nose candy.
Legalize it. End all of the underground traffic if that’s the excuse.
Amen!
And if it turns out to be a total disaster, as drug use was in China in the 19th century, how do you plan to indemnify us for taking your bad advice?
Or do you plan on saying "we" a lot?
Dunno ‘bout that, but I have been forced to the conclusion that the “War on some Drugs” is a bigger threat to life, liberty, and property than the drugs and druggies.
That was opium. Contrary to what John Walters told you, there is a difference.
Marijuana was legal for most of this nation's history and there was no "disaster."
My hat's off to you for your willingness to learn from experience - something too many "conservatives" are dead set against doing.
Gay marriage and pot legalization. Brought to by the mindless libertarians. Bunch of cave ins. If pot was legal in 1776 we never would have driven out the British.
It is legal in several states.
Some people just hate alcohol and prefer hemp. Unlike alcohol, hemp can be consumed in many different ways and grown by anyone.
Unlike alcohol, hemp is 100% nontoxic when consumed without smoke. There has never been any damage or death recorded from hemp. Even under impossible experimental conditions using purified compounds not found in nature. Basically, you couldn't hurt yourself with hemp if you tried.
With alcohol it is very possible to die from poisoning or withdrawal. Alcohol abuse causes 100% PROVEN IRREVERSIBLE brain and liver damage! Alcohol abuse is far more damaging than hemp abuse, yet it remains legal.
A big part of hemp prohibition is that the ease of production threatens the alcohol market (and taxes). If it was legal, some people would simply grow a plant in their yard and stop buying alcohol.
Every person is different and should have the freedom to choose.
Due to the legal issues, people in most places will never admit it unless it is in private with very close friends. They also hide it from their children because a child mentioning it in school will invite unwanted attention from the gestapo.
People that have several kids are very busy will partake much less than people that don’t. Just like responsible people with kids drink much less because they simply don’t have time.
In places where illegal, I know 4 couples that meet your criteria and partake occasionally (1-2 times a month). About 20% of those that are close friends and meet your criteria. They are all financially very well off so they have more opportunity to relax than most people with 3-4 kids.
In places where legal, many more admit to it. I’d estimate about 30% of upper-middle class (and above) couples with children I met admit to occasional use. I don’t have too many close friends where it’s legal, so the actual number is probably higher.
For equally financially successful married people with no kids, the percentages go up to about 30-40%. For unmarried financially successful men, it is easily 65%+ that smoke occasionally. For unmarried women, maybe 30%. The women tend to be the reason the men quit. Women just don’t seem to like it as much.
Non-toxic? I guess if you skip the IQ and schizophrenic and so on effects. Saying the blatant non-lethal effects are meaningless when they are so severe and so universal to the users. Not to mention severe psychological addiction.
I doubt anyone’s died from a few drinks on its own. I’ve seen people messed up from both, but weed tends to turn people into mushy leftwing losers. That’s why online forums are so full of those types that just post about it 24/7.
Hopefully this trend will be reversed in short order. There’s a major liberal swing going on including the whole gay thing as well. At least with drugs there’s legit damage done and people usually get sick of it after awhile and will limit it again.
And the main reason is that people like the effect pot more than a glass of wine in general. The rest of your shit about people thinking a few drinks will kill them is just as stupid as it gets, sorry.
“The women tend to be the reason the men quit. Women just don’t seem to like it as much. “ Men that use certainly do seem to become bigger pussies. So I guess if they get the real thing around they don’t need it as much? That’s a good theory for sure.
It's not your choice, to choose for others.
Cannabis was the "Oil" in the engine of trade and commerce since before recorded time.
Dennis Prager is one of the foremost minds whose honesty, clarity, scholarship, and thoughtfulness is beyond the pale. In no way can be Dennis be described or have his ideas and views attributed to those of an idiot. One may disagree with him on some issue, but to use “idiocies” is juvenile, and telling more of the name caller than the target. It should be noted that the author of the rebuttal did not sink to such a low level, and still honors him with the title of Mister, and friendship.
Dennis was instrumental in my conversion from Liberal to Conservative.
My generation of pot smokers passed around multi-generation VHS copies of it.
It was re-released in the 70s:
In 1971, Reefer Madness was discovered in the Library of Congress archives by NORML founder Keith Stroup, who bought a print for $297, and made it the darling of pot smokers and college campuses. For this modern audience, the poor production values and overacting create an uproarious comedy. Distributing Reefer Madness to college campuses of the 1970s helped bankroll the burgeoning film company New Line Cinema.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_madness#Release_history
I saw it in college during the early 1970s.
fo sho bro!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.