Why Marijuana should be Legalized

[Hyzer]

For those talking about how MJ is terrible and how it should stay illegal, for free, to you know..post factual information. That might help your cause...

J/K. There is no factual information that would prove your point.

[Hugemanskost]

Thank you for the response, but you misunderstood what I was getting at.

Yes Industrial hemp is legal, but IMO without the legalization of marijuana, it will never be fully utilized due to trust issues.

Lots of people I know won't buy anything hemp related because it's associated with Marijuana, which in their minds is a dangerous drug. Meaning to them, it's considered to be on the same level as Heroin, Meth, Cocaine, etc. So why would that want to start using it as a resource.

My theory is if it's legalized, in time, it will start to lose it's stereotype, and people will see that it's not so bad after all. People will begin to love hemp, and understand how it can positively help the planet and ones health. For example, Hemp can be used as renewable, low polluting source of biomass fuel (much more efficient than sunflowers or wheat), or hemp pulp could easily replace wood pulp in paper making.

Right there I see it helping the Global Warming situation, and creating more durable paper without cutting down trees.

I realize all of this is being utilized right now, but like I said, it's not being fully utilized. If hemp became popular and was used as a mass resource worldwide, the Earth would be much different than it is today. Until it's legalized, people will not fully give it the respect it deserves.

[KoreanHockeyFan]

If calling sane means your behaviour is determined by what everybody else does, or if you live to satisfy your own personal happiness at the expense of others, then I want no part of it.

If calling sane means you live morally but have no standard of morality, then I want no part of it.

If calling sane means saying everything you believe in must have empirical evidence, yet conveniently holding a different standard of belief in other things, then I want no part in it.

By your definition of responsibility and regulated consumption means we could theoretically legalize everything.

[Tystick]

I think the reason hemp is not being better utilized is that it would cost billions of dollars in the short term to convert or build new facilities to turn the plant into useable resources.

Pulp and paper are where the world is at right now. To change that, in a global recession, is not economically feasible. I could see hemp being used in the future, for sure, as a renewable resource, but, not until our forests are in such terrible condition that we HAVE to make a change. I could see this happening in decades, not years. Until farmers have a market for their product, they won't grow it much, if at all.

Hemp makes sense as a renewable resource, for sure, but, it would start to put many other industries in jeopardy because of it's versatility as a resource. Now's not the time.

[Ryanstorm]

For kids under 18 I think it should be illegal. But when you see people passed out in the street from alcohol and people in hospitals because of cancer due to cigarettes. It's like .. what harm does weed really do?

[Satan's Evil Twin]

If calling sane means your behaviour is determined by what everybody else does, or if you live to satisfy your own personal happiness at the expense of others, then I want no part of it.

[canuckbeliever]

Yeah, they are goofs with their own body shops and various businesses.

Chronic marijuana use creates issues with your memory period, whether you believe it or not.

Keep on puffing, you will realize it or forget in time anyways.

[Armada]

For kids under 18 I think it should be illegal. But when you see people passed out in the street from alcohol and people in hospitals because of cancer due to cigarettes. It's like .. what harm does weed really do?

[Tambellini's Wrist Shot]

I think it shouldn't be legalized.

I, as a marijuana user myself, love the way I see the world when I'm high, but legalizing pot can backfire. As far as I know, there is no current way to tell how much THC someone has in their system, other than a urine test. If someone is driving high and they get pulled over, there is no way the cop can test them for the amount of the drug in their system. Someone can get pulled over high as a kite, and they are almost always let go. I haven't heard of a lot of fatal accidents that have had a direct connection to marijuana use, but why give drivers another substance to get impaired off of?

As for the "if marijuana is illegal then alcohol should be too" argument, alcohol's only use isn't to get wasted, it can be used as a casual, tasty drink. Some people love the taste of an ice cold beer on a hot day, or a nice glass of port wine after a meal. They drink it cause it tastes good, not cause they want to get hammered. When someone is smoking weed, they're doing it to get high, there isn't any other reason other than easing pain, but that's what painkillers are for (even though oxycontin, T3's and other prescription painkillers aren't all sunshine and rainbows).

[Slaytanic Wehrmacht]

First off, being a Christian I actually put more emphasis on myself being a NOT righteous person. The exactly opposite of you thinking I claim to be a RIGHTEOUS person. You can at least understand that point first.

Second point, it seems like the foundation of your stance towards legalizing marijuana comes from your observations with people you know? Here's a logical fallacy, if you don't personally know any drunk drivers, that means it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, getting to your point on other cultures smoking it as on acceptable terms, as long as it's in moderation. I am sure their culture and religion knows how to handle themselves and knows when smoking marijuana is too much. Marijuana isn't inherently evil, but someone addicted to it does not yield good results.

It's like driving past the speed limit. Driving itself isn't inherently evil, but it can be dangerous. This is the same thing.

Now we can't limit people's use of marijuana, I suppose to can treat it like drinking and let people discern for themselves, but in my experience, people always go overboard with things they can do.

Will the world be a better place if marijuana was legalized, I don't think so. Just leave it where it is.

[Slaytanic Wehrmacht]

If calling sane means your behaviour is determined by what everybody else does, or if you live to satisfy your own personal happiness at the expense of others, then I want no part of it.

If calling sane means you live morally but have no standard of morality, then I want no part of it.

If calling sane means saying everything you believe in must have empirical evidence, yet conveniently holding a different standard of belief in other things, then I want no part in it.

By your definition of responsibility and regulated consumption means we could theoretically legalize everything.

[Armada]

It's like talking to a ****ing brick wall. I give up, man.

[Vapourstreak]

How is that not research? I'm listing proven facts, not pulling stuff out of no where. Also, if Marijuana was theoretically legal, that doesn't also mean it is mandatory for you to smoke it.

[JLumme]

You meant pounds right? The only time I've ever bought a pound, if memory serves me right I paid 2500. It wasn't for me, though. And it wasn't the greatest weed either.

2 oz would last me two months not accounting for the law of diminishing sacks.

The Law of Diminishing Sacks

Faulheit, Les (2004), Humboldt County Community College Press

Among seasoned marijuana enthusiasts, there is an accepted and irrefutable phenomenon which defies the conventionally known laws of supply and demand. All marijuana satchels, regardless of size, exhaust at the same time. No matter how large the sack of ganja purchased, it will be smoked to a pile of resin at the same time as any smaller sack. This phenomenon, known as the Law of Diminishing Sacks, has baffled and cruelly victimized bakers from time immemorial.¹

In the example graphed above, Baker A buys 1 ounce of high grade kind bud and Baker B buys ½ ounce of the same pot. Baker A and Baker B have similar tastes and preferences (providing for identical utility curves):

• They both live with or near a similar number of other bakers;

• They both have access to various forms of consumption paraphernalia; and

• They both have equal amounts of time to consume at their discretion.

Although laws of supply and demand would appear to dictate Baker A would enjoy his sack for twice as long as Baker B, the Law of Diminishing Sacks reveals that Baker A and Baker B will both fully consume their bags of marijuana at the same time.

The graph displays the change of sack size over time (the delta) is the rate of consumption. The early phase of sack utilization has the highest rate of consumption (i.e. the steepest part of the curve) and Baker A, with the larger sack, has an even higher rate of consumption than Baker B. As the sack size diminishes the rate of consumption slows. Thus, within a matter of days, despite the great divergence in initial supply, both bakers find themselves with the same remaining sack.

In his groundbreaking analysis, Baking Habits of Large Sack Holders (1992), Pierson Philip von Funnk, Phd., explained the forces behind this aberrant result, observing that during the initial period of liberal consumption, Baker A and Baker B exhibit common characteristics:

• Elevated sense of euphoria at seemingly inexhaustible supply;

• Willingness to “pack it up” more frequently and for more people;

• Diminishing marginal return of “bake” (increased tolerance);

• Use of bigger bowls, including highly inefficient “party bowls”; and

• Less efficient distribution methods (joints/ bongs rather than bowls/ bats).

F. Hans Burnham’s seminal treatise, A Regression Analysis of Sack Size and Consumption Patterns (1998), took the next step, describing the correlation between sack size and frequency and volume of baking, finding a “multiplier effect” resulting from having a large versus a small sack. This explains Baker A’s steeper curve and higher rate of consumption.

http://www.constitut...awyer&Itemid=65

So what does this mean? How should the average baker interpret this data, if at all? Can the average baker avoid the Law’s application?

In the author’s opinion, the Law cannot be avoided through any conceivable corrective measure. It is simply an unchangeable fact that an uptick in supply will be met by an uptick in consumption, thus negating any perceived supply-lengthening benefit from increased supply purchase.²

As both Baker A’s and Baker B’s sacks dwindle, both gear downward into a period of conservative consumption. At this point both Baker A and Baker B have a similar sack size, the higher rate of consumption having caught up to Baker A’s fatter sack. Soon thereafter, the curve flattens, as both Baker A and Baker B smoke less frequently and less intensely. In fact, Von Funnk discovers startling adjustments in implementation procedures as both bakers turn to bowls, and then bats, to conserve. In his controversial 1997 work, Resin Is Your Friend, Von Funnk also claims to have discovered social changes amongst bakers impacting their sack depletion rate:

“The baker with a mere corner sack remaining and no hope of replacement supply in the short term will actively seek out other bakers under the guise of needing to borrow video games, return previously loaned items or ‘have a few beers’ in the hope of having this other baker bake him.”

Von Funnk has even gone one step further, suggesting the existence of certain “predatory bakers” who, finding their own supply dwindling, will seek to initiate “group bakes” (gatherings of several bakers holding severely depleted sacks) at the homes of bakers with large sacks to exhaust those bakers’ substantial supplies. Von Funnk claims this practice “targets the baker with the closest connection to the most immediate wholesale supplier,” forcing him to initiate another “group buy” on behalf of himself and the other bakers in his immediate baking network.³ The author believes this theory credible, as the baker holding the largest sack is almost always best connected to the wholesaler in any given baking community.

Burnham’s follow-up, I’ll Even Smoke Schwag (2002), refutes Von Funnk’s findings, arguing bakers do not engage in coordinated efforts to maximize personal supply, and roundly dismissing the notion of “predatory bakers.” Burnham claims that as bakers’ supplies dwindle, a random form of “game theory” develops, with bakers furiously seeking out any other bakers who are holding. Panic ensues. All supplies are diminished. Hoarding begins as expected reciprocity (the commonly observed “I’ll pack the first, you pack the second” practice) is forgotten. This state persists until all sacks are exhausted, each within days or hours of each other, and a group purchase is once again initiated.

Extensive fieldwork with numerous teams of researchers has proven the Law to be universally valid in all baking communities. In the most recent studies, no measure of correlation was obtained between the type of marijuana and the rate of consumption. The author believes type of marijuana is not a statistically significant variable, theLaw of Diminishing Sacks applying uniformly to both seedy/stemmy dirt weed and $500/oz White Widow.^{<a href="http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1283:law-of-diminishing-sacks&catid=49:the-philadelphia-lawyer&Itemid=65#4a" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(126, 113, 66); ">4}

The author’s sole recommendation at this juncture is reasoned, conservative purchase on the lower side of what others in the purchaser’s baking community have bought. This ensures against adverse economic consequences resulting from consistent overspending and the socially untoward behaviors of the so-called “predatory bakers.”

[Slaytanic Wehrmacht]

[Tearloch7]

[Slaytanic Wehrmacht]

Says right there in their book, Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it." Argument over, if they really read their book like they say they do.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

All you who would stand against legalization of Mary Jane on religious, and so you claim, "moral" grounds .. ask yourself this .. would Jesus smoke pot do you think? .. I, for one, believe he would ..

The second thing he would do would be to cast all the "born-again" fundamentalist types out from their "temples" for warping the "word of God" .. show me someone who lives his/her life to the "moral" standard that Jesus supposedly set, and few if any "fundies" would qualify .. most, if not all, would be cast out based on their intolerance alone ..

The third thing Jesus would do, after creating loaves and fishes to satisfy his "munch" would be to puke at the hypocrisy of the majority of "Christians" .. "Thus sayeth the Lord .. you may all genuflect now" ..

[Tystick]

When you're watching those documentaries, they only list the facts that further their own argument for the legalization of marijuana, and therefore, the facts that you learned from it, and present here now, only show one side.

Also, this thread ceased to be a debate on whether marijuana should be legal the moment you posted that it's a "life experience" that I'm missing. You make it sound like a debate on whether one should smoke it or not.

[Slaytanic Wehrmacht]

OK fair enough. So what are these "facts" that show the other side of the argument? Marijuana damages the lungs? causes cancer? causes psychosis? leads to death? These aren't facts dude. None of those have been proven true. For your information, I have done research on both sides of the argument, I'm an open-minded person. From what I've learned, the pros outweigh the cons.

Sorry if you were repulsed by what I said, but I still find it true.