I'm generally of the opinion that adults should be able to do whatever drugs they please. Obviously, they should not be doing anything that requires a clear head (driving, doing surgery, looking after kids, etc), and I'd like to think that there would be regulations around the safe production of said drugs (similar to food safety).

All that said, there are negatives to a drug even as benign as marijuana. Smoking it has many of the same health risks as tobacco, it can also lead to psychological problems and even obesity (lack of motivation coupled with munchies).

I still think that it's up to the individual to make that decision, but do it with open eyes.

I used 23andMe for analysis of my saliva. The DNA is mine, what I choose to do with the information is my choice alone. Same as palm reading and seeing a psychic (if that's what you're into), or peeing into a cup - I can act on the information or not, my choice. If the FDA is so worried about and more importantly has time and money to spend engaging this company on the possible health effects of users who act on the information, I'd say their priorities are fucked up or at least their motivation is unclear.

Point of contrast - here's another product that can possibly cause harm, but were's the cease and desist for this one? I can go down to the corner store and buy a known to be addictive product, with labels that indicate "Smoking Kills", but the tobacco companies are still free to sell it and go about their business. The accuracy of the tests conducted on addiction, health effects etc. related to tobacco are still in debate. You know "We're still working on it". We choose whether we want to use this product, even though it doesn't only put the users life at risk (presumably) but also those around the user (presumably), same as we choose what do with 23andMe reports. However, I'd wager the known risks and costs associated with allowing tobacco use to continue is orders of magnitude higher than it ever will be for the 400,000 or so customers that have used 23andMe to sequence a portion of our genome. Why don't we work on the hard & obvious problem first?

Tempest in a tea cup.

ps. I wonder what the ulterior motive is? Perhaps the FDA is in cahoots with Monsanto in planning copyright on specific genetic sequences for humans, as they do now for crops. Hmmm... they could call it the Soylent Green experiment.

100% not sarcasm. A politician's personal life is none of your business. When a reporter asks a question that is none of their business they deserve to get a lie or Clinton-esque evasion (the latter is what happened in this case). He said he does not use it and is not an addict, both statements being consistent with having tried it in the past. One puff does not make him a crackhead. The scientific literature on this issue demonstrates that cocaine is about as addictive as tobacco. Even if the unverified accusations were true, that wouldn't be automatic grounds for resignation.

@artician

Even if the models for the decline of empires are inexact, poorly sourced or even exaggerated, they are doing so to combat the overwhelming force of the status quo that feeds us a constant stream of comforting, mind-numbing bliss through mass media, mostly delivered though TV news, advertising and cleverly veiled in the actual entertainment that the audience enjoys.

It's hard to mount a comeback against a presupposed cultural truth supported by any form of economic interest. The tobacco industry, for example, mounted powerful misinformation and doubt as scientific evidence slowly leaked out that smoking was harmful. People just don't want to hear that the way they live and what they "know" to be true is going to change and that personal choice is going to have to be limited to some extent.

The same is true for global warming, deforestation, species extinction, pollution, etc., etc. You can resist the "ineffectual mumblings" of Hitchens, Chomsky and the like, but you do so to at your own peril. People like you are the do-do bird in this scenario. People like you are the 2 pack-a-day smoker who thinks they've been smoking for 20 years and feeling fine so why quit now. "Screw the scientists, they're all out to make themselves rich so they concoct these cackamamy experiments to 'prove' they need more research funding." Okay, it's your right to dismiss the advice of people smarter than you.

This video follows the same vein as Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist series (which I suggest you watch or rewatch for shits and giggles.) The idea of consumption tax seems a lot easier for our system to adopt than Joseph's idea of a "Resource-Based Economy." It just sounds more fair that those consuming resources pay back into the system and less airy-fairy than some socialist "to-each as to his need" idea. And let's face it, it's right on a social level. It's just too hard to get there based on our current economic and political structure.

Our wasteful way of life is just unsustainable. I don't think anyone can deny that the ponzi scheme of FIAT money is eventually going to collapse because the balance of wealth is way out of whack AND ONLY GETTING WORSE. And the USA is at the top, and yet owes trillions in funny money that they can only pay back if they stop building missiles and tanks. But I think we all know that when the shit hits the fan, we're going to want to get behind those tanks to ride out the storm of resistance from the 99%. Not the privileged 99% in the west, the 99% of destitute, impoverished poor that build the toys, sew and clothes, glue the plastic Walmart crap, and GROW THE FOOD that we want.to have cheap. We're doing this all on the backs of the "free slaves" in undeveloped countries: Columbia, Bangladesh and on and on.

Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.

"But people use it to get loaded! Think of the children! Now there are two drugs to use!"
Seriously, that's Samuels main argument against legalisation?
First of all, hell yes, people want to get high. Weed isn't healthy but it's certainly healthier than alcohol.
Second, legalisation would also mean a higher likelyhood of age verification. Dealers don't check for ids, store might with the right laws in place. Works for alcohol, doesn't it?
Third, they already have weed available for consumption. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it everywhere. You don't add it to the available drugs, you just change how you handle it.

The only good argument I know against legalisation is this: What kind of industry would the weed industry become in a country where favourable legislation can be bought by the highest bidder? Worse than the tobacco industry?
That's where it may become scary.

Its not a question of whether because Tobacco is also a drug shouldn't it be restricted as well, which of course technically it is (18+). Its more that just because it looks like he might be selling weed or coke doesn't mean he actually is. Yes, he very much might be selling to consumers who do consume, but he isn't doing the selling himself (At least no proof is available). Legally there's a line there, much like there is a line between tobacco and cocaine. Its a fallacy.

But in his (community) defence they pulled the race card, when it seemed like police were targeting for the above fallacy instead. That's the point I'm making. Idiots all around.

And I know it might be far too conclusionary, but I literally have no other information to go off of besides this video. The journalist didn't ask why they thought race was involved and not because he could cater to existing drug users (see lecit and illicit can apply here). If the informant is going to do something retarded, let that retardation stand on its own merit against him.

What, if not drugs, would you smoke in a bong? Tobacco? Lint? Elvis' pubes?

And yes, I know Tobacco is actually a drug too. And then there's crack and meth and salvia and so on...

walk in to any drug store, which is an extension of western medicine...
and we have 4 main classes of drugs:
sugar
alcohol
tobacco
and prescription pharmaceuticals

the question is, which one kills you the fastest?

and what sort of profit incentive is there to keep you mired in your shitty health habits?

so @shveddy, who is reprimanding me for my "idiocy", would you please explain?

Your video, noam chomsky-why marijuana is illegal and tobacco is legal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The Cannabis Cup has nothing to do with medical marijuana, it is a recreational marijuana event, normally held in Amsterdam.

Where there is no difference, is between a bunch of people drinking alcohol and these people smoking marijuana... well save for the fact these people aren't using something that destroys their bodies as much, it doesn't make them more violent and irritable and overly confident in themselves and their reaction time, and the high ends much sooner than the drunkards drunkenness (but can be detected in the system for far longer); but hey let's keep wasting billions of tax dollars keeping up a sham of a double standard so we can keep prisons over crowded with non-violent drug offenders, let's waste police resources finding people smoking or growing a plant,rather than violent criminals that pose an actual threat to society... because that makes perfect sense in opposite world.

Make no mistake, the supposed tax revenue that proponents of legalization make are a bit overstated since it is relatively easy to grow (to grow period, to grow quality stuff not so easy or cheap) compared to brewing one's own beer or something, but there would be some.

It is the height of hypocrisy to say marijuana should be illegal while saying people should be allowed to drink/make/brew beer, wine or other such drinks or us tobacco products.

Doubt it ... my guess is European with the added tobacco. I don't know of anyone who mixes it here. We [I] prefer mine unadulterated thankyouverymuch

ahhh!
I used to roll big joints in the 80s, the size of those figurines. Never understood why people put tobacco in them. just ruins it.

Agree with him 100%. I don't do drugs now and if they legalized them all tomorrow I wouldn't start. Tobacco is legal right? I don't use that either.

I challenge any of you to provide any logical and sensible counter-points to any of his comments.

Lyrics:
Im gonna smoke some weed, only got 20 dollas in my pocket
Imma huntin, looking for a pot shop, this is fucking awesome!

Walk into my house like what up, i got some good pot
I'm just pumped up got some herb from the pot shop
Ice in my fridge it used to be frosty
My friends like "Damn, that's a stoned ass donkey!"
Rollin' in hella high, looking like it's fifa time
Dominating all my friends, as I eat some chili fries
Draped in a snuggie with my girl sitting next to me
Probably shouldn't have had a big gulp full of ice tea
PISS!
But shit it was 99 cents!

I be blazin and smokin it
Bout to go and get some munchie snacks, passing up on those cracker jacks
Reeces Pieces are where it's at, Gotta get me some soda pop
Cotton mouth has been creeping up
But can't remember where I put my keys,
Yeah, that's what's up.
Imma take your grandpa's ride, Imma take your grandpa's ride
No for real, ask your grandpa, Can I take his 65?
Deville Cruisin to my local Publix
Nothing better than rolling with 2 super fly chicks!
They had frozen burritos, I bought frozen burritos
I bought some Ben and Jerry's, then I bought some Cheetos
Hello, Hello, my main man Obama
A couple states have just reformed their laws on marijuana
Whatcha gonna do, send the feds there? Hell no!
The DEA's would be like "Ah, they got Volcano"

What you know about the science of marijuana?
What you know about people suffering from glaucoma?
They need it, they need it, it helps them with their condition
If don't believe me, then just ask some eye physicians
Thank your granddad for voting for that guy Richard
Nixon is the President who made the plant illegal
But science is now showing that its medicine for people
And the private sector's fighting to keep all of that illegal
Alcohol and Tobacco, Pharmaceutical, Prisons
I'll take those four major lobby groups and fight those motherfuckers
They making money day and night, all those motherfuckers
And bribing congress out of sight, all those motherfuckers
They be like, "Oh, it's immoral and unhealthy"
I'm like how many people are you making wealthy
Anti-marijuana lobbies are making all kinds of profits
And they don't want you to stop it cause of all the special interests
I call that getting swindled and pimped, shit
I call that getting tricked by the government, that law's hella old
So its time to update it, regulate it, and then get it under state control
Peep Game, look into my political telescope
Think it's going to stay like this forever, nah, it hella won't, nah, it hella won't.

Let's end the war on drugs, It's time to pull the plug
These special interest groups are nothing more than corporate thugs
Let's end the war on weed, the people have agreed.
These special interest groups have kept these laws with bribery

Imma smoke some weed, only got 20 dollas in my pocket
Imma huntin, looking for a pot shop, this is fucking awesome!

What you seem to be saying is that you generally agree with the choices the U.S. has made, and that you disagree with the choice China has made in this case.

I personally find many forms of gambling offensive, so struggle to argue for it... I only brought it up because it is a case where U.S. law is out of step with other countries. That said though, what is the real difference between a room full of poker machines (legal) and an on-line version which could conceivably even be running the same software (illegal in the U.S., but subject to a WTO complaint)? The difference, in my opinion, is one of control. In the case of gambling, the U.S. government has made a choice to outlaw what they can't control, just like the Chinese government has done for religion and/or spiritual movements.

The acceptability of public nudity varies from place to place, but I find it hard to think of a way it harms anybody. In fact the naturist movement is quite pro public nudity. You are used to it being unlawful, but this is far from universal. Should it be outlawed in places it's currently legal just because you are offended? Even if they are far from your home and you are unlikely to actually go there to be offended?

Speaking of drugs, why have we chosen to allow alcohol and tobacco, both of which cause huge amounts of harm, and yet outlaw marijuana and LSD? Who made that choice?