It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SOCIAL: Conservatives say: Legalize pot?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by f16falcon
Pot is still harmful to the body, and can lead to use of more hardcore drugs.
Link


I have to firmly disagree with the gateway drug argument. And I do this from a position of experience.

I, like most people, started smoking pot in high school. And I continued smoking it through my 20's. The reasons for my smoking pot are to numerous to list, but let's just say that in my case it really helped me maintain a mental balance.

To imply that a drug is a gateway, implies that it leads to other, more hardcore drug addictions. I never became addicted to harder drugs. In fact past high school I never even experimented with harder drugs.

I know plenty of pot smokers who did not "move up" to harder drugs, in fact the majority of them did not.

Most of the people that I was associated with during that time in my life when I did smoke pot, have, like myself, quit smoking pot. We've outgrown it.

Now you can listen to the testimony of someone who has lived it, or you can rely on the figures of a governement trying to justify it's War on Drugs. You be the judge.




posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Though I may be bringing this argument to a full circle, I'd like to bring up the issue of alcohol once again. Should we outlaw alcohol advertisements and alcohol itself because people die of drinking and driving, not only the ones drinking, but the helpless victims as well? Should we outlaw nicotine because of cancer, or all fatty foods because of obesity?

Pot is not only used medically, but in many cultures it is considered a religious drug, India comes to mind first. Lord Shiva hailed pot for a variety of reasons, spirituality, overall well-being. Then, we have certain drugs that are legal for spiritual reasons, namely, Salvia divinorum and peyote. Both are used by Native Americans and both are legal in places in the US, salvia being legal all over I believe. If you have tried salvia, you would know that there is no possible way you could drive or function whatsoever on that plant, yet it is legal, and you can buy it online or at any headshop.

As well, there are so many substances that you could claim could lead to more hard-core substances. A beer to moonshine. A burger to a diet of extremely fatty foods. Caffiene to amphetamines. Precription drugs to whatever else. Not to mention, pot reacts differently with different people, and its one drug you cannot generalize the effects with.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yet, I wonder why this is isn't Bush's stance. I refer you to this thread on ATS: Bush Targets Marijuana Smokers


It may not be the President's position, but it is the position of an increasing number of conservatives.
www.mapinc.org...



We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually. Two of every five Americans, according to a 2003 Zogby poll cited by Dr. Nadelmann, believe "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children."



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
To add to the discussion I am providing this link to all the major political research studies on the issue. These are Government studies such as Royal Commissions etc.

There are studies from Canada, the Netherlands, India, United Kingdom, Australia, California, New York City and the US Military.


… all the issues have already been discussed, all the evidence already sifted through and examined, in a number of major governmental reviews and working groups, all over the world, in the last 100 years. Every one of these studies has discovered that cannabis is safe, and its use should not be subject to any criminal penalties. Yet most governments ignore the findings of the experts they appoint.


Add to that all of the arguments and benefits of medicinal use and you have no reason to keep it illegal at all.

In Canada decriminalization is currently on the Government agenda but it has some problems. The possession of plants may still be illegal, (waiting for the new bill to see) which does not solve the problems of supply coming from organized crime and street gangs.

As for the gateway argument, I would say this. If people trying it out for the first time see that all the hype and stories they heard about from their parent and governments that pot will make you crazy and is very bad for you are not true, then they may just logically conclude that the same goes for hard, refined drugs.

It is our hypocrisy that creates this kind of problem especially in young people before they have gained enough life experience to make their own clear decisions. Education and maturity are called for and it seems that these requirements are largely unmet in our societies.

The effects of hard drugs can be seen in our large cities so I only need to believe my own eyes and not rely solely on the "research" to know that it is bad for me.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
My suggestion would be to legalize drugs such as marijuna. Yet there should be some restrictions on it much like alcohol and tobacco smoking. Such as an age limit. I think that 18 or 21 would be a good age limit. Then I recommend placing taxes on the drugs, this would assist in paying for rehabilitation centers. have the drug go through some sort of inspection before being released on the market. I also recommend that dealers should have to get a lisence of some sort. But we should definatly discourage the use of it much like tobacco smoking.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
As an evil conservative I am on the fence on this issue due to one reason mainly. Is Marijuana really as dangerous as it is made out to be. It is said that one joint is as dangerous as 5 cigarettes and contain 50% to 70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco.[1] Yet the facts are that 100.000 people die due to alcohol, 450,000 due to tobacco and less than 10,000 due to illegal drugs.[2]

So while it would be wonderful to have a magic ATM on the sale of marijuana just as there is one on the sale of tobacco the real question is just how dangerous is it. I want a clear answer to that question before I put my decision down on this issue.


[1] www.streetdrugs.org...
[2] www.goaskalice.columbia.edu...



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Even the Democratic nominee Kerry is Pro Pot. Wait he changed his mind. Im getting dizzy from all of his flip flops.



Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)


But don't chisel that in stone:


But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)


It is hard to figure out were Kerry stands on the issues, its like trying to watch a windvane in a tornado



[edit on 5-8-2004 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
From what I've been able to find concerning the subject, George Bush "strongly opposes" marijuana decriminalization, John Kerry "somewhat opposes" it, and Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton "somewhat favor" it. Exactly what "somewhat" means is anyone's guess.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Kucinich have admitted to smoking marijuana in the past, while Mr. Bush continues to remain silent on past drug use.

On a personal note, I strongly support the legalization of marijuana as both a medicine and recreational product. The taxes generated from legal marijuana distribution could help balance the budget, shrink the deficit, and be used for education and programs designed to assist people defeat addiction to hard drugs.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
From what I've been able to find concerning the subject, George Bush "strongly opposes" marijuana decriminalization, John Kerry "somewhat opposes" it, and Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton "somewhat favor" it. Exactly what "somewhat" means is anyone's guess.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Kucinich have admitted to smoking marijuana in the past, while Mr. Bush continues to remain silent on past drug use.

On a personal note, I strongly support the legalization of marijuana as both a medicine and recreational product. The taxes generated from legal marijuana distribution could help balance the budget, shrink the deficit, and be used for education and programs designed to assist people defeat addiction to hard drugs.




Then you need to check out the Libertarians stand on the issue we do not "somewhat" aprove we DO aprove no waffling here.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Yes! Legalize it! I don't care for it, but I know people with terminal illnesses have testified for it because it's the only thing that doesn't make them nauseous, in pain, and this, that and the other thing..

If people want to smoke it, who needs to put restrictions on those who want to?
Same thing goes for the gay marriage decision.

People really need to stop running ship over other people, if it's not going to affect you personally mentally or physically there is no need to persecute those who are different from you.

Everything is good in moderation, if your going to go overboard and stupify yourself thats your bad decision, nobody has the right to hold you back because it's your life.

When you grow up your parents let you go and say good luck in the world kid, i'll help ya out anyway I can but your wings are clipped it's up to you to make it on your own..

We don't even know these people that smoke pot, nor should we care, we're not their parents, we're not their legal gaurdians, let them go....



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
If people want to go kill themselves, fine its their choice. But its not fair when you see children dying of second hand smoke. Thats not fair. Many people don't want to have to breath in the smoke so naturally there should be restrictions if made legal.

[edit on 8/6/2004 by cyberdude78]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Definitely, if people want to smoke go ahead pot or tobacco, I don't agree with smoking in restaurants, but many restaurants are self owned so it should be up to the people who own it if they wish to have smoking or not.

I hate going to a restaurant having to breath in the smoke from others who wish to pollute and kill their insides...

Same goes with pot, just don't bring it around me or my children (if I had em)



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I people want to go kill themselves, fine its their choice. But its not fair when you see children dying of second hand smoke. Thats not fair. Many people don't want to have to breath in the smoke so naturally there should be restrictions if made legal.



I would go along with pretty much the same restrictions as with cigarettes and booze. I dont like the second hand smoke either but there is no law about people smoking them around there kids



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Then you need to check out the Libertarians stand on the issue we do not "somewhat" aprove we DO aprove no waffling here.


I agree with the Libertarian Party on the "war on drugs" issue, but that's about the only issue in which I agree with them. I'm on the extreme left of the Democratic Party, bordering on Green, with old school Truman semi-socialist tendencies, especially concerning health care; and I strongly support a national health care system similar to that of Canada and the UK, which the Libertarians strongly oppose.

The Libertarians are of course correct that there is corruption in government, but I feel they ignore the corruption in the world of big business, which would become the new ruling class under a Libertarian government. At least in government, we can fire our elected officials at the ballot box if we don't like the way they run things. In the Libertarian system, the government is mostly a figurehead where corporate power is the true political base, with every aspect of the economy being "privatized" (i.e., handed over to corporations in order to turn a profit).



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
As stated before, decriminalization differs greatly from legalization. Simply decriminalizing possesion does nothing to pry the supply stranglehold from organized criminals. Legalizing possesion and growing, or even decriminalizing both would eliminate criminals from the picture. There are probably many fewer tax dollars to be made than most people like to think. Marijuana is a weed, anyone can easily grow quality product as easily as growing tomatoes.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
Marijuana is a weed, anyone can easily grow quality product as easily as growing tomatoes.


That's true, but corn whiskey and wine are relatively easy to make also; yet there are strict regulations on doing so, especially for commercial profit.

If marijuana were legalized, it would not necessarily mean that anyone who wanted to grow it would be allowed to. Commercial licenses could be sold, and the industry could be heavily regulated and taxed, similar to the situation in Holland. The government there has reaped a large amount of funds from its marijuana initiative, and has applied them to more pressing problems. While I do not completely advocate the system in Holland being adopted here in toto, it is at least worthy of study for our leaders, with experiments to begin in select regions, especially for medical marijuana use.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by scottsquared
Marijuana is a weed, anyone can easily grow quality product as easily as growing tomatoes.


That's true, but corn whiskey and wine are relatively easy to make also; yet there are strict regulations on doing so, especially for commercial profit.



Actually none of the three are easy to grow/make if you want something good. I am a hillbilly that has lived his whole life in the mountians so I know what I am saying......LOL. Just like anyone could build a house of a sort but not all of them would I live in.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
More fuel for the debate????


Cannabis could treat brain cancer

Cannabis may provide a new way of treating deadly brain cancer, new research suggests.

Scientists have shown that cannabinoids hold back the growth of blood vessels which feed the tumour.

Cutting off tumours' blood supply is one of the latest anti-cancer strategies being explored by scientists.

In the Spanish study, cannabinoids significantly reduced the growth of tumours in laboratory mice, reports New Scientist.

About 4,400 new cases of brain tumour are diagnosed in the UK each year.

Only about 6% of people diagnosed with these high grade cancers live for more than three years.

The disease is normally treated with surgery, followed by radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

But the main tumour often grows back again to kill the patient.


www.ananova.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Its like with technology, most things have an overall effect that can be either positive or negative towards socity, depending on how it is used.
The same thing applies with the matter of Dope (pot). Although it does have practical applications for example it offers a small pain relief etc... it can also be used for intoxicating effects, which cause all sorts of problems towards the body.

I think that dope shouldnt be legallised on the street front, however the perscription of it via the doctor, or other places fit to perscribe such drugs.
There is a problem in this, since people who use it or need persciptions could sell it on towards others who want it just for the high.

I guess this is a matter that is always going to have a good and bad side application



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
More fuel for the debate????


Cannabis could treat brain cancer

Cannabis may provide a new way of treating deadly brain cancer, new research suggests.

Scientists have shown that cannabinoids hold back the growth of blood vessels which feed the tumour.

Cutting off tumours' blood supply is one of the latest anti-cancer strategies being explored by scientists.

In the Spanish study, cannabinoids significantly reduced the growth of tumours in laboratory mice, reports New Scientist.

About 4,400 new cases of brain tumour are diagnosed in the UK each year.

Only about 6% of people diagnosed with these high grade cancers live for more than three years.

The disease is normally treated with surgery, followed by radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

But the main tumour often grows back again to kill the patient.


www.ananova.com...



I will back this up, and add the goverment has knowen for some time.
americanmarijuana.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join