Author Options:

do u think obama should let weed be legal? Answered



Yes its already been proven to heal the body without damaging the body, the feds need to quit wasting money on fighting a war against cannabis and start on drugs like crack and alcohol!

my favorite part of this entire conversation is how nobody even remotely noticed the word obama in the question but simply read "do you think weed should be legal?" thanks for the laugh everyone(:

No, it's a drug.
And if it were legal, there would be a lot more people coming in to sell drugs, making it even more dangerous at the Texas-Mexican border. Also, that would give them a bigger chance to earn easy money.
Technically, then people could just grow weed without getting caught and sell it for a few hundred bucks and get rich that way. (Although the price would drastically drop eventually.)

And, if he did make it legal, why wouldn't crack and all the other drugs be legal too?

Nicotine and alcohol are also classified as drugs- they were just legalized- without legalizing every other drug. Not to mention the drugs sold at the pharmacy- which can be seriously addictive with deadly side effects and are frequently abused. Grouping THC Hemp with narcotics and amphetamines is bad science and bad legislation.

. The only part of that comment that makes any sense is the first sentence. . > there would be a lot more people coming in to sell drugs . No. Instead of a lot of ppl smuggling relatively small quantities, businesses would truck it in just like they do with produce and tequila. . But, first and foremost, legalization would effectively take distribution away from the criminals. Just as with Prohibition, illegality causes more problems than use. . And if it were legal, we wouldn't need to import as much. Ask anyone in N. California how much pot is imported into their area. . > Technically, then people could just grow weed without getting caught and sell it . As with alcohol and tobacco, the vast majority of ppl would buy it at the store. Growing hemp (low THC content; used primarily for the fibers) is pretty easy. Growing pot, not so much.


9 years ago

Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan, the section of the book about marijuana. A fantastic insight to our dance with this plant. The amount of genetic control and fine tuning of the type of "high" is not without merit. Just as wine, spirits and beer have their own distinctions. Whether it is alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, guns, narcotics... all of these have a similar status in culture. Good or evil, right or wrong. People who use them make the distinction. Overuse, cavalier attitudes, immaturity, insanity, criminal intent, addictions are the problems associated with ATF. As far as criminal activity is concerned no doubt it would drop in the marijuana trade, but unfortunately, criminals don't go away they would just change their focus to something else.

A complicated question if you actually put any thought in to it. The case could be made either way. On one hand, it would be a great cash cow for the government. It would decriminalize the behavior which would free up a lot of space in jail, which in turn would save the States tons of money as well. If legalized, they could regulate it and create an industry for it thereby creating jobs as there is obviously a market for it. On the other hand, it has an awful stigma to it. It would take a very long time to get over the stigma of being "a pothead". It would potentially lead to loss of employment if so stigmatized, as you would be more open about your pot use. It is widely considered to be a gateway drug, therefore I can't see it being rational to legalize it. You are incredibly impaired under its influence making massive regulations to control its use necessary. No driving while high, no heavy machinery, no being around kids, etc. Ultimately I would have to say no. It should be open to debate, but the infrastructure just isn't there to be able to legalize it and it would take many years to lay the groundwork for it. It would just be irresponsible to say yeah it's legal, but do no work to make sure it is safe.

. Although I disagree with several of your points, that is one of the most reasoned and reasonable assessments of the situation I've seen.
> it has an awful stigma to it
. Yes, there are some ppl that are violently opposed to use or legalization, but, in my experience, those ppl are few and far between and, for the most part, are the same ppl that are opposed to alcohol, tobacco, &c, also. Almost everyone I know is for, or ambivalent about, legalization. Maybe I'm just hanging around with the wrong ppl. :)
> It would potentially lead to loss of employment
. So does the use of any intoxicant at work - as it should be.
. Unfortunately, all the tests I've seen don't measure how much of the active ingredients are in your system, they measure metabolites - ie, they only tell how stoned you were the night (weeks, actually) before.
> widely considered to be a gateway drug
. Since there have been no valid studies allowed, there is no credible evidence one way or the other. In my experience, it is not a gateway drug, but that's just anecdotal.
> You are incredibly impaired under its influence (my emphasis)
. Not true. Yes, one is impaired, but, from what I've seen, it is much less powerful than alcohol.
> No driving while high, no heavy machinery,
. Agreed.
> the infrastructure just isn't there to be able to legalize it and it would take many years to lay the groundwork for it
. I'd be willing to bet that the alcohol and tobacco industries would be more than happy to get some new business. They are already well-regulated and set up to keep minors from purchasing their products.

They were looking at legalizing it here in Canada but a couple changes in government sort of killed it. I guess the devil's in the details, ie: - Who can use it? Sick people? Adults? Kids? - What strength is the product going to be? What's going in to the product? Can the manufacturer market the product by how much THC is in it? -What about the health risks of smoking weed? Are there going to be warning labels pointing out the negative effects? - Where are they going to be allowed to sell it and for that matter, market it? Can they put a big billboard outside a school? Are they going to have the same rules as alcohol vendors? -When are you going to be allowed to light up? Behind the wheel of a car? In front of your kids? - I don't have a "why" but how would this be controlled? Should anyone with a flower pot be allowed to grow it? I'm not against it on principle but I find a lot of folks I run into that are for legalization tend not to think more about it than the party next weekend. That's my two cents anyways...

Hopefully- hemp has so many uses apart from smoking. It really is a 'Green' commodity- it grows almost anywhere with little fertilizer assistance plus it doesn't deplete the soil. It makes better paper than wood pulp with fewer chemicals, the oil from the seeds is both edible and combustible (use for fuel), it makes more durable fabric than cotton (without the petrochemical cost of cotton production), it makes excellent animal fodder, ... the list goes on and on. We already have alcoholics and chain smokers- most pot-heads are no more noxious than these. If pot were legal and taxed then the same type of laws that insure tax collection on cigarettes and booze would apply to THC hemp (which is a hybrid of the hemp plant). We already have pot crossing the borders- nothing new there. Pot is already being bought and sold illegally with no tax revenue collected- lets collect taxes on it. Equating pot too narcotics or amphetamines is bad science and bad legislation. Let's move out from under the cloud of bad publicity into the sunshine of rational thought and consideration.


But I think that the various constituents of "weed" should be properly evaluated for medical benefits.