Your view on the legalization of marijuana

[General Zod]

It would be interesting to hear people's view on legalising that. Would that be best in a new thread or just to continue on this one? Mod please advise!

LSD would be (imo) far too easy to overdose on and fuck yourself up permanently with, combined with lots of unpredictable effects as far as how people will behave. I see no reason to justify legalizing it; at least with marijuana, it's objectively less harmful than smoking tobacco, so there's plenty of room for arguing in favor of it there.

[General Zod]

Legalizing any drug which has potential for overdose or mental breakdown is very tricky. The dosages would have to be heavily regulated and IMO there would still be a large black market for those looking for more powerful stuff.

ANY drug has a potential for being overdosed. The question is how much it takes to OD, in addition to whether or not those overdoses can be FATAL or otherwise cause significant degrees of harm compared to other drugs.

[Akumz Razor]

That's true but marijuana users have an extremely low chance of ODing (lower than alchohol). This is not the case with coke, heroin, LSD, etc. Therefore legalizing pot would be much more feasible because dosage-control wouldn't need to be built in to any legal sales system.

[Duckie]

I have heard (although I am unsure how true it is) that it is about as easy to overdose on Marijuana as it is on Vitamin C or on Salt, meaning that you would have to literally consume a giant meal's worth of weed several times.

[General Zod]

I have heard (although I am unsure how true it is) that it is about as easy to overdose on Marijuana as it is on Vitamin C or on Salt, meaning that you would have to literally consume a giant meal's worth of weed several times.

More or less true.

In summary, enormous doses of Delta 9 THC, All THC and concentrated marihuana extract ingested by mouth were unable to produce death or organ pathology in large mammals but did produce fatalities in smaller rodents due to profound central nervous system depression.

The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.

Thus, evidence from animal studies and human case reports appears to indicate that the ratio of lethal dose to effective dose is quite large. This ratio is much more favorable than that of many other common psychoactive agents including alcohol and barbiturates (Phillips et al. 1971, Brill et al. 1970).

[RedImperator]

LSD also has the added side effects of permanently fucking up things like your vision if you take too much; which can be a significantly lower dose than equivalent drugs require to fuck you up permanently.

I can't find a source anywhere for this. What's your proof?

[General Zod]

LSD also has the added side effects of permanently fucking up things like your vision if you take too much; which can be a significantly lower dose than equivalent drugs require to fuck you up permanently.

I can't find a source anywhere for this. What's your proof?

It was from talking to people I knew who have taken far too much first hand, though after checking myself I can't seem to find anything backing it up either, so I'll retract it for now.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Any hallucinogen has the potential to leave lasting psychological damage on the user through excess or inexperience in ways that make all but the most horrid opiate recoveries pale in comparison. After a three year diet of shrooms, LSD, salvia, DMT and datura that saw me vacillate around new age Gnostic mysticism constantly, I was left a jibbering, incoherent wreck when I thought the entire universe was evaporating around me one superlatively shitty evening. I hadn't done much worse than smoke marijuana that night either, but I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back, and spending the next three months near catatonic in an apartment that resembled a ruined city block from Half-Life 2 didn't much help.

Removing the "Forbidden Fruit" around hallucinogens might not be as effective a tact, because their usage ranges from semi-regular (shrooms) to niche (LSD) to impossible to find (datura), and sweeping legalization across the board might be the publicity they never had before, especially with marijuana seeming like yesterday's news just like it is in the Netherlands. I know I sure as hell don't want to spur another largish anti-empiricist movement in society with the most compelling personal experiences in their arsenal to deny the validity of sound argumentation with.

[PainRack]

Oh wait, are you referring to the execution of drug traffickers? How on earth is that different from the lifelong jailterms, confisication of property or the use of military force to attack druglords? Or is being executed by smart missiles, bombs and guns somehow now more acceptable than hanging and chemical execution?(For the US equivalent).

Bullshit. The strictest state marijuana laws I could find, in Florida, has a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of fifteen thousand pounds of marijuana. Possession of 500 grams, which carries the death penalty in Singapore, gets you five years in Florida.

Except its NOT posession that carries the death penalty, its trafficking. And the strict definition here is that anyone who carries over 500g of pure THC has to be trafficking..... since nobody carries 500g of THC for pure consumption.

As for the military, I can't find any evidence anywhere for US military airstrikes on drug lords anywhere, let alone inside the United States (the exception being Afghanistan, where undoubtedly some of the Taliban militants targeted by the Air Force are involved in heroin trafficking).

Except that the US military has been involved in military strikes against Taliban and other warlord opium fields in Afghanistan. Except that the US adminstration has provided military advisorers and support, linked NOT to their foreign policy aid but rather to the drug war to states in Columbia and Central America.

Oh wait, now its somehow twisted of me to use the same twisted logic you used to define posession and trafficking when comparing the draconician aspects of Singapore drug laws?

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan as others have mentioned already, it's removing the Forbidden Fruit. [...]

Yes, I understand that, and it seems to have worked in some countries. Based on that it would be prudent to implement it elsewhere, as well. Makes sense to me.

It just feels like trying to put out a fire by throwing more fuel on it, though, even if it does work.

[RedImperator]

Oh wait, are you referring to the execution of drug traffickers? How on earth is that different from the lifelong jailterms, confisication of property or the use of military force to attack druglords? Or is being executed by smart missiles, bombs and guns somehow now more acceptable than hanging and chemical execution?(For the US equivalent).

Bullshit. The strictest state marijuana laws I could find, in Florida, has a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of fifteen thousand pounds of marijuana. Possession of 500 grams, which carries the death penalty in Singapore, gets you five years in Florida.

Except its NOT posession that carries the death penalty, its trafficking. And the strict definition here is that anyone who carries over 500g of pure THC has to be trafficking..... since nobody carries 500g of THC for pure consumption.

You're right, I should have said trafficking. Unfortunately for you, I should have said trafficking with regards to Florida law. The 15 year number was trafficking 15,000 pounds. For trafficking 500 grams (about 1 pound), Florida law has a mandatory sentence of five years. So, um...not really seeing how it helps your point. Singapore hangs people for an offense that even in one of the most ass-backwards, draconian states in the union, only carries a 5 year prison term. Federal law does have a life sentence for trafficking in marijuana, but you must be found guilty of trafficking over 1000kg--2000 times the amount required for a death penalty in Singapore.

And incidentally, that marijuana/pure THC bait-and-switch you tried to pull? You can go ahead and stick it up your ass. The Singaporean Misuse of Drugs Act says nothing of the sort. 500g of cannabis gets you the death penalty, not refined THC.

So yeah. Go ahead and keep claiming Singaporean and American drug law are even remotely equivalent. That fact that ours our bad doesn't mean yours aren't orders of magnitude worse, and would never be accepted by the American public in even their worst "RAR TOUGH ON CRIME" moral panics.

As for the military, I can't find any evidence anywhere for US military airstrikes on drug lords anywhere, let alone inside the United States (the exception being Afghanistan, where undoubtedly some of the Taliban militants targeted by the Air Force are involved in heroin trafficking).

Except that the US military has been involved in military strikes against Taliban and other warlord opium fields in Afghanistan.

Oh wow, you got me there, tiger.

(the exception being Afghanistan, where undoubtedly some of the Taliban militants targeted by the Air Force are involved in heroin trafficking)

(the exception being Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Huh. Turns out, you're a dishonest little pecker.

Except that the US adminstration has provided military advisorers and support, linked NOT to their foreign policy aid but rather to the drug war to states in Columbia and Central America.

Which is, you know, exactly the same as airstrikes. OH WAIT!

And it's really awesome how you snipped this part:

Even if the US military is directly involved in military strikes on cartels, they're not putting JDAMs through the windows of college kids selling half a kilo out of their dorms.

So yeah, once again, you trying to draw any kind of equivalence between US and Singaporean drug laws is just a bunch of shit. Sorry if you don't like it.

Oh wait, now its somehow twisted of me to use the same twisted logic you used to define posession and trafficking when comparing the draconician aspects of Singapore drug laws?

Speaking of drugs, were you on something when you wrote this? Because I can't begin to make out what you're trying to say here.

[sketerpot]

LSD would be (imo) far too easy to overdose on and fuck yourself up permanently with, combined with lots of unpredictable effects as far as how people will behave.

So require that anybody using LSD (singularly or in groups) be supervised by a licensed trip sitter, and restrict the sale of LSD to precisely measured doses -- no more of this dodgy dose crap. There are more options than "sell it in every corner drug store" and "ban it".

Don't make the requirements for a license too odious -- you want legal LSD tripping to be affordable, or people will do it illegally -- but having trained supervisors solves most of the problems I've seen in this thread. Overdose? Regulate dosage. Worried that the tripper might walk off a rooftop to get out of the Matrix? Have someone there to make sure it doesn't happen! Bad trips? Make sure there's someone present to help someone through a bad trip, and to make the setting pleasant.

Any more issues?

[General Zod]

So require that anybody using LSD (singularly or in groups) be supervised by a licensed trip sitter, and restrict the sale of LSD to precisely measured doses -- no more of this dodgy dose crap. There are more options than "sell it in every corner drug store" and "ban it".

Don't make the requirements for a license too odious -- you want legal LSD tripping to be affordable, or people will do it illegally -- but having trained supervisors solves most of the problems I've seen in this thread. Overdose? Regulate dosage. Worried that the tripper might walk off a rooftop to get out of the Matrix? Have someone there to make sure it doesn't happen! Bad trips? Make sure there's someone present to help someone through a bad trip, and to make the setting pleasant.

Any more issues?

Is there even any kind of serious demand for LSD the way there is for marijuana to make it even remotely profitable? If not then I don't see why its legal status needs to change whatsoever.

[sketerpot]

Is there even any kind of serious demand for LSD the way there is for marijuana to make it even remotely profitable? If not then I don't see why its legal status needs to change whatsoever.

That argument goes two ways: if it's that unpopular, then what do you gain by banning it? Putting some low-overhead regulations in place would probably be cheaper than enforcing a law against LSD use.

[General Zod]

Is there even any kind of serious demand for LSD the way there is for marijuana to make it even remotely profitable? If not then I don't see why its legal status needs to change whatsoever.

That argument goes two ways: if it's that unpopular, then what do you gain by banning it? Putting some low-overhead regulations in place would probably be cheaper than enforcing a law against LSD use.

The laws to ban it are already in place, so demanding why it needs to be banned in the first place is purely academic and not the point. Legalizing it for recreational use would simply be more trouble than it's worth when the demand just isn't there and LSD's impact on society is incredibly low already.

[Gil Hamilton]

Except its NOT posession that carries the death penalty, its trafficking. And the strict definition here is that anyone who carries over 500g of pure THC has to be trafficking..... since nobody carries 500g of THC for pure consumption.

That's funny, considering that Singaporean law defines someone carrying 15 grams of weed or more as a drug trafficker. That's, what, half an ounce? While that's certainly a good bit more than someone could smoke in a sitting, that could still fall into the category of personal consumption (I don't eat an entire package of Oreo's in a sitting myself, but they are still personal consumption).

[ray245]

Except its NOT posession that carries the death penalty, its trafficking. And the strict definition here is that anyone who carries over 500g of pure THC has to be trafficking..... since nobody carries 500g of THC for pure consumption.

That's funny, considering that Singaporean law defines someone carrying 15 grams of weed or more as a drug trafficker. That's, what, half an ounce? While that's certainly a good bit more than someone could smoke in a sitting, that could still fall into the category of personal consumption (I don't eat an entire package of Oreo's in a sitting myself, but they are still personal consumption).

I don't mind such a heavy law, if we managed to control the trafficking of drugs and drug abuse to a huge degree. While such a law is infeasible in other nations, it can work for Singapore.

[Qwerty 42]

My philosophy on marijuana is the same as my philosophy on cigarettes. Weed, in my opinion, should be legalized, and then both tobacco and marijuana can be subject to public smoke bans and high taxation.

[KlavoHunter]

My philosophy on marijuana is the same as my philosophy on cigarettes. Weed, in my opinion, should be legalized, and then both tobacco and marijuana can be subject to public smoke bans and high taxation.

How, exactly, would you attempt to tax people who grew their own weed? The plant is quite easy to grow. Would this be considered tax evasion?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Except its NOT posession that carries the death penalty, its trafficking. And the strict definition here is that anyone who carries over 500g of pure THC has to be trafficking..... since nobody carries 500g of THC for pure consumption.

That's funny, considering that Singaporean law defines someone carrying 15 grams of weed or more as a drug trafficker. That's, what, half an ounce? While that's certainly a good bit more than someone could smoke in a sitting, that could still fall into the category of personal consumption (I don't eat an entire package of Oreo's in a sitting myself, but they are still personal consumption).

I don't mind such a heavy law, if we managed to control the trafficking of drugs and drug abuse to a huge degree. While such a law is infeasible in other nations, it can work for Singapore.

Do you know how fucking easy it is to bring even 1kg of weed into Singapore? Do you know that 15grams is remarkably easy to hide?

[sarcasm]Yeah, it works.[/sarcasm] I think somehow somewhere, people in this country simply got their hysterics volume set to the maximum and decided that they would be "busy bodies" and go around exerting their authority on everyone whether they like it or not.

[Lusankya]

How, exactly, would you attempt to tax people who grew their own weed? The plant is quite easy to grow. Would this be considered tax evasion?

Presumably the same way you tax people who grow their own tomatoes. Besides, how many of them are going to bother growing commercially if it's legal for people to just buy it? In places where pot is decriminalised, that's the only thing the authorities really care about anyway.

[Broomstick]

My philosophy on marijuana is the same as my philosophy on cigarettes. Weed, in my opinion, should be legalized, and then both tobacco and marijuana can be subject to public smoke bans and high taxation.

How, exactly, would you attempt to tax people who grew their own weed? The plant is quite easy to grow. Would this be considered tax evasion?

What makes you think the average pot user would grow their own if they had access to reasonably priced legal weed?

About the same number that grow their own tobacco, brew their own beer or wine, distill their own whiskey... not really an issue. The government will get plenty of taxes from lazy bums who can't be bothered with a garden.

[ray245]

Do you know how fucking easy it is to bring even 1kg of weed into Singapore? Do you know that 15grams is remarkably easy to hide?

[sarcasm]Yeah, it works.[/sarcasm] I think somehow somewhere, people in this country simply got their hysterics volume set to the maximum and decided that they would be "busy bodies" and go around exerting their authority on everyone whether they like it or not.

Well, I would love for you to tell me, where did you get the source from, in regards to the inflow of drugs into Singapore, and how do you know bringing in 1kg of weed is easy? Some source will be lovely.

Ok, I'll can believe you that 15 grams by itself is easy to hide in your luggage. However, why would you smuggle in 15 grams of drugs into Singapore in the first place? Which mean, it will take ALOT of people just to smuggle in drugs in large amount if one person only carry with him 14 grams of drugs . Isn't 15 grams a small amount to bring in for a drug smuggler? Then again, police force around the world will only check and inspect your luggage when you are suspicious. The additional pressure of facing a death penalty can cause a person to act more erratic and nervous. It is due to the fact that people acting nervous, and acting erratic that cause their cover to be blown.


Which reminds me of one thing, why should Singapore legalise marijuana when our drug abuse demand isn't that high in comparison to the US to begin with? It's not like Singapore has a huge border where smugglers can come over into Singapore easily.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, I would love for you to tell me, where did you get the source from, in regards to the inflow of drugs into Singapore, and how do you know bringing in 1kg of weed is easy? Some source will be lovely.

Obviously an overseas source.

Ok, I'll can believe you that 15 grams by itself is easy to hide in your luggage. However, why would you smuggle in 15 grams of drugs into Singapore in the first place? Which mean, it will take ALOT of people just to smuggle in drugs in large amount if one person only carry with him 14 grams of drugs . Isn't 15 grams a small amount to bring in for a drug smuggler? Then again, police force around the world will only check and inspect your luggage when you are suspicious. The additional pressure of facing a death penalty can cause a person to act more erratic and nervous. It is due to the fact that people acting nervous, and acting erratic that cause their cover to be blown.

Let's be frank here, the fact that drug abuse still happens in Singapore simply means that there's still plenty of drugs coming in one way or another. The fellas who get caught are obviously the amateurs/morons who took on more than what they can chew.

Which reminds me of one thing, why should Singapore legalise marijuana when our drug abuse demand isn't that high in comparison to the US to begin with? It's not like Singapore has a huge border where smugglers can come over into Singapore easily.

Oh, that's easy. Because the bulk of people will go shrieking that the sky is falling the moment you even loosen up one bit.

[ray245]

Well, I would love for you to tell me, where did you get the source from, in regards to the inflow of drugs into Singapore, and how do you know bringing in 1kg of weed is easy? Some source will be lovely.

Obviously an overseas source.

Link or some factual data will be nice I suppose.

Let's be frank here, the fact that drug abuse still happens in Singapore simply means that there's still plenty of drugs coming in one way or another. The fellas who get caught are obviously the amateurs/morons who took on more than what they can chew.

Understanding the fact that there are drugs coming into Singapore is a no-brainer. The problem is, does this mean Police force should stop catching people bringing in drugs? Bringing in a soft drug into Singapore is just as easy/hard to bring in hard drugs. I don't think anyone in the world is going to legalise a hard drugs, so police force is still needed to catch those people bringing in hard drugs.

So why couldn't the police force catch smugglers bringing in hard and soft drugs at the same time?

Which reminds me of one thing, why should Singapore legalise marijuana when our drug abuse demand isn't that high in comparison to the US to begin with? It's not like Singapore has a huge border where smugglers can come over into Singapore easily.

Oh, that's easy. Because the bulk of people will go shrieking that the sky is falling the moment you even loosen up one bit.

Wait, most people here who support legalization of Marijuana is not supporting this act for the sake of loosening up. It is about regulation.

If the problem of drug or substance abuse isn't as severe as the US, why should we legalise those drugs?