urufuls comments

"Guns kill people" but only if there is someone there to pull the trigger.

It's a little bit more complicated then just to remove the gun from the picture.

There's more to the story.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524gradshooting-CR.html

I agree that it needs to be regulated a lot more. But let's take the gun out of this picture. What's to say that this man doesn't grab a knife and start stabbing his ex wife?

Thehadman -

I definitely will read this, and I definitely would like a signed copy!

nisegaijin - science has a lot to do with it, and it is correct there is a lot more to it then just science. Science and social research just happen to show strong evidence that marijuana use has hurt society. Nobody is saying that you cannot be successful when smoking pot in regard to the friend that WAS a "complete stoner". Would he be a manager if her were still a complete stoner? In my first post I state that there are those people who can mediate their intake of marijuana. I submit that governments who find that there are those who cannot mediate and "cause harm to others" decide that this is enough to control the substance to keep it out of society.

jonnydesu - Those are some awesome questions, and I really enjoy your candor in this discussion! Who decides what is good or bad for us? We both agree that the individual has the ultimate decision with this. What are laws and legislations for? In your earlier post you suggest that the government and laws are there to protect the individual. So how do we get laws? Legislators who are chosen by representatives (that the people vote on) make these laws. So the laws are decided on by the people. And we're back to the majority issue. The people elect representatives so that there is a voice representing them and to protect them. When the research (done by government, universities, independent organizations what have you) shows evidence that marijuana abuse grossly injures society, why wouldn't the government that the people elected make laws to protect them from it? The government already makes laws and has made laws in regard to what is good or bad for society (i.e. Murder is illegal). I agree with you that the sugar and salt example is extreme, because I know that the body needs both in some form to function properly. It however does not need marijuana. It doesn't need TV either, yet the government encourages individuals to go out and exercise. The government needs TV though to make sure the people are informed. The NHK fees are for a different discussion though :).

I think it's great that you have given up marijuana. It's very difficult for many people to do that as you admit. Now that you have disclosed yourself as a prior smoker of marijuana, the question is that if you found a regular contact to obtain the stuff, would you start up again? Or would you be able to decline because it is against the law? What if it were legalized? Would you decline it even though you have been marijuana free for 3 whole years? You are speaking from personal experience, but can you speak for those who are true addicts? I say that the population who are true addicts to marijuana have made it so the government has put strict controls on the stuff.

There are pro marijuana sites that teach a potential user how to avoid addiction and still use it, but with the warning that "If you think you will have a problem using it" to not use it at all and to "think before you do it."

http://www.marijuanapassion.com/Marijuana-Withdrawal.html

Why do you think they say this? Because for every person that claims they are a responsible smoker, there is somebody who is not and "ruins" it for the rest of those who have control, and causes serious harm to society. They know that overuse of marijuana leads to serious social problems, which catches the eye of the government, and they want to prove that the drug is harmless and say that "it depends on the personality" of the individual whether or not they will have behavioral issues. Those with the behavioral issues have been shown to go on to other serious addictions when marijuana isn't enough, ergo giving credence to the claim that marijuana is a sort of "gateway drug". Again I say that the sugar and salt example is extreme, but I will go down that road with you and the other direction of the extreme and say that if marijuana were legalized, what's to stop the next group of people saying that X drug should be legalized? Then we are at the same debate again. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Why not start with a substance that has been proven with research to cause serious damage to society. Maybe not in your circle, but the facts are there. (Did anyone even read the research report posted earlier? Here it is again: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html ) There is a post in this very discussion by space monkey that a serious psychological condition were associated with marijuana use, and the very next two posts are by individuals who express sympathy, and then quickly brush off the notion that it had anything to do with marijuana.

How does legalizing a plant not protect an individual's freedom of choice?

That's kind of a loaded question because marijuana is not just any mere plant. You started smoking it from age 19, something made you want to continue it for 16 years. You can't just lower the status of marijuana to just a "plant" then raise sugar and salt to the level of social menace in the same discussion. For those who are truly addicted to marijuana, they have limited their own freedom by not being able to easily quit. And even if they do, they may go on to another addiction as you state. Legalizing marijuana would put more into the hands of potential addicts with serious problems.

Addiction = not protecting an individual's freedom of choice.

And no, I can happily say I have never been to an AA meeting. :)

jonnydesu - I see your point, and it further supports what I feel. My point was that when the majority is strongly on one side, that is the side the government will take. In no way does that make it okay or should be necessarily made legal. It's just what happens many times. I completely agree with you that issues of legality should not be based upon majority rules, especially when the health of society is in question. I don't think comparing sugar and marijuana is valid in this discussion. Marijuana use and possession has been illegal for some time and we have yet to see sugar and salt mentioned, and I humbly disagree that my position would lead to the banning of such table condiments. The truth is health related issues are factors in affecting legislation. Here is the site to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare:

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/

Here is another great site with this debate going on now on whether or not the US should legalize Marijuana.

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-us-legalize-marijuana

Laws should truly only be used to protect the individual, they should not dictate societies' morals. They should protect against doing harm to others, and to uphold contracts between people.

I believe the banning of marijuana if because the government is attempting to protect the individual, which is why studies have been released on the effects of marijuana.

They should not determine what I decide to do with my life.

The government doesn't determine it, we always have a choice. The issue is that the individual always has the freedom to make their own choices, and marijuana users will partake regardless of the legality. If the current law states that marijuana is illegal, then that individual accepts the responsibility and consequences of breaking that law. The individual will always decide his or her own fate, nobody is denying that. The graying of the consequences of marijuana use however, should stop. Society is made up of individuals, and the government has an obligation, as you say, to protect the individual therefore protect society.

The purposes behind the legalization of marijuana are merely to make it more easy to obtain the stuff for recreational use. The arguments of the proponents to legalized marijuana are for the purpose of legalizing it with regulations, i.e. "No marijuana for kids, should only be used by 'responsible' adults."

For those marijuana users that believe that freedom is being taken away from them by the government being "too uptight", may I submit that marijuana use actually limits individual freedom? Try getting a marijuana smoker of 10 years or so to quit. The rehab centers in the US are filled with marijuana smokers.

jonnydesu & Udaman - Great discussion! Some great points raised here. Many agree with you that marijuana is a vice, including most societies. Just look at the definition of vice, and we can begin to understand why the Japanese government in particular is setting forth harsh measures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vice?r=75

I believe the Japanese society actually has looked at the individual experiences with marijuana, and determined that the dangers and detriments to said society far outweigh the enhancements that some allude that marijuana has.

It would be naive for a government to not do its scientific and social research first.

Here's the research again by the US.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html

I certainly agree with you that the laws in Japan should be changed. Drunk drivers should be put in jail. The argument that because other vices are legal, that marijuana should be also because "it's less addictive than tobacco or alcohol" is valid only to the point that the majority of the populace is already using one or both of the latter, so instead of punishing users, regulations are set. It was a compromise. However that's for another discussion.

To make consistent the illegality of any vice mentioned in the article (marijuana, alcohol, tobacco) and in these discussions, they would need to either be completely illegal, or compromise and set regulations. I'm not positive whether or not alcohol and tobacco are more addictive then marijuana, because of the ease of obtaining the former two.

Marijuana is used so rarely that governments are trying to stave off the possession and use by their respective peoples before it becomes a problem like the widespread effects of alcoholism and tobacco. If we look just at the health care costs for just the health problems associated with these regulated substances, why in the world are we questioning why the government is trying to battle yet another vice from becoming prevalent?

Legalization, regulation, and taxation (on commercial production) of marijuana makes a lot of sense.

It does make sense if only people and governments are trying to make a profit on it. The US just raised taxes to $1 on 1 pack of cigarettes. Personally, I think it's terrible that anyone should be making money on the addictions of others. However it does not make sense to legalize marijuana just because there will still be some who "decline" to use it. Some people actually decline to use marijuana because it is in fact illegal. Once those measures are lifted, there will be some experimenting and the number that decline will gradually decrease. Those that decline to use marijuana now because they know of its effects to the body and society will still decline it if it becomes legal.

So the basic issue of the article is whether or not the illegality of marijuana is consistent with the legality of other drugs, namely alcohol and tobacco.

The answer to that is no. The principle behind it however is consistent.

If or when we see the majority of the Japanese population using marijuana to the point that the government can't enforce it, then I believe it will be legalized with regulations. Science and research show however, that it will be a mistake.

I should think that people would be more distressed that "2-3 million people" are smoking pot.

I am really confused on why this is a debate. Marijuana is addictive. If someone says there isn't any evidence to this, he or she isn't looking for it or doesn't want to look for it, or is able to moderate their intake and wants to ease their efforts in obtaining it.

Evidence researched:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html

When it comes down to it, majority rules. If the majority of the population was smoking marijuana, we wouldn't be having this debate. The fact is, the majority of people know that marijuana use is not good for the body. Come on, smoke entering the lungs??

http://www.drugwatch.org/TruthMarijuanaHemp.htm

Throwing a political spin on it makes this debate more interesting. If we took it the other way and political candidates were building their campaign on the legalization of marijuana use, we all know who their voters would be. And they would be the minority. Time will tell when that will change.

Just to let everyone know, I've had friends whose lives and families were destroyed by marijuana addiction. It really does affect society negatively. And we question why Japan authorities are making swift responses? In no way do I look down on those who decide to use it, because it is their choice.

For those who claim that they have been smoking for 20 years + and are not addicted, I challenge that they quit for an entire year.

Now, there are benefits derived from marijuana. It's called THC. So the whole idea trying to push this whole medical marijuana thing is debunked, because the same medication can come from this pill which has been on the market for a while.

Not sure if they were all fans, but I can imagine that thousands of people would already be there. It is Shibuya after all.

This "rich brown sauce" doesn't sound appetizing.

:O~~~~

I'd take this thing with a needle if I could.

Okinawa, you got screwed.

This is good news for the clean-fuel industry. Competition will help create better products.

I remember that case, but don't remember the tear gas part. The news I read is he "distracted" the store clerks.

I don't get it. Unless I'm reading a book for kids with pictures, why would it matter whether or not I have color if I'm reading a regular book? It seems black and white to me, but I guess I'll have to check out the site.

When was the last time a current president of the US made an appearance on a talk show?

Here's that site again

http://www.drugwatch.org/Truth(underscore)Marijuana(underscore)Hemp.htm

goodDonkey

How many people die each year from marijuana overdose?

I found a site that said out of 664 marijuana related deaths, there were 187 deaths where marijuana was the only drug reported.

http://www.drugwatch.org/Truth_Marijuana_Hemp.htm

That's not because of overdose, but deaths related with it. The only way that someone could die from overdose is probably asphyxiation :).

So as long as the majority ruled in favor of slavery then it was acceptable? And don't give me that crap slavery doesn't compare to the freedom to smoke marijuana. Because if your majority rules argument fails in one case then it falls flat on its face. Majority rule does not mean squat as to the fairness of a law.

Well, slavery continued for a while didn't it? You've actually further supported my point. I see your point that even though the majority knows that marijuana (or slavery for that matter) is bad, it may not stop the minority from touting its benefits. No one is saying either are acceptable. You are correct in your assessment. And I believe that the scales will change and smoking marijuana will probably be legalized. Although I believe that is a mistake.

Now, there are benefits derived from marijuana. It's called THC. So the whole idea trying to push this whole medical marijuana thing is debunked, because the same medication can come from this pill.

Bloody Puritans and their prostitution, weed and pornography laws; they know nothing about justice.

Pornography: more addictive than marijuana. Does someone's opinion that these two things are destructive in society make one a Puritan, and a bloody one at that?

I've had friends who smoked weed for 20 years or more and they still aren't addicted.

I'm sure there are those who can moderate their intake. 20 years though?

I'm sure you were saying the same thing at 5 years. And again at 10 years. And again at 15 years. I challenge them to try and quit it for 1 year.

goodDonkey, I have no malice toward you or anyone on this debate who smoke marijuana. I just have an opinion (backed up by facts) and I feel strongly about it.

I am really confused on why this is a debate. Marijuana is addictive. If someone says there isn't any evidence to this, he or she isn't looking for it or doesn't want to look for it, or is able to moderate their intake and wants to ease their efforts in obtaining it.

Evidence researched:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html

When it comes down to it, majority rules. If the majority of the population was smoking marijuana, we wouldn't be having this debate. The fact is, the majority of people know that marijuana use is not good for the body.

Throwing a political spin on it makes this debate more interesting. If we took it the other way and political candidates were building their campaign on the legalization of marijuana use, we all know who their voters would be. And they would be the minority. Time will tell when that will change.

Just to let everyone know, I've had friends whose lives and families were destroyed by marijuana addiction. It really does affect society negatively. And we question why Japan authorities are making swift responses? In no way do I look down on those who decide to use it, because it is their choice.

This isn't capitalism. The executives didn't do anything to earn the money. That's why it's called a bonus.

"AneCam is for women over 25, who are more stylish, and more active"

Those women who are over 25 and are neither stylish nor active need not make a purchase of this magazine.

Agreed spudman. If people want to learn English. Will they really learn if English seems like a gimmick? I understand that it's important to make it interesting, but if someone is not representing English speakers (how would you do that anyways?) well, then why would someone want to learn English?

Really one of the best shows on TV.

Completely different then the original version. So please stop whining.

Park's character (all of them) helps her to be very versatile.

Wow, the world really has high expectations for this US president.

smithinjapan: 100% understood.

Terminal man.........

But what you are saying is that if Hamas stop firing their terrorist rockets then Israel will stop blowing up innocent little kids.

Not what I'm saying, that is what Israel is touting.

And yes, killing innocent children is sick.

So if the killing of innocent children is sick and they have offered to stop the senseless attacks if Hamas ceases firing rockets, why not put them to the test?

sabiwabi - I don't know why. All I know is the Israeli's state they are attacking in response to them.

smithinjapan : Thanks for understanding. It can be difficult to get the point across in these newsgroups.

If most posters in here understand that both sides are to blame, let everybody admit this now without guile.

What Israel is doing is terrible and needs to stop, and they have made the offer to do so if rocket fire from Hamas ceases. So it seems that the ball is in the court of Hamas now.

You evidently have NOT been reading the posts very clearly because there have been HEAPS of people on both sides criticizing Hamas.

I have been reading the posts on this article, and there is clearly a slant. But not the HEAPS of criticism you mention. And it seems that there are clearly individuals taking sides. I would like to see an equal amount of criticism for both sides of the conflict, and more objectivity like your comment:

BOTH sides are to blame, but since this article is largely about Israel threatening to bring down an 'iron fist' I ask, what's the iron fist compared to what's going on now?

bushlover - you bring up an interesting point.

Referring back to one of my previous comments, are we to hold Israel to a higher standard and assume that Hamas will break every cease fire?

Or can we assume that Israel will not hold back at all?

Knowing that Israel will not spare children in defending themselves, then shouldn't we use the same logic for Hamas and state that because they broke the cease fire, it was because of them that children were killed?

As you say, Hypocrisy is prevalant on both sides.

why would you provoke her do so in the first place?

One reason I can think of is to make Israel look bad, which is exactly what is happening: they do look bad/ And rightly so.

So, shame on Hamas for putting their children in danger.

And shame on Israel for committing the act.

Again, both sides of this conflict have much to answer for.

Why did Israel launch their attacks with children present ?

We would need to ask the Israelis who launched this particular attack this question. I would like to know the answer myself.

Let me rephrase the statement:

I think everybody can agree that 250 deaths of innocent children is a tragedy. And wrong.

Now, why again did Israel launch their attack? The attack I refer to is the entire operation, including the attack where 250 children were killed.

I repeat:

Both sides of this conflict have much to answer for.

I think everybody can agree that 250 deaths of innocent children is a tragedy. I think everybody can agree that putting them at risk is a tragedy as well

Anyone using that tactic is sick.

Why isn't there any criticism against Hamas then?

is it acceptable for Israel just to totally ignore the presence of innocent children and fire away?

The short answer to that is "no".

Is it acceptable for Hamas to use them as shields?

No again.

Let's read the article again.

Why did Israel launch an attack?