I would argue that there is great merit to not following laws that serve no purpose, or fail to accomplish their purpose. Middle ground between indy and draugnar, maybe?

As I said, civil disobedience to make a point *is* valid. That would be the merit to not following laws that serve no purpose. Other laws that truly serve no purpose are rarely enforced and most people don't know about them. those just need to be brought to the attention of your local politicians with a reason to have them repealed.

The mountains are high and the Emperor's far away. (Ancient Chinese saying)

@Indy: Your amendment seems to make less sense than the original message.
'Following every law that they don't believe in' certainly does not = anarchy.

Most laws governing Marijuana are based on the 'harmful effects' of the drug which are dubious at best. Eating fast food consistently probably does more damage in the long term than smoking weed, but then again who can say for sure. If laws based on flimsy assumptions or the work of sponsored scientist with an agenda are being tested, i say change the law. Laws against racism, murder and rape are clearly a different league of offences and are not based on the aforementioned shoddy reasoning.

Again, if you dont want to read this stuff, then dont. I agree with the bar analogy from whoever posted it and Draugnar all the way!

I am not actually a stoner myself, but I prepare the infidels for stoning.

The men are buried to their waists, and the women to their necks. If they can escape, then they are acquitted.

Draugnar makes a valid point. There is a difference between different acts of civil disobedience, depending on the issue. Good point.

Timur, please re-read my statement, which I copy here:
"Following only the laws you believe in = anarchy". To paraphrase, if each of us are free to decide which laws we will follow (I'll skip driving laws, you skip banking laws, Jack skips medical certification laws, Jill skips laws against assault) then pretty soon, there is no society.

Capiche? (sp!)

Following only the laws you believe in != anarchy. Following only the laws you believe in = either getting caught or getting away with it. Now, if there were no cops and you followed only the laws you believe in, that would be anarchy.

I read this book many many many years ago. It is STILL the best unbiased, and comprehensive reference on drugs that I am aware of.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

You're welcome.

Whoever said that they sould legalize weed like alcohol..or tabacco. It is really hard to do that.

The main reason is because if you get to seeds from the same plant and you give them the same light and water. Both of them will have different amount of THC(the stuff in weed that gets you high). This means they sell one joint to one guy and gets him so high and he thinks the price was worth it. You sell another to the same guy a week later and he doesnt feel a thing.

Another reason if they started to grow it like tabacco. It would be cheaper. and more affordable. Which means people could smoke more. Which means lung cancer(Yes people still can get lung cancer from weed. My cousin died two years ago from lung cancer and he used to smoke weed all the time. He hated the smell of tabacco)Which means driving while high and some people I know can not control themselves like I can while High.

There are other reasons like the destruction of seretonin(I think that is how it is spelled) but I dont feel like explaining anymore.

The serotonin angle is interesting. What evidence do you have that weed destroys serotonin?

@tilMletokill

They do sell it, more or less, like tobacco in Holland. Strangely enough, they somehow don't have problems with people driving high all the time, lung cancer is not more common than anywhere else and, actually, I've noticed they somehow manage to maintain consistent product quality. Maybe change your supplier if he's selling you crap... clearly it's affecting you :)

There is no reason to not sell weed and sell tobacco and alcohol, as anyone with basic understanding about health will tell you alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous than weed.

The reasons weed is not legal are:
1. Ignorance of the general public
2. Big money coming from liquor and tobacco
Both of which lead to politicians going for the easier option.

Ivo- It is not immposible to sell it. It is just more work.
And yes lung cancer wouldnt be drasticaly different. Because not many people I know smoke more than 4-7 bowls a day. Or 1-3 Joints That is not very dangerous numbers. But triple that and you have a problem.

It has been proven...at least as far as scientists say.....you cant trust all of them. But while high weed affects serotonin also while high it slowly destroys it. I have no backup except my health book. It could be lying about that to try to keep kids like me scared. I have know clue. But if it does well I think that is a good reason not to legalize it.

Ivo- I think some would argue (right or wrong) that alcohol and tobacco are a huge public health problem so if given a choice today for bringing in another alcohol or tobacco we should say no. (Again I'm not saying that's right or wrong)

Also I don't see how big money coming from liquor and tobacco would affect anything, I think politicians really are influenced by the public on this one; if politicians really believed a majority of their electorate supported it (as they one day might) they probably would support it themselves.

There are also concerns about how it affects the developing mind, mental health etc. Once you've reached adulthood there's not much evidence that it does much damage, but before that there are some concerns
And of course it does cause cancer (and I really wouldn't say 4-7 bowls a day isn't very dangerous), so there's the question of whether we want to introduce something like that now that we're finally having some success getting rid of tobacco

That having been said I think it's not really a big deal, and no-one should have their life ruined by a criminal record that follows them around for something so trivial, or waste resources in strictly controlling it like you would something more addictive and harmful

Personally I'm not sure whether I'm for or against legalization, it would depend on the details I think, and some more research wouldn't be bad either. It's worth having a debate on though

Three years ago we had to develop an eLearning course, to be used by the UK government for training what they call first tier response staff (police, clercs, pharmacies, etc., so we had to do a lot of research. They also had their own.

My point is that:
- the amount of deaths in the UK over the past 50 years shows zero deaths caused by weed. Both direct and secondary causes. Alcohol and tobacco on the other hand have caused millions of deaths, both direct and through accidents. Weed is not the same as the other two - it's a huge misconception to compare them at all.
- If you smoke weed 4-7 or more times a day you have a problem. I'd say if you eat meat that many times you'll also have a problem. Anything can be very dangerous if you have no limits, that's not the point here :)

If you really want to check, take half an hour and find some stats for weed-related health problems and deaths, not essays and opinions, statistics. You won't find much such cases, if any, anywhere in the world.

I agree about the influence on kids, this should be persecuted.

I would suggest that it would never really show up in death statistics, not because it didn't harm people but because it was never the only thing.
For example, a lot of my friends from back home do weed, and have all moved on to try or take 'harder' stuff. I'm now 19 and two of them have died from overdosing.

@Kestas - not thinking that big business has an affect on the issue is a bit naive. I live in a huge tobacco and alcohol producing state. Kentucky is completely anti-gambling and part of the bible belt, yet our staples are the aforementioned tobacco and alcohol plus horse racing. Why is that? Because the businesses that control those commodities have the politicians in their pockets. Used to be, you were elected by the public on positions. Now, it's the guy with the most exposure gets elected and exposure costs money. In come the PACs and big business. They fund the campaigns that get the politicians relelcted over here, so the tobacco and the alcohol industries very much do influence the politicians supporting the ban.

Now, there is good news where that is concerned. Tobacco and marijuana both grow in similar climes and the soil conditions for both are compatible, so the big tobacco farmers could switch fields to growing marijuana and the cigarette manufacturers would be more than happy to convert a few lines to making joints.

@figle - they ODed with something else, right? If you OD with weed all you get is a good sleep.

However, what you're saying indicates the main problem - false information and bad laws lead to people making bad decisions. If all drugs are classified and persecuted in a similar fashion, authorities say they are all bad, and then a kid tries weed and realizes it's actually not a big deal and is less harmful and addictive than booze and cigarettes what kind of decision-making can be expected when he's offered heroin at the next party...

Overdoses weren't on weed no.

It's a gateway to heavier stuff though, not a good thing.

Ivo brings up a great point. Kids today are scared into thinking that so many things are bad for them, that they become desensitized and the line between things that are actually dangerous and things that are just better if you don't do become blurred.

@figle - weed is not a gateway drug. This has been studied and proven wrong.

Really? If so then fair enough, but I can't believe that.
Everyone I know who does hard drugs started off on weed.

That is true - but mostly because these are the type of people generally prone to use drugs. Most people either stick with weed for life or move on to harder alternatives rather fast. Places with high weed use have the lowest levels of heroin use and places where weed not so used and is persecuted heavily ( same category as H) have higher usage levels of harder drugs.

Finally, over half of all drug money generated in the world come from weed. Instead of taxing it the current legislature effectively sends all this cash into the drug distribution network. 60% of the drug cartels profits cone from weed.

I would make a case that if one wanted to lose the 'war on drugs' he would come up with exactly this legislature and education approach.

I don't buy the gateway drug thing, it's like saying "everyone who has tried hard drugs at one point had coffee, so coffee is a gateway drug". I think there's a "silent majority" (probably not a majority) of people who smoke it every now and then but don't go onto anything more

Re: zero deaths from cannabis. Well there's no doubt it's safer than getting drunk and going driving, but it's hard to trace back, say, lung cancer to a certain joint you smoked. Maybe it was a molecule of tar from the rolling paper, maybe it was a molecule of tar from the cannabis itself, it's not like drink driving where it's easy to see a cause/effect. I think arguing that cannabis is harmless is more than a little irresponsible, and probably won't win over many people sitting on the fence

Re: business interests; fair enough Draugnar I can't speak for your home state, but here in Australia there's really no tobacco lobby, and not much of an alcohol lobby either. Evidence of that is how ready the government is to raise taxes hugely on both, and interfere with the laws regarding how cigarettes are packaged.
The government does generally go by public opinion and health advisers on these issues, if for no other reason because they pay for a large chunk of the health costs of their negative effects

(Just to clarify I'm sure the "silent majority" is a huge minority, so I worded that pretty badly, but my point is you probably don't hear from a sizable chunk of people who smoke it)

Question:- Why does anyone smoke? It stinks & tastes awful & makes your clothes, house, & car & anywhere you happen to be stink.
Question:- Why does anyone consume alcohol? It tastes vile & again makes your breath smell & the areas where any has been spilt.
It gives you a horrid headache when having consumed to much & breaks down your ability to rationalise & dulls your sense of resposibility & can release you from the inhibitors that would normally prevent you from acting & doing deeds that you would be ashamed of doing & can destroy loving relationships.
Both are taxed very heavily & the people that become dependant on them, usually are often depriving their friends, family & loved ones of the benifits that could have become & have been made available to them if that money had not been wasted in such a selfish & undesirable manner.
As for drugs I know nothing about them other than the damage & destruction that comes as a result of there usage.
I work within the court service & all I see is the debris & wastage to families & individuals from smoking, over indulgence in the use of alcohol & drug taking.
I am not intending to critise or judge anyone.
I just do not see any logic or merit in such a waste of money & life.

@TLD - Tobacco is more than just cigarettes. Not all tobacco tastes or smells bad. I smoke pipes and quality cigars during the summer (put them away when it gets cold outside) because a good pipe tobacco or a high-end cigar can both smell and taste great while being relaxing.

Additionally, not all alcohol tastes or smells bad. Take vodka. Mixed in with some cranberry and grapefruit juice or served neat in a chilled glass, it taste about like water to me. And wine is rarely considered bad tasting or smelling.

You can't lump all forms of a given drug together any more than you could lump all people of a given subset together.