Printable View
If it was up to Elysia, we'd all have our fingers amputated at birth, that way we couldn't poke each others eyes out.Quote:
My point is that you cannot ban everything that might pose a possible risk to the entire society because a marginal part of it could use these things to do so.
Depending on what you mean when you say drunk, i seriously doubt that!Quote:
even though there may be some people who can drive fine while drunk
No we wouldn't. Don't be silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
How many times do I have to repeat that we must weight the cons and pros?
Oh sure, scissors and knives are dangerous. Should they be banned? NO! Because their usefulness supercedes their danger.
In other words, the pros overweight the cons.
I'm drawing these two our of my list of people to reply. I mean, I've been through this countless times. It's not that I make a flag of legalizing drugs. But I'm in the pro side of the line with probably as many weak as strong arguments to defend my position. What annoys me however is having an opinion with nothing to back it up. It really... arghhs me.
One thought marijuana was injected. The other doesn't even know it is successfully used around the world to to treat coronary and other tissue related diseases. Bunch of ignorant fools who consume ideas without thinking for themselves for a minute or two, or going to the public library and get a book or two on the matter.
If anything these are the real drug addicts, the blind little trend consuming robots that can't think for themselves and exert, everytime they can, the same level of reasoning of a seasoned heroin addict.
[/rant]
Then one of those must be you, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I have already explained my ideals and thoughts as to WHY it would decrease public health if it were allowed.
I'm against public legalization. If it's within controlled environments such as hospitals, then I don't one way or another whichever way it goes.
Unfortunately, the original poll didn't say.
Yes, it and other "illicit" narcotics should be re-legalized. Prohibition creates black markets, violence, and rampant corruption. I also do not believe that people that use alcohol, tobacco, and narcotics should have their health care subsidized by those who don't. With freedom comes responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
I'm just here to present the facts when either side make's erroneous claims. I will attempt to remain as neutral as I am able while maintaining a logically coherent position. Obviously maxorator and your claim that Marijuana is all bad is erroneous. Many of the claims by both sides are myths, falsehoods, and possibly outright lies to support one position or the other. False information and emotional appeals do not serve either position and shoudl be avoided. So lets debunk a few myths here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Here ae the common myths, if I miss any positive or negative claims please let me know and I will do my best to present verifiable facts supporting or dismissing the claim.
1. Marijuana makes you stupid. FALSE, the above mentioned MRJ study shows a that it has a positive effect on IQ.
2. Marijuana makes you forgetful. UNDECIDED. The MRJ study did not study the effects on particular cognitive domains. Further research would be necessary to determine the effects of MJ either positively or negatively on each type of memory.
3. Marijuana makes you lazy. FALSE. No significant corelation has been found between long term marijuana use and income level.
4. Marijuana use has been linked to schizophrenia. TRUE. In people with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, marijuana can increase the likelyhood of developing the condition. In persons without a genetic risk, marijuana use does not increase their risk above that of the general populace.
Recently there was an article in a local newspaper about a mother worried about his son, told what marijuana had done to her son. She described that he could do almost nothing useful and was very dizzy all the time. So I should rather believe those scientists doing tests on their rats and butterflies?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
You forgot one little fact. The genetic test statistics that were in that newspaper showed that 25 people out of 100 have that gene. What a harmless drug! Only causes every 4th consumer to go mentally unstable!Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
One of my previous room mates was productive when he was smoking. He got bored, smoked and coded. Seems like it depends on the person.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
You won't accept scientific studies, but you'll accept random anecdotes published in the newspaper. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion...Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
Since you seem to love anecdotal "evidence," how about some of my own experience -- I know 28 people who smoke marijuana (yes, I counted). No psychos in that bunch.Quote:
You forgot one little fact. The genetic test statistics that were in that newspaper showed that 25 people out of 100 have that gene. What a harmless drug! Only causes every 4th consumer to go mentally unstable!
Anecdotes? Since when are crying mothers anecdotes? You must have a weird sense of humour.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
There's a genetical information databank in an Estonian university with gene samples from 20000 different people. For you everything is an anecdote? Anyway, how sure are you that noone of them has schizophrenia? You know if they're taking serious medicines frequently it reduces the effects of schizophrenia (side effects aren't very nice though).Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
Maxorator, you are too ignorant. Accept it. It's not big deal. You just need to inform yourself better and you will cease to be one. It's not that you are plain dumb like cigarette smokers. You are just ignorant.
I'm even surprised you have the face to keep going on this discussion since you clearly shown already you know nothing about marijuana. You are discussing something you don't know. Accept it.
Yes Anecdote. Read a dictionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
Noun: anecdote
1. Short account of an incident (especially a biographical one)
You prefer to to believe stories in a newspaper than scientific reports. That's just pathetic.
What does that database has to do with anything? Is this you just inventing to save your face? And I know arounf 13 people who smoke marijuana, me included, and none has any signs of schizophrenia. Are you for real maxorator?Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
How about you give room for others to debate and just go away with your unfounded and ignorant comments? I would rather prefer to discuss my points of view with someone that, while not agreeing with me, was at least informed. You clearly aren't.
For your information schizophrenia was only diagnosed on cases of extremely heavy abuse of marijuana or those who already exhibit the disease or have a tendency towards it before they smoke.
Go away. You are polluting this room more than my pot.
Interesting due to the timing. Heavy pot smoking can shrink your brain. Heavy in this case was given as.Quote:
at least five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years
The study is not, IMO, a reason for or against the drug as that type of use is what I would consider very excessive. Too much of anything is bad for you.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...27147420080602
@ brewbuck & mario,
The schizophrenia thing is a very real issue. It happens to a few people that binge on weed, by far most commonly when the habit starts during adolescence. The thing is, this is not something that happens all of a sudden. Its not like if you smoke a joint you're suddenly going to end up mad. Its a gradual process, and to the people it affects it becomes very unpleasant. What most of the modern scaremongering dosent say is that induced schizophrenia only takes hold while the drug is in effect. Therefore when people spin out they take it easy for a while, or give up on the habit. To actually cause long term mental illness requires a person to repeatedly subject themselves to very unpleasant experiences, which requires a strong will to cause harm to ones self. If these, few, people wernt harming themselves by overdoing it with marijuana they would be doing it via some other means. It is possible to force an overdose with cannabis, but then its possible to overdose salt, sugar, or literally anything else for that matter.
Edit: also this issue exist regardless of whether the drug is legal or not
Here is the science for that argument:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevent...reetdrugs.html
I'm not sure if these people have an agenda but I did notice that they simply recommended those at risk or with genetic disposition stay away from street drugs. As mike_g says though ...
Actually the LD50 for THC would require you to smoke something like 500 lbs in one hour. I don't think this is technically or physically possible. The LD10 is something like 10,000 times higher than the level at which most people lose conciousness. Not one single person in the history of mankind has clinically overdosed on marijuana.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7431640.stm Someone like Elysia must have been in charge of airport security that day :D (sorry for this OT but whilst reading this I had to think about the fact that everything can be considered a danger to society - obviously this one had the same mindset)
Literally, anything becomes poisonous at a high enough dose. In reality, no-one is likely of ever od'ing on marijuana. But as said, it can have bad cumulative effects to people vulnerable to schizophrenia.
Precisely my point. I know of no case, mind you. But I cannot reject medical evidence I have read on the matter, so I won't ever deny that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
However it needs to be said clearly marijuana smoking does not cause schizophrenia. If you are not schizophrenic or vulnerable to the disease, you won't become one. But it is conceivable that prolonged heavy use may spur the disease. Although I simply never heard of it, I am ready to accept it. But so does rice cause cancer if you eat too much...
Does this mean marijuana is healthy? No bloody way! Of course it is not. For one there's always the issue you smoke it which is an excellent candidate for lung problems. Then there's the fact it is a narcotic which makes it a great candidate for mental and heart problems.
Smoking marijuana is bad for your health. Period. I never said it wasn't. There is of course the exception of controlled dosages to treat sclerosis and coronary related diseases (some doctors are also looking into depression and hyper activity applications). But that's an uncalled for exception.
However marijuana sits right there with tobacco as a less damaging drug when smoked unaltered by chemicals. It is no more dangerous to someone's health than a legal constant diet on fat food or plastic food. It is no more dangerous to someone health than a legal life made of no physical exercise. It's no more dangerous than many of the anti-depressives and pain killers people legally o.d. on. It's no more dangerous than getting legally drunk.
In short, banning marijuana makes no sense when much more dangerous drugs and lifestyles have a more pronounced and active role in social cost.
The arguments against are classically misguided. The government has no business regulating activity between consenting adults as long as they don't harm others through force or fraud. No matter how offensive you find that activity.
Is illicit drug use potentially harmful to a person and their loved ones? Yes. The same can be said of drinking, cigarette smoking, overeating, not exercising, overworking, adultery, gambling, video game addiction, television addiction, internet addiction (I may have this one), sports addiction, and on and on.
To what degree do you want the government regulating your private life?
I was considered "extreme risk" for schizophrenia. It runs in my father's side of the family -- my uncle is severly affected. My brother has developed severe OCD (severe enough to dramatically impact every hour of his life). So this was always something that I kept in the back of my mind. Nothing ever happened. At 28 years old, I'm starting to get past the life stage where schizophrenia would manifest itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
So yes, I'm certainly aware of the potential connection.
On the other hand, THC is the only drug we know of that seems to have its own dedicated receptor in the human brain. No other drug is known to affect this receptor, and curiously, the receptor is entirely absent from the areas of the brain responsible for critical life functions (e.g. the brain stem and cerebellum). This explains why the LD50 of THC is so incredibly high. It simply doesn't act on the parts of the brain where it could kill you by stopping your heartbeat or breathing.
There are theories (of varying degrees of plausibility) that mankind and cannabis "co-evolved" with humans selecting stronger forms to get more effect from the drug, with our brains simultaneously evolving to be more sensitive to the drug itself. At any rate, cannabis has been used for many thousands of years, perhaps longer than alcohol.
True, but it always comes back to what is legal. Too much Alcohol can damage your brain, have the dependency passed on to your children, cause deformations in the child (and that's just from the father being an alcoholic) and kill your liver. Smoking can cause cancer, stillbirth, etc. I think that if people want to make bad choices then the government really needs to stop deciding which ones are just bad enough to be illegal, and those that are too bad illegal. Marijuana is but a few steps away from alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
For those interested, he is refering to the CB-1 and CB-2 receptor sites, which selectively bind with various cannabinoids. While technically more than one molecule binds with these receptors, all such compounds are cannabinoids which are found exclusively in cannabis and the human body (endocannabinoids).Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
But then again, wouldn't you think the government would have banned alochol and smoking if they could? I do believe they would.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
As for the whole regulating... I like to say: why throw another dangerous element into the mix? Try getting people to stop drinking and smoking instead and ban those and we'll have a healthier society. I don't believe anything good can come from those two elements.
I highly doubt a father can physiologically pass on an alcoholic dependency.
edit: you know what I mean. ;)
Thanks. I was searching for it actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Legal to use. Illegal to sell.
That doesn't eliminate the black market. Most people that want it won't "grow their own".Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
They did ban alcohol at one point, which opened up a sect of organized crime. What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be banning so called (recreational) drugs and starting wars on illegal substances. Two recreational drugs are deadly, and the government appointed Surgeon general has a warning on cigarettes that they can cause cancer, yet that doesn't stop people. It's a joke really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
I don't think everything will stop either way.
Banning a substance may open black markets, but it will probably lessen the amount of the substance people use.
So anyway, in that light of events, maybe they should do nothing. Why allow it if it won't help anything? I will probably be the same story, or worse, even if allowed.
You think the default of society should be for all things to be disallowed, and only certain things explicitly allowed? Again, this viewpoint is downright frightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Not disallowed by default. Disallowed if it brings greater stability and benefits as a whole (disallowing theft brings greater stability and benefits to the whole).
But my question is: why allow it? What good will it do? Aside from more freedom, that is. Freedom is important, but allowing it can bring many disadvantages. So my question is: is it worth it? Will it have a more negative effect on the whole that negates the advantage of more freedom?
Elysia, why do you keep arguing this? You have been repeating the same stuff over and over again. And so far, have not been able to come up with a good reason why to ban it. As for why to allow it, the same reasons have been repeated by a lot of people here already:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
>> It causes less harm than many legal drugs.
>> Quality controls can be enforced
>> Criminals will lose one of their main sources of income
>> There would be less violence
>> It saves money on policing
>> It saves money in court costs
>> It means there will be less people in jail; so governments can actually keep dangerous criminals locked up.
>> Money can be made from the government by taxing it
As you admitted before you dont even know what you are talking about, so it seems you are in not much of a position to make judgements here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Yet you seem to have no good arguments why it should be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
And I already stated that it could be allowed in allowed environments such as hospitals, but not to public.
This is good if kept within a limited numbers of areas such as hospitals.Quote:
>> It causes less harm than many legal drugs.
>> Quality controls can be enforced
Who says they won't just sell them legally? And who says they won't cheat with taxes? You cannot claim they will lose their income. As hackers adapt, so will these criminals. They aren't just small fishes.Quote:
>> Criminals will lose one of their main sources of income
When anyone can get their hands on it? I don't believe so. There will be more, if anything.Quote:
>> There would be less violence
Ah, right. But where does the money go instead then?Quote:
>> It saves money on policing
>> It saves money in court costs
>> It means there will be less people in jail; so governments can actually keep dangerous criminals locked up.
>> Money can be made from the government by taxing it
They will flow elsewhere, such as more hospital accidents, more people whose mind will become unstable.
Not to mention that because the public has it, all of these will increase exponentially. So more money needs to be routed to these and other key areas, whereas they wouldn't need to be if they weren't allowed to public.
I don't buy that argument either.
I can resonate logic.Quote:
As you admitted before you dont even know what you are talking about, so it seems you are in not much of a position to make judgements here:
Allowing it will have a bigger negative impact on the society. Whether this can be offset from the benefits it brings is the big question.
I don't get why you think a thriving underground economy is stable for society. I explained to you that it simply puts a significant strain on law enforcement because the only place for these people to go is jail or rehab. I just don't see where your faith in these institutions come from, you'll have to explain it. Sure, the DEA busts drug dens now, but that responsibility doesn't go away when something is legalized and prohibited to minors. Neither does the help available to drug addicts disappear when you can buy it from the corner store.
Elysia, if you ran a country, would your first approach to urban decay really be "let's legislate it away"? Please, if you have some more stable scheme to deal with the problems addiction causes then share it.
I haven't claimed it is, but I have claimed that legalizing it won't make it better, because many of these problems would still remain. People cheat and avoid taxes. The black market won't disappear just because it becomes legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen
All in all, you're pretty much saying that the government will have to pay MORE if it becomes legal. So can the tax money offset that? That is the question.Quote:
I explained to you that it simply puts a significant strain on law enforcement because the only place for these people to go is jail or rehab. Sure, the DEA busts drug dens now, but that responsibility doesn't go away when something is legalized and prohibited to minors. Neither does the help available to drug addicts disappear when you can buy it from the corner store.
No, obviously not, but I have explained that in this case, I find the advantages of banning it better than legalizing it. This is a case-by-case basis and if it isn't banned in the first place, then an actual study may provide interesting results that may help drive the matter further.Quote:
Elysia, if you ran a country, would your first approach to urban decay really be "let's legislate it away"? Please, if you have some more stable scheme to deal with the problems addiction causes then share it.
Each case has its own solution. Obviously, banning everything is not always the way to go, but it sometimes has benefits. Why else are there laws?
As the others have already been addressed. I'm not going to respond to any of your comments other than this one:
One reason for that is that by removing a black market, you remove the violence that is associated with it. Another reason is that stoned people are less violent by nature anyway; if more of the people that go out drinking drink less and smoke a bit of cannabis instead there would be less violence.Quote:
>> There would be less violence
When anyone can get their hands on it? I don't believe so. There will be more, if anything.
Now, please explain the reasons why you think violence will increase.
And do you think this is the case with cigarettes then?Quote:
People cheat and avoid taxes. The black market won't disappear just because it becomes legal.
Indeed, and what would prompt such a change? Banning it or allow it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
More people get hold of it than if just the black market would have it.Quote:
Now, please explain the reasons why you think violence will increase.
People can steal/fight with each other.
Knowing our nature, there will always be people who do bad things, and if the public gets them, it will just grow, won't it? Seeing as the public are far more than everyone in the black market.
There are other unstable groups than just the drug dealers, as well.
That does not explain why violence would increase. If you think cannabis makes people violent then at least provide some reasoning for this belief.Quote:
More people get hold of it than if just the black market would have it.
Erm.... Ok o_0Quote:
People can steal/fight with each other.
You still cant answer what bad things these people will be doing, and how it relates to the subject.Quote:
Knowing our nature, there will always be people who do bad things, and if the public gets them, it will just grow, won't it? Seeing as the public are far more than everyone in the black market.
And what unstable groups are these?Quote:
There are other unstable groups than just the drug dealers, as well.
Seriously, how long will it take to get a well defined answer out of you? I'm guessing that you will never be able to produce one because you don't know what you are talking about.
I know how people are. I know how the world works.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
I have no scientific evidence simply because I don't want to spend the time looking for them.
I have explained logical drawbacks, and I base decisions upon this.
If you wish not to believe them or criticize them - go ahead. I will not back down from my viewpoint, however, because noone has proved those claims wrong.
But you don't have to believe me either.
ROFL!Quote:
I know how people are. I know how the world works.
Well, to an extent anyway. I'm not a psychologist or politician.
Pick any one of the 200 diseases it treats, they are all good reasons IMO. Keeping it in hospitals will not work, there is too much stigma attached to it. Restricting it to the control of the medical industry will not alleviate the black market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Adam Smith says they won't. The expense of smuggling is a major component in the cost of illegal drugs. The risk reward ratio adapts to keep the prices high. Remove the risk (by legalizing it) and the market will adjust to the point that it is no longer profitable for street criminals to handle.Quote:
Who says they won't just sell them legally? And who says they won't cheat with taxes? You cannot claim they will lose their income. As hackers adapt, so will these criminals. They aren't just small fishes.
You have no research to back up this assertion, it is merely your opinion stated as if it were fact.Quote:
They will flow elsewhere, such as more hospital accidents, more people whose mind will become unstable.
It's no use using stating logic. You will accept nothing else than evidence flashed before your eyes...
I think it's pretty clear from your comments over the last few days that you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
So you claim. My real world sources claim otherwise.
Heck, my logical thinking makes it easy to claim a good grade in classes, school and whatnot.
But arguing is useless...
>> People cheat and avoid taxes. The black market won't disappear just because it becomes legal.
In case you aren't aware, closing tax loopholes can be difficult anyway.
Your argument is that drug lords probably don't pay taxes or find a way to itemize their under-the-table income. This simply doesn't support the argument against because it perpetuates this behavior. The tobacco industry passes the taxes down to the consumer in this country (as much as 200% the production value mind you) which is somewhat tyrannical in my opinion but at least without the threat of imprisonment their profits and losses are obvious.
By your own admission neither solution will be perfect. Are you more scared that the criminals who ran the black market would simply become empowered because they suddenly run a legal business? Well guess what. Medical marijuana still empowers them as it is. Just because doctors could dish it out doesn't give the pharmacist the legal right to grow his prescriptions.Quote:
Call to Perfection [a logical fallacy that] is committed when one argues to postpone some action or policy until some unlikely event or impossible change is achieved.
>> All in all, you're pretty much saying that the government will have to pay MORE if it becomes
>> legal. So can the tax money offset that? That is the question.
We're already spending money anyway, that's simply your assumption. The goverment dumps a lot of tax money paying the individuals who need to find the drug dens and arrest drug dealers in your pristine world. Don't forget about running the prisons themselves which only becomes more expensive when you need to afford them rehab, food, living space and work. It will need to continue to do so.
I see my position as a more focused effort to protect those who aren't old enough to make their own decisions regarding drug use because at least some of that money is going to be focused on research, education and propaganda. That at least works to a drug free generation without stubbornly trying to avoid encountering a problem or eradicating a whole market. Call it speculation but I think you need to get real.
This doesn't explain why there is so much tax cheating (at least here), and from what I understand, a lot of them get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen
Now that would be disastrous, and indeed, another thing for the government to fight.
I'm worried it will cost the government will pay MORE and that MORE people get sick or get negative effects and that it might be rooted in the society as drinking and smoking is.Quote:
By your own admission neither solution will be perfect. Are you more scared that the criminals who ran the black market would simply become empowered because they suddenly run a legal business? Well guess what. Medical marijuana still empowers them as it is. Just because doctors could dish it out doesn't give the pharmacist the legal right to grow his prescriptions.
Let's face it - it's not an easy task to keep track of 100 million people or more.
I'm more worried that keeping it illegal will cost the government, say, $100 million, while making it legal will cost them $10 000 million ($10 milliard).Quote:
We're already spending money anyway, that's simply your assumption. The goverment dumps a lot of tax money paying the individuals who need to find the drug dens and arrest drug dealers in your pristine world. Don't forget about running the prisons themselves which only becomes more expensive when you need to afford them rehab, food, living space and work. It will need to continue to do so.
Clearly, that's a big disadvantage.
I would call that speculation since keeping tabs on > 100 million people is no easy task. Most likely, MORE (young) people would get their hands on it when they aren't supposed to because logic says the bigger the easier it is to get their hands on it, the more will do it.Quote:
I see my position as a more focused effort to protect those who aren't old enough to make their own decisions regarding drug use because at least some of that money is going to be focused on research, education and propaganda. That at least works to a drug free generation without stubbornly trying to avoid encountering a problem or eradicating a whole market. Call it speculation but I think you need to get real.
So I see it as it's have the effect of the other way around than what you think.
Oh no, we want evidence! OMG what a travesty. Logic can be flawed or biased. Heck not that long ago it was perfectly logical that everyone that wasn't a white male was stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Considering that this is a programming board it isn't unreasonable to assume that a good portion of the people here have some sort of heavy science background. In science it isn't enough for something to be logical or seem right. You need to be able to prove it with evidence that someone else can verify.
I have a hard time believing that legalizing pot would cost the government 100 times more then keeping it illegal. If nothing else we will save the money spent on incarcerating pot users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
That's fine, I can understand. Unfortunately, I do not have evidence to this and I'm not really an evidence seeker myself so my claims and theories and logic will unfortunately have to be unproved for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
It might happen and it might not. The point is: we don't know. But I'm worried that it might happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
So then you have a simple choice: Take the time to educate yourself and get evidence to support your position or see yourself to the door and leave this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
>> I'm worried it will cost the government will pay MORE and that MORE people get sick or get
>> negative effects and that it might be rooted in the society as drinking and smoking is.
>> Most likely, MORE (young) people would get their hands on it when they aren't supposed to
>> because logic says the bigger the easier it is to get their hands on it
These problems exists regardless if drugs are legal or not, so they can't support your position. It's easy to turn around this argument and complain that as people live longer and longer their assisted living care is more expensive. Nursing staffs in elderly homes have been strained for years, and we have yet to deal with the baby boom population which is almost at retirement age. In your head, smokers are the bane of hospital care, which is unfounded.
The prevalence of teen drinking and smoking is not solved by prohibition either, as you are no doubt aware. That is solved by social change, which I belief is best brought about by education, and maybe in the case of drugs a positive upbringing and other environmental factors, like attacking poverty. Guess what America isn't doing, and what it is instead focusing on.
If someone wants confirmation, I will do my best to respond to that (of course, they will know that I have no evidence and accept will have to accept that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
If none wants to question anything, I'll leave it alone.
The problem I see is that it was made legal some time and grew to a problem. If it was banned, it would probably be more likely to be a (lesser) problem. But you are correct in that banning it won't solve everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen
It must be handled properly and reduced until under control.
And from what I understand, America is focusing on fighting bloody wars instead of getting guns off the street, solve homelessness and solve social problems. Stupid, really.
Generally, in a debate, if your opposition doesn't have any evidence to support their claims, the only thing you have to accept is victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Ad hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
However, if they ask me to clarify, I can still enlighten them on my opinions or logic on the matter without claiming victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Then state your sources. You have stated that you have no facts because you cant be bothered to find any, ergo your statements are based entirely on opinion. You are completely unable to show supporting facts for any of your assertions, and yet you are confused as to why people will not simply accept your opinions as fact. I submit for your consideration that it probably has something to do with your complete lack of facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Please don't consider my post a kind/polite request for it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Who cares about your opinions? In a debate they have absolutely zero value. Please... don't get offended, take this as advice. If you're in an arguement or debate... the opposition doesn't give two lumps of you know what about your opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Logic on the other hand is good... but you've yet to provide any such logic that hasn't been rebutted with other logic and facts to back it up. The truth is... I am sure there are people with the same view points as you that could completely own every single contibuter to this thread that supports the legality of marijuana. We really aren't top-notch debaters here. The fact is, though, that person is not here with us... so it's just you and a few others who are currently on the losing side of the argument. If you really want to prove something... take your time... do some research... and come back to us when you have that evidence you claim you don't need.
Ah! I'll do an elysia on them and they'll just go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Anyways. It's useless. Marijuana is already legal in some countries, and will be too in America one day once they make it illegal for mothers to congregate and get political.
Cannabis is bad for you, yes. But so are tons of other things, that everybody does.
Even if it makes your brain shrivel up and then explode, restricting the use of it is actually an invasion of our freedoms. (we are talking America here)
I would never take it, but that's just me.
With people thinking like you Elysia, we would loose all the freedoms we have left and would become socialist zombies. Simply for our "security".
If it posed a threat to bystanders, then you would have a case. But you don't.
Baseless statement that has already been disproven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
Well, I wouldn't say anyone has disproven that... certainly we've shown that marijuana is not nearly as bad for you as other things like alcohol and tobacco, but no one here is saying that you're better off not smoking marijuana than smoking it regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
I won't claim that it is entirely good for you, only that the statement 'It is bad for you' is incorrect since it implies unmitigated harmful status under all circumstances, which I believe we have proven to be false.
I can't help but think Elysia is just playing devil's advocate. I think she really is in favor of legalizing marijuana and is throwing out those ridiculous statements with no substance so that everyone else does the work of supporting her position for her...
It is simply human nature to do things that we enjoy.
Alcohol is something that we enjoy, and governments tried to take that away from those people they supposedly serve. The result was that people indulged anyway, they just had to hide it. Not only that, but people made their own alcohol in bathtubs and closet stills. Where's the quality control in that?
Marijuana isn't as bad for you as alcohol as far as drugs go;
The big marijuana growers wouldn't have to resort to crime to smuggle their product around (among other things), and so the prices would come down and allow taxes to move in... net effect the price could remain roughly the same for the end user;
Small-time growers who only grow for personal use or for just a few friends could pay for "small-time licenses" where the big growers who make their living from it would pay for "big-time licenses" (money well spent when you consider you won't go to jail for just growing a plant!);
The government could collect a lot of money in taxes and licenses (for growing and distributing) which could be used for drug education and rehab (idealist, hah!);
The government would be able to control it much more intimately since they would set all the standards;
The focus would shift from "Marijuana is bad!" to "obey the law!" (other drugs notwithstanding);
A large community of people would no longer fear being arrested and having their lives ruined just for trying to enjoy themselves;
The laws around it could shift from punishing the drug use to punishing actual rule breakers, i.e. people who don't have a license and grow/sell it;
And in the end, smoking pot isn't much different from taking aspirin when you have a headache, or drinking coffee to wake you up in the morning, or drinking beer to relax. The only difference is in the perception of the drug. Alcohol puts you in a worse state than pot, so degree isn't even an issue here.
Of course there would be problems with abuse, people driving under the influence, etc, but we already have those problems. I don't believe this would significantly change the percentages of people doing those things.
And the most compelling reason to me to legalize it would be to see a company like Johnson & Johnson, who has extensive knowledge of the human body and how various substances interact with it, begin selling pot products to a new market! With the stigma of marijuana, I don't think Johnson & Johnson would ever get involved directly. But much like Disney created the subdivision of Touchstone Pictures so they could release less "Disney-like" movies without hurting the Disney brand, the big drug companies could create smaller sub-divisions to market "Marijuana-O's brand breakfast cereal"! :devil:
Or hell, the cigarette companies are already reviled, they could just sell "Spliff Kings" right next to Marlboros and Newports.
What difference does this poll make? :rolleyes:
I voted Yes!
Edit: And I am with the majority! Great!!
Marlboro Greens, unfiltered please :) Well thought our post btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by jEssYcAt
Showing the strength of public opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by (::)
Well, for one it shows that the posters on Cboard are statistically similar to the general population at least on this issue.
Yay! We're normal! :DQuote:
Well, for one it shows that the posters on Cboard are statistically similar to the general population at least on this issue.
at least statically :PQuote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
Wow, reading alot of these posts got my blood boiling.
Alot of you are basing your decision on myths.
Let's get something straight:
1)Marijuana is not harmful. It does not cause cancer. It does not cause birth defects (that doesn't mean its ok for a pregnant lady to smoke)
2)Marijuana does not kill braincells. Actually, it grows them...but in a part of your brain that doesn't really need the excess cells.
3)You will not suffer from short-term memory loss because of pot. Its only when you are high is when you will have trouble with your memory. But when you're sober, its fine.
4)You cannot get addicted to weed. Its that simple, its not habit forming.
5)Pot will not cause you to feel "invisible". It wont make you feel like jumping out of a 20 story building cuz you think you can fly. It doesn't make you want to rape children and it certainly doesn't make mutant baby zombies crawl out of the ceiling. Marijuana just makes you feel good and silly. And potheads are so easy to be around. They are always mellow even when they aren't high.
6)Marijuana doesn't make you stupid. Actually, studies have shown marijuana will increase your learning capability.
Some information.
Like I said before, smoking marijuana does not cause cancer. It might however, if smoked (through a blunt or a pipe that hits hard) cause temporary lung irritation. No long term effects though. And if you really care, you can use pot through a vaporizer or make space cake.
That way there is no smoking involved. But if you want to smoke but don't want the only possible, temporary lung irritation you can use a ice water bong with a carb. Its the cleanest ........ing hits ever! Also, when using water the smoke that passes through is purified and loses alot of tar. And if you don't want any tar there is a natural legal herb that you can buy that cleans out your lungs as you smoke it. You just mix it wix your pot.
Furthermore, why should alcohol be legal and not pot? The health effects of alcohol are far worse than of weed.
Also, effects are way...well, less violent. Seriously, my drunkeness is like "dude if you blink at me 1 more time ima kick your ass!", with pot its like "dude, you see those trees? Yeah...those are some nice trees."
Also, driving while stoned is ........ing easy. And we all know the dangers of drunk driving..
Also, all these anti-marijuana groups like D.A.R.E. spew out propaganda from as far back as the reefer madness era. Anti-pot groups are ignorant liars. But why? Why have people not wanted pot legalized since the 30's? The answer? White, rich, religious conservatives shoving their opinions and propaganda in our innocent manipulatives minds.
Anybody who seriously attempts to outlaw a plant has got problems.
Earlier in this thread I linked to study that indicates otherwise. Do you have any counterproof?Quote:
Originally Posted by RazzTheKid
Proof? Considering how people can get addicted to seemly anything it is a pretty bold claim to say that no one can get addicted. You also need to make clear if you talking about a purely physical dependency on the drug or a dependency of the reaction to the drug.Quote:
4)You cannot get addicted to weed. Its that simple, its not habit forming.
Wikipedia on Health effects of Cannabis says that there's an addiction effect in cannabis.
In reality, I don't believe there is any mind-altering substance that isn't addictive - if it gives you a pleasant buzz or a pleasant calm, then you may want to have that same feeling again and again - that coupled with physiochemical changes in your body as it "gets used to" the substance will make it addictive. And it makes no big difference if it's an opiate or camomill. If it "works as the lable says", then it will be addictive. Now some of these substances are MORE addictive than others, e.g. heroin reduces your bodies production of adrenalin, and in withdrawal, after some period of use, the body "overdozes" on adrenalin, similar to the feeling we all have when we're highly nervous or otherwise "high" on adrenalin - in extreme cases proper "shock". From what I read, the addiciton level on cannabis is lower than many other drugs, but it doesn't mean that it's "nonaddictive".
--
Mats
This is worthed...
Being myself pro legalization, I'll have to just please ask you to shutup. You make me look bad. It's because of the ignorance also on those on my side of the line that this issue is still tabu.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazzTheKid
1) Smoking can cause lung cancer. It doesn't matter if it is marijuana, nicotine, whatever. Don't be ignorant. R-e-a-d.
2) Marijuana grows braincells?? Are you insane? Please don't ever say that again. It is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It beats any of the dumb things anti-legalization fundamentalists come up with.
4) As any psychotropic, marijuana has the potential to be addictive. What happens instead is that marijuana is less addictive than alkaloids like those found in the tobacco plant and that we call nicotine. Saying that marijuana is not addictive is wrong.
6) No study ever revealed marijuana will increase learning capacity. Get real! What a study at most can reveal is that, being a psychoactive, marijuana can influence learning behavior under some circumstances, on some people and for short period of times.
And to finish...
What is this? You make the question, but then don't answer. Or you call answer that dribble your spit after the question mark? Because, if the best you can come up with is people don't want pot legalized because of propaganda, then you don't have a case on any court of this world. You lose and marijuana is not legalized.Quote:
But why? Why have people not wanted pot legalized since the 30's? The answer? White, rich, religious conservatives shoving their opinions and propaganda in our innocent manipulatives minds.
Look... RazzTheKid, right? Please don't say anything more. It's too embarrassing.
EDIT: Oh and about the bit I quoted from you... can yous ee now why I quoted it? Who's the Myth Man here?
While I dont believe that it causes long term brain damage, I disagree that it has any benefits to learning capacity. In my experience its the complete opposite. When I was young I used to be very good at subjects like maths. When I was 12 I started struggling, but cleverly realised that if I was to drop from an A to a C in my GCSEs then it would mean that I would not have to go to any more maths classes for the next 4 years. Incidentally this was the same time I started smoking green. After school I went to college for 2 years in a row and got kicked out for low attendance each time. The whole time I was smoking pot. Its not until after I cut the habit down that I actually started to do anything useful with my life.Quote:
6)Marijuana doesn't make you stupid. Actually, studies have shown marijuana will increase your learning capability.
The claims I made information can be found all over the internet.
Smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer.
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/new...to-lung-cancer
Smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction.
http://www.utmedicalgroup.com/pages/...addiction.html
As for the "learning capability increased" claim, I was thinking of LSD. I just read about that yesterday and I thought it was talking about pot. My bad.
But anyways, all my statements (with the exception of the one about increased learning capability) are true. I don't know why you guys have to be so hateful towards me.
And Mario, pot was made illegal because the people making that particular law based their decision on propaganda.
Jumping in here kind of late...I haven't read the whole thread.
Citation? I've found one article that shows a possible link (though it sounds like the link could also be due to the marijuana users also using tobacco or alcohol):Quote:
Originally Posted by RazzTheKid
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...ract/8/12/1071
This article also cites quite a few other studies that suggest smoking marijuana increases cancer risks.
Even if this is true, why should growing excess brain cells be a good thing?Quote:
2)Marijuana does not kill braincells. Actually, it grows them...but in a part of your brain that doesn't really need the excess cells.
I haven't heard any conclusive evidence that shows marijuana use leads to memory problems, but there's no way you can make this statement with any certainty.Quote:
3)You will not suffer from short-term memory loss because of pot. Its only when you are high is when you will have trouble with your memory. But when you're sober, its fine.
The number of articles on marijuana dependency when I was searching for information seems to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any that don't require a subscription to a journal.Quote:
4)You cannot get addicted to weed. Its that simple, its not habit forming.
...ok...Quote:
5)Pot will not cause you to feel "invisible". It wont make you feel like jumping out of a 20 story building cuz you think you can fly. It doesn't make you want to rape children and it certainly doesn't make mutant baby zombies crawl out of the ceiling. Marijuana just makes you feel good and silly. And potheads are so easy to be around. They are always mellow even when they aren't high.
Citation?Quote:
6)Marijuana doesn't make you stupid. Actually, studies have shown marijuana will increase your learning capability.
Also, another research aritcle citing adverse effects:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/Advers...OfCannabis.pdf
Another completely unfounded statement. From what I've read, the only devices that seem to have any positive effect on tar/cannaboid ratio are vaporizers, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of research in the area. One source I found suggested that water filters actually increase the amount of tar.Quote:
But if you want to smoke but don't want the only possible, temporary lung irritation you can use a ice water bong with a carb. Its the cleanest ........ing hits ever! Also, when using water the smoke that passes through is purified and loses alot of tar. And if you don't want any tar there is a natural legal herb that you can buy that cleans out your lungs as you smoke it. You just mix it wix your pot.
Ignoring your statement about the health effects, I agree that alcohol has a potential to be very damaging. And in the long run, it might not be such a terrible thing if marijuana were legalized. In my opinion, it's more of a cultural issue: we've had legal alcohol for a very long time, and by and large I think people aren't inclined to overuse it. The illicitness of marijuana use (and underage drinking) may actually be a contributing factor to behavior that is especially dangerous.Quote:
Furthermore, why should alcohol be legal and not pot? The health effects of alcohol are far worse than of weed.
Also, effects are way...well, less violent. Seriously, my drunkeness is like "dude if you blink at me 1 more time ima kick your ass!", with pot its like "dude, you see those trees? Yeah...those are some nice trees."
That said, the idea of legalizing marijuana still makes me nervous, because I don't think using marijuana (just like using tobacco) is a good thing. It might give the impression, like Razz seems to have, that cannabis is perfectly healthy--when it almost certainly is not. Even ignoring the physical effects, people tend to use drugs to escape their problems, and that is never a good thing.
Do I even need to comment on this?Quote:
Also, driving while stoned is ........ing easy. And we all know the dangers of drunk driving..
And that's precisely the danger and what I wouldn't want.
At the risk of repeating myself, the best arguments for marijuana legalization start by making it abundantly clear that smoking marijuana is not good for one's health. Dispelling any so-called evidence that marijuana is some kind of miracle of nature that contradicts all we know about psychotropic effects on the human body and mind or that inhaling smoke doesn't have the ability to cause cancer is a long way to start the debate in an open, honest way. The other side will have no other option that elevate their own arguments to that level.
The problem with public debates is that they are filled with ridicule from both sides of the fence as if the pros felt the only way to legalize marijuana would be to sanctify it, and the cons, in order to keep it illegal, to demonize it.
I tire of the dribble sometimes. Being pro legality myself, I'm particularly sensitive to the arguments I hear from those on my side. And what I just heard from RazzTheKid is exactly what I despise most; ignorance, wishful thinking and plain lies. Crackhead arguments that have the exact opposite effect in that they not only don't convince anyone, but by virtue of their falseness, they reinstate the desire to keep marijuana illegal.
EDIT:
Oh and btw,
You insist on this. Do you really think that is some kind of argument? It's illegal because of propaganda? What propaganda? Why? Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by RazzTheKid
When presenting you arguments at least make an effort to defend them. I don't generally like to link to myself. But I have addressed the issue of propaganda on this thread alrady. At least I made an effort to explain it. You probably didn't even read it. You just jumped on this thread thinking that your word would suddenly saves us all.
What propaganda? Well, let's see. Heard of Reefer Madness?
It was a propaganda film released in 1936 to scare the American youth from using pot. The film was widely accepted by Americans. The following year marijuana became illegal in the U.S.
Think, if you were told that marijuana makes you want to murder people, rape women, and commit suicide and you were told this was a fact, would you keep it legal?
Its silly to think marijuana wasn't made illegal because of propaganda.
No. The tar is carried with the THC. THC is slighty soluble in water, which means some of the tar is left in the water as the smoke passes through.Quote:
Another completely unfounded statement. From what I've read, the only devices that seem to have any positive effect on tar/cannaboid ratio are vaporizers, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of research in the area. One source I found suggested that water filters actually increase the amount of tar.
There are no studies done on humans that link smoking pot to birth defects, but smoking in general is bad for the baby.
Jawib, you didn't need to quote me on un-medical related statements. I was just exposing a false myth for those who don't smoke pot or know about it.
No, because its my opinion that driving while stoned is easy. Others might think its impossible, but I think its easy.Quote:
Do I even need to comment on this?
Pot grows braincells.
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005...ue9/ne-mj.html
I didn't mean excess as in too much. The bottom line is marijuana grows braincells.
Pot is not addictive. I gave you a link to support my statement. The information on the link was written by a medical doctor, and there are several sites by professionals that confirm that weed is not addictive.
You want addictive? Shoot heroin for a while. Maybe meth.
I'm not ignorant, there was no wishful thinking and I have been giving reliable links to support what I say. You're a straightup ............... If you want to disagree with me, don't be a dick about it.Quote:
I'm particularly sensitive to the arguments I hear from those on my side. And what I just heard from RazzTheKid is exactly what I despise most; ignorance, wishful thinking and plain lies.