legalize?

[janjanTRIP_]

should weed be legalized? why or why not.

[Perseus]

Sure, but I'm not a big fan of druggies. It's not like it'll make a difference. Bunch of people already do it, it'll just make it less illegal for them.

[Iron Man]

I really disagree with legalizing weed. Of course it would probably help the economy but is it the right thing to do? Do we really want a whole bunch of people being high, or even the children? People will get lazy and the obesity crisis won`t be helped.

[dead]

I really disagree with legalizing weed. Of course it would probably help the economy but is it the right thing to do? Do we really want a whole bunch of people being high, or even the children? People will get lazy and the obesity crisis won`t be helped.

The Children really? Do you know nothing about how legal drugs work?

[Nickk XD]

Like Obama said "Growing Weed does NOT equal economic growth"...

California will probably be the first state to legalize such a thing...as it is scheduled to appear on the ballot for the 3 time in under a decade. It will probably, once again, be vetoed by the governor...THANK GOD.

All we need is people being killed for their pot...wow...and it's much worse than cigarettes...

[Whisper]

I really disagree with legalizing weed. Of course it would probably help the economy but is it the right thing to do? Do we really want a whole bunch of people being high, or even the children? People will get lazy and the obesity crisis won`t be helped.


That has to be the most idiotic arguments I have ever herd
Based off of extremely false assumptions, pathetic stereotypes, and a false emotional plea


I think it should be legalized ASAP

[Perseus]

The Children really? Do you know nothing about how legal drugs work?

People will still be buying it "illegally". Kids as young as twelve and stuff are doing weed. Trust me, it's like an epidemic where I live. So many people do it, it's ridiculous. It's mainly the more popular kids and the lacrosse kids. I stopped playing lacrosse for my school because, (1. some of the people on the team are dicks and I really and (2. they're a bunch of pot heads. Not all of them because my friends that play don't do pot, but I really hate a couple of the people on the team; I really dislike them, you have no idea. They've never bullied me or anything, it's just they're straight up dicks.

[Richthegamer99]

it will defentry do a huge inpact on the drug cartels

[Nickk XD]

Whoever gave me negative reputation:

Cigarettes are not considered to be worse than pot. Marijuana deposits two times the amount of tar and other useless crap into your lungs compared to cigarettes...so why do we see more people dying from cigarettes than marijuana? Well people are unable to smoke as much pot as they are cigarettes. You might smoke a bowl and then pass out...then smoke more later. Cigarettes don't put you to sleep and it is possible to smoke 5 or more packs per day. Once marijuana becomes legalized, if it does, we will see an increase in marijuana lung related deaths.

But, the effects of marijuana on the lung can be as devastating as that of cigarettes...if only people smoked as much pot as they do cigs.

No hard feelings man, now you have the facts.

Like Obama said "Growing Weed does NOT equal economic growth"...

California will probably be the first state to legalize such a thing...as it is scheduled to appear on the ballot for the 3 time in under a decade. It will probably, once again, be vetoed by the governor...THANK GOD.

All we need is people being killed for their pot...wow...and it's much worse than cigarettes...

[deadpie]

Like Obama said "Growing Weed does NOT equal economic growth"...

California will probably be the first state to legalize such a thing...as it is scheduled to appear on the ballot for the 3 time in under a decade. It will probably, once again, be vetoed by the governor...THANK GOD.

All we need is people being killed for their pot...wow...and it's much worse than cigarettes...

It's always about the children. Your argument is already horrible.

Marijuana -> Mentally Addictive
Cigarettes -> Physically Addictive

So which one is worse again?

[Richthegamer99]

Whoever gave me negative reputation:

Cigarettes are not considered to be worse than pot. Marijuana deposits two times the amount of tar and other useless crap into your lungs compared to cigarettes...so why do we see more people dying from cigarettes than marijuana? Well people are unable to smoke as much pot as they are cigarettes. You might smoke a bowl and then pass out...then smoke more later. Cigarettes don't put you to sleep and it is possible to smoke 5 or more packs per day. Once marijuana becomes legalized, if it does, we will see an increase in marijuana lung related deaths.

But, the effects of marijuana on the lung can be as devastating as that of cigarettes...if only people smoked as much pot as they do cigs.

No hard feelings man, now you have the facts.

can you show me a case where some one has died of cannibis

[dead]

Whoever gave me negative reputation:

Cigarettes are not considered to be worse than pot. Marijuana deposits two times the amount of tar and other useless crap into your lungs compared to cigarettes...so why do we see more people dying from cigarettes than marijuana? Well people are unable to smoke as much pot as they are cigarettes. You might smoke a bowl and then pass out...then smoke more later. Cigarettes don't put you to sleep and it is possible to smoke 5 or more packs per day. Once marijuana becomes legalized, if it does, we will see an increase in marijuana lung related deaths.

But, the effects of marijuana on the lung can be as devastating as that of cigarettes...if only people smoked as much pot as they do cigs.

No hard feelings man, now you have the facts.
Give me One source where it says that.

[Nickk XD]

Actually, they both are physically addictive and they can both become psychologically addictive. Physically refers to the DEPENDENCE of the drug. Physical addictions would include withdrawals...which both drugs do.

Psychological addictions refer to an addiction that is never accompanied by withdrawals or may be accompanied by "fake" withdrawals (like you make them up).


What about psychological dependence on marijuana?
Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives.
http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
Also mentally and physiologically mean the same thing. The term you used "psychically" refers to the ability to read minds...like a psychic.

Physical addiction (like I think you meant to say) would mean you continue to do it simply because you NEED it...literally, your body says it needs it.

It's always about the children. Your argument is already horrible.

Marijuana -> Mentally Addictive
Cigarettes -> Psychically Addictive

So which one is worse again?

Reverse Reality: http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2008/02/21/2168648.htm

They haven't been able to directly link it to lung CANCER specifically...simply because people fail to smoke the equivalent of cigarettes and most people who smoke cannabis also smoke cigarettes. Everyone has mostly always known lung cancer is related to cigarettes...but marijuana has not been used recreationally nearly as long as cigarettes.

[deadpie]

The term you used "psychically" refers to the ability to read minds...like a psychic.

What the fuck are you even saying i don't even

Edit: I meant physical.

[Richthegamer99]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

whats your opion on the decumetry

[Nickk XD]

It looks legit...I'm not going to sit around all day and watch a 2 hour video about pot though...I've done enough of that in my classes required for my medical major when I get to college...lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

whats your opion on the decumetry

[dead]

It looks legit...I'm not going to sit around all day and watch a 2 hour video about pot though...I've done enough of that in my classes required for my medical major when I get to college...lol

If your not going to look at how others get there information then why debate?

[Nickk XD]

I reviewed it...but only quickly.

I did bookmark it and intend on watching it. Just not at the moment.

If your not going to look at how others get there information then why debate?

[Perseus]

If your not going to look at how others get there information then why debate?

Dude, no one wants to sit around and watch a two hour video.

Another things about marijuana is the fact it damages your brain to where it messes with your memory if you're a regular user. And plus, smoking anything isn't the most attractive thing around.

[Nickk XD]

A new study showed that it lowers younger people's IQ and may even make it impossible for people without fully developed brains to learn at all...

Dude, no one wants to sit around and watch a two hour video.

Another things about marijuana is the fact it damages your brain to where it messes with your memory if you're a regular user. And plus, smoking anything isn't the most attractive thing around.

[Richthegamer99]

Whoever gave me negative reputation:

Cigarettes are not considered to be worse than pot. Marijuana deposits two times the amount of tar and other useless crap into your lungs compared to cigarettes...so why do we see more people dying from cigarettes than marijuana? Well people are unable to smoke as much pot as they are cigarettes. You might smoke a bowl and then pass out...then smoke more later. Cigarettes don't put you to sleep and it is possible to smoke 5 or more packs per day. Once marijuana becomes legalized, if it does, we will see an increase in marijuana lung related deaths.

But, the effects of marijuana on the lung can be as devastating as that of cigarettes...if only people smoked as much pot as they do cigs.

No hard feelings man, now you have the facts.

dr.donald tashkin heard of him he did a stuyed found out it doesn't hurt yourr lungs

[deadpie]

OH VT MADE ME DO IT!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l02la4nH671qag8i8.png

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Reinforcement: A measure of the substance’s ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 “Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use.” See,http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
2. Deaths from the two substances. There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history. The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.

In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported 20,687 “alcohol-induced deaths” (excluding accidents and homicides) in 2003. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

The CDC has no reports of “marijuana-induced deaths.” (In reality, there may be 2-5 deaths each year attributed to marijuana, but this article — http://bbsnews.net/bw2005-02-01.html — describes how these are actually deaths attributable to other causes but “blamed” on marijuana due to the way the data is collected.)

3. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called “ecstasy”) and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or “roofies”) and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I’ve found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.

Despite the health risks and social costs, consciousness-altering chemicals have been used for centuries in almost all cultures. So it would be unrealistic to expect that all types of recreational drug use will suddenly cease. Self-management of these substances is extremely difficult, yet modern Western societies have not, in general, developed positive, socially sanctioned rituals as a means of regulating the use of some of the less hazardous recreational drugs. I would argue that we need to do that.

Source: The American Scientist, the Magazine of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?&print=y

4. Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.

There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations.

There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers. Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.

Source: Iversen, Leslie. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. Volume 5, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 69-72. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology.

5. The United Kingdom’s Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.

The committee commissioned an assessment of 20 legal and illegal stimulants in order to bring some logic to the country’s drug classification. Based on this study, they made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation that alcohol be considered among the most harmful drugs. Cannabis was considered significantly less harmful. (See chart below.) As you can see in the chart below, cannabis was recently rescheduled in the UK and is now a Class C substance (with A being the most harmful).
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l02levUEvS1qag8i8.jpg
Source: New Scientist Magazine. Issue 2563. August 2006, page 5. Drug-danger ‘league table’ revealed.
6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.

It could be interesting to note in the chart the difference between what people usually consider the most likely serious harms associated with marijuana and alcohol. While there has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, there are clearly thousands of deaths by liver disease directly associated with alcohol – 12,360 in 2003, to be exact. [See,http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm . Note also on this page that “alcoholic liver disease” is a separate category from “alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides.” Thus the 20,687 cited in #2 (as “deaths from alcohol consumption” could easily be 33,047.]

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings “were against our expectations,” said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

“We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” he said. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin’s previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin’s study, funded by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

“This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use,” he said. “Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning.”

Tashkin’s group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers — exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

7. Studies find alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.

Of the psychoactive substances examined, among individuals who were chronic partner abusers, the use of alcohol and cocaine was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression; cannabis and opiates were not significantly associated with an increased likelihood of male partner violence.

…the odds of any male-to-female physical aggression were more than 8 times (11 times) higher on days when men drank than on days of no alcohol consumption. The odds of severe male-to-female physical aggression were more than 11 times (11 times) higher on days of men’s drinking than on days of no drinking. Moreover, in both samples, over 60% of all episodes occurred within 2 hours of drinking by the male partner. (page 1557)

Source: Fals-Stewart , William, James Golden, Julie A. Schumacher. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1555-1574. Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal day-to-day examination. Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
8. Studies find alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.

Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship.

Cannabis reduces likelihood of violence during intoxication…

Source: Hoaken, Peter N.S., Sherry H. Stewart. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1533-1554. Drugs of abuse and the elicitation of human aggressive behavior. Dept. of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Dept. of of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University.
9. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.

About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense.

Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor.

Among spouse victims, 3 out of 4 incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey 2002.

10. Alcohol use is a catalyst for domestic violence in Denver.

Alcohol is involved in nearly 50 percent of all domestic violence cases in Denver, and the use of alcohol by the perpetrator is a predominant factor in fatal cases of domestic violence.

Marijuana is not mentioned as a correlating or causal factor in cases of domestic violence in Denver.

Source: Abrams, Margaret L., Joanne Belknap, Heather C. Melton. When Domestic Violence Kills: The Formation and Findings of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. March 2001.

11. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses. Marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape, as judged by the lack of discussion of marijuana in sexual assault and date rape educational materials.

A Harvard School of Public Heath study found that 72 percent of college rapes occurred when the female was too intoxicated by alcohol to resist/consent. Source:http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/rapeintox-pressRelease/

Comparisons between alcohol and marijuana with respect to sexual assault are very difficult. This is because it does not appear as if marijuana is a significant contributing factor. The best way to “prove” this is through observation that many organizations dedicated to studying and educating about sexual assault do not list marijuana as a substance associated with incidents. Here is a good example from the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network: http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault/drug-facilitated-assault.html

Note their description of alcohol: “Alcohol is the most commonly used chemical in drug facilitated sexual assault. In large part this is due to the fact that alcohol is easily accessible and a chemical that many people use in social interactions.” Given the fact that marijuana is also “easily accessible” and used widely in “social interactions,” it is quite telling that marijuana is not even listed at all on this “Drug Facilitated Assault” page.


/end thread I win.

[dead]

Dude, no one wants to sit around and watch a two hour video.

Another things about marijuana is the fact it damages your brain to where it messes with your memory if you're a regular user. And plus, smoking anything isn't the most attractive thing around.

I understand, but if you oppose a view point and don't look at how they have this POV (if they give you the info.) then that makes you ignorant and I believe that most people would rather not be this.

[Perseus]

dr.donald tashkin heard of him he did a stuyed found out it doesn't hurt yourr lungs

How does it not hurt your lungs?

You're smoking a plant. Smoke is going into your body.

[Iron Man]

Why would anyone want to make marijuana legal? It is a drug that kills brain cells. This country already has a reputation for the stupidest people, and allowing cannabis to be smoked freely amongst anyone will make it worse. And the children are a very important factor because they are our future. Marijuana has indeed been proven to make the sensors in the brain make the body feel like it is hungry which would put obesity into play. Shame on anyone who wants this.

[CaptainObvious]

Actually, they both are physically addictive and they can both become psychologically addictive. Physically refers to the DEPENDENCE of the drug. Physical addictions would include withdrawals...which both drugs do.

Psychological addictions refer to an addiction that is never accompanied by withdrawals or may be accompanied by "fake" withdrawals (like you make them up).

It should be noted that marijuana is only physically addictive in people with a history of extremely heavy use.

Also mentally and physiologically mean the same thing. The term you used "psychically" refers to the ability to read minds...like a psychic.

Wow... wrong. Physiologically means "of or relating to physiological processes", and physiology means the processes and functions of an organism. Those are very different things, insofar as physiology is a much broader term.

They haven't been able to directly link it to lung CANCER specifically...simply because people fail to smoke the equivalent of cigarettes and most people who smoke cannabis also smoke cigarettes. Everyone has mostly always known lung cancer is related to cigarettes...but marijuana has not been used recreationally nearly as long as cigarettes.

That study has terrible methodology (why would one use only already-diagnosed lung cancer patients as a population?), and in my opinion not a big enough sample size. The UCLA study on the same subject - with a much bigger sample encompassing a broader population, including already-diagnosed lung cancer patients, head-and-neck cancer patients, and a broad sample of non-cancer patients - found no link between cannabis use and lung cancer. With a massively larger sample and better methodology, I'm not surprised.

Cigarettes are not considered to be worse than pot. Marijuana deposits two times the amount of tar and other useless crap into your lungs compared to cigarettes...so why do we see more people dying from cigarettes than marijuana? Well people are unable to smoke as much pot as they are cigarettes. You might smoke a bowl and then pass out...then smoke more later. Cigarettes don't put you to sleep and it is possible to smoke 5 or more packs per day. Once marijuana becomes legalized, if it does, we will see an increase in marijuana lung related deaths.

Cigarettes are certainly worse than pot. They may or may not deposit more or less tar per cigarette, but you cannot separate that from the extremely physical addiction caused by nicotine and the resultant high consumption of cigarettes as if the latter don't matter.

More importantly, pointing out that marijuana deposits more tar and therefore positing that it is worth makes a few faulty assumptions and comes to a faulty conclusion:

The faulty assumption is that one must smoke marijuana. I have a medical grade vaporizer (for legal things, obviously...). Where's your tar now?

The faulty conclusion is that excess tar must mean excess lung cancer. Not only has the biggest and best study on the matter so far (the UCLA study I referenced above) suggested that there is no relationship between smoking marijuana and lung cancer, work on the tumor inhibiting effects of cannabinoids might provide an explanation as to why.

But, the effects of marijuana on the lung can be as devastating as that of cigarettes...if only people smoked as much pot as they do cigs.

No hard feelings man, now you have the facts.

They don't have the facts, they have your spin on the facts. Twice as much tar only means marijuana is worse than cigarettes to smoke (or even as bad as cigarettes) if there is a relationship between "badness" (which in this case probably means the disutility from lung disease, lung inefficiency, etc.) and tar levels. It is by no means a "fact" that that is the case, and so he doesn't have your facts, he has your (rather baseless, might I add) opinions.

Why would anyone want to make marijuana legal? It is a drug that kills brain cells. This country already has a reputation for the stupidest people, and allowing cannabis to be smoked freely amongst anyone will make it worse. And the children are a very important factor because they are our future. Marijuana has indeed been proven to make the sensors in the brain make the body feel like it is hungry which would put obesity into play. Shame on anyone who wants this.

Why is it any of your business what people choose to do with their own bodies or minds? Why does that deserve "shame"? I know lots of people who are perfectly able to be responsible about marijuana, and it is simultaneously histrionic, ridiculous and nonsensical to purport that they should be ashamed of wanting control over what they consume because you think the average fat lazy American couldn't handle it.

[dead]

Why would anyone want to make marijuana legal? It is a drug that kills brain cells. This country already has a reputation for the stupidest people, and allowing cannabis to be smoked freely amongst anyone will make it worse. And the children are a very important factor because they are our future. Marijuana has indeed been proven to make the sensors in the brain make the body feel like it is hungry which would put obesity into play. Shame on anyone who wants this.

If you believe in cigarettes and alcohol being legal then you shouldn't be using this to back yourself up.

[Richthegamer99]

smoke will hurt your lung but i talking about cannibis it does hurt your lungs of course if you omke it could do some damage becuase of smoke

[Nickk XD]

Yea...and there was also a crazy scientist who said that cell phones are as damaging as asbestos poisoning and cigarettes combined...GIVE ME A BREAK.

I don't need to really argue the point. It's still a controversial topic because people really DON'T KNOW. It's like "do cell phone cause cancer?" We need at least another 10 years to ever know.

I could give you a list of ten sources or more that all say the same thing: Marijuana is as toxic or more toxic than cigarettes when used in the same dosage. If you ask a pothead, his common response would be fuck no...but then again, try asking a cell phone company if their products cause cancer.

Also, someone compared it to alcohol. Well alcohol is considered "toxic" but it has also been considered "necessary". Consuming 1-2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women can lower the risk of heart disease. Try finding a benefit from smoking pot...hmm...people try and say "it makes you smarter"...no, it does the opposite. People say it helps stop cancer...well it doesn't stop it...it just makes chemo more pleasant.

dr.donald tashkin heard of him he did a stuyed found out it doesn't hurt yourr lungs



Well, cigarettes and alcohol do not damage brain cells.

If you believe in cigarettes and alcohol being legal then you shouldn't be using this to back yourself up.

[dead]

Yea...and there was also a crazy scientist who said that cell phones are as damaging as asbestos poisoning and cigarettes combined...GIVE ME A BREAK.

I don't need to really argue the point. It's still a controversial topic because people really DON'T KNOW. It's like "do cell phone cause cancer?" We need at least another 10 years to ever know.

I could give you a list of ten sources or more that all say the same thing: Marijuana is as toxic or more toxic than cigarettes when used in the same dosage. If you ask a pothead, his common response would be fuck no...but then again, try asking a cell phone company if their products cause cancer.

Also, someone compared it to alcohol. Well alcohol is considered "toxic" but it has also been considered "necessary". Consuming 1-2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women can lower the risk of heart disease. Try finding a benefit from smoking pot...hmm...people try and say "it makes you smarter"...no, it does the opposite. People say it helps stop cancer...well it doesn't stop it...it just makes chemo more pleasant.





Well, cigarettes and alcohol do not damage brain cells.

Alcohol does so much damage to your brain.

[deadpie]

Yea...and there was also a crazy scientist who said that cell phones are as damaging as asbestos poisoning and cigarettes combined...GIVE ME A BREAK.

I don't need to really argue the point. It's still a controversial topic because people really DON'T KNOW. It's like "do cell phone cause cancer?" We need at least another 10 years to ever know.




Your welcome for giving you full proof that Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
I can always count on VT to not give a fuck to any long post I make with backed up facts.

[Perseus]

Your welcome for giving you full proof that Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
I can always count on VT to not give a fuck to any long post I make with backed up facts.

Tim, you know no one wants to read a bunch of copypasta, lol.

Nick, alcohol does damage your brain.

[Nickk XD]

With extended use (a period of excess use...greater than 20)...so I guess you COULD be right...but for the average user it does nothing to your brain.

Long term use can result in paranoia...

Alcohol does so much damage to your brain.

[dead]

Tim, you know no one wants to read a bunch of copypasta, lol.

Nick, alcohol does damage your brain.

Sadly its not copypasta.

With extended use (a period of excess use...greater than 20)...so I guess you COULD be right...but for the average user it does nothing to your brain.

Long term use can result in paranoia...

Nope, without extended use it still does damage.

[Richthegamer99]

If you believe in cigarettes and alcohol being legal then you shouldn't be using this to back yourself up.


Why would anyone want to make marijuana legal? It is a drug that kills brain cells. This country already has a reputation for the stupidest people, and allowing cannabis to be smoked freely amongst anyone will make it worse. And the children are a very important factor because they are our future. Marijuana has indeed been proven to make the sensors in the brain make the body feel like it is hungry which would put obesity into play. Shame on anyone who wants this.

xia zhang marijuana brain cell study google it , it said it could make new barin cell to grow


How does it not hurt your lungs?

You're smoking a plant. Smoke is going into your body.

it smoke of course it going to hurt your lungs

[CaptainObvious]

Yea...and there was also a crazy scientist who said that cell phones are as damaging as asbestos poisoning and cigarettes combined...GIVE ME A BREAK.

That's a straw man argument, since no one here has said that and it has nothing to do with anything anyways.

I don't need to really argue the point. It's still a controversial topic because people really DON'T KNOW. It's like "do cell phone cause cancer?" We need at least another 10 years to ever know.

There's a difference: cell phones have only just started to be around long enough that if they caused problems we would notice (like there's a time lag between smoking and lung cancer development). Marijuana has been used for a very long time. If it were as nefarious as you say, the data would be there.

I could give you a list of ten sources or more that all say the same thing: Marijuana is as toxic or more toxic than cigarettes when used in the same dosage.

Then give me 10 sources, because that is wrong. Marijuana may deposit as much or more tar, but that is a very different thing than being as or more toxic.

Also, someone compared it to alcohol. Well alcohol is considered "toxic" but it has also been considered "necessary". Consuming 1-2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women can lower the risk of heart disease. Try finding a benefit from smoking pot...hmm...people try and say "it makes you smarter"...no, it does the opposite. People say it helps stop cancer...well it doesn't stop it...it just makes chemo more pleasant.

That's wrong on several levels and irrelevant anyways. First, alcohol isn't "necessary" just because it can reduce heart attack risk. Yes, if one is extremely religious about having 1 or 2 drinks per day, risks are lowered. But who drinks that amount? Nobody. That is an idealized consumption pattern that absolutely no one actually adheres to, and it's therefore a ridiculous thing to draw on as evidence.

As for benefits from marijuana? It is the most effective antiemetic currently available; it has very pronounced effects as an analgesic or palliative medication for many other diseases. Preliminary research suggests cannabinoids like THC may promote cell apoptosis and thereby fight cancer (yes, fight cancer, as you said it couldn't [wrong again], not just help with the effects of chemo). Not all of these benefits are confirmed, but still.

My point is that you're approaching this from a heavily biased ideological viewpoint, because it takes someone who is already very against marijuana to come here with a straight face and post that alcohol ought to be considered better than marijuana because of its possible health benefits, while ignoring the fact that alcohol also destroys bodies and minds on a societal scale.

[Iron Man]

They tried making alcohol illegal long ago, remember? But that failed. And about caring what only a few people do is important. It will start with only a few then more and more and more until finally the government is doing this. It is a possibility and a grim future. Everyone knows of the medical risks but they immediately focus on the medical benefits, if any. Has it even been proven to kill cancer? It is like the Dark Ages, or the 60s, all over again.

[Nickk XD]

OK...let's clear up some things.

I'm not responding to any one post specifically.

I am not biased when it comes to marijuana. I have been provided the facts through my 22 units of college drug classes for my future major. In case you don't know, 22 units = 3.5 years, depending on the class. My uncle smokes it and actually has a Prop 215 California Prescription Card for the legal use of marijuana under certain circumstances. I'VE USED MARIJUANA...UNTIL I DECIDED WHAT MY COLLEGE MAJOR WOULD BE...I CHANGED ONCE I BEGAN TAKING THE CLASSES RELATED TO THAT.

Health risks of marijuana include: impaired thinking and memory; diminished balance and coordination; increased chance of heart attack; increased risk of respiratory infection; increased risk of lung cancer, mouth cancer, and cancer of the respiratory tract; and possible hallucinations.

Medical benefits; however, of marijuana have been recognized by many doctors and scientists. The benefits primarily treat things like treatment of nausea often associated with cancer chemotherapy treatment; reduction of pressure in the eyes benefiting individuals with glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness in the U.S.; relief of pain often associated with cancer; and possible protection of nerves from the damage caused by multiple sclerosis (MS), thus reducing tremors and muscle spasms associated with the disease.

Do benefits outweigh the risk?

Well...MAYBE. They're now saying it can reduce your risk of plaque in the brain...which leads to Alzheimer's.

Based on almost any study performed, there seems to be no conclusive evidence that people SHOULD use marijuana recreationally.

The above information was all from me...now let's see what Harvard has to say: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

[CaptainObvious]

I am not biased when it comes to marijuana. I have been provided the facts through my 22 units of college drug classes for my future major. In case you don't know, 22 units = 3.5 years, depending on the class.

Stop talking about the classes that you've taken like they mean something in this discussion. I've now discussed two different drug matters with you, and in both you have spouted a number of things that are outright wrong. If you've taken that many classes, you've either not been paying attention or they contain bad content, because your apparent grasp of the subject material has so far seemed extremely lacking.

My uncle smokes it and actually has a Prop 215 California Prescription Card for the legal use of marijuana under certain circumstances. I'VE USED MARIJUANA...UNTIL I DECIDED WHAT MY COLLEGE MAJOR WOULD BE...I CHANGED ONCE I BEGAN TAKING THE CLASSES RELATED TO THAT.

You've used marijuana? ...and?

Health risks of marijuana include:

Interesting, let's see how many you get wrong...

impaired thinking and memory;

There is no evidence that marijuana does more than impair short term memory, and it mostly only does that during periods of actual use; only in extremely heavy users do effects persist.

increased chance of heart attack;

Like most people, you either misunderstand or intend to mislead when you say this. Marijuana, during the first hour after smoking, increases heart attack risk 6 times. That sounds big, except that just about every other activity also increases heart attack risk. For a sedentary person (your average person), just having sex increases heart attack risk 3 times over for its duration. The bottom line is that this effect is still extremely minimal on the grand scale.

As noted in an article about it:

"For a 50 year old without any other risk factors, this translates to a change in absolute risk of a 10-in-a-million chance of having a heart attack in the first hour after smoking marijuana"
(http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000203051658data_trunc_sys.shtml)

increased risk of lung cancer, mouth cancer, and cancer of the respiratory tract

Didn't I already point out the deficiencies of the New Zealand study? Even if you're assuming it's a good basis for statements like this (which would be a bad call), it says nothing about mouth of neck cancers. So where's your evidence for that, exactly?

and possible hallucinations.

Although you're on to something here, once again you don't get it correct. Marijuana has been associated with an increase in schizophrenia among those people already prone to it; that's not the same thing as "possible hallucinations".

Do benefits outweigh the risk?

Well...MAYBE. They're now saying it can reduce your risk of plaque in the brain...which leads to Alzheimer's.

Based on almost any study performed, there seems to be no conclusive evidence that people SHOULD use marijuana recreationally.

This, finally, is a fair assessment. Of course the literature does not say one SHOULD use the drug. That requires a seriously healthy substance - even most of the food we eat wouldn't be recommended by doctors. There is a massive gulf between something you should use and something you should not, though, and in that massive area resides marijuana.

The above information was all from me...now let's see what Harvard has to say: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

Do you not pay attention to the quality of information you look up? That's not what "Harvard has to say", that's the website for an undergraduate class at the College from 1999. An absolutely terrible source, in other words. The formatting of the website should sort of tip you off to that.

[Nickk XD]

The information posted on the health risks have been evaluated by the CDC. That isn't stuff I "made up".

The harvard site wasn't intended to be posted there as a "factual" source...maybe I should have put a haha or something...i don't know.



Stop talking about the classes that you've taken like they mean something in this discussion. I've now discussed two different drug matters with you, and in both you have spouted a number of things that are outright wrong. If you've taken that many classes, you've either not been paying attention or they contain bad content, because your apparent grasp of the subject material has so far seemed extremely lacking.



You've used marijuana? ...and?



Interesting, let's see how many you get wrong...

[janjanTRIP_]

Well, cigarettes and alcohol do not damage brain cells.

but cigarettes and alcohol can kill you, and marijuana may stimulate brain cell growth. also, alcohol DOES damage your brain, and you're liver.

Sure, but I'm not a big fan of druggies. It's not like it'll make a difference. Bunch of people already do it, it'll just make it less illegal for them.

pretty sure smoking weed doesn't make you a druggy......

Cigarettes are not considered to be worse than pot. Marijuana deposits two times the amount of tar and other useless crap into your lungs compared to cigarettes...so why do we see more people dying from cigarettes than marijuana? Well people are unable to smoke as much pot as they are cigarettes. You might smoke a bowl and then pass out...then smoke more later. Cigarettes don't put you to sleep and it is possible to smoke 5 or more packs per day. Once marijuana becomes legalized, if it does, we will see an increase in marijuana lung related deaths.

But, the effects of marijuana on the lung can be as devastating as that of cigarettes...if only people smoked as much pot as they do cigs.

if you are unable to smoke pot as much as cigarettes, if legalized, you wouldn't gain magical powers to be able to smoke more weed.

of course the numbers of weed smokers or how much weed is smoked will increase, but it will die down after a bit. just the celebration of legalizing weed will arise.

weed has more tar than in cigarettes, but cigarettes contain 27 other carcinogens that make it so deadly. weed contains tetrahydrocannabinol, which prevents cancer.

dangerous is way too strong of a word to use for weed, potentially harmful is good(:

I really disagree with legalizing weed. Of course it would probably help the economy but is it the right thing to do? Do we really want a whole bunch of people being high, or even the children? People will get lazy and the obesity crisis won`t be helped.

a whole bunch of adults already do use weed, as do children. you can't stop everyone from smoking, but legalizing it will allow the user to feel safe smoking (or eating...) weed, which should be their decision, without getting in trouble.

i smoke weed daily, my brother doesnt smoke at all. im much, much, much more energetic than him.

Why would anyone want to make marijuana legal? It is a drug that kills brain cells. This country already has a reputation for the stupidest people, and allowing cannabis to be smoked freely amongst anyone will make it worse. And the children are a very important factor because they are our future. Marijuana has indeed been proven to make the sensors in the brain make the body feel like it is hungry which would put obesity into play. Shame on anyone who wants this.

why would anyone want to make cigarettes and alcohol legal? cigarettes: physically addictive, cancer causing, and most importantly.... can kill you. alcohol: physically addictive, liver damaging, and can also kill you.
these are only few facts about these two drugs.

weed: may stimulate brain cell growth; appeared to have antidepressants and anti-anxiety properties; not physically addictive, or barely physically addictive

i have friends who smoke daily, practically all day, and are skinnier than a lot of people who dont smoke weed. marijuana does not cause obesity.

ive been smoking for a bit now, and ive lost weight, rather than gained.......

[Peace God]

It's scary how misinformed some of you guys are. I really dont want to get into all of the scientific crap(but i trust me i do know most of it) at the moment but i think america needs to end its hypocritical stance on drugs. The War on Drugs is a complete failure and needs to end...the only thing it did was create more drugs, created an extremely dangerous and unregulated multi-billion dollar industry and more than quadrupled the U.S. prison population not to mention the billions of dollars wasted on law enforcement.

About the children argument... i dont know were you guys live but over here, it's easier to get illegal drugs as a minor than it is to get alcohol and cigarettes.

Deaths per year in america:
Tobacco - 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity - 365,000
Alcohol - 85,0000
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect - 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin - 7,600
Marijuana - 0

Even fucking caffeine has a couple thousand deaths every year.

[INFERNO]

I am not biased when it comes to marijuana. I have been provided the facts through my 22 units of college drug classes for my future major. In case you don't know, 22 units = 3.5 years, depending on the class.

That's great for you but it's meaningless for this debate.


Health risks of marijuana include: impaired thinking and memory; diminished balance and coordination; increased chance of heart attack; increased risk of respiratory infection; increased risk of lung cancer, mouth cancer, and cancer of the respiratory tract; and possible hallucinations.

There is an increased chance of heart attack, however, two things to consider. First, as a trigger for heart attacks, it's incredibly rare and second, the increase it produces is a pretty small and brief one. There are various case studies of this, such as the one shown below. The second link is a paper regarding the acute risks of heart attacks, including marijuana and verifies what has been said in the case study plus goes into more detail.

CASE STUDY (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19436220)

DETAILED PAPER (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16860887)


Medical benefits; however, of marijuana have been recognized by many doctors and scientists. The benefits primarily treat things like treatment of nausea often associated with cancer chemotherapy treatment; reduction of pressure in the eyes benefiting individuals with glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness in the U.S.; relief of pain often associated with cancer; and possible protection of nerves from the damage caused by multiple sclerosis (MS), thus reducing tremors and muscle spasms associated with the disease.

Marijuana usage for treatment of glaucoma is something not fully supported because a) the duration of which it lowers the pressure is very short so the patient must smoke marijuana about every 3 hours and b) one view to the cause of glaucoma is insufficient blood supply to the optic nerve and since marijuana lowers blood pressure, this could worsen the glaucoma despite still decreasing internal ocular pressure. Also, when used it causes sensory distortions, 44% of the time it caused tachycardia and in 28% it caused postural hypotension. Remember, this is something likely to be used on elderly patients.
CLICKIE FOR ABSTRACT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16540272)

[Perseus]

pretty sure smoking weed doesn't make you a druggy......





Yeah, it does, especially if you do on a regular basis. You're doing an illegal drug, therefore it makes you a druggie.

[Whisper]

Yeah, it does, especially if you do on a regular basis. You're doing an illegal drug, therefore it makes you a druggie.
and drinking on a regular basis makes you an "alcoholic"
smoking cigarettes makes you a "smoker"
touching little boys makes you a "priest"......kidding

There's allot of people who down allot of prescription and/or over the counter pills for various reasons why aren't they "druggies"?

I've got a friend who gets severe headaches like i'm talking severe consistent migraines, why? because he had a 700lbs steel bucket crush his skull at a job site.....bummer.
His doctors are dishing out the painkillers and i'm not talking a few T3's I mean Demerol but that wasn't working so they want him on OxyContin..... For those of you who watch a TV show called House and have a vague understanding of Vicodin, OxyContin is allot stronger. It's the kind of drug you kill babies in dark alleys to get more of, VERY addictive.

He refuses to take them because they are so addictive and dangerous, its not a drug to fuck around with. He uses pot, it works great for him and isn't physically addictive. Plus the side effects for OxyContin are a mile long INCLUDING HEADACHES!!!!!!!!! and heart problems which isn't good considering he's already had open heart surgery.
But he can't get an actual prescription for medicinal marijuana because in Alberta that's flat out banned, no doctor can prescribe it so instead they want him on something that is far worse and can be extremely detrimental because OxyContin is "legal"....when prescribed.


EDIT
When asked why not legalize pot harper stated "drugs are bad"
fucking idiot

[Perseus]

and drinking on a regular basis makes you an "alcoholic"
smoking cigarettes makes you a "smoker"
touching little boys makes you a "priest"......kidding

There's allot of people who down allot of prescription and/or over the counter pills for various reasons why aren't they "druggies"?

I've got a friend who gets severe headaches like i'm talking severe consistent migraines, why? because he had a 700lbs steel bucket crush his skull at a job site.....bummer.
His doctors are dishing out the painkillers and i'm not talking a few T3's I mean Demerol but that wasn't working so they want him on OxyContin..... For those of you who watch a TV show called House and have a vague understanding of Vicodin, OxyContin is allot stronger. It's the kind of drug you kill babies in dark alleys to get more of, VERY addictive.

He refuses to take them because they are so addictive and dangerous, its not a drug to fuck around with. He uses pot, it works great for him and isn't physically addictive. Plus the side effects for OxyContin are a mile long INCLUDING HEADACHES!!!!!!!!! and heart problems which isn't good considering he's already had open heart surgery.
But he can't get an actual prescription for medicinal marijuana because in Alberta that's flat out banned, no doctor can prescribe it so instead they want him on something that is far worse and can be extremely detrimental because OxyContin is "legal"....when prescribed.


EDIT
When asked why not legalize pot harper stated "drugs are bad"
fucking idiot

I said illegal and doing it on a regular basis. Last time I checked, Oxycontin is legal. And I never said it shouldn't be legalized, so I don't see why you made this giant post.

And who's "harper"? I ask this because I don't know and you said "fucking idiot", and I don't know if you're calling me that or this "harper" person.

And smoking on a regular basis does make you a "smoker" because you're doing it a lot.
Alcohol is different because to be an alcoholic, you have to be addicted, but I wouldn't know what to call someone who isn't addicted but does drink it on a regular basis.

[Whisper]

I said illegal and doing it on a regular basis. Last time I checked, Oxycontin is legal. And I never said it shouldn't be legalized, so I don't see why you made this giant post.
I mentioned ocycontin because its a far worse drug to be prescribing and yet they do because of the false stigma thats been built up around marijuana

And who's "harper"? I ask this because I don't know and you said "fucking idiot", and I don't know if you're calling me that or this "harper" person.
......Steven Harper. If you don't know who that is, i'm not telling you. You can look it up.
and originally it was towards Harper, considering i was talking about him when i made that statement... but now I'm okay with both

And smoking on a regular basis does make you a "smoker" because you're doing it a lot.
Alcohol is different because to be an alcoholic, you have to be addicted, but I wouldn't know what to call someone who isn't addicted but does drink it on a regular basis.
Smokings physically addictive
Alcohol's physically addictive
Pot isn't (physically)

and they're drunks, alcoholics go to meetings, HAAAAAAAAA.
i'm kidding i like to socially drink


You seem very tense
its not good for the heart

[Perseus]

I mentioned ocycontin because its a far worse drug to be prescribing and yet they do because of the false stigma thats been built up around marijuana


......Steven Harper. If you don't know who that is, i'm not telling you. You can look it up.
and originally it was towards Harper, considering i was talking about him when i made that statement... but now I'm okay with both


Smokings physically addictive
Alcohol's physically addictive
Pot isn't (physically)

and they're drunks, alcoholics go to meetings, HAAAAAAAAA.
i'm kidding i like to socially drink


You seem very tense
its not good for the heart

Nah, I'm not tense. :P
And sorry for not knowing who Steven Harper is; I'm not really into the leaders of other countries. And I thought it was towards Harper, but I was just kind of in a bad mood when I made that post.

[Nickk XD]

OxyContin provides no "high" when taken in proper quantities...unless you consider feel good (like simply no pain) a high. That's why it is used. I, too, agree it is a horrible drug to be prescribed. It is considered the legal version of heroine as the withdrawal symptoms are similar and can even be deadly. The fact it is safe for people to go about their normal work, under most circumstances while taking OxyContin, is why it remains a legal drug. When determining which meds should be legal or not, they don't take into account the addictive quality necessarily. They just take into account what happens to you while you're on it...like you cannot, under any circumstances, legally drive under the influence of marijuana. In most cases, you can drive safely while using OxyContin.

I spoke to my doctor about this this morning. He stated marijuana is physically addictive and that physically and psychologically addictive means the exact same thing. By now, everyone should know that Marijuana contains THC. THC is the active ingredient in marijuana that provides all the "high" effects and is what causes any addictive effects. THC prefers to bind with the Anandamide chemical in the brain Anandamide is more so used in the immune system. Anandamide also plays a role in hunger (hence why using Marijuana effects hunger). Another important role of Anandamide is long term and short term memory (which is why marijuana negatively effects both). Whenever ANY substance binds to any thing in the body, it creates PHYSICAL withdrawal symptoms. Therefore, the drug has a physical addiction because it manipulates chemicals in the brain.

THC works much like Nicotine when it comes to manipulating chemicals in the brain. Nicotine manipulates acetylcholine. Acetycholine is effects movement of muscles and communications of nerves in the brain and throughout the body. It also effects memory and hunger. Nicotine binds to the receptor acetylcholine and therefore causes a physical addiction when nicotine is not present to bind to acetylcholine.

Alcoholism is considered a mental illness and is present in the DSM-1, which contains all of the mental illnesses. Alcoholism has been thought to be hereditary, but I'm not quite sure if it's been proven. Alcohol is one of the most addictive drugs (however it is still far below that of nicotine) for anyone who has the potential to become an alcoholic. In many cases, over exposure to an alcoholic substance can cause a physical addiction.

This is what I've found" Terminology has become quite complicated in the field. Pharmacologists continue to speak of addiction from a physiologic standpoint (some call this a physical dependence); psychiatrists refer to the disease state as psychological dependence; most other physicians refer to the disease as addiction. The field of psychiatry is now considering, as they move from DSM-IV to DSM-V, transitioning from "substance dependence" to "addiction" as terminology for the disease state.

I mentioned ocycontin because its a far worse drug to be prescribing and yet they do because of the false stigma thats been built up around marijuana


......Steven Harper. If you don't know who that is, i'm not telling you. You can look it up.
and originally it was towards Harper, considering i was talking about him when i made that statement... but now I'm okay with both


Smokings physically addictive
Alcohol's physically addictive
Pot isn't (physically)

and they're drunks, alcoholics go to meetings, HAAAAAAAAA.
i'm kidding i like to socially drink


You seem very tense
its not good for the heart

[Wtficus]

you choose what goes in your body and what doesn't, you should know the outcome of doing so

[2D]

I think it all comes down to deaths.

Marijuana = 0

I don't know the other ones but that's irrelevant.

[quartermaster]

Who cares about the pros and cons of marijuana use on the individual? At the end of the day, the fundamental thing that needs to be addressed is what right do you have to tell me that I cannot harm myself?

What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body? Water is potentially poisonous at high levels of consumption, does that mean that so-called "society" should dictate how much water intake I put into my body daily? An extreme example, to be sure, but taking this premise to its logical end and breaking this entire drug non-issue apart, you really can see how ridiculous this entire debate is.

You have the right and propriety of your body, and I have the same for mine, as such, insofar as I am not aggressing against anyone else, I should be able to do what I want with my body.

I simply do not understand this obsession so many people have in this country with wanting to control other people's lives.

[Nickk XD]

But just because you want to harm yourself doesn't mean that other people want to be harmed.

There was one case (an extreme case) where this man broke in to steal someone's medical marijuana plants. He killed everyone in the house and a spectator that was trying to call the police from next door. Marijuana isn't one of the most potent drugs...but it is one of the must have drugs. People will go to great lengths to get it. Also, people on marijuana are as dangerous as a drunk when driving. Do you think people will see it like that? No, they'll see it closer to cigs than alcohol...so they are probably going to drive (I know many people who drive under the influence of THC).

The poison of water is in EXTREME cases which, for some, may be impossible to ever reach. It imbalances salt and potassium levels and can cause deaths...when drank in excess in a very, very, very short amount of time. Some kid in a fraternity died after consuming 12 gallons of water or something like that in an hour and he had underlying health conditions.

There are some cases where the government can and will take control of your body. This includes when you go "insane" and they feel you are unable to care for yourself. Prisoners are also sometimes considered to have no rights over their own bodies. A few decades ago, the prisoners were the first to have the new things tested on them (like new drugs, shots, treatments). Many died and eventually this was no longer allowed. Basically they were the equivalent of the rats we now use.
Who cares about the pros and cons of marijuana use on the individual? At the end of the day, the fundamental thing that needs to be addressed is what right do you have to tell me that I cannot harm myself?

What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body? Water is potentially poisonous at high levels of consumption, does that mean that so-called "society" should dictate how much water intake I put into my body daily? An extreme example, to be sure, but taking this premise to its logical end and breaking this entire drug non-issue apart, you really can see how ridiculous this entire debate is.

You have the right and propriety of your body, and I have the same for mine, as such, insofar as I am not aggressing against anyone else, I should be able to do what I want with my body.

I simply do not understand this obsession so many people have in this country with wanting to control other people's lives.

This number IS true. But that does NOT include
"related deaths". The number you stated was from people getting cancer, emphysema, etc. This does not include the potential of violence from the drug, car accidents from the drug (as they are just deemed an accident or a DUI), and anything else that is RELATED to the negative effects of the drug.
I think it all comes down to deaths.

Marijuana = 0

I don't know the other ones but that's irrelevant.

[Peace God]

But just because you want to harm yourself doesn't mean that other people want to be harmed.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o7h0jihnSEc/SMqvgj6wJnI/AAAAAAAAGO0/9AdmvMY18JQ/s400/harmless+poster.jpghttp://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1403/911weed.jpg

Also, people on marijuana are as dangerous as a drunk when driving.
not true and not a good reason to want to keep it illegal

[Perseus]

not true and not a good reason to want to keep it illegal

Actually, it is true because your reaction time is slower. You won't stop at a stop sign or something and then you can cause your self and other people to get harmed or die.

[Whisper]

Actually, it is true because your reaction time is slower. You won't stop at a stop sign or something and then you can cause your self and other people to get harmed or die.


No its not.
I freaked on a thread in here saying the exact same thing and then i poured into my university's database to find peer reviewed journals that supported me.
Do you know what I found? Countless studies that proved stoned drivers were actually SAFER because they were traditionally more cautious. Drunk drivers are prone to reckless behavior where as stoned drivers remain extremely cautious and nervous, driving slow and double checking everything.

Now i'm not saying its okay for them to be behind the wheel
I myself was side-swiped by a stoned driver
But he could have also just been an idiot
I see ALLOT of them on the road everyday
and ya can't fix stupid

[Perseus]

No its not.
I freaked on a thread in here saying the exact same thing and then i poured into my university's database to find peer reviewed journals that supported me.
Do you know what I found? Countless studies that proved stoned drivers were actually SAFER because they were traditionally more cautious. Drunk drivers are prone to reckless behavior where as stoned drivers remain extremely cautious and nervous, driving slow and double checking everything.

Now i'm not saying its okay for them to be behind the wheel
I myself was side-swiped by a stoned driver
But he could have also just been an idiot
I see ALLOT of them on the road everyday
and ya can't fix stupid

Your reaction time is slower. I just freakin' learned that in some ADAP class I'm required to take.

"Research shows that using marijuana affects drivers in the following ways:

The driver feels a false sense of improved driving ability.
Coordination skills are impaired, making it hard to control a vehicle.
Attention span decreases, causing the driver's mind to wander.
Recognizing traffic signals is difficult.
The drug produces a slow-motion effect, making the driver unable to react quickly in traffic sitauations.
Short-term memory is impaired, causing the driver to forget information very quickly. He or she may not remember directions given a few minutes ago."


Straight from my "Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program" book thing.

[Peace God]

Your reaction time is slower. I just freakin' learned that in some ADAP class I'm required to take.

"Research shows that using marijuana affects drivers in the following ways:

The driver feels a false sense of improved driving ability.
Coordination skills are impaired, making it hard to control a vehicle.
Attention span decreases, causing the driver's mind to wander.
Recognizing traffic signals is difficult.
The drug produces a slow-motion effect, making the driver unable to react quickly in traffic sitauations.
Short-term memory is impaired, causing the driver to forget information very quickly. He or she may not remember directions given a few minutes ago."


Straight from my "Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program" book thing.
i agree with all of that but that still doesnt make it the same as or worse that drunk driving and again... driving skills is still a bullshit reason to want to keep it illegal considering alcohol and pharmaceutical medications are legal

[Perseus]

i agree with all of that but that still doesnt make it the same as or worse that drunk driving and again... driving skills is still a bullshit reason to want to keep it illegal considering alcohol and pharmaceutical medications are legal

I never said I wanted to keep it illegal; I was just showing him what I learned and what is fact.

[CaptainObvious]

But just because you want to harm yourself doesn't mean that other people want to be harmed.

...and your point is? If a person using marijuana harms someone else, they should be prosecuted under the law that disallows that harm. There are already laws against theft, murder, DWI, public disturbance, etc. etc. If a marijuana breaks one of those laws, prosecute them for it. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that marijuana itself ought to be illegal.

There was one case (an extreme case) where this man broke in to steal someone's medical marijuana plants. He killed everyone in the house and a spectator that was trying to call the police from next door.

So? There was once a person who broke in to someone's house to steal a TV and killed the occupants. We should make TVs illegal.


Marijuana isn't one of the most potent drugs...but it is one of the must have drugs. People will go to great lengths to get it.

As drugs go, what determines to what lengths people will go to get a drug is how addictive it is. Marijuana is mildly addictive at most; people do not go to great lengths to satisfy cravings as they do for other drugs.

Also, people on marijuana are as dangerous as a drunk when driving.

This is flatly WRONG. Every study done on the subject shows that while marijuana may impair certain motor skills and reactions required for driving, people who drive stoned are so much more cautious that in fact most people driving under the influence of marijuana are as safe as or more safe than they are driving sober. Even if they're driving with the same level of care, marijuana is nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol when driving.

The poison of water is in EXTREME cases which, for some, may be impossible to ever reach. It imbalances salt and potassium levels and can cause deaths...when drank in excess in a very, very, very short amount of time. Some kid in a fraternity died after consuming 12 gallons of water or something like that in an hour and he had underlying health conditions.

Once again, you're wrong. People die of water intoxication regularly, though it normally takes extreme exertion (and electrolyte depletion) or a purposeful attempt to drink lots of water. Remember "Hold your Wee for a Wii"?:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/

Needless to say, electrolyte imbalance from water intoxication is a very real danger in circumstances of extreme consumption or exertion.

This number IS true. But that does NOT include
"related deaths". The number you stated was from people getting cancer, emphysema, etc. This does not include the potential of violence from the drug, car accidents from the drug (as they are just deemed an accident or a DUI), and anything else that is RELATED to the negative effects of the drug.

Yes, but the number of "related deaths" for marijuana is also probably just about 0 as well.

Also, when you say things like "violence from the drug" and refer to criminal incidents surrounding dealing or things like that, you are aware that those things are caused not by the drug itself but by its prohibition, yes?

[Whisper]

Straight from my "Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program" book thing.

Ya i'm talking independent, peer reviewed, scientific, articles
You have to be really careful about sources
If I've learned anything paying this high ass tuition, its that
I got burned allot in my first yr lol

[Perseus]

Ya i'm talking independent, peer reviewed, scientific, articles
You have to be really careful about sources
If I've learned anything paying this high ass tuition, its that

I don't get what you're talking about.

[Whisper]

I don't get what you're talking about.
I'm saying your source is bullshit for an unbiased view
I was just, you know...polite about it

[Peace God]

I don't get what you're talking about.
he suggests using a scientific source...abstract, experiment, results etc... rather than a program with an anti drug bias

[Whisper]

he suggests using a scientific source...abstract, experiment, results etc... rather than a program with an anti drug bias

BAM!!!!!

That's exactly what i'm saying

[Perseus]

BAM!!!!!

That's exactly what i'm saying

Not really. It's issued by the state and is a required course. It's not biased. If it was biased, it'd be like, "Smoking marijuana and then trying to operate machinery will cause death."

If that's biased, then everything that I've learned about drugs is biased, too. Even though it's there to present facts, not sway you. The teacher of the class is biased.

[Peace God]

Not really. It's issued by the state
oh you mean the people that made it illegal in the first place?

If it was biased, it'd be like, "Smoking marijuana and then trying to operate machinery will cause death."

so because it's not extremely biased is cant be biased at all?

[Perseus]

oh you mean the people that made it illegal in the first place?


so because it's not extremely biased is cant be biased at all?

Even if it is biased, all it's showing you is what happens if you're impaired while driving. They used scientific studies, they didn't pull the information out of their ass.

It shouldn't be illegal solely on the purpose because it impairs you, though. Prescription drugs impair your judgement, too.

I will reiterate myself, though. I never said that marijuana should be illegal; I just don't like it, and I do no respect people who do it, especially on a regular basis.

If it was made legal, I wouldn't go out protest like many people would because I wouldn't care. Alcohol is legal. Cigarettes are legal. Might as well make marijuana legal.

[Hatsune Miku]

Legalize it

Haters will hate
Smokers will smoke

/thread

[Peace God]

Even if it is biased, all it's showing you is what happens if you're impaired while driving. They used scientific studies, they didn't pull the information out of their ass.
this is an extreme example but i remember reading about a gov't scientific study where they suffocated monkeys with gas masks of weed smoke and concluded that weed was lethal
my point is scientific studies can be biased as well
I do not respect people who do it, especially on a regular basis.

:miss:

[Whisper]

my point is scientific studies can be biased as well

Especially when its funded by a biased source, federal and pharmaceutical companies are a prime example
That's where the PEER REVIEWED part becomes vital

[Perseus]

Especially when its funded by a biased source, federal and pharmaceutical companies are a prime example
That's where the PEER REVIEWED part becomes vital

Peer reviewed can be just as biased.

[Whisper]

Peer reviewed can be just as biased.

From an independent source that receives no funding or benefits from influential organizations or government bodies which have a vested interest in a favorable outcome in ANY way?
unlikely

[Perseus]

From an independent source that receives no funding or benefits from influential organizations or government bodies which have a vested interest in a favorable outcome in ANY way?
unlikely

The person can still slip his opinion into it by one word, and you won't be able to tell it has bias to it.

[Nickk XD]

Mr. Captain Obvious:

This is in response to your reply regarding the safety of marijuana while driving. Countless studies have also confirmed that it's level of impairment can be as great as alcohol. They wouldn't arrest people for under the influence of marijuana if it made you drive safer.

Alcohol will always hold a mildly higher percentage of accidents than marijuana simply because Alcohol is more readily used (due to its legality).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/driving.html

[CaptainObvious]

Countless studies have also confirmed that it's level of impairment can be as great as alcohol.

This is untrue, and the source you cited for it doesn't back it up either. Marijuana impairs driving, certainly; the level of impairment is much lower than for alcohol at almost all dose levels.


They wouldn't arrest people for under the influence of marijuana if it made you drive safer.

The government makes all kinds of things illegal for reasons that aren't clear, you can't credibly use the fact that something is illegal as an argument here in light of the fact that we're in a thread where I'm arguing that the government illegitimately illegalizes things.

Oh, and while I'm at it, here's a government study (not a semi-propaganda info page like you seem to love so much) about the effects of marijuana and driving:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Here's a couple of germane quotes from the study:

The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 g/kg THC and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.

THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 g/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08 g%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs' (Robbe, 1994; Robbe and O'Hanlon, 1995; O'Hanlon et al., 1995). Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.

In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

Please pay special attention to the bolded part of the second quote: marijuana never impaired subjects more than a .08 BAC - a level of alcohol intoxication at which it is legal to drive. So... yeah. More or less I exactly what I said? Seems so.

[Nickk XD]

Captain Obvious:

I've researched SEVERAL studies, which I've attempted to post the links below. NO WHERE does it state it improves driving ability.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/f/mjkids_faq13.htm
This site is based off of another person's research and may not be as accurate as others. http://family.samhsa.gov/teach/driving.aspx
A good site simply because they back their facts up with sources from studies. This isn't a governmental site, it's more of an "organization" that is given the domain by the government. Many websites in the United States have this ability (even I have one). A lot of their sources also may come from studies that were done by the government; however, which isn't a positive thing.
http://www.friendsdrivesober.org/docs/marijuana_driving.doc
This is the document that they use in almost all major college health classes. I've went to four different colleges and have taken four different health classes and they always refer to this document.It may not be a matter of how bad marijuana is compared to alcohol. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, a mild one at that. It distorts time, which DOES lower your reaction rate. That isn't arguable. People "concentrate" more simply because they have to or it would be a major distraction. One of the side effects of marijuana is loss of concentration, which can last up to 24 hours after marijuana use. So if you are trying to say someone on marijuana concentrates better, that's just BS. Alcohol is a depressant and it cannot be compared. There is no way to say this much ethanol/consumption = this many joints. Marijuana is much more complex because of the THC content. Many studies fail to completely examine the THC content when putting out a report, simply because many companies aren't able to grasp the exact amount.

There is one marijuana farm; however, that has all the numbers exact and correct and tabulated. Guess who owns it? The United States of America. Very few studies have ever been conducted by outside agencies using this precise pot garden. There are only 30 known studies who have ever been granted permission to use this, the most accurate, garden.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/18/government.marijuana.garden/index.htmlHere is the


I still feel (and know for certain) there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana improves driving ability. That's what really got me. My best friend recently got in a marijuana related accident...for the 9th time. He even admits that he has issues driving. Not only does he admit that, so does my uncle, a prescription user. Because of the lack of concentration, the humor that goes along with pot, and the common inability to even think...would lead any study to suggest that marijuana worsens your driving ability. How much? Well some studies suggest it raises it at least over the .08 legal driving range for alcohol. Other studies say much higher and some say much lower. It still is not comparable.

I have also, not on this forum of course, but in life heard people attempt to say their friend drives better drunk. Well...that also isn't possible.

Also to your source, the drug library one, you should also note that the sources range from being 10-20 years old and the article is as old. Times change, so do statistics.

[CaptainObvious]

So if you are trying to say someone on marijuana concentrates better, that's just BS.

You need better critical reading skills, since I am in no way saying that. I said that while marijuana may impair things that one needs for driving, the impairment is mild enough that driving is not significantly effected. Studies on that very subject agree with me. Everything else you say is irrelevant.

There is one marijuana farm; however, that has all the numbers exact and correct and tabulated. Guess who owns it? The United States of America. Very few studies have ever been conducted by outside agencies using this precise pot garden. There are only 30 known studies who have ever been granted permission to use this, the most accurate, garden.

This has nothing to do with anything. The study directly leveled THC serum levels; it doesn't matter how "accurate" the cannabis they used was, since they measured the actual in vivo drug levels which is even more accurate than using a well-calibrated known strain.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/18/government.marijuana.garden/index.htmlHere is the


How much? Well some studies suggest it raises it at least over the .08 legal driving range for alcohol. Other studies say much higher and some say much lower. It still is not comparable.

I disagree. All the studies that I have read suggest marijuana intoxication at most levels is much less detrimental to driving than even a .08 BAC. Peer reviewed studies, please, no more drug FAQ websites please.

I have also, not on this forum of course, but in life heard people attempt to say their friend drives better drunk. Well...that also isn't possible.

Cool story. This is a straw man, since I have never said and will never say that drinking makes you better at driving.

Golf, on the other hand... :P

[Wtficus]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o7h0jihnSEc/SMqvgj6wJnI/AAAAAAAAGO0/9AdmvMY18JQ/s400/harmless+poster.jpghttp://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1403/911weed.jpg


not true and not a good reason to want to keep it illegal

what the hell does weed have to do with 9/11

[Peace God]

what the hell does weed have to do with 9/11
My best guess is that potheads dont make good soldiers and they are normally against war. So some people might see that as a threat because they think it makes our "defense" weaker.

[Nickk XD]

I don't think it influences our power (defense) in the world...

I know obesity does...but not pot...this is the ONLY thing I would side with a pothead about.

In times of desperate need for soldiers, the military changes the amount of marijuana allowed in your system for entry (in the marijuana user's favor). They are relatively strict about it, especially once chosen, but still...they expect most young men (which is what they target) will have some levels of THC in their hair (as the hair test is the new standard for the military). Hair tests show evidence of THC much, much longer than any other test...as it does with all drugs. A long term marijuana smoker of 30 years (this is just a rough estimate) may never actually test clean for marijuana even after they quit if a hair follicle test is used.

My best guess is that potheads dont make good soldiers and they are normally against war. So some people might see that as a threat because they think it makes our "defense" weaker.

[Peace God]

It's just the subversive attitude that they're are afraid of... which is normally anti-war, anti authority and anti establishment. Their ideal warrior is ruthless, dedicated and unquestioning of superiors. Qualities which many stoners seem to lack.

[Nickk XD]

That sounds pretty stereotypical to me.

Yes, they show that more stoners fail to graduate any type of school. They also show they are more likely to live off of governmental funding for their life...

But I know many people who are "pro military" and "pro authority"...lol...and they're pot heads.

It's just the subversive attitude that they're are afraid of... which is normally anti-war, anti authority and anti establishment. Their ideal warrior is ruthless, dedicated and unquestioning of superiors. Qualities which many stoners seem to lack.

[Peace God]

That sounds pretty stereotypical to me.
It has to do with the nature of the drug(peaceful + relaxing) and it's status in society(illegal). That combination is what makes pot notorious for counter culture ideologies.
Yes, they show that more stoners fail to graduate any type of school. They also show they are more likely to live off of governmental funding for their life...
irrelevant

But I know many people who are "pro military" and "pro authority"...lol...and they're pot heads.
it's hard to be pro authority if they want you in jail...and hard to be pro military if they won't let you in

[HillBillyWilly]

Kids as young as twelve and stuff are doing weed. Trust me, it's like an epidemic where I live. So many people do it, it's ridiculous. It's mainly the more popular kids and the lacrosse kids. I stopped playing lacrosse for my school because, (1. some of the people on the team are dicks and I really and (2. they're a bunch of pot heads. Not all of them because my friends that play don't do pot, but I really hate a couple of the people on the team; I really dislike them, you have no idea. They've never bullied me or anything, it's just they're straight up dicks.


Yeah it's like that where i am too. people in the suburbs are rich enough to buy pot and weed regularly, plus there are a bunch of known potheads around my school. One of whom being a lacrosse player.

[Nickk XD]

You will notice (and will get used to) the fact I do post irrelevantly related stuff. By that I mean I'll stimulate the conversation by putting something else (usually minor) into it. If everyone was to only post relevant stuff...conversations would go nowhere. Note that I don't switch topics, however. The topic here is marijuana.

Some of the pot smokers I know are veterans as a matter of fact. I'm not sure exactly how they managed to smoke pot while in the military...but the actually numerical allowed standards for the military is much lower than any other form of employment. Wal-Mart does hair follicle tests and rejects people that have any sign of any illegal drug in their system. The military; however, does not.



irrelevant

[Peace God]

the actually numerical allowed standards for the military is much lower than any other form of employment.
the military is pretty strict on drugs nowadays...there's no way it's more tolerant than all other forms of employment

[Antares]

Legalize it

Haters will hate
Smokers will smoke

/thread

Leave it how it is.

If people want it, they will get it and smoke it. Problem solved.

/thread.

[Peace God]

Leave it how it is.

If people want it, they will get it and smoke it. Problem solved.

/thread.
what have you solved?

[icililim]

there are two sides to that argument. Plus tax revenue it would bring in negative is that the things we would do to drug dealers who are in jail becuase they sold it it is legal now but they did still break the law

[Asylum]

no because you can't think right when your on drugs... it changes you, i have never taken drugs, so this isn't a "personal experience thing i'm desrcibing" but more of what i have heard from it.. i mean there would be a lot more stupid things being done, and people getting hurt and killed because of stupid thigns... however i odn't condemn anyone who does weed, just would like them to becareful.

[Whisper]

no because you can't think right when your on drugs... it changes you, i have never taken drugs, so this isn't a "personal experience thing i'm desrcibing" but more of what i have heard from it.. i mean there would be a lot more stupid things being done, and people getting hurt and killed because of stupid thigns... however i odn't condemn anyone who does weed, just would like them to becareful.

from personal experience I find weed to be allot safer than alcohol and if i could find a steady safe supply i'd take that over beer or wine anyday

but thats me

[CaptainObvious]

no because you can't think right when your on drugs... it changes you, i have never taken drugs, so this isn't a "personal experience thing i'm desrcibing" but more of what i have heard from it.. i mean there would be a lot more stupid things being done, and people getting hurt and killed because of stupid thigns... however i odn't condemn anyone who does weed, just would like them to becareful.

This argument displays a lack of analysis of the total cost-benefits of legalization. For example, maybe some more stupid things are done... however, that could easily be balanced out by the benefits accruing to society from not having to spend billions policing non-violent marijuana users, and the benefits to society from not marginalizing that - often possibly quite productive - class of people.

[Bougainvillea]

from personal experience I find weed to be allot safer than alcohol and if i could find a steady safe supply i'd take that over beer or wine anyday

but thats me

Agreed.
Though I don't like smoking weed, as it triggers unhappy memories. I felt more collected when I did than the times I've gotten drunk. Even though I was still pretty fucked up.
I'd rather my friends got hot high, over being drunk.

Now, legalising it would provide safer means of obtaining it. And the availability would probably be the same. I don't know.

That's my opinion.

[BlackBetty]

I think they should. But, people will still smoke it even though its illegal (like me).

I believe that weed is safer than alcohol, because most people can drive 100% better high than drunk, at that, sober.

I just wish they would... The government could make so much money off of it.

[magikarpy]

I like the system how it is. If people want it badly enough they will break the law to get it. But if they don't they won't. The only reason weed will ever be legalized in the U.S. is if we were in a deplorable state from a high spending president and realized the amazing tax revenue weed would give.

[Perseus]

Weed wouldn't give a lot of tax revenue.

[Peace God]

Weed wouldn't give a lot of tax revenue.
Are you referring to the #1 cash crop in the United States?

[Perseus]

Are you referring to the #1 cash crop in the United States?

It doesn't matter. It wouldn't send us out of a recession or anything.

[Peace God]

It doesn't matter. It wouldn't send us out of a recession or anything.
So it has to completely fix the problem in order for it to help?

[Jenna.]

No, I don't think it should be legalized. Although many people do it already, do we really want to encourage people to go out and get high all the time? Our country's already lazy. This will just make it worse. Not to mention the fact that so many people will start doing it, it will set bad examples for younger generations. Our country's morals are going down the drain...

[Perseus]

So it has to completely fix the problem in order for it to help?

All I'm saying is people think it would make the recession "over", when it wouldn't.

[Peace God]

All I'm saying is people think it would make the recession "over"
not necessarily...it depends on what the media decides to do with it
Our country's morals are going down the drain...
Traditional Morals ≠ Good Morals

[Commander Thor]

No, I don't think it should be legalized. Although many people do it already, do we really want to encourage people to go out and get high all the time? Our country's already lazy. This will just make it worse. Not to mention the fact that so many people will start doing it, it will set bad examples for younger generations. Our country's morals are going down the drain...

So because something is legal it's suddenly encouraged?
How about tobacco, is tobacco encouraged in today's society? No, it's not. It's legal, yet it's highly discouraged.
And alcohol? That's legal as well, but it's not really encouraged either, more often discouraged than not.

So why, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, would the legalization of marijuana suddenly encourage people to go out & get high?
Simple fact is, it won't.
People who want to do pot, will do pot, regardless of it's legal status. The only difference is, if it is legal, it will stop thousands of Americans from going to prison each year, over a relatively harmless plant.

And let's put aside the monetary gains of taxing the crop, let's look at the hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially billions of dollars spent on catching these 'criminals', and housing them for the life of their sentence. That money could be spent elsewhere, or simply saved.

[Hatsune Miku]

Leave it how it is.

If people want it, they will get it and smoke it. Problem solved.

/thread.

But those people could get into trouble because its Illegal

The people who smoke, can continue smoking without any fear

The rest can just go on with their lives

[Wetherbubble]

People will do it, no matter what

[Wadehampton]

No, I don't think it should be legalized. Although many people do it already, do we really want to encourage people to go out and get high all the time? Our country's already lazy. This will just make it worse. Not to mention the fact that so many people will start doing it, it will set bad examples for younger generations. Our country's morals are going down the drain...

What does legalization have anything to do with encouragement, or widespread use? Cannabis is easier to obtain than cigarettes, or alcohol for youth. Cigarettes are legal but are discouraged, and there are many legal drugs that give cannabis like effects, I sure don't see everyone rushing to buy those.

What does getting high have to do with being lazy or morals? What in gods name is morally wrong about exploring something different than reality, something that causes you to rethink how you feel about everything. It is a life changing experience for some. I have friends who smoke for the purpose that they work better when they are high. Being high does not always equal being lazy, just depends on the person.

[CaliKid24]

Yea for sure. I'm tired of the USA's failing war on drugs. Haha. I laugh when I here the news talk about how much progress we are making. Watch the Mexican news. Taxpayer dollars are going down the drain and a great oppurtunity for more income is being banned. It's healthy. And anyone who buys any illegal drugs is funding the drug cartels that our country is trying to fight. The drug cartel is probably as rich as the whole government and theyre spread apart. How about legalizing weed and taking away most of there money. The war on drugs was based on lies anyway.

[Wadehampton]

Yea for sure. I'm tired of the USA's failing war on drugs. Haha. I laugh when I here the news talk about how much progress we are making. Watch the Mexican news. Taxpayer dollars are going down the drain and a great oppurtunity for more income is being banned. It's healthy. And anyone who buys any illegal drugs is funding the drug cartels that our country is trying to fight. The drug cartel is probably as rich as the whole government and theyre spread apart. How about legalizing weed and taking away most of there money. The war on drugs was based on lies anyway.
The US has spent 1 Trillion dollars on the war on drugs since the Regan administration, but consumption and trafficking has been unaffected and in some instances gone up. Look it up people, cold hard statistics. :yes:

[dead]

Yea for sure. I'm tired of the USA's failing war on drugs. Haha. I laugh when I here the news talk about how much progress we are making. Watch the Mexican news. Taxpayer dollars are going down the drain and a great oppurtunity for more income is being banned. It's healthy. And anyone who buys any illegal drugs is funding the drug cartels that our country is trying to fight. The drug cartel is probably as rich as the whole government and theyre spread apart. How about legalizing weed and taking away most of there money. The war on drugs was based on lies anyway.

Heroin comes from Mexico not weed. :yawn:

[CaptainObvious]

Heroin comes from Mexico not weed. :yawn:

Not true, lots of marijuana gets produced in Mexico as well.

[Wadehampton]

Not true, lots of marijuana gets produced in Mexico as well.

Most of the worlds Heroin is produced in the middle east. :yes:

[waffleguy]

I used to live in El Paso before I moved in mid 2009, and life there changed drastically, with Juarez being right there. Not for the better either.

As a debater, lots of people have made evidenced-based arguments that legalizing marijuana would greatly help the economy, because we'd be getting money for something people are using anyways (in a nutshell). Either way, its hard to take a view on this with so many concerns and sides to it.

[Clawhammer]

I'm indifferent. They'll figure ways out to screw up their lives, why should we care? It's the user's responsibility. If something like alcohol is legal, which makes men beat their wives and lose their jobs, etc, weed seems a lot more forgivable. I'll live my life the safe way, it's their choice.

[dead]

Not true, lots of marijuana gets produced in Mexico as well.

Of course, but thats not the main supply and heroin should be a bigger focus than the weed over there.


Most of the worlds Heroin is produced in the middle east. :yes:
Well thats the Golden Crescent, but there is also the Golden Triangle.

[The Dark Lord]

I think it should be legalised and then heavily taxed. This would lead to fewer drug addicts being able to afford weed

[quartermaster]

I think it should be legalised and then heavily taxed. This would lead to fewer drug addicts being able to afford weed

My response is two-fold:

First, why should you care if someone is a drug addict, insofar as they do not harm someone else? So-called "blazers" tend to function just fine and usually only do marijuana for leisure (sometimes, extensively). Why do you feel that you need to channel "correct" behavior? Why do you feel you need the government to force people to do what you deem is best for them?

Second, heavily taxing weed will do nothing more but create the market conditions necessary for another black market to form in order to get around the drug taxes. You will end one problem of the black market (which is to mean, with marijuana being totally illegal), only to form another, where the margins become large enough where it is profitable to sell marijuana “under the table,” as it were. You then have created the necessary conditions, once more, for another problem, where cartels will function to supply cheap, which is to mean now illegal, weed to those who do not want to pay the heavy taxes.

The best solution is not some middle ground where weed is legal, but we still try to channel our moral standards on others through government, but it is to legalize marijuana and treat it as any other commodity. Enough with the government moral crusade already! Let the people decide what they want to do with their property, that is to say, let them actually have control over their bodies!

[Kris2]

should weed be legalized? why or why not.

deffo!!

[Peace God]

I think it should be legalised and then heavily taxed. This would lead to fewer drug addicts being able to afford weed
imo... its impossible to make weed more overpriced than it already is.
also, a lot of people would grow their own weed if this happened

[dead]

imo... its impossible to make weed more overpriced than it already is.
also, a lot of people would grow their own weed if this happened

legalize hash not weed.

[Kahn]

Please look at the post dates.

:locked: