Barakku:

Just because the article says it doesn't mean the article is correct. I thought this one was pretty lame. They basically assume the strawman of "pot does good things" to the extreme and then say that since pot isn't farking magic unicorn farts it has no redeeming qualities at all and it should never be argued as such.

This x1000. Cheese's articles on Cracked are an unfortunate parade of poorly caricatured point-refutations, as well as being clearly written from somewhere in his colon. I respect Cracked's humor/info pairing most of the time, but the level of misrepresentation in this one pissed me off.

That being said, while I think the article failed in a number of ways, his point is one with which I think most of us Farkers agree: give up the hippy/stoner half-arguments about "plants, maaaan" and cannabis-as-panacea, and start making rigorous, logical assertions that can hold up in a public debate. This has, of course, been going on for some time now, and it's seemingly on the upsurge toward succeeding in changing (near-global) destructive drug laws.

In any case: yay to days with multiple pot-legalization/anti drug-war stories on Fark, regardless of quality.

/let my people go

RealAmericanHero: cepson: Oh yeah, and here's another argument people don't seem to spend a lot of time talking about: under what definition of "freedom" does a "free" country get to tell me whether or not I can use a substance that is not as harmful as a lot of other things that are perfectly legal?

You know how I know you didn't read the article?

Yeah, I'm afraid I had to disagree with the article on this one too. While the author is right that the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco make for arguments against alcohol and tobacco and not *for* pot, a system of law is supposed to maintain its credibility by being just, logical and consistent (you can finish laughing... I'll wait) - therefore, when it comes to harmful products, the law ought to be consistent - it's unjust that some people's drug of choice is legal while others have to constantly look over their shoulder. Either make them all legal, or make them all illegal. (Of course, they've tried illegal, and it didn't work out so well.)

ZAZ: Two of them at least are right on. Marijuana will make no significant difference to tax revenue or the general quality of medical care. I vote for medical marijuana or decriminalized marijuana out of libertarian instincts and a hope for backdoor legalization.

I'm pretty sure it's legal for you to take it up your ass if you want to

FerneJohn: THIS x 1,000. I'm in favor of total legalization, but every time I hear a person say, "It's just a plant," or, "It comes from the Earth," I want to punch them.

Opium is "unrefined". As is pot. I've always said if you want the best natural high start looking at what tribes and locals have used around the world: payote, licking Frogs, opium, pot, chewing caco leaves, etc.

You can't have 20% of your small tribe dying off ODing. You can't have them go out on 'vision quests' and maybe come back.

Once you start refining it. Turning it into cocaine and crack or morphine is when it gets dangerous.

Imagine if beer was only 1-2 proof. Sure if you drink it you'll get a bit buzzed, maybe light headed but it'd be almost physically impossible to get alcohol poisoning from it. You'd throw up from volume before alcohol. Now distill that down to 200 proof Everclear and you can kill yourself on less than a handle.

"One estimate of THC's LD50 for humans indicates that about 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes." Between the rate of exchange in your lungs and the THC density in the smoke, that's just plain physically impossible. I can't wait for refined pure 90% "TBV" (THC By Volume) stuff to show up. You'll have people killing themselves in no time.


Some of the arguments are good ones. But right now the supporters make it like showing up in court wearing a clown suit. Sure you may make good arguments, but to the jury, you're just wearing a damn clown suit.

starsrift: I used to not give a shiat about potheads. Whatever, it's your body, destroy it.

But the secondhand smoke is far, FAR more intrusive and lingering than tobacco deathsticks. It seeps through the air intakes into my apartment, and my home, my clothes, everything smells like weed because of an asshole three units over. The guy next door who smokes normal cancer sticks? Not a scent.

If you're going to legalize it, set up smoking zones, so it's -only- legal there. Because it's a farking public nuisance.

I had to Google to see if people have been putting THC in the smokeless, odorless e-cigs- yes, some people have, apparently. They said the smell of marijuana was almost imperceptible, which leads to the goofy possibility that people could be using them in public.

Also leads to the unfortunate possibility that cops could start busting e-cig users left and right as "suspected drug paraphernalia".

rohar: starsrift: set up smoking zones,

Have you lost you damned mind?

I don't even know how to respond otherwise.

If pot users would just fork over the measly hundred or so bucks for a vaporizer, this wouldn't be a problem. Hell, if you're buying weed in the US you can buy a vaporizer for less than a 1/4 in most cities. Sadly.

/fer yer health!

It's illegal.

If you don't want to face repercussions, don't do things that are illegal.

Why is this so hard to understand?

glassgnost: The notion that everyone and his brother will start growing weed post-legalization doesn't hold water. Did we see everyone and his brother build a still in the basement post-Prohibition?

The plain fact is that it takes some experience and skill to grow the good stuff.

Duh. They had the still in the basement during prohibition. After prohibition, they could get better, safer booze on the open market for a lot less than it cost to make in small batches in the basement.

What you should see if pot is legalized is a significant reduction in clandestine grow operations and a cleaner, more consistent product available to consumers.

If it didn't smell like rotting sage while on fire, I MIGHT be for legalization. That shiat makes me want to hurl.

I never had the pleasure of smelling it in brownies, though. :P

MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

As a person that recovered from heroin addiction and never got terribly farked up on pot, I'd like to say fark you.

So fark you.

rohar: MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

As a person that recovered from heroin addiction and never got terribly farked up on pot, I'd like to say fark you.

So fark you.

I'm confused. Why are you angry at me?

rohar: starsrift: set up smoking zones,

Have you lost you damned mind?

I don't even know how to respond otherwise.

I know, the concept of something like a cannabis coffee shop is so revolutionary and new, it's not surprising nobody has done it before. I must be crazy.

eepopoarkahah: Some members of the Medical Marijuana industry appeared to be against it, and they seemed to have a significant influence on the argument.

But their arguments tended to be full of shiat. "You can't let the corporations sell marijuana, man!" Stuff like that.

Some of you should go look up the fact that the human body has cannabinoid receptors (found in the 90's) installed into our neural makeup. Please explain why that is there biologically, then start your argument again with a better, less biased factually based argument with pros and cons. The pros will trump any flimsy negatives every time.

MmmVomit: rohar: MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

As a person that recovered from heroin addiction and never got terribly farked up on pot, I'd like to say fark you.

So fark you.

I'm confused. Why are you angry at me?

Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.

Guyv: Counter-argument: In my right to my own body, I don't want to smell farking pot smoke everywhere I walk in this farking town, because A) it gives me a headache (much like cigarette smoke) and B) it farking stinks.

But the problem with that argument is you could use it against, say, garbage cans or skunks.

jtown: I'll go out on a limb and say it's a lot safer recreational drug than alcohol. When's the last time you heard of a pothead toking up then beating his wife and kids? And I've never had pothead neighbors who get high and race their cars up and down the street or have raging parties until 3am. They sit inside with the windows and doors closed.

What's wrong with raging parties til 3am?

Deepthroating a cactus?

Hmm.

Rule 34?

MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

It also shows that we have lived with the effects of legal Y without calling for a War On Y, so presumably we can live with the effects of legal X if X is inherently somewhat less harmful.

i suggest if you don't like drugs, you should not leave your home,
most of the people that you are in contact with is using some type
of drug reather it be pot, alchole,enzit,prozac,lortabs,heroin,staroids
viagra,nytequil,lsd,or one of the other drugs in the 400 page pill book
that almost every household has. point is drugs don't make you crazy,
you where born crazy

I always liked the "Prohabition does not work, has never worked, and will never worked, for marijuana or any other questionable substance."

cyclebiff: It's illegal.

If you don't want to face repercussions, don't do things that are illegal.

Why is this so hard to understand?

So is sitting in the front of the bus like whitey.
So is going to the same school as whitey.
So is women voting.
So is alcohol.

kceaton: Some of you should go look up the fact that the human body has cannabinoid receptors (found in the 90's) installed into our neural makeup. Please explain why that is there biologically, then start your argument again with a better, less biased factually based argument with pros and cons. The pros will trump any flimsy negatives every time.

Simple:

Biologically we are able to consume marijuana without major health effects.

Intellectually we are unable to handle growth, distribution, and (insert political point here) without hundreds, if not thousands of deaths involved.

Once we're, as a species, ready to stop acting like apes, many of our problems will cease to exist.

darkscout: FerneJohn: THIS x 1,000. I'm in favor of total legalization, but every time I hear a person say, "It's just a plant," or, "It comes from the Earth," I want to punch them.

Opium is "unrefined". As is pot. I've always said if you want the best natural high start looking at what tribes and locals have used around the world: payote, licking Frogs, opium, pot, chewing caco leaves, etc.

You can't have 20% of your small tribe dying off ODing. You can't have them go out on 'vision quests' and maybe come back.



A "natural high"- like Jenkem?

I don't understand why I'm not supposed to use the medicinal use part... it helps with my MS and has way fewer side effects than the more socially acceptable alternatives.

SpyroChiro: I always liked the "Prohabition does not work, has never worked, and will never worked, for marijuana or any other questionable substance."

But that argument works with one major qualification -- if the substance is something that has appeal to a sufficient segment of the population, prohibition won't work.

For example, you can prohibit people from obtaining uranium. But pot? Not going to work, because enough people want it that there will always be a black market.

starsrift: rohar: starsrift: set up smoking zones,

Have you lost you damned mind?

I don't even know how to respond otherwise.

I know, the concept of something like a cannabis coffee shop is so revolutionary and new, it's not surprising nobody has done it before. I must be crazy.

What about your neighbor? Is he allowed to smoke at home, or does he have to go to a designated smoking zone?

darkscout: FerneJohn: THIS x 1,000. I'm in favor of total legalization, but every time I hear a person say, "It's just a plant," or, "It comes from the Earth," I want to punch them.

Opium is "unrefined". As is pot. I've always said if you want the best natural high start looking at what tribes and locals have used around the world: payote, licking Frogs, opium, pot, chewing caco leaves, etc.

You can't have 20% of your small tribe dying off ODing. You can't have them go out on 'vision quests' and maybe come back.

Once you start refining it. Turning it into cocaine and crack or morphine is when it gets dangerous.

Imagine if beer was only 1-2 proof. Sure if you drink it you'll get a bit buzzed, maybe light headed but it'd be almost physically impossible to get alcohol poisoning from it. You'd throw up from volume before alcohol. Now distill that down to 200 proof Everclear and you can kill yourself on less than a handle.

"One estimate of THC's LD50 for humans indicates that about 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes." Between the rate of exchange in your lungs and the THC density in the smoke, that's just plain physically impossible. I can't wait for refined pure 90% "TBV" (THC By Volume) stuff to show up. You'll have people killing themselves in no time.


Some of the arguments are good ones. But right now the supporters make it like showing up in court wearing a clown suit. Sure you may make good arguments, but to the jury, you're just wearing a damn clown suit.

They already have that. That's what high quality hash oil is. 80%+ thc. Some herb is already over 25% so it's not concentrating it that much.

And just think about your numbers. Even if that pot was .01% thc, which is way lower than hemp, you'd still get 1.5 lbs of thc out of it. Which is still more than anyone could smoke. So no, there will be no deaths...period

haywatchthis: i suggest if you don't like drugs, you should not leave your home,
most of the people that you are in contact with is using some type
of drug reather it be pot, alchole,enzit,prozac,lortabs,heroin,staroids
viagra,nytequil,lsd,or one of the other drugs in the 400 page pill book
that almost every household has. point is drugs don't make you crazy,
you where born crazy

TROLLFACE

rohar: MmmVomit: rohar: MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

As a person that recovered from heroin addiction and never got terribly farked up on pot, I'd like to say fark you.

So fark you.

I'm confused. Why are you angry at me?

Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.

Yes, some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Meth, for example. Probably heroin, too. I don't know where I ever said otherwise, and I don't know where you got the idea that I was at all libertarian. I know reading comprehension is hard, so I'll use concrete concepts and small words.

Let's assume that...

* Pot is safer than alcohol
* Pot is illegal
* Alcohol is legal

Based on safety, the laws don't make sense. You have two choices if you want to make the laws consistent.

1) Ban alcohol
2) Legalize pot

What a horrible article, and I don't ingest pot any more since it's not addictive.

/off to read the comments

Smeggy Smurf: Jjaro: jtown: I'll go out on a limb and say it's a lot safer recreational drug than alcohol. When's the last time you heard of a pothead toking up then beating his wife and kids? And I've never had pothead neighbors who get high and race their cars up and down the street or have raging parties until 3am. They sit inside with the windows and doors closed.

What's wrong with raging parties til 3am?

I read that as raping parties.

Okay, then what's wrong with raping parties til 3am?

has any body ever noticed how natural drugs are illegal and durgs made in a lab is legal,i bet people wouldn't have the same opinion about there corn

elchip: 6) "It's just a plant!"

So are hemlock, coca, and opium.
So are broccoli, cauliflower and lettuce

bmfderek: What about your neighbor? Is he allowed to smoke at home, or does he have to go to a designated smoking zone?

I would say that my right to not be inundated with the stink of weed trumps his right to smoke it, yes.
/ and he was evicted for it, not a current problem

A house, I would venture to say, is a different animal altogether. But for trailer parks, condos, townhomes and apartments - it's a nuisance.

haywatchthis: has any body ever noticed how natural drugs are illegal and durgs made in a lab is legal,i bet people wouldn't have the same opinion about there corn

has any body ever noticed how none-sensical the ubove statement is

Stupid people frequently find smarter people irritating. How ... insightful.

Jjaro: jtown: I'll go out on a limb and say it's a lot safer recreational drug than alcohol. When's the last time you heard of a pothead toking up then beating his wife and kids? And I've never had pothead neighbors who get high and race their cars up and down the street or have raging parties until 3am. They sit inside with the windows and doors closed.

What's wrong with raging parties til 3am?

Well, at the time I had neighbors who drank and partied until dawn, I had to work the next day. It's one thing on a Friday or Saturday night but Tuesday night is right out.

From the Farking article: "Full legalization would bring in [...] $6.2bn annually if it were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco." Man, that's a lot! But when you put that up beside the total taxes collected in 2010 ($2.1 trillion) and the current national debt ($14.4 trillion), the dent it makes is comparable to trying to change the orbit of the Sun by shooting it with your BB gun.

So what if the dent is barely noticeable? Even if the net result of legalizing (and taxing) marijuana and reducing the Drug War was a savings of one farking dollar it would still be a savings!

jingks: haywatchthis: has any body ever noticed how natural drugs are illegal and durgs made in a lab is legal,i bet people wouldn't have the same opinion about there corn

has any body ever noticed how none-sensical the ubove statement is

it's true right?

Oznog: A "natural high"- like Jenkem?

Earliest media reports of Jenkem: 1995. And best I can find, it's a hoax.

Coca: "Traces of coca have been found in mummies dating 3000 years back. Other evidence dates the communal chewing of coca with lime 8000 years back."
Opium: "which have been carbon-14 dated to 4200 BCE"
Payote: "The results dated the specimens to between 3780 and 3660 B.C.

Hell even Beer of the olden days was more bread than alcohol.

haywatchthis: jingks: haywatchthis: has any body ever noticed how natural drugs are illegal and durgs made in a lab is legal,i bet people wouldn't have the same opinion about there corn

has any body ever noticed how none-sensical the ubove statement is

it's true right?

totaly. my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. it's just common sense.

rohar: Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.

Instead of a thought out rebuttal, you attacked with obscenities. You don't give any prudence to...well, anything.

Don't be so obtuse. I'm interested in your opinion as a former addict.

...because they have to grow it inside to hide it.

Because it's illegal.

trentrockport: I've heard that residential stealth cannabis cultivation accounts for 10% of residential electricity use in the United States. this article cites 8% (new window) Same ballpark. That's one hell of a carbon footprint.

i can't believe i live in a world so full of morons

The best reason to legalize weed is because the spectacle of massive amounts of exploding heads in the ranks of the biggest nanny-staters..social and religious conservatives.. will be awesome.

rohar: Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.

So just because you can't handle your shiat, nobody should be able to? By that logic we should ban alcohol, cigarettes, cars, paint thinner, potatoes, water...

rohar: Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.

what? honestly, what does that mean?