F
This is of course, assuming these restrictions were in place:
- a strictly enforced age limit
- a ban on public usage
- a ban on operating machinery while under the influence
- and a ban on social services to those who produced positive urine tests.
Thanks
I'm all for those except the last. I don't think we should do drug testing for those who get social services.
We don't need more cancerous and mild altering drugs.
Mods, for the love of all things good and holy, please create a Drug/alcohol sub forum!!!!
This is of course, assuming these restrictions were in place:
- a strictly enforced age limit
- a ban on public usage
- a ban on operating machinery while under the influence
- and a ban on social services to those who produced positive urine tests.
Thanks
It should be legal. The Fed Gov should stay out of it. Each state should set the regulations on it. Marijuana is better for you than alcohol.
I believe it should not be legalized for recreational purposes either.
It's a schedule 1 drug for a reason.
A looser usage of the word "narcotic" to refer to any illegal or unlawfully possessed drug including marijuana and heroin is common worldwide, although these substances are not considered narcotics in a medical or scientific context. The central drug policy making body within the United Nations, for instance, is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, although the United Nations officially defines a narcotic drug to be "any of the substances, natural or synthetic, in Schedules I and II of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and that Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961" Used in this manner the word "narcotic" is a useful if not wholly accurate label to denote any drug that is subject to the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, or similar legislation elsewhere.
I don't buy the propaganda of "it's natural, non toxic, and herb maaan."
It's a mind altering substance that should be kept illegal. We don't need more cancerous and mild altering drugs.
I do.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic:
So, because they are listed in the Schedule I, they are considered narcotics. That is all.
It is on the schedule 1 because they have been demonized and propagandized throughout the 30's, 40's, 50's and to today. It is the "devil's weed" and it will get your daughter pregnant by a Mexican. No actual scientific data went into the decision. In fact, the AMA was against making marijuana illegal. Corporate interests drove making it illegal.
As opposed to the propaganda that it will make you crazy?
What is the problem with mind altering substances? It doesn't harm anyone and it should be our individual choice.
Wow...soooo many problems in this one post.
1: You're using wiki. A worthless site that can be edited by ANYONE. It's basically a glorified blog website.
2: Your link does not go to the page with which you quote. Why don't you make one?
3: Your quote starts out "A looser usage of the word "narcotic""...seriously? A looser usage? That alone would disqualify anything to anyone with even half a brain.
4: No it will not get your daughter pregnant from a mexican. No one of any decent scientific standing that wants to be taken seriously would ever have said that. The only ones that do are idiots...probably originally by dopers themselves trying to be sarcastic.
5: If you seriously think that mind altering substances doesn't hurt anyone then I would suggest to you to take a big sniff of coccaine. See weather or not it will hurt someone.
6: The only ones calling it propaganda are those with no brains...at least imo. I've seen the effects on people that smoke MJ personally. You cannot tell me that it does no harm and think that I will take you seriously.
IMO those trying to say that pot does no harm are no better than cigarette companies when they were saying the same thing.
Yes there are medicinal uses for MJ. There are medicinal uses for any herb out there. But just like everything else if it is used improperly or in excess it can and will hurt you and by default the ones you love.
I don't know what happened to the link.
Cannabis is not a medical or scientific narcotic. I see you chose to avoid this point.
Propaganda was heavily used prior and after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1936. There were no scientific studies done supporting this action. It was political.
Pot does no harm to anyone else. It does do minor harm to the user. This is not sufficient to prevent legal casual use.
Mirriam-Webster: Narcotic - From the dictionary part.
Mirriam-Webster: Drug - From the dictionary part.
Mirriam-Webster: Narcotic - From the medical part
Mirriam-Webster: Drug - From the medical part.
Yes it is scientifically and medically considered a narcotic and a drug.
2 : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether in fact physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
So what? We have the studies now.
Bull. Any drug use has been proven to harm loved ones of the user. Mainly emotional. My sister does pot. Because of the way she acted due to it she is no longer welcomed by my family or my mom and dad. She has hurt us all emotionally. Partly because of theft from us. Partly because of her attitude due to MJ.
Oh wait...those are her actions and were not caused by pot right? Pot doesn't alter a persons personality right? That is such bullcrap.
I agree. Just because they test positive doesn't mean they bought it.
They shouldn't test for marijuana but they should do testing for heroin and crack.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?