Some people being addicted still doesn't make it physically addictive, and nowhere in that page you linked me is said it causes physical addiction (but psychological, addiction by habits)


Hemp/Marijuana is part of the culture of a lot of people as well. We've known that plant and used it for thousands of years, even before we knew how to make alcohol.
Plus that "alcohol was the safest way to have a drink" is less than likely considering alcohol dehydrate the body, it's not an "alternative to water", at all.


"Legalizing more drugs wouldn't make it worst, that would only relieves some juridical work and unload some overcrowded prisons and halls of justice. That's the good idea, repression is obviously not leading anywhere."
Legalizing would render "providers" useless, assuring a minimal quality, avoiding traffic issues etc... no need to punish providers if there are none. (and court, jails etc... costs money, since you seem to pay attention to taxes).
Plus, if you want drugs, you get drugs ; "raising availability" is out of the question, they're always available.




"Using marijuana doesn't negatively affect a group of people that didn't ask for anything because of their ethnical originsgender, it's not an infringement to human's right, it only concerns the users themselves. Plus the number of marijuana users is wayyyy under 50%, we're far from being a majority.
The point of the "democratic point" is to adapt the laws of a country to the evolving customs of its citizens, not overloading the prisons because a hundred year old law (based on lies and propaganda) says it's wrong to smoke this or that plant."

I've never said "the majority wants it, therefore it's good", I've said a lot of people use it, therefore we need to ask ourselves the question of lifting its interdiction. Don't make me say stuff I never said.

I expressed myself badly. Some people might be in the same "environmental situation", access to "harder drugs" without even smoking marijuana. People who go to party with friends and just use alcohol are as much "exposed" to other drugs than pot smokers. There's no real correlation.


I don't.


"Can someone overdose on marijuana?
If you mean can they overdose and die from marijuana--the answer is no, its not very likely. But they can experience extreme anxiety (panic attacks) or psychotic reactions (where they lose touch with reality and may become paranoid). And people can and do injure themselves because of marijuana's effects on judgment, perception, and coordination. For example, marijuana affect the skills you need to drive (e.g., concentration, reaction time) so people can injure themselves and others if they drive while under the influence. For more information on marijuana, see: http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchRep...a/default.html."


And petrol lobbies.
But they did use the "religious fervor" to forbid it, it was the "war horse" of the criminalization campaign and that's what they used to shape people's minds and opinions about hemp.
For the rest, not my fault if some beliefs are stupid. I've the right to express my opinion strongly if I think something deserves it.


Yep we are. Well some are more than others, we don't all have the same brain.
But I'm saying it's inherent to the human condition because as far as we can observe our history, human beings have always been using drugs, plants etc... may it be for rituals, spiritual quests, or fun.


Well don't drive, you have as much chance to drive on the same road than someone who's drunk. Making marijuana legal doesn't mean it would be legal to drive under its influence.
I don't see people being allowed to smoke pot wherever they want outside but somehow forbidden to smoke tobacco... ?
Please prove me that your neighbour smoking a joint in his house, or growing a plant in his backyard puts you in danger.
Irrelevant points.

About the financial aspect for society :

good :
+ the states/countries can taxe it just like cigaret to get money out of it
+ prosecuting people costs money, it would save the government some money to not prosecute people for drug usage.
+ it's less expensive to produce than chems
+ some jobs related to the matter (producing/selling/marketing)
+ "the war on drugs" costs A LOT of money
+ ... ?

bad :

- eventual health-care taxe raising for treating people who have diseases related to it.
(Even tho that's a straw argument :
.you can't dissociate "tobacco cancers" from "pot cancers"
.legal or not, people already smoke, if pot made taxes higher, it already has.
.pot doesn't necessarily causes cancer, you can eat it, brew it etc...)

- no more fines to pay to the government if caught.
-... ?

___________________________________



I don't think I got your point there.
It would help with prevention the same way it does with cigarets and alcohol : preventive warning on packs, preventive campaigns on tv and such.
Why would someone buy illegaly and risk some issues for something he coulc buy legally ? (if it was rendered legal) He couldn't know where it comes from, if it's good quality etc...
Do some people buy their boose on the black market just for fun ? I don't think so.



Look above.


THC is the substance that gives pot its psychotrop effects, appart from cancer related to smoke (and not necessarily pot, as already said you can eat it or brew it etc...), the only "long term effects" observable are about THC.


This is not a valid answer. (and this one neither)


Lol, you and your "citations pls". No need for google to use our brains.
If war on drugs stopped people from using, no one would presently be using. no ?


Citation proving people using drugs don't want to participate in society pls.


Yes.


That's not an argument, that's a fact. There would be no point legalizing something if no one uses/gives a fuck about it.
The questions of legalisation is asked because it concerns a large part of the population, that's the entire point. Society is supposed to be shaped by people, not the opposite.


I see what you did there, that's fonny. But irrelevant. (Even tho, that's true, rightfully killing people is a phylosophical matter : death sentence is legal is some country, but that's not the subject)

_________________________________________



Ahem, are you implying hemp/marijuana is a "new substance" ?
If so, that's totally wrong. Marijuana has been around us since the dawn of civilizations, it's only been forbidden for a hundred years. We probably knew how to consume hemp before we knew how to make alcohol.

No one said it's innocuous tho.