Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
To my knowledge, pot is as tightly controlled as LSD, but I could be wrong about that. I'm fairly certain it is under the same classification as LSD, though.

I'd think with the current cultural interest in pot that it would be easier to get a grant for a marijuana study than an acid one.

Talk about people having misconceptions, lol, LSD is the king of people talking out there ass about it.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
However, I personally dismiss the entanglements of ethical matters in pot research. I'm not a scientist who participates in clinical medical research, so that matter is up to that individual.

If an individual has chosen not to use drugs before in their life, it is irresponsible for a researcher to assign them to a random group that requires it of them.

Individualism and all that, however, the power given to authority figures in an experiment immediately disadvantages the person participating in the experiment to contend such things. The Milgram studies, and to a lesser extent, the stanford prison experiment, show this in an extreme way.

The fact of the matter is, people are dumb. Marijuana is not benign, and people will be dumb enough to sign up for a study then want to sue the university/research establishment when they have some anxiety issues. Even if that isn't the case, potentially subjecting someone to those anxiety issues is unethical.

We could discuss whether or not there is too much emphasis on "coddling" research subjects, or about ethics boards, however, as things stand today, I don't think that randomly assigning non-pot smokers to a pot smoking group would be ethically allowed (this being entirely from my experiences in a Canadian university).

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
I don't really argue with anything else you've said. I'm not really under the impression that beyond the medical uses and discerning the extent of damage due to it's use reasearch of any kind would really interest the medical community.

from my discussions with people in the "establishment", it really isn't a political bias against drugs. In fact, academia is pretty well established to have a strong liberal bias, and has been, in the past, one of the strongest voices for drug legalization or at the very least, a harm reduction approach.

The reason there is little interest is because scientists don't really use drugs. There are potentially many reasons for this, but think about it rationally. Who does well at school? not who is smart, but who earns the top marks in a class? Who then is able to study every night and do well in university and grad school?

On the flip side, who is most likely to get thrown out or drop out of highschool? who is more likely to grow tired of the day-in-day-out monotony of school?

You are right that a political issue underlies the lack of interest in drugs, but you got the wrong issue. I talk freely with the profs I work with about drugs, and most are highly curious. It is that people who use drugs often find incredible struggle with the education system or are less willing to "fall in line" when asked to by the establishment.

Also:

http://www.journalofpsychoactivedrugs.com/index.html

^^^^^

that was the 420th post!

😂

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd think with the current cultural interest in pot that it would be easier to get a grant for a marijuana study than an acid one.

Talk about people having misconceptions, lol, LSD is the king of people talking out there ass about it.

Such is the irrational approach held by many in the government. But, let's not dismiss the pharmecutical lobby against pot. that certainly has a huge voice in the fact that Pot, LSD and heroin are all classified under the same category by the FDA and other government agencies.

Originally posted by inimalist
If an individual has chosen not to use drugs before in their life, it is irresponsible for a researcher to assign them to a random group that requires it of them.

Animal testing aside, I'm unclear on something. Are you saying that people are placed in a subject group without being told what they're being used to test? A large number of the marijuana studies I've heard of are based on volunteers. I understand the placebo effect or how fore knowledge has the potential to effect the outcome, but I was unaware that these people are being forced to use drugs without their consent. However, I can't imagine someone being part of a study to test any drug where the side-effects have the potential to effect them, even superficially, the way pot does and them have any moral complaint. Being stoned and getting the munchies sounds a lot less objectionable than anal leakage and liver damage. However, I understand that just about any argument I raise is only substantiating your claim that the research is hindered by so many different factors as to make it uninteresting to scientists.

Originally posted by inimalist
The fact of the matter is, people are dumb. Marijuana is not benign, and people will be dumb enough to sign up for a study then want to sue the university/research establishment when they have some anxiety issues. Even if that isn't the case, potentially subjecting someone to those anxiety issues is unethical.

I can't really counter this point in any way. People are dumb and the reverse finger bang the government gave the tobacco industry when it came to lawsuits filed by smokers with lung cancer only proves that. However, I can't imagine why a person who never smoked pot would volunteer for a pot study in the first place.

Originally posted by inimalist
We could discuss whether or not there is too much emphasis on "coddling" research subjects, or about ethics boards, however, as things stand today, I don't think that randomly assigning non-pot smokers to a pot smoking group would be ethically allowed (this being entirely from my experiences in a Canadian university).

We aren't entirely without ethics in the US, despite some our foreign and domestic policy.

Originally posted by inimalist
from my discussions with people in the "establishment", it really isn't a political bias against drugs. In fact, academia is pretty well established to have a strong liberal bias, and has been, in the past, one of the strongest voices for drug legalization or at the very least, a harm reduction approach.

Our political bias comes from lobbyists. Lobbyists for the drug companies, the booze manufacturers and the religious lobbies pay out millions of dollars a year to keep these substances illegal. Booze doesn't want competition, Drug doesn't want cheap, easily found or self-produced competition (This is why they are now in the business of growing pot to sell to the Pot Clubs) and the religion lobby needs little explaination...and the topper is that the government demands it's cut in the way of taxes. However, I do take issue with on e point you make here that I'll address later.*

Originally posted by inimalist
The reason there is little interest is because scientists don't really use drugs. There are potentially many reasons for this, but think about it rationally. Who does well at school? Not who is smart, but who earns the top marks in a class? Who then is able to study every night and do well in university and grad school?

On the flip side, who is most likely to get thrown out or drop out of highschool? who is more likely to grow tired of the day-in-day-out monotony of school?

You are right that a political issue underlies the lack of interest in drugs, but you got the wrong issue. I talk freely with the profs I work with about drugs, and most are highly curious. It is that people who use drugs often find incredible struggle with the education system or are less willing to "fall in line" when asked to by the establishment.

[Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.]
You're saying that the people who do well in school because they don't smoke pot are becoming the stand-outs in their classes and are being recognized in the feild of academics and research and are then going on to choose something besides drugs to research because they didn't do it themselves when they were in school, which they recognize is what got them where they are?

*If there is a liberal bias in academia towards legalization, then why would they have any opinion unless they smoked pot at some point in their lives? Take the free 60's as an exmple. It was in the universities and hippie movements that academia earned it's reputation for being liberal whimps because they sat around smoking pot. (Stereotypes aside) I don't think that my experience is all that different from most students. I have a large number of friends in school that smoked pot on a fairly regular basis and did very well. I'll grant you they knew the difference between when it was appropriate and when it wasn't. We never sat down to study and passed the bowl around before hand. We never rolled a joint before we went to take a test. (And you really couldn't when you were just going to class, because most times it was hard enough to stay awake, pot would have made it impossible) I have seen the students you're talking about, though. I've been friends with many of them. Sometimes you met someone who could smoke and drink and never study and he still did well. I also knew many that didn't know when it was time to put down the bag and pick up the book.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also:

http://www.journalofpsychoactivedrugs.com/index.html

I'll have to check this out later when time allows. If it addresses any of your points in more detail and I didn't take that into consideration before I posted, I'll make up for that when I do.

I think pot should be legalized just so i don't have to hear the question again, "should marijuana be legalized?"

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I think pot should be legalized just so i don't have to hear the question again, "should marijuana be legalized?"

No.

Ban alchohol instead.

And anything else not coated in cotton wool and not guaranteed to extend our lives.

And maybe the Catholic Church, as they literally f*** up loads of kids/lives, whereas pot just metaphorically does.

Legalize it and tax it.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No.

Ban alchohol instead.

And anything else not coated in cotton wool and not guaranteed to extend our lives.

And maybe the Catholic Church, as they literally f*** up loads of kids/lives, whereas pot just metaphorically does.

That's a pretty arrogant statement, but that's an appropiate reply to yours.

I'm betting all or most of your teachers at school smoked cannabis at least once.

the BEST that can be justified is criminalising DISTRIBUTION of drugs. posession and use can NOT be criminilised, no matter WHICH drug. in a society where alcohol is justified, it makes POSITIVELY no sense to to ban mirjuana. ofcourse, driving under the influence or being around minors or endangering others under the influence can always be penalised legally.

We've been protecting people's right to be stupid for as long as the Constitution existed...why stop with Marijuana?

^hell, no1 says anything when you give em GUNS! seriously, the WAR on drugs and political correctness ON drugs is gotten BEYOND the point of ridicule. honestly, mirjuana nets a reaction similar to RAPE in the general society when used in context with teenagers.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^hell, no1 says anything when you give em GUNS! seriously, the WAR on drugs and political correctness ON drugs is gotten BEYOND the point of ridicule. honestly, mirjuana nets a reaction similar to RAPE in the general society when used in context with teenagers.

Indeed. End the war on drugs, dissolve the DEA, legalize many drugs and tax them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
and tax them.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Pot has ****ed up no one's life.

That's a pretty arrogant statement, but that's an appropiate reply to yours.

I'm betting all or most of your teachers at school smoked cannabis at least once.

lol saying "Pot has ****ed up no one's life" is pretty arrogant as well.

Not really, I don't know anyone who has smoked pot and come out saying "I totally ruined my life!"

Originally posted by Davis Bloome
Not really, I don't know anyone who has smoked pot and come out saying "I totally ruined my life!"

lol

marijuana can ruin someones life. Drug abuse like that is symptomatic of problems in a person's life and can manifest with ketamin or pot.

by no means is pot "harmless" and "benign"

Originally posted by KidRock
lol saying "Pot has ****ed up no one's life" is pretty arrogant as well.

Re-read my post, then read your reply.

Nothing else has to be said.

"arrogant"--are you sure that's the word you're looking for? Perhaps you mean ignorant.

It should be legalized because right now it is so popular especially among teenagers due to the fact it is illegal like "forbidden fruit" and after legalization this will not be so interesting to them!