What is your view on cannabis?

[velvet]

So if I want to carry a loaded AK-47 down the street, that's okay? We don't live in a society where people can just do whatever they please, otherwise there would be chaos...

As for being high, I can't claim I know anything about it...

that's a bit of a silly comparison.
smoking cannabis only affects the user, you can't harm someone else with cannabis... you can't draw comparisons with a gun.

being high isn't some giggly, hallucinogenic state like movies dictate.
you literally just relax and think more. a hell of a lot of people who are considered great minds are "stoners", hell, the beatles even said without weed there would have been no beatles.

[AgnesIO]

it's illegal because people can grow it at home, fairly easily, for free. takes money away from the big pharma companies who have a lot of influence on government.

and no, it wold be 18+, like cigarettes and alcohol.

that would be like saying "if gay marriage is right, then why was it illegal?"

If you are referring to this post; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...08#post7897608 then I didn't respond as you pretty much just stated that there are two sides to the argument - nothing as such as agree or disagree with :L

Surely pharma companies lose out from it being illegal, as they could sell more of it if it were legal?

[Kardan]

Gon' write this quickly.

I believe there should be an age cap if it was ever legalised and you could purchase cannabis from most locations. It's just that I believe you should be of a mature enough age to make the choice about whether take cannabis or not (just like with smoking or alcohol) - I do not support children smoking, taking drugs or consuming alcohol because they aren't fully aware of the implications at their age.

So there are implications? Obviously if it ever did get legalised, the age cap should probably be at 18. I just don't like people saying that smoking cannabis does no harm whatsoever... If that was the case, let kids smoke it, surely?

[velvet]

a small minority of people? Uh no http://coed.com/2010/09/02/10-major-...s-of-marijuana
omfg if it stops pms pain im going for it, can anyone confirm if this is true? It can help with migraines which you'd usually use paracetomal for and I'm pretty sure there are more death son aspirin and paracetomal than from cann is..
also about the smell well i don't like people's perfume aftershave etc and those give me headaches and can be dangerous to oûrselves and others but don't see that being banned

i can confirm it'll help with PMS and headaches, i get both and it completely alleviates the symptoms. cannabis is the only pain killer i use, heh.

[Kardan]

that's a bit of a silly comparison.
smoking cannabis only affects the user, you can't harm someone else with cannabis... you can't draw comparisons with a gun.

being high isn't some giggly, hallucinogenic state like movies dictate.
you literally just relax and think more. a hell of a lot of people who are considered great minds are "stoners", hell, the beetles even said without weed there would have been no beetles.

So you are saying that inhaling passive cannabis smoke does no harm whatsoever?

[velvet]

If you are referring to this post; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...08#post7897608 then I didn't respond as you pretty much just stated that there are two sides to the argument - nothing as such as agree or disagree with :L

Surely pharma companies lose out from it being illegal, as they could sell more of it if it were legal?

pharma companies can't patent an organic material and they couldn't stop people growing it themselves / buying it from other peopel for cheaper.

also if it was legalized hemp would be too, which could revolutionize paper, plastics, clothing etc.

[Kardan]

it's illegal because people can grow it at home, fairly easily, for free. takes money away from the big pharma companies who have a lot of influence on government.

and no, it wold be 18+, like cigarettes and alcohol.

that would be like saying "if gay marriage is right, then why was it illegal?"

Kudos to the gay marriage point, very correct

[velvet]

So you are saying that inhaling passive cannabis smoke does no harm whatsoever?

i was speaking more about if it was regulated the way cigarettes are today, i.e no smoking in public buildings (i'd ban it from all busy public places, personally)

the amounts of carcinogens that would be exhaled would be minimal from cannabis smoke, so yeah, i'm not saying it's completely harmless, but a LOT less than cigarette smoke.

[AgnesIO]

a small minority of people? Uh no http://coed.com/2010/09/02/10-major-...s-of-marijuana
omfg if it stops pms pain im going for it, can anyone confirm if this is true? It can help with migraines which you'd usually use paracetomal for and I'm pretty sure there are more deaths from aspirin and paracetomal than from cannabis..
also about the smell well i don't like people's perfume aftershave etc and those give me headaches and can be dangerous to oûrselves and others but don't see that being banned @Marketing; cannabis can reduce headaches...

Cannot believe coed is being used as a source - surely even worse than quoting the Daily Mail...

Also, it may be able to reduce headaches - but according to the NHS it can also cause them (and from experience of questions asked whilst at hospital appointments, this certainly seems to be the case). I know who I would listen to - NHS or COED lol.

---

But once again, I shall go back to Kardan's point. Shall we start selling morphine in shops too?

[Kardan]

i was speaking more about if it was regulated the way cigarettes are today, i.e no smoking in public buildings (i'd ban it from all busy public places, personally)

the amounts of carcinogens that would be exhaled would be minimal from cannabis smoke, so yeah, i'm not saying it's completely harmless, but a LOT less than cigarette smoke.

This is a debateable point as previously said, there's just as many studies, articles and reports on your point of view as there is on my point of view, that cannabis smoke is more damaging than cigarette smoke.

(Le example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7150274.stm)

So basically, neither of us can use that point, since scientists agree and disagree on it constantly, which probably means they're both just as bad as each other if anything.

Thing is, it probably would be banned from public places (but alas, what do you defy as a public place, smoking is currently banned from public places, but it's okay to smoke on the streets), but with the amount of people I smell smoking it on the streets anyway, when it's illegal, surely this number will only rise when people can get hold of it, legally?