<p>Your only basis for doing something is that it improves your health? Eating junk food certainly doesn't improve your health and I'm positive that you "waste money" at least every once and again on that. With some things, it's about the experience, not the end effect. Besides nothing you do is going to let you live forever - at least not by simply eating or exercising perfectly.</p>
<p>Of course, you have your right to stand by your misinformed point of view, but then just keep it to yourself. Don't try offer it up as if it is in any way legitimate. People like you are the reason why objective research on pot will never "spread like wildfire," because their beliefs are not grounded in fact, but by propaganda forced upon them in their youth. For example, did you know that the APA backs medical marijuana?</p>
<p>Of course, they're not saying there's no harm from using it, but that whatever there may be is drastically smaller than the benefits to patients. Would a highly respectable national organization back a product if "a few puffs" can make someone an addict for life?</p>
<p>While pot can destroy lives, it is not so much an innate property of the substance as it is the personality of the user, making it no different from food, alcohol, computer games, chat room surfing and a number of other things people can get addicted to.</p>
<p>My thought about this would be to let the states decide. If they would like to maintain the status quo, it should be allowed. Furthermore, if they wish to completely legalize it then that is fine as well. They may also legalize it for medicinal purposes only.</p>
<p>If you want to smoke pot in the privacy of your own home, you're free to do anything you want. But if you want to get behind the wheel of a car after smoking a joint, then no.</p>
<p>I think people should be free to do anything they want to their bodies as long as they're not hurting others.</p>
<p>I wouldn't go so far as to say drugs make you smarter...and in my personal opinion the negative impact of drug use on motivation and concentration outweighs (in most cases) any increased creativity a drugged state can impart. Basically, I wouldn't promote drug use because this rule is generally true.</p>
<p>The stereotype of the perpetually stoned hippie-type pothead is horribly outdated(if it was ever true). It's not too hard to believe that a hard working, highly intelligent kid would toss back a couple pints with his friends and relax on weekends is it? Well, switch out the alcohol for a joint or cookie and you have your prototypical user.</p>
<p>Actually, my mother's friend's son did OD on it. He quit smoking for a long time and then went back to his old habit and ended up dying from an OD.</p>
<p>I know lots of people that smoke it. Hell, last year, 9/10 valevictorians were the biggest potheads in the school. There are tons of successful people that go home and smoke a joint. You just hear about the people that smoke it and do crazy stuff. People have to be smart and then it would be fine. I don't see the difference between smoking it and smoking cigs.</p>
<p>It is medically impossible to OD on pot unless taken by other means (IV, etc). You will PASS OUT a long time before the lethal dose. I feel bad about anyone young dying, but facts are facts.</p>
<p>if he did overdose, it's because he bought marijuana that was laced with something(pcp, opium, crack...) or if he dipped his buds in formaldehyde(because a street term for pcp is "embalming fluid," and people can mistake this as it being the same as formaldehyde)</p>
<p>you would have to smoke ~1500 pounds(mind you, that translates to a dealer cost of over $2 mil) in less than 20 hours to OD.</p>
<p>I just got out of rehab and I have to say there were a fair amount of people there for marijuana. For college students, going home and smoking a joint isn't that destructive. But once you have a family, sitting on the couch all evening smoking bowls while the kids roll around on the floor is not my idea of a healthy family scene. </p>
<p>Also, I know the combination of pot with schizophrenia is UGLY. Symptoms worsen leading to more dilusions, hallucinations, etc. Dual diagnosis and self medication is not to be taken lightly. </p>
<p>Lastly, whether you like it or not, any soft drug, alcohol, pot, even cigarettes, can lead to harder stuff. When you get tipsy/high at a party, it gets a lot easier to say yes to that bag of powder being passed around. </p>
<p>I used to be all for legalizing pot. After all, a lot of my friends have been thrown into jail for dealing. But I've been thinking about it recently and I know very few pure potheads. Most of them started out as pot heads and then "graduated" to cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. Now, I am not sure its such a great idea. Yes, it sucks that they get locked away for a non-violent crime, but drug trade as a whole is so out of control....ah, I just don't know what should be done about it.</p>
<p>I think pot should be legal but restricted (21 and up) and taxed up the *** along with cigarettes and alcohol.</p>
<p>We can all say it's a gateway drug until we're blue in the face, but the fact is that many use marijuana for medicinal purposes and for many psycological ailments (extreme panic-attack anxienty, etc) in SMALL doses. Many chemo patients use it to help with their nausea and extreme fatigue. They should not be punished because some people will go on to bigger and badder drugs. </p>
<p>What evidence is there that making pot legal would cause more people to do it AND go on to crack/meth/etc? In my opinion, some people will do more drugs no matter the legalization of marijuana. And I do not believe that legalizing marijuana in SMALL doses will cause some huge surge in use or use of more harmful substances.</p>
<p>Tobacco and alcohol are more of gateway drugs than marijuana, along with being more harmful and addictive. I do agree with you reid. Why would you want to restrict it to an arbitrary age of 21 and tax it? (same problem with alcohol, naturally)..</p>
<p>Well, I think it should be taxed along with cigarettes and alcohol, because as long as people are going to buy it anyway, we might as well make some tax dollars off of it. Kind of an incentive to not become addicted (or do it at all), as well.</p>
<p>As far as age restriction, I don't believe it will actually keep it out of the hands of people under 21 who would do it now (as an illegal drug), because they obviously will get it one way or another.</p>
<p>It would be restricted for the same reason cigs are: so that most young people figure out that it's harmful and that you should be "mature" enough to make the decision to ruin your health. Those that follow the law won't do it as naive minors...</p>