marijuana, should it be legal.

[lumination]

What are your thoughts.
If the govenment taxed it we could make more money as a country to help our selves out.
Its proven that to overdose on it you have to smoke over 200 joints in 15mins which is impossible!
It would make crime drop.
Alcohol causes more problems and also causes more harm to the body. Where as Marijuana has no physical effects long term, only thing that might come about is being paranoid and thats if you smoke it constantly.

California is coming round to the idea of making it legal by a federal law as at the moment its a people law. its also passed in quite a few other states.

Would you vote to make it legal if it came to a vote and if not, why?

DISCUSS!

[ummmm]

Hallucinations? I think your son and his mates were taking something stronger.

Weed also makes music sound better.

[starone]

I'm only going by what he said ummmm. No personal involvement except through him and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

[lumination]

ill be right back. im finishing work and going home!

[ummmm]

I know quite a few dope smokers and I've never known or heard of anyone hallucinating.

[Baldric]

It would appear I'm not the only one to have noticed YOU are confused, reread your last few posts, 80% of people interviewed were over 40. Now tell me that's not the voice of youth.
I agree they are not, nor are they the ones who started this thread, that was down to the inexperienced optimistic voice of youth IMHO.

[ChuckFickens]

I'm nearly 40 (eeek!) and a lot of smokers I've known are in their 60's and have held down decent jobs for their entire lives.

It's not the inexperienced optimistic voice of youth that's being displayed on this thread IMO... it's the inexperience of some of the responders who are answering based on hearsay and hype when they have no direct knowledge of the subject they are talking about.

[ummmm]

Baldric, very patronising.

[NOX]

Yes I'm for legalising marajuana- most of the sensible arguments on both sides have already been covered, along with all the usual alarmist claptrap as well, so I won't go into details as to why particularly other than to say one paramount reason is that it's no-one's damned business what I choose to smoke or not to smoke, least of all the government's.

[237SJ]

Depends on the job you want to hold down. You can`t function in some jobs if you`re a dopehead.
I suppose there is a school of thought that says that if cannabis is illicit, it will be more expensive which might restrict it`s use. If it`s legalised, it`ll create the same problems as plentiful cheap booze does now.

[ummmm]

But booze has a tendency to make people aggressive. Dope has the opposite effect.

There are jobs that drug and alcohol test their employees. Railway workers for instance.

[ChuckFickens]

Do you ever drink alcohol, 237SJ?

[237SJ]

Agreed ummm. But either way, you can`t function in some jobs on dope. Think excess booze - think agression. Think excess dope - think complete inertia. That`s the effect it has which is why it`s a bit no-no in certain professions.

[RATTER15]

Ive smoked a lot of dope over the years (given it up now) It never put me in any danger, I was never addicted and yes I loved the music that I would normally hate!! I have never been unemployed and always worked hard. I dont drink and I dont smoke tobacco, way to dangerous!!! Im just coming up to 55 years of age.

[237SJ]

Yes chuck but with restrictions that are known. None at all within 8 hours of work and in moderation in the preceeding 24 hours. Min levels 9mg in the breath, 20 ml in blood, 27 ml in urine. Dope can be detected for up to 10 weeks the system though, and it`t a completely unknown quantity as to the effects it has which it is a no-no in certain jobs.

[ChuckFickens]

I was going to make a point about referring to people that have or do smoke weed as dope heads, using the same logic it would be OK to call you an alcoholic. but, I'm pleased to see you did refer to "excess" in your next post :)

[lumination]

@Baldric, ah sorry yes i should proof read before i paste. let me clear it up. you said this 'Just a guess, but could this be the inexperienced optimism of youth talking?' (which i find quite offensive btw)
what i meant to say is i watched a documentary last night where 80% of the people they interviewed who smoke weed and are trying to legalize it were over 40. now tell me its not just the 'inexperienced optimism of youth' talking, its people who are older than me.

[Graham-W]

I'm 63. I smoked an awful lot of dope through the late 60s and early 70s. I still got my degree and a good job.
I stopped smoking it when the kids started arriving. I couldn't be in charge of a child when stoned or drunk, just like I couldn't be in charge of a car when stoned or drunk.
Tried it again when the kids had both flown the nest. Still enjoyed it but never really got back into it again. Perhaps that's growing up.
Legalisation would give some sort of guarantee of quality and perhaps control the strength. Make the legal stuff too weak and the strong stuff gets driven underground again though. Adequate testing on drivers and others with responsibilities would be essential.

[lumination]

'Adequate testing on drivers and others with responsibilities would be essential' oh yes i quite agree with the driving bit, maybe they can do this with all that extra money they would get from taxing it!

[erin-x]

I would make it legal for all the reason already mentioned. And I think the "optimism of youth" comment is totally irrelevant. Most of the dope smokers I know are over 40 and they are all functional, hard working citizens who contribute to society, probably more than some.

[Graham-W]

By "others with responsibilities" I meant those taking care of others eg. taking care of children, the elderly, hospital patients etc as well as drivers and "operators of heavy machinery".