Difference between revisions of "Talk:Marijuana"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Illegal drug)
(Humor: new section)
Line 116: Line 116:
I feel the page is somewhat biased towards belittling the subject and why are no positive effects listed? Why only the supposed negative effects? Brum 21:25, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I feel the page is somewhat biased towards belittling the subject and why are no positive effects listed? Why only the supposed negative effects? Brum 21:25, 16 November 2008 (EST)
== Humor ==
I don't have a pony in this race, but both sides might find this funny.

Revision as of 17:05, 14 March 2009

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --WOVcenter 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. Cracker 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --ColinR 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --NVConservative 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --ColinR 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--Nomine Cervus 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. ColinR 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. MountainDew 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Hooray for another supporter. ColinR 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Illegal drug

Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. RSchlafly 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --Hojimachongtalk 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. RSchlafly 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. RobS 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --Hojimachongtalk 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--Elamdri 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we can agree upon that wording? --Hojimachongtalk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Perfect. And blatantly factual. RobS 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. (see here) ColinRtalk 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can something put here by our Lord be made illegal? What grounds do we really have to override God? Marijuana has proven Medicinal, entheogenic and social benefits, and also promotes creative and abstract thought. In the Bible there is a possible reference to cannabis

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” -- Genesis 1: 29-30

Doesn't it seem slightly blasphemous to make one of Gods herbs illegal? Entheogenicorder 16:53, 31 January 2008 (BDT)

Angel Raich

This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, SqueakBox 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"

as pot, grass, weed, etc.

Appraisal of its effects/consequences

RobS is on one, again. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal promotes its use?

In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.
In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by LSD or psilocybin, these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).
Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--Robledo 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. RobS 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about why people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --Robledo 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once! MiddleMan

Allegedly harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --TrueGrit 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we unlock this article now so factual information may be added? It is rather annoying to see an article as important as this be locked for so long for reasons that amount to nothing.

Yeah, most of the stuff seems... suspect. Especially the driving claim. A comparison against legal things, such as, say, alcohol would be nice. Barikada 19:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

"harmful medical and emotional effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving" citation needed citation needed a thousand times CITATION NEEDED


this page is locked, but I wanted to make a few changes. I wanted to remove the link from Larry Elder, as that page does not exsist. I would also like to add a few things about the referendums in Colorado Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 18:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Reefer Madness

You should add in something about the film "Reefer Madness" into this article. There is, in fact, a page on it. You can get there by clicking here. I think that this should be added because there is too much, well, negatives on the drug, and, I think that it would be humorous to add something about a very crappy, yet funny film. --Rocky

Why locked?

The sections on this page about marijuana effects is incomplete (it seems that there are only unpleasant effects listed). There is also very little information about the chemical compound THC itself, which I think would add a lot to the article.

Yes, why is this locked? The article is missing lots of info; marijuana has already been decriminalized in parts of the U.S. Fantasia 19:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Reference no longer exists


It says the page no longer exists. Someone should remove or replace it. FernoKlump 19:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This article needs to be unlocked. Now. Jirby 19:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


When will this article be unlocked?Jirby 23:40, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Allowed in the Bible

"every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3).

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth" (Psalms104:14)

This should be added for approval, or at least interpretation, for legalized Marijuana use, seeing as this is a Christian encyclopedia.


I spotted some silly mistakes:

1. Marijuana is not a drug and neither is Cannabis. THC is the most active drug compound and 'Marijuana' is Mexican-Spanish slang for the Cannabis Sativa plant.

2. The full name for THC is more correctly known as Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.

I feel the page is somewhat biased towards belittling the subject and why are no positive effects listed? Why only the supposed negative effects? Brum 21:25, 16 November 2008 (EST)


I don't have a pony in this race, but both sides might find this funny.