Marijuana research

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Because of pressure from lobbyists and/or voters.

Scientists, however, don't need either group's permission to leave the country.

Scientists do not.

But if they tried to bring lab equipment or funds that do not belong to them out of the country then that would be a crime.

Very well, then, so it's a partial solution.

Under whose authority does lab equipment need to stay where it is? Whose permission would they need to transport it?

[Thermodolia]

Scientists do not.

But if they tried to bring lab equipment or funds that do not belong to them out of the country then that would be a crime.

Very well, then, so it's a partial solution.

Under whose authority does lab equipment need to stay where it is? Whose permission would they need to transport it?

Usually the university or government agency who owns the shit

[Ifreann]

Scientists do not.

But if they tried to bring lab equipment or funds that do not belong to them out of the country then that would be a crime.

Very well, then, so it's a partial solution.

Under whose authority does lab equipment need to stay where it is? Whose permission would they need to transport it?

Probably a university or government agency, like Therm said. Possibly a private pharmaceutical company.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Very well, then, so it's a partial solution.

Under whose authority does lab equipment need to stay where it is? Whose permission would they need to transport it?

Usually the university or government agency who owns the shit

So if the university owned it, would they be allowed to grant permission to bring the lab equipment out of the country?

[Thermodolia]

Usually the university or government agency who owns the shit

So if the university owned it, would they be allowed to grant permission to bring the lab equipment out of the country?

They probably wouldn’t want to seeing as that stuff is expensive and insurance ain’t cheap

[Azurius]

I disagree with decriminalizing certain drugs. I don´t think hard ones should be legal. Plus, realife cases and data show that when you legalize a soft drug like cannabis, the demand for hard drugs and even alcohol falls automaticaly.

Which is why I see no sense in legalizing the hard drugs personaly, especialy not given the plentifull safer alternatives that should also be legal.

Decriminalizing hard drugs would make it better for people to seek help and rehabilitation since they won't be afraid of being punished.

Legalizing soft drugs leads to less usage of hard and harmfull drugs including less alcohol too, that plus education and healthcare would make the need and demand for hard drugs obsolete.

Another promising area of research includes artificial forms of hard drugs. Some scientists are for example working on an artificial form of cocaine that gives the same high but is far less addictive and less meddling with your mental health. That would be a good and also doable alternative. I once more really see no need to legalize drugs like heroin, ketamin, amphetamines or cocaine. Not with the safer alternatives that exist, and if that fails we can invest and create safe alternatives of cocaine etc.

I disagree with decriminalizing certain drugs. I don´t think hard ones should be legal. Plus, realife cases and data show that when you legalize a soft drug like cannabis, the demand for hard drugs and even alcohol falls automaticaly.

Which is why I see no sense in legalizing the hard drugs personaly, especialy not given the plentifull safer alternatives that should also be legal.

I’m not saying we should legalize hard drugs just decriminalize them. Instead of going to prison for possession of hard drugs you will go to a rehab center. Portugal does this and it seems to work fine

Well i am still not for that either. Certain drugs in my oppinion should be kept illegal, and criminalized too. People that produce drugs like meth or crack ought to be criminalized. Yeah of course we should take their motives/economic situation into perspective too, here is where such poverty and desperation shouldn´t even exist in a developed countries but that´s a different story entirely. Still, it should be a crime in my oppinion. I see no need to legalize or even decriminalize hard drugs.

[Valgora]

:eek:

Decriminalizing hard drugs would make it better for people to seek help and rehabilitation since they won't be afraid of being punished.

Legalizing soft drugs leads to less usage of hard and harmfull drugs including less alcohol too, that plus education and healthcare would make the need and demand for hard drugs obsolete.

Another promising area of research includes artificial forms of hard drugs. Some scientists are for example working on an artificial form of cocaine that gives the same high but is far less addictive and less meddling with your mental health. That would be a good and also doable alternative. I once more really see no need to legalize drugs like heroin, ketamin, amphetamines or cocaine. Not with the safer alternatives that exist, and if that fails we can invest and create safe alternatives of cocaine etc.

Decriminalizing ain't the same as legalizing.

"Decriminalization or decriminalisation is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: legalization). The reverse process is criminalization.

Decriminalization reflects changing social and moral views. A society may come to the view that an act is not harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system."
- Wikipedia

[Azurius]

What Therm is appearing to say is that drugs are decriminalized for users while drug dealers will face actual punishment for it.
That ain't actual decriminalization, but it's closer to decriminalization compared to what we currently have.

Well you can decriminalize possession of said hard drugs while still having the dealing being illegal. Though because a lot of dealers tend to be users they’ll get rehab too.

Problem is as the saying goes: A good dealer never gets addicted to his own product.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
Just because there's some good in something doesn't mean it's entirely good. It also doesn't mean that the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

[Ifreann]

What would even be the point of relocating an American laboratory to Canada?

What are American scientists going to do in Canada that Canadian scientists aren't? Canada has its own scientists and labs.

[Guelder]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219

Oh dear, this thread isn't about religion, this thread is supposed to be as secular as possible (I think), so please don't bring religious beliefs up

[Azurius]

So if the university owned it, would they be allowed to grant permission to bring the lab equipment out of the country?

They probably wouldn’t want to seeing as that stuff is expensive and insurance ain’t cheap

That plus, you would be allowing another state or university to use your own research equipment. Since they are competitors in the end that makes another reason why something like that is unlikely to ever happen, sadly. Exchange of equipment and data usualy only happens when 2 or more universities engage in a project together. And since many states still keep it illegal that idea is out of the window too.

[Guelder]

What would even be the point of relocating an American laboratory to Canada?

What are American scientists going to do in Canada that Canadian scientists aren't? Canada has its own scientists and labs.

Agreed

[Valgora]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
Just because there's some good in something doesn't mean it's entirely good. It also doesn't mean that the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

Well... the good of marijuana outweighs the bad.
Of course, religion shouldn't be used to create laws. If Baptists created all the laws, the only way people could drink alcohol was if it was in the closet.
Anyways, religion is a shitty reason to criminalize something.

[Azurius]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
Just because there's some good in something doesn't mean it's entirely good. It also doesn't mean that the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

True, but what if banning something is even worse and has even worse effects on peoples health, income, life and career? Wouldn´t it be better to legalize and supervise it and offer compulsory education in that topic and well funded mandatory healthcare for addicts? Especialy if there is a way of actualy consuming it without any harmfull effects(eating). Shouldn´t that be encouraged whilst smoking it should be frowned upon or maybe even banned in your view?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
Just because there's some good in something doesn't mean it's entirely good. It also doesn't mean that the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

True, but what if banning something is even worse and has even worse effect on peoples health, income, life and career? Wouldn´t it be better to legalize and supervise it and offer compulsory education in that topic and well funded mandatory healthcare for addicts? Especialy if there is a way of actualy consuming it without any harmfull effects(eating). Shouldn´t that be encouraged whilst smoking it should be frowned upon or maybe even banned in your view?

If the good outweighs the bad, then you could make that argument, yes. But it'd be better to use marijuana as a last resort if other options fail.

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219

Oh dear, this thread isn't about religion, this thread is supposed to be as secular as possible (I think), so please don't bring religious beliefs up

OP doesn't say that.

[Terra Capitalis]

Pot should be legal, it is not the role of government to declare what we can and cannot do with our bodies or what we may be able to purchase with our property. the government's role is to preserve the rights of its citizens and restricting pot and other drugs is a violation of that role. Partaking of drugs such as pot or heroine is detrimental to my health but it would still be my choice to do so, and so long as I am not infringing on anyone else's rights then I should be allowed to do so. I personally would not partake of substances like heroine or cannabis but I should have the right to do so if I so choose.

[Galloism]

What would even be the point of relocating an American laboratory to Canada?

What are American scientists going to do in Canada that Canadian scientists aren't? Canada has its own scientists and labs.

Besides, we know how most experiments in Canada end.

[Guelder]

https://legacy.quran.com/2/219
Just because there's some good in something doesn't mean it's entirely good. It also doesn't mean that the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

Well... the good of marijuana outweighs the bad.
Of course, religion shouldn't be used to create laws. If Baptists created all the laws, the only way people could drink alcohol was if it was in the closet.
Anyways, religion is a shitty reason to criminalize something.

Disagree, modern Christianity do allow drugs, homosexuality, alcohol and stuff like this, modern Judaism too. Although Alcohol was always allowed in both religions (especially Christianity). But lets turn back to topic

[Guelder]

True, but what if banning something is even worse and has even worse effect on peoples health, income, life and career? Wouldn´t it be better to legalize and supervise it and offer compulsory education in that topic and well funded mandatory healthcare for addicts? Especialy if there is a way of actualy consuming it without any harmfull effects(eating). Shouldn´t that be encouraged whilst smoking it should be frowned upon or maybe even banned in your view?

If the good outweighs the bad, then you could make that argument, yes. But it'd be better to use marijuana as a last resort if other options fail.

Oh dear, this thread isn't about religion, this thread is supposed to be as secular as possible (I think), so please don't bring religious beliefs up

OP doesn't say that.

I know okay, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to say that, because it has nothing to to with this topic

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If the good outweighs the bad, then you could make that argument, yes. But it'd be better to use marijuana as a last resort if other options fail.

OP doesn't say that.

I know okay, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to say that, because it has nothing to to with this topic

Actually it does. The topic is about whether weed should be legalized (?) (at least for research, which I'm ok with btw). I gave my stance.

[Valgora]

True, but what if banning something is even worse and has even worse effect on peoples health, income, life and career? Wouldn´t it be better to legalize and supervise it and offer compulsory education in that topic and well funded mandatory healthcare for addicts? Especialy if there is a way of actualy consuming it without any harmfull effects(eating). Shouldn´t that be encouraged whilst smoking it should be frowned upon or maybe even banned in your view?

If the good outweighs the bad, then you could make that argument, yes. But it'd be better to use marijuana as a last resort if other options fail.

When it comes to cannabis, the good does outweigh the bad.
And marijuana ain't a last resort, it should be closer to a first resort.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If the good outweighs the bad, then you could make that argument, yes. But it'd be better to use marijuana as a last resort if other options fail.

When it comes to cannabis, the good does outweigh the bad.
And marijuana ain't a last resort, it should be closer to a first resort.

Does marijuana intoxicate? Yes or no?

[Valgora]

When it comes to cannabis, the good does outweigh the bad.
And marijuana ain't a last resort, it should be closer to a first resort.

Does marijuana intoxicate? Yes or no?

In a way, yes. But not entirely.
Intoxication: "(of alcoholic drink or a drug) cause one to lose control of their faculties or behavior."
I wouldn't say weed causes one to lose (complete) control of their faculties or behavior.

Doesn't mean the bad outweighs the good.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Does marijuana intoxicate? Yes or no?

In a way, yes. But not entirely.
Intoxication: "(of alcoholic drink or a drug) cause one to lose control of their faculties or behavior."
I wouldn't say weed causes one to lose (complete) control of their faculties or behavior.

Doesn't mean the bad outweighs the good.

In a way, yes.

Ok then, it's a last resort.