Er, because the entire Netherlands dont use cannabis, or do they ALL? I have visited there several times, i have friends who live there too. I also have friends in this country who use cannabis, none of which have went onto harder drugs. However, that still doesnt change the fact that ALL the heavy drug users i have dealt with started off using lesser drugs.
Sorry, just remind me of this question again, and if i can answer it i will. I wont guess, but will just go by either my personal experiences or what i believe (but i will state i only believe). I know not all cannabis users are crackheads. My best friend (and best man at my wedding), and his wife use (or used) it, neither have gone onto harder drugs. I am not a 'i know better' person, but i will ALWAYS believe what i see and experience more than what i am told. I will admit if wrong, as i can often be wrong, but if i know something to be true, then i will stick by that too.
I cant answer that. They may have just all been in need of escapism from reality that the cannabis didnt give them, but they have ALL started off on cannabis. As i said, not all cannabis users will go onto harder drugs, the same as all beer drinkers wont go onto metholated spirits or pure alcohol. Anyway, going out now, so will continue this when i get in, in a few hours.
Those people aren't stealing because cigarettes have drained them, ffs, they're stealing because they'd be stealing anyway. If it weren't cigarettes, it'd likely be chips, or beer, or whatever. They're driven by a lack of money, and not a lack of money because of cigarettes, but a lack of money because they have ****ty jobs. You need lessons on cause and effect relationships. You attempt to use the fact that everyone you know who does hard drugs started on marijuana as a proof of the gateway concept which is just silly logic. Everyone I know who does hard drugs started by drinking milk out of a bottle, or they started by drinking sprite, or 7up, or coke, or whatever. You can't just associate two things and attempt to say that one caused it. Simply because an act precedes another, like drinking milk from a bottle as a child, does not mean it somehow led to a later act, like doing drugs. You've gotta give better proof than that.
if its legal , then all those corporations making alcohol , cigarettes , pills , would bankrupt in months . For me thats the number one reason , all the bull**** that its bad for you I have friends they train almost everyday , go to work and so on and guess what they are all fine !
^ Gotta disagree. Alcohol gets me in a silly, lethargic, but I want screw everything mood. Not to mention, alcohol results in me not really caring what I'm saying. Back in the day when I smoked (college), all weed did was make me sleepy, stupid, and hungry. And back when I tried cigarettes, all that did was make me out of breath, restless, and make my breath smell really bad. Different vibes require different substance?
That's why I think it's not logical to ban marijuana. It's like banning cars because they're used for killing people. Or banning belts because they can be used for strangulation. I know drug abuse can be a real problem, but to make it illegal has made nothing better, only worse. The war on drugs has caused countless casualties and still there are people dying from overdose. It stops nothing. The whole concept of a gateway drug is flawed from the start and based on misconceptions and fear. The biggest problem with marijuana in the Netherlands are the crazy people from other countries that come here to use drugs because where they come from it's illegal. They are often very noisy or don't know any limits. That's not the drugs, it's their personality. For a nice vacation there are plenty other much nicer countries, so going to the Netherlands solely for drugs, you have to be nuts before even using marijuana. The people I know for the largest part of my life that use marijuana on a weekly basis have changed nothing. The only real difference between them and me, is that I sometimes have a hangover. I've seen far more harm in the use of alcohol in combination with shoarma, the devastation that gives surpasses anything marijuana will ever cause. Maybe alcohol should be made illegal again! for it's a gateway to shoarma and the evil that it brings!
Legal-drug only users: These are the ''new cannabis user'' caused by it's legality. They always though of doing it or were always peer-pressured onto doing it, but never did due to it's illegal status. Now in the case of a cannabis legalization, these people will be able give in to their temptation legally. Now at this point the gateway argument says that the drug will have them go from this lesser drug toward a harder drug (whichever) to find a better buzz. Now usually the people going to harder drugs do it for what purpose? It would depend on their income/situation Lower tier: Escaping their sad reality or the monotony of their lives. In the case they will indeed try to use cannabis at first, but the stock not being ''strong enough'' for them to escape their problem they will jump onto the harder bandwagon. Meth Heroin and Crack are more common in the lower class Higher tier (stars and rich playboys): Now this one is a bit harder because less common, but I will try to use my judgement to explain this happens. Basically, they live the high life, but also the pressure and most of them go out to parties, bars, nightclubs and event where ALCOHOL is served, then from peer pressure they try it while completly wasted because their rise to stardom or unusual adult lifestyle has come at a quicker pace then they could've expected and they still have this need to be accepted by other stars or other adults of the same society level as them. The higher end of the population seems to go for powdered cocaine. Now in our first case, cannabis is more often then not present. The reason being, the person does not know what drug is and is ''scared'' of going for the harder drug so they start off with something that they will soon consider insufficient for their ''problems'' and hop onto harder stuff. I don't know how that is a ''gateway'', most of the time if weed is not available to them (due to lack of street experience) they will simply drink themselves to stupidity until the drug (dealer) finds them. Please note: This is not the ''to-be all'' rule of how it happens but it is a fairly common patern. The point is to demonstrate that it's legalization does not make it a gateway as people that do not want to deal with illegality of whatever they consume will still be able to make the judgement not to after consuming cannabis NOT to go into the illegality world. And further reinforced by the fact that if legalized it will now cut the link between weed and harder drugs by removing the shady ''dealer'' and replacing it weed a grocery-type shop. Which in turns removes the availability and some peer-pressure from the consumer. Now for any other subjective matter such as ''Can you become a hobo from smoking weed too much'' my answer would be no, people against legalization would say yes. I believe this argument cannot be quantified unless of a thorough study. EDIT for Grom: you mean shawarma I believe
Yeah sorry, they write it like that here in the Netherlands. Didn't know it was written differently in English :bang:
Why???? Because I said so that's why! Now shut up and take your ritalin and get in the car right now before the drug store closes and your mother runs out of valium or prozac or whatever that woman is on these days.
I still think ALcohol is a much bigger thread than Weed. I believe it has been proven that alcohol is much more hazardous to the human body than weed. To be honest, I am a student. And a student in the Netherlands == "zuipen"/Drinking.
naw I don't use drugs other than caffeine and occasionally advil...but if you didn't get my point then consider these facts: * Based on a 2002 survey, 46% of Americans use at least one prescription drug daily. * Total number of prescriptions filled in 2001: 3.1 billion * Total cost of prescriptions in 2001: $132 billion * Projected cost of prescriptions in 2014: $414 billion * Percentage of incoming undergraduates using psychotropic, mind-altering drugs: 40% * From 1992 - 2003, the abuse of psychotropic drugs grew at twice the rate of marijuana abuse; five times that of cocaine abuse; & 60 times that of heroin abuse. * 20% of recently approved prescription drugs have serious, life threatening side effects. * 90% of authors of clinical practice guidelines received research funding from, or acted as consultants to drug companies. * Medical doctors, psychiatrists, & all those licensed by the government who can "legally" prescribe drugs are paid huge monetary incentives by the pharmaceutical industry to write prescriptions of their drugs. Those doctors & other professionals who choose financial incentives over a patients well being & health should be defined as "legal drug pushers" contributing to the overmedicating of America for profit. * Percentage increase from 1985 - 1999 in stimulant psychotropic drugs prescribed to children: 327% * Percentage increase from 1991 - 2000 in stimulant psychotropic drugs prescribed to preschoolers between 2 & 4 years of age: 50% * The number of antidepressants prescribed annually for children under 19: 11 million * The number of children diagnosed with "ADD/ADHD" & drugged in 1985: 500,000 * The number of children diagnosed with "ADD/ADHD" & drugged today: approximately 6 million * CHADD (Children and Adults with ADD) received over $700,000 in 2001 from pharmaceutical companies to promote & market their drugs. * CHADD refers to the 1999 Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health when citing ADHD as a neurobiological disorder, yet the Surgeon General's report, the DSM-IV, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for ADHD, do not confirm or state that ADHD is a "neurobiological" disorder. In fact, the Surgeon General provided no conclusive evidence to support this theory—a fact CHADD neglects to mention on its website. * The epidemic use of psychotropic drugs started many years ago. In 1965, approximately 58 million new prescriptions & 108 million refills were written for psychotropic drugs. This accounted for 14% of all prescriptions written that year. * Percentage of Americans taking anti-allergy medications who may not even have allergies: 65% * The number of signs advertising the drug Claritin in Newark International Airport lobbies: 75 * The amount spent by Merck Pharmaceutical to advertise the drug Vioxx in 2001: $161 million * The total number of advertising violations issued by the FDA for misleading drug ads from 1997 - 2001: 88; Amount of fines levied for such violations: $0 * US direct-to-consumer drug ad spending soared to $2.49 billion in 2001 up from $859 million in 1997. * Number of Americans annually who request & receive a prescription for a specific drug after seeing a commercial for it: 8.5 million * Estimated prescriptions of Paxil in 2002: 37 million * Amount spent on lobbying by pharmaceutical companies from 1996 - 2002: $500 million * The number of former congressmen now serving as lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry: 24 * The approximate total number of lobbyists: 600; Their average annual income: $300,000 - $400,000 * The amount of direct contributions from the drug industry to the 2002 political campaign: $20 million; Percentage that went to Republicans: 75% * Seven drugs recalled by the FDA between 1993 & 2000 after reports of death & severe side effects exceeded $5 billion in sales before being withdrawn. * The major stockholders of the pharmaceutical industry: FDA workers, FTC workers, Congressmen, & the CEO's of the pharmaceutical companies. * The Annual cost of prescription drug errors: $100 billion * A natural herbal cure was found for diabetes. The amount paid to the person that discovered it to not market or announce the cure: $30 million * Out of the last 20 FDA commissioners, upon leaving the FDA, the number who went to work directly for the pharmaceutical industry: 12 * The approximate number of Americans that die annually from FDA approved drugs: 125,000 * The approximate number of Americans that die annually from Aspirin use: 2,000 * The percentage of FDA workers who are paid directly through funding from the pharmaceutical industry: 55% at an average of $1.2 billion annually * The FDA passed a law stating that only a "drug" can cure a disease therefore; farms, orchards, or any company promoting fruit as beneficial to your health were threatened with violations & the confiscation & destruction of their products. Their "cherries" for example were not approved as a new drug by the FDA & were not declared as "safe & effective". The average cost to get a "new drug" approved: $800 million. Sound unbelievable? Actual FDA letter sent to a farm marketing cherries as a natural remedy. * In 2004 approximately 12,000 Texas Foster Children each received 21 prescriptions of psychotropic drugs totally more than $29 million. * According to a recent study, up to 20% of all prescriptions written are for "off-label" use not approved by the FDA & with no support from scientific studies. * According to a recent study, 96% of all "off-label" psychiatric drug prescriptions lacked scientific support. * 25% of 239 patients consuming Vioxx had heart attacks within the first 13 days of being on the drug. Vioxx was pulled from the market on September 30th, 2004. * The amount of money the pharmaceutical industry & the FDA would loose if Americans turned to natural cures (vitamins, minerals, herbs, fruit, etc.) instead of prescription drugs: trillions!
not to mention those drugs can kill you unlike weed and alcohol is more of a gateway drug then weed and kills more people then weed ever will.
Prolly been stated above, but heres my 2 cents, Some medicine that has "drug" affects is legal, simply because it has predictable side-effects or behavior effects. Cannabis however can act randomly on different people. However, last I heard, its used quite widely in medicine as well.
Naw...was meant to show that a lot of people are doped up legally although it's not the clear intent of that list but I couldn't be bothered to take the time to find anything better. Marijuana is essentially legal in my state unless your in the business of making money off it. I don't have a problem with it. Meth and some of these other poisons are a different story.
WTF are you talking about, when i last checked, milk wasnt an illegal drug, where cannabis is. People believing that crime will go down if cannabic is legal may interested to find that cigarettes are legal, but the cigarette illegal trade is booming. Cannabis will be taxed, and may even be more expensive than what the dealers are selling it for. This is backed up by the cigarette trade. Criminals buy them from abroad and sell them to uk customers at a cheaper price than the shop. So whilst it may go down in one area, it may also go up in another. Anyway, we are going WAY off track, so i will end on this note... The original question here was 'why is cannabis illegal?'. My answer is... I dont know the answer as i dont write the rules, but will hazard a guess that its because of the temptation people have using it as a gateway drug. My reason/justification for this answer... In my career I have dealt with many a drug user, and all have started off on cannabis before moving on to harder drugs. This is my educated 'guess' to the original question, dont bother trying to prove it wrong, as its still my answer going by my personal experience. You may have your own views based on your own experiences. That doesnt mean i am wrong, or you are wrong, as they are both our personal ideas/guesses. A doctor/nurse may believe that its medical properties far out way its addictive problematic properties. A druggy may believe that its relaxing and not at all a bad thing. Someone who has no experience of its use or dealings may believe that the government have no right dictating what people should put into their bodies. But none of them are answering the original question, but giving reasons why its shouldnt be (that is NOT being asked). So, come one, give your reasons 'why its illegal' (not why it shouldnt be).
