digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Top 10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded

freetheplant.com — 8) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana — implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • elmigs, on 10/12/2007, -29/+66I love pot :)
    • Bara, on 10/12/2007, -30/+2I have A pot :)
    • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -33/+5Now, is there evidence of a correlation between low IQ and substantial marijuana use? If so, which do you think caused the other?
    • Shlep, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12I love lamp
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Marijuana is a gateway drug only because its *illegal* - it breaks down the perception that illegal drugs are dangerous.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@eplawless

      Had you RTFA you would have seen that the study answers your question, and the answer is no.

    • blackb0x, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@eplawless: What would happen if someone released a double blind study that showed marijuana use increased IQ?
    • trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its true, it is a gate way drug.
      After quitting Mj I turned into a chain smoking caffine addict.
  • BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57Prohibition never works, it didn't work with alcohol and it won't work with newer drugs.
    • gabeN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46Cannabis has been consumed for thousands of years, I wouldnt exactly call it, "newer"
    • chachie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15It can be traced back to the Pharaoh Ramses the Great (reign 1213 BC). So it predates the temperance movement thats for sure. =D
  • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Ohhhkay "freetheplant"...
    • Livewire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19http://digg.com/users/freetheplant/submitted
      wow...
    • LecherousVenom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah, wow indeed. Like, does "James" visit any other websites on the InterTubes?
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10He has a script that posts every article to digg and has a digg button at the bottom of his articles. It's a good idea.
    • johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18He has an agenda. At least he is honest and upfront about it, without any misdirection. It's kind of refreshing, our politicians could learn something from him.
  • jarrettc, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3one day......
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14ugh, wrong spot, digg needs a delete comment button too.
  • rvallee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Prohibition is essentially a crime subisidy policy. More than anything, all prohibition does is create an artificial market worth about $1 trillion annually, with little beneficial effects.

    Stubborn people can argue all they want about the necessity of this failed policy, it is in very real terms handing hundreds of billions of dollars to criminal organizations all over the world.

    Somehow, this is never considered in public discussions about drugs, despite being a direct and conscious consequence.

    A direct consequence cannot simply be brushed aside just because it is inconvenient. It is a very real consequence of prohibition policies.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Not to mention all of the innocent people who are dying as a result of drivebys, cops being shot during drug busts, etc.
    • stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11How about the much higher number of users and dealers who are killed by cops in raids?
    • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@rvallee... so true, it's simple economics:

      Restrict supply (by making it illegal), prices go up, demand remains the same

      Increase education (and making it legal), prices go down, more awareness, demand decreases, possibility of less drug-related crime
    • AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Whilst there may be a number of people lobying government for the legalisation of canabis, for financial gain (dont think for a second that anyone with a business gives a crap about your freedoms) there are also others who for the same reason loby to keep it ilegal.

      It's economics, people make a tidy profit from it beeing ilegal , sure there are casualties and other nonsense but fact of the matter is anyone can purchase any "drug" they want. I know 13 year olds who can get hold of crack sooner than you can clap your hands. Prohibition , or rather the War on Drugs is something put in place to make the "sensible" people beleive in an ideal perpetuated by the very system tehy exist in.

      People lobying government for the legalisation of canabis want in on a piece of the pie, if not all of the pie. The only problem is that there is already a well developed market which works, and as we all know, if it's not broke dont fix it. What these people are going to have to do in order for canabis, or for that matter any other drug, to become legal is they will have to provide substantial evidence that they can squeze even more cash out of this market without affecting it potential in future.

      As was stated about tabaco, once people know all the facts and informed about the decision they will make, there is a high probablility sales will drop, hence profits will drop, and due to the nature of the system profit cannot be alowed to drop.

      As for the article it states a whole buch of tests which do indeed prove nothing, they have no substantial evidence and the statistics are insignificant and fundamentaly flawed. Read the literature , not the friking summary, and make a decision based on facts not hype.

      In conclusion , stop moaning, use your head and you will realise that all the freedoms are there for you to enjoy provided you dont bother others with your freedom.
    • Srezic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am all for the end of the drug war and complete revision of the ways used to prevent kids and adults from using the drugs (educating them about it). But I do wonder if in the transition period, current drug lords would lead some sort of violent revolt against the end of the US prohibition. Imagine if suddenly their profits just got divided by 20. I don't think they would like it much at all.

      So, there is a lot involved with ending the prohibition.
    • bluehensam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@treelovinhippie

      "Restrict supply (by making it illegal), prices go up, demand remains the same
      Increase education (and making it legal), prices go down, more awareness, demand decreases, possibility of less drug-related crime"

      I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but you've got "simple economics" all wrong. If supply decreases, price increases, but demand increases. When supply increases, price decreases, and demand increases.
    • squarooticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More than that, "The War on Drugs" (along with "The War on Terror", "The War on Bad Breath", etc.) is designed to keep the populace in a constant state of support for the apparatus of state: while we're in a state of war, we can't really question how effective our government is at providing the protection that forms the entire basis for why we keep it around, can we? Orwell got the means right; Rothbard and Hoppe get the justification and end result right. I long for the day when more people wake up to this.
  • tshetter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18"Pot is a Gateway Drug"

    That is one of the most loaded and horrible phrases ever.

    There is no chain reaction that takes place once a person ingests one chemical that propels them to use some other chemical.

    Alcohol and tobacco are the true gateway drugs. Those are the most widely available and accepted forms of mood altering substances in America.

    People learn they can mood alter which is a Good Thing.

    But then people start self medicating and using chemicals to cover, cope and escape, that leads nowhere good.

    Real parenting (gasp!!!) and education keep kids safe, not mindless phrases and propaganda.
    • adriand, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"There is no chain reaction that takes place once a person ingests one chemical that propels them to use some other chemical."
      - so there is no such thing as a "gateway" drug.

      "Alcohol and tobacco are the true gateway drugs. Those are the most widely available and accepted forms of mood altering substances in America."
      - so there IS such a thing...

      "But then people start self medicating and using chemicals to cover, cope and escape, that leads nowhere good."
      - again, an arguement that there is a such a chain reaction. can you please make up your mind?


      "Real parenting (gasp!!!) and education keep kids safe, not mindless phrases and propaganda."
      - so what should we do about your mindless phrases and anti-propaganda?

      BTW, I agree that pot should be decriminalized at the very least, but please form better arguements than this!
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pot *is* a gateway drug. When a kid first smokes a little pot with his friends, and he just gets goofy and hungry, and his music sounds better for a few hours, his eyes are opened. He realizes his government, school, and parents can be full of *****. Maybe for the first time in his life, he realizes that our society is built upon the lies authority figures tell to control and appease the masses.

      Then it's entirely normal and expected for the kid to wonder what else he has been lied to about... maybe other drugs are harmless too. If he's smart, he'll use his own sense and reason to see that drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth are actually dangerous. If he's dumb, he might try these other drugs as well.

      Pot is a gateway drug because of the lies we tell about it. It is more innocuous than tobacco and alcohol. If we just told the truth about it, and sold it legally, it would no longer have the illicit mystique it does now.
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9drugs are bad
  • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Its actually the social structure in which the person may get the pot that is actually a gateway. Depending on the circumstances, if that person hangs out with the people for the pot, and ends up trying something else due to offers from others, then in this situation there is a gateway to an extent.
    • artnez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Right and he hangs out with those people because they deal in other illegal drugs.

      If said person could purchase pot from the nearby grocery, he'd have no reason to interact with people do harder and strongly illegal drugs.
    • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I agree that it is most likely true, but if prohibition was lifted from all drugs, which most are pushing for, then there would be added incentive to try them as well. I know its a stupid example, and many will disagree with me, but what do most people do when they're prohibited from doing something their entire lives and then someone who holds power over them suddenly says "go ahead if you want"? Well, they do it, and badly at that. Much like the first week of college when many are making asses of themselves because of their newfound freedom. I realize that in other countries without prohibition they are doing better, but there are many factors as well that go into them, cultural differences and the like. Giving people the freedom to do something they were prohibited from doing all along would create some particularly nasty problems for a few generations until those that grew up without prohibition can sit and wonder why we made asses of ourselves.

      There are negative and positive aspects to everything. I'm being dugg down, yet in a sense you agree with me, because its true. It was an observation and not a view I was pressing on anyone. You can hate me for the paragraph I just wrote, if you'd like to so badly.
    • salivalnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10To a point, I agree with you. However it shows little or no faith in humanity to assume that people are incapable of making rational choices based upon the information provided to them.

      Think about it this way: Nicotine is one of the most addictive (and pointless) drugs, yet is widely available to consenting adults. Many years ago it was "normal" to smoke ciggarettes and no one understood what the health risks were. Fast forward to today, the number of people smoking ciggarettes has dropped dramatically. Is that because we outlawed it? No - it's because people became educated to the harm associated with smoking and made an informed choice.

      Prohibition does not work, and neither does not providing people with the facts. The reality is that if people were told, in an unbiased manner, what they were getting themselves into, they'd make informed decisions.

      The history of tobacco use proves that education can prevent abuse, even if that abuse is ingrained in the fabric of society. And the history of cannabis use proves that prohibition does not - and will not ever - work.

      Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to smoke a joint...
    • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Well I know that if I was in some position of power, I wouldn't particularly be for it, I never have been. However, I would certainly pressure more studies to take place, especially since so many these days are done ways that prove nothing, but the results still make people think it works in the way they want it to (the ones they used to determine aggressiveness in video games, for example). I mean, studies just don't work very well unless they find a good method of testing. Thats what we need. We need to know everything about it, because while I like informed decisions, there seems to be much misinformation about it, and there are huge leaps between what one supporter of legalization believes about it to another sometimes. All they seem to have these days are biased sites. There are those filled with propoganda, and those that are dedicated solely to legalization, neither source I'd trust.

      Besides, with prohibition, the alcohol one is a particularly bad example. I know the crime was a good factor, but the fact that they were allowed to consume alcohol beforehand kind of offsets things a bit.

      Also, my parents smoke, and genuinely wish they could quit, and have tried various methods to do so. In fact, my grandmother died of lung cancer last month. Many smokers nowadays are simply too addicted to stop. I really don't have an argument here, I just wanted to say that I hate cigarettes in particular.
    • ArmyOfFun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"if prohibition was lifted from all drugs, which most are pushing for, then there would be added incentive to try them as well"

      I don't think incentive is the right word. One of the risks associated with drug use (specifically jail time/legal trouble) would be removed. However, just because something is legal doesn't mean society or the government encourages it. I'm all for legalizing drugs, but I don't advocate their use.

      I don't believe there would be a dramatic increase in drug use if they were legalized. For the harder drugs, most people know there are a lot of health risks in using them. I'd wager for most people, the health risks alone are not worth any potential reward, hence their legalization would have no effect on them. Can you think of a single person in your life who would start doing coke or heroin simply because they became legal?

      To make a bad analogy, say eating raw chicken was illegal. Then, for whatever reason, the government lifts its ban on eating raw chicken. Who in their right mind would start eating raw chicken just because it became legal?

      There are a lot of dangerous things we can do to ourselves that are perfectly legal. Why is the government better than I am at deciding what activities are too dangerous for me? If an activity only involves one person doing something to themselves, why should the government have jurisdiction over that?
    • jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think you'd see a period of wild experimentation. All those people who never tried it because it was illegal are going to try it. You'd also see all the people who do smoke now going wild for a time. Just like anything else, the novelty is going to wear off eventually. I'd give it 3-5 years of "wild experimentation" before things settled down.
  • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Just legalize the damn *****, watch tons of initial publicity, and then watch it turn into cigarettes:

    A) A lucrative buisness for withdrawl medication.
    B) Something illegal in most public places in many cities
    C) Something generally frowned upon by society
    D) All of the above

    If you want to poinson yourself, have fun. This is my policy for alll drugs.
    • AttackingHobo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14People do not need withdrawl medication for getting off pot. It does not cause any physical dependencies as cigarettes do.
    • Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Because psychological effects are meaningless, right?
    • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I would welcome it replacing the tobacco industry. My girlfriend's father recently died of lung cancer from smoking, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
    • twelvedogs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2unfortunately marijuana is not good for the lungs at all, it produces around 3 times the amount of tar, most studies that say it is less harmful than smoking are taking into account that it is not physically addictive and you supposedly will be smoking a lot less than you would tobacco
    • jschunick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6it produces that much tar if you smoke a joint. even less for a bowl/bong. none with a vaporizer.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yes it is true that pot produces more tar, and burning ANYTHING produces carcinogens. Now go RTFA and then read the studies it points to, and you will see the obvious flaw in your argument. THC blocks the formation of cancerous cells. So while there are carcinogens in the smoke, the THC protects your body. Pot smokers had a smaller level of lung cancer than NONSMOKERS. While it is within the staticstical variance, numurous studies have shown this.

      Your gov't doesn't want you to know that.
  • rsvguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Apparently Holland has a _lower_ percentage of people who've tried drugs than the USA. This despite the decriminalisation (I think it's still illegal, just not enforced) of pot. It's ready availablility has not resulted in a nation of stoners, probably much to most conservatives surprise.

    Legalise it, otherwise you are just propping up the drug barons.
    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Legalise it, otherwise you are just propping up the drug barons.

      That's a fallacy.
    • RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The majority of people walking around stoned out of their mind (if they still are capable of walking) are foreigners who come to places like Amsterdam for just that reason.

      Most Dutch people treat wiet as cigarettes and thats about the gist of it. The myth that it is a "entry" drug to other drugs is a myth to, they've done a study years ago and it turned out that harddrugs takers started out with, guess, yes, harddrugs (in holland that would be heroine, speed, cocaine etc)/
    • dogfurnace, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@rsvguy: You are right on the money. I spent a few years living/working/playing in the 'Dam as it were. I would have to say the majority of young Dutch people I encountered didn't bother with it despite it being so easily accessible. I found the much lauded 'tolerance' for soft drugs was a well crafted PR job to keep tourism going (which isn't a bad thing).

  • mofomojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I know several people who do marijuana, and have moved onto shrooms and acid and other hard stuff. But mostly, it's been recreation as I know. But eventually, it becomes a lifestyle, that is if you are a regular smoker, the smoking gets in the way of education and you just stop caring.

    Not that it's a universal truth that marijuana is a gateway drug, it is however a universal truth that Marijuana and can will cause problems if you are not responsible -- and as far as I know today, the youth is DEFINITELY NOT responsible. And I would know, I am a part of this demographic of idiocy.
    • lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@mofomojo
      "... will cause problems if you are not responsible --..."
      There are many many things in life that this statement can apply to. But the large majority of these things are not illegal. Driving, drinking alcohol, raising kids, skiing (snow or water), cooking with a common gas oven, using power tools, the list goes on and on.
      In fact, almost every day we engage in activities, that are neither illegal nor controlled by the state, that can be very dangerous to ourselves and others if we are not 'responsible' when we are doing them.
    • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@lnf69 ^^^^^

      Thank you! I completely agree. Lets outlaw knives next! Someone could be irresponsible and hurt themselves with them.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Personal responsibility. That's it right there. Quit blaming the chosen substance, and get back to the root problem, The choice. How many alcoholics are out there, because they chose to drink that heavily. It is the users choice on how to use, especially in a non-physically addicting drug. Alcohol, heroin, pain killers, cocaine, those create physical cravings for it, marijuana does not. There is a HUGE difference.
    • bunnzofun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Personal responsibility is not the end of the discussion however, as addicts basically have a "disease". That's in quotes because I am still on the fence about the terminology, but have to acknowledge that addicts who want to quit but can't do not lack responsibility, or will power or are bad people. At any rate, this aspect of addiction to me implies that the "drug problem" is a public health concern, not a criminal one.
  • C_MAC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Roll a phatty for this pimp daddy!
  • maevealleine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Oh for crying out loud, legalize the ***** already.
  • muklin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I love Pot too, I live in Holland...... But I can't smoke because of sport drug testings.... :( WAAAAAAAAAA
  • BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Pot is a Gateway Drug for one reason. They lied about weed so why not try a few rocks? Don't do it ! : )~
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There is a large truth to that statement. I know many people who grew up in tightly controlled environments. Once they saw the world with their own eyes, they felt like everything was a lie, and they abandoned much of the sensibility they had because of it. Honesty, is the only way to deal with anything.
  • harmonic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@sukino:
    It's a fallacy? or is it phallic :P
  • eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I dont understand the logic myself, all drugs were legal up until about a hundred years ago, whats changed? are we all just a bunch of potential stoners now?
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What changed was an ultra conservative movement that took hold of the country in the early 1900's. A large part of this was fueled by the abundance of cocaine. Back when coca-cola had cocaine in it, kids across America were becoming addicted to it. This drove a conservative prohibition backlash that tried to stamp out all things of sorts. This was also further fueled by other industries such as cotton, oil, paper (logging), which were threatened by hemp, which can displace parts if not all of those industries. (No it can't replace oil)

      I am not for the legalization of some of the harder drugs like cocaine of heroin, but when study after study shows that marijuana is safer than either alcohol or tobacco, you really have to question why it's illegal. When the police are standing up, saying we don't want to enforce marijuana laws, we'd rather attack meth, you have to question the logic of it.
    • MasterLJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@eddyc

      "I dont understand the logic myself, all drugs were legal up until about a hundred years ago, whats changed? are we all just a bunch of potential stoners now?"

      Drugs became illegal when White America feared a Black America on drugs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Prohibition

      "By the turn of the twentieth century, the addictive properties of cocaine had become clear to many, and the problem of cocaine abuse began to capture public attention in the United States. The dangers of cocaine abuse became part of a moral panic that was tied to the dominant racial and social anxieties of the day. In 1903, the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were “bohemians, gamblers, high- and low-class prostitutes, night porters, bell boys, burglars, racketeers, pimps, and casual laborers.” In 1914, Dr. Christopher Koch of Pennsylvania’s State Pharmacy Board made the racial innuendo explicit, testifying that, “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.”[citation needed] Mass media created an epidemic of cocaine use among African Americans in the Southern United States to play upon racial prejudices of the era, though there is little evidence that such an epidemic actually took place. In the same year, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act outlawed the use of cocaine in the United States. This law incorrectly referred to cocaine as a narcotic, and the misclassification passed into popular culture. As stated above, cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic."

      One could make an argument (albeit, a bad one) that supporting prohibition of drugs supports racism =P.
  • mfokkelman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@AlexApetrei:

    "and as we all know, if it's not broke dont fix it"

    What a nonsense! Please get some business education. This type of ignorant thinking almost killed america's economy in the second half of the 20th century.

    • AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2easy there stoner.
      I'm all for your cause , just take some time and read what was writen, dont fixate on a phrase.
  • kevinchai, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2It's just that stupid people use marijuana, then since they're still stupid, they try some others. Heroin is gross. You have to use a syringe. Eeauu
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Do you know what the toxicity of marijuana is? You have to smoke something like 2 pounds of it in less than 2 hours to achieve a lethal dose of THC. This is IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.

      You can drink yourself to death, with very little effort. It is not possible to smoke yourself to death, via THC overdose. You would suffocate from the tar and crap building up in your lungs before you could ever possibly smoke enough marijuana to OD.
    • Peterix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You would be too stoned to smoke more long before that.
  • cantbearsed1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yay for pot.. btw if anyone can hook me up i live in hampshire, uk? there seems to be a bit of a shortage in the uk at the mo thanks to stupid security at airports.
  • Sparkster185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why does our government think they have the right to pass laws to protect someone from his/herself? Certain substances are outlawed because they are bad for you. They can cause severe mental and health problems if they are abused and used unresponsibly. Did anyone ever see "Super Size Me"? Based on this logic, shoudn't McDonald's be illegal, since it's really, really bad for you if it's abused?
    • blackb0x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6it's all about the corporation.


      follow the money. There's big money in drug enforcement, and there's even bigger money in the pharmaceutical industry. They have legislated themselves a monopoly on medicines.
  • cantbearsed1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4erm alcohol is probably a better example
  • hansi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Cannabis isn't a gateway drug. ALCOHOL and TOBACCO are gateway drugs
  • crzdmnsldy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The REAL ***** gateway drug is cigarettes.
    Maybe it's just me- But I only know two people that have never touched cig's but smoke pot, drink, etc. The rest of the people, have been smoking cigs since 4th grade; they're the ones doing coke in 7th grade. Not the nicotine free potheads.
  • rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5While I was growing up in the 80's, it was pretty much bashed into my head that drugs were evil and if you did them, you were evil too. Only criminals and such did drugs and if I didn't want to be a crimal or evil I should stay away from drugs and never try them. When you took drugs you turned into a monster.

    Well, at about the age of 19, I met some people who (gasp!!!) did drugs. But wait, these people weren't criminals, weren't evil. So I started questioning the whole thing. Over the course of about 3 years I did every drug I could find that didn't involve any kind of intravenous delivery (LSD, Ecstacy, Weed, Cocaine, Crystal, etc.) I found that the effects can be quite intense and mind altering, but it's never as dramatic as it is portrayed on TV or in the media. I never turned into a monster while doing these drugs and I never got violent. I know now that the propaganda campaign was a bunch of *****.

    I don't condone the use of drugs, and I really don't like telling people about the drugs I did, because it seems as though when I share these experiences with people I get into long conversations about how great drugs are and some stupid people think I'm cool because I did it and that's not the impression I want to put on people. I did it more as an experiment.

    I've also seen the bad side of drugs, like this girl who had a 3 year old kid and was doing cocaine right in front of her at 8 in the morning. I've also seen people get consumed by it and not know when to stop. But I do think there can be good uses for it, like people who are terminally ill and need an escape, or using small amounts of some drugs to stay awake.

    I think it's just overhyped, it should be a person's choice if they want to do it and people shouldn't go to jail for doing it, unless they are adversely affecting someone else's life.
    • crzdmnsldy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly.. Most drugs aren't bad for you at all if used properly.. I hate people that use in front of their kids; those are the kids that get ***** up.. the baby will probably try coke when she's like 8 cuz she'll find it in her mom's room- or just on the table- and be curious.. Not good!
    • DollaDollaBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Its been a proven fact that the D.A.R.E program has had no effect in stopping drug use. In fact it has increased since the program began.
  • rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0oops
  • ReflectiveSAM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't forget hemp, guys. Not only is marijuana illegal, hemp is also restricted since they are related. I've read hemp is a highly nutritious, easily grown crop that could be used to feed people AND make clothes and other products. Some people even say that it can help save the environment as a replacement for cutting down trees.

    REF
    http://www.singleasianmale.com (Where Asian men speak out)
  • eleraama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know I'll get modded down for this, but for anyone who missed it, there's an excellent docu-drama from the BBC about what the world would be like if drugs were legalized:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2908621023073531157&q=drugs+were+legalized&hl=en

    It's from their "If" series.
  • lilibuggs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0the only reason that pot could be considered a gateway drug is because the same person that is selling that to you is will probably also be selling other illegal drugs putting you in contact with them. make it were you have to go to a store or club and its monitored people wouldn't have to come in contact with all that other stuff. use the money the gov will make of taxing it and go find all the tweakers and crack heads and leave us social smokers alone
  • Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would FIRST like to say that I am not a stoner nor do I plan on to.

    This drug war is making me sick...and the arguments for legalization. I am all for legalization but it's going on far too long. I'm seeing from all sides that people want marijuana legal. Stop it people......stop with your arguing and legalize it already. Do it for freedom, not because it's "harmless" or other *****. Even if it is harmful, legalize it.

    "I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but you've got "simple economics" all wrong. If supply decreases, price increases, but demand increases. When supply increases, price decreases, and demand increases."

    I would like to comment on this statement. First of all, it's not necessarily true that if supply decreases, demand increases. just because supply decreases....doesn't necessarily mean prices will increase. I look at the Sony PSX. The supply on that product has stopped. But the prices are being slashed. Why? Because there is no demand for it. Both supply and demand affect each other. They aren't inter-dependent nor are they seperate from each other. To make a rational economic calculation, you need to look at both.

    But overall, this article is another attempt on legalizing drugs. To me, it goes in the wrong direction "freetheplant." Argue for it from a freedom perspective. But I can understand why you go this way. The media and the "sheeple"(molyneux) can absorb that better than a freedom argument.
  • vdaliessio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Drug prohibition doesn't work, is extremely harmful to our safety, economy, and liberty, and must be ended immediately. And I say this as a person whose pot-smoking days are long behind him, and who thinks some of the medical claims surrounding marijuana are overblown.

    But as Murray Rothbard and others have pointed out, drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, is in part a corporatist function. Requiring FDA approval for drugs restricts the number of suppliers, and the resulting oligopoly is thus a massive subsidy to pharmaceutical manufacturers, along with the absurd patent regime. If drugs were legalized, this would destroy the raison de etre of the FDA, and the oligopoly would be terminated, which is against the interests of one of America's biggest industries. This is what we are up against.
  • msherman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0man, this thing is addicting... probably NOT funded by the government.
    The Marijuana Swicki
    http://marijuana-swicki.eurekster.com/
  • habman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The real problem is, if we were to legalize drugs the violent crime rates would plummet then we would need fewer police and judges.

    All this means less power for government so we will not see it happen.
  • ehmick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and crystal meth makes your teeth whiter!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.