2006-09-28 15:41:48 · 6 answers · asked by 411sponge 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes, but it's all politics and it will a long time before that happens. I have much anger regarding the medical use of marijuana, which I will not go into at length here. I'll just say that the government would rather have me addicted to 3 different pain pills and suffer through the nausea and agony of chemotherapy than give me a drug that could eliminate 2 of my 3 pain pills and give me the appetite to take in sustenance when I need it most. They tell me they can't give me that because it might cause me health problems in 10 or 20 years. It's ludicrous. I'm trying to GET to the next 10 or 20 years, and something benign like marijuana could help me make it there.
Recreationally I find it much less offensive than drunks who kill people with their cars, beat up their wives, and abuse their children and generally make obnoxious fools of themselves. I've yet to meet a pot smoker who ever became violent because they were high, or who beat their wife because they were out of control. Recreational drugs will always exist, they will never be stamped out. Why can't we recognize the least toxic and offensive of these drugs as preferable to alcohol or cocaine?
2006-09-28 15:58:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
there's a pair motives for it, not the least of which being that Tobacco would not reason human beings to kill others. Now earlier you thumb down me, i'm not conversing in the "refer insanity" style of kill. Marijuana has been shown to diminish your reaction time, a ways under alcohol or maybe another unlawful drugs. a suited occasion of it quite is the 1987 Maryland Amtrak twist of fate. The twist of fate became brought about whilst some Conrail workers, intense on marijuana, did not sluggish at a yellow sign, and then end at a pink. Their practice crossed into the path of an oncoming Amtrak practice, inflicting an twist of fate which incinerated the Amtrak locomotive besides as incinerating the engineer alive, and killed 15 different passengers in the practice, injuring 600. assessments via the NTSB proved that had the boys not been intense (even in accordance to their own testimony) then the twist of fate would not have got here approximately. The engineer and conductor of the Conrail practice survived the twist of fate, and have been tried, with the conductor turning "State's data" and attesting against the engineer, proving that he became a repeat consumer of Marijuana mutually as on duty. The Engineer became sentenced to 10 years, yet became released after 4. If that's not a stable clarification why it is unlawful, then i don't understand what's.
2016-10-18 04:15:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think your on too something here. you dont here about as many people wrecking and killing somebody being high. You just want to get somewhere and eat or stay at home and eat and sleep. Besides how bad of a crash could you have at thirty five mph.LOL..not like alcohol at a hundred and thirty five and wandering why you are in jail.
2006-09-28 15:46:52 · answer #3 · answered by WILLIAM W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The simple answer to this is "no". Read the Reader's Digest that came out last year and dealt with this question. The next reason is most people who have alcohol have some knowledge of their impairment. Marihuana give you no knowledge of your impairment.
2006-09-28 17:10:01 · answer #4 · answered by Buzz s 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Grass makes you stupid.
2006-09-28 15:54:10 · answer #5 · answered by BP 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
of course it would be better!!!
2006-09-28 15:45:16 · answer #6 · answered by luhver 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋