Should St. Louis City Legalize Marijuana?

A catch-all forum for urban discussion. If it doesn't fit elsewhere, post here.
First unread post167 posts

Should St. Louis City Legalize Marijuana?

Yes
87%
82
No, because it is immoral
3%
3
No, because it is a gateway drug
10%
9

danke0 the last line in the conclusion says, "As policy shifts toward legalization of marijuana, it is reasonable and probably prudent to hypothesize that its use will increase" is completely unsubstantiated. There is ZERO proof of this. In the case of Marijuana, its illegality has not really made it more difficult to obtain. It appears to me, according to the study, the only long term health effects of marijuana intoxication are seen when adolescents abuse Marijuana. No one suggests making it legal for minors.

What about the public health issue of thousands of murders annually in america and the tens of thousands abroad created by the illegal drug trade?
^It seems you could swap out marijuana for alcohol in that write up and it would be exactly the same. So, it should probably be regulated similarly as well, which would mean no sale to minors (or those under 21) and no operating of motor vehicles while intoxicated. Pretty straight forward.
wabash wrote:The "bad for the lungs" argument doesn't really hold water considering cigarettes aren't illegal and a lot of people that use marijuana don't smoke it.
It’s a proven fact that inhaling marijuana smoke me into the lungs causes emphysema and cancer. I know people that have been smoking it since they were a teenager and can’t walk up 3 flights of stairs.

I am all for using taxing mechanisms to curb behaviors that is harmful to our health. Soda tax, high taxes on cigarettes, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couldn't agree more. Tax it like crazy. Along the same line of reasoning, tobacco should be taxed more. Particularly in MO.
downtown2007 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:46 pm
wabash wrote:The "bad for the lungs" argument doesn't really hold water considering cigarettes aren't illegal and a lot of people that use marijuana don't smoke it.
It’s a proven fact that inhaling marijuana smoke me into the lungs causes emphysema and cancer. I know people that have been smoking it since they were a teenager and can’t walk up 3 flights of stairs.

I am all for using taxing mechanisms to curb behaviors that is harmful to our health. Soda tax, high taxes on cigarettes, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I've visited friends in Oregon and Washington they've been more into edibles and vaping oils. I'd think those are a lot better for the lungs since there's no smoke or inhaling of any burnt plant material. I just wanted to point out that there are other forms and ways to enjoy recreational marijuana.
Sounds like a great way to release policing and judicial resources to handle more serious crimes and problems.
wabash wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:17 pm
^It seems you could swap out marijuana for alcohol in that write up and it would be exactly the same. So, it should probably be regulated similarly as well, which would mean no sale to minors (or those under 21) and no operating of motor vehicles while intoxicated. Pretty straight forward.
Totally. It's interesting to read the arguments of the alcohol prohibitionists and see how true they still are. Yet it's just socially acceptable, for whatever reason, to miss a day of work here and there bc you're hung over. Alcohol gets a pass for some reason.
danke0 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:05 pm
Alcohol gets a pass for some reason.
Because it was used for thousands of years to kill bacteria in water (of course, they only knew it wouldn't make them sick). Beer and wine used to be highly diluted because it's faster than boiling water.
Anyway, this is the only reason alcohol has been the chosen recreation drug by humanity. It basically used to be a necessity.

It serves no more purpose in modern society than other recreation drugs.
danke0 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:05 pm
wabash wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:17 pm
^It seems you could swap out marijuana for alcohol in that write up and it would be exactly the same. So, it should probably be regulated similarly as well, which would mean no sale to minors (or those under 21) and no operating of motor vehicles while intoxicated. Pretty straight forward.
Totally. It's interesting to read the arguments of the alcohol prohibitionists and see how true they still are. Yet it's just socially acceptable, for whatever reason, to miss a day of work here and there bc you're hung over. Alcohol gets a pass for some reason.
Where, McDonald's? I'd never consider calling in and telling my boss I'm not coming in because I was hungover.
BellaVilla wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:17 pm
danke0 the last line in the conclusion says, "As policy shifts toward legalization of marijuana, it is reasonable and probably prudent to hypothesize that its use will increase" is completely unsubstantiated. There is ZERO proof of this. In the case of Marijuana, its illegality has not really made it more difficult to obtain. It appears to me, according to the study, the only long term health effects of marijuana intoxication are seen when adolescents abuse Marijuana. No one suggests making it legal for minors.
I'm in favor of legalization, but just for the record, I think that line is solid on common sense. You seem to be suggesting that the only barrier to usage is availability.

I'd argue stigma and legal consequences are their own huge barriers.

Plenty of people likely would tryit or use it regularly if they knew they would be free from legal consequence in the event that they were caught.
Im not a smoker by all means though can't say i haven't tried Mari Jayne several times it does nil for me, however i absolutely support the legalization of this any day over cigarettes besides most my friends smoke it and they're some of the nicest people.
Also its so easy to attain in todays society.
goat314 wrote: Only problem is the state legislature would strike this down with the quickness.
Would they?



Poll: Majority of Republicans support marijuana legalization

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics/ ... cans-poll/
It is only a matter of time until marijuana is legalized nationwide and we will likely see the market quickly snapped up by the existing out of state corporations. When it is legalized here I would love to see some kind of law that restricts the sale of marijuana to those who live in the city. Maybe even require it to be grown within the city limits (God knows we have the room.) Not only would the majority of the revenue stay in the city but would also keep the "weed scene" unique and differentiated from most other cities. Another way to put STL on the map.
moorlander wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:54 pm
goat314 wrote: Only problem is the state legislature would strike this down with the quickness.
Would they?



Poll: Majority of Republicans support marijuana legalization

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics/ ... cans-poll/
Missouri "Evangelical" Republicans would not even let St. Louis City set it's own minimum wage. I doubt we will ever get legalized weed in St. Louis City, until it goes national.

I actually would love for St. Louis to have more autonomy in the state. When it comes to social issues and even infrastructure issues, I think large metropolitan areas needs a certain level of local control. The state of Mizzourah is killing the St. Louis region in many ways, layer that with our own local issues, and no wonder St. Louis is so slow growth.
NCADA expresses concern with proposed marijuana free-for-all

http://ncada-stl.org/press-release-ncad ... ooUZHBMGEf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would assume the people running this charge wouldn't just flick the weed switch and start a free-for-all... I'd imagine if/when they decided to do this steps would be put in place to write an entire procedure.
downtown2007 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:08 pm
NCADA expresses concern with proposed marijuana free-for-all

http://ncada-stl.org/press-release-ncad ... ooUZHBMGEf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Concern trolling in article form.