Ending The Drug War

[Maniclysane]

Also, where are you getting your facts? Marijuana has no addictive substances, and no toxic substances. There is no proof that it causes any sort of cancer, and it is impossible to OD on. No matter how much you smoke, you can not die from marijuana. Unless you're actually breaking nothing but smoke and you die from lack of oxygen. Plus, Marijuana can be baked and consumed, thus defeating the argument all together.

As of right now it has no toxic or addictive substance. When it is legalized, cigar companies are going to jump straight on it and when it's sold back to people, it will have addictive substance in it, and it most likely will have toxic substance in it. I know there is no chance cigarette companies are going to mass produce this, and not put addictive substance in it, like nicotine. Once it's mass produced, and sold in stores, people will stop buying imports or home made marijuana, and buy the cheaper kind from stores.

 

[Xsyven]

As of right now it has no toxic or addictive substance. When it is legalized, cigar companies are going to jump straight on it and when it's sold back to people, it will have addictive substance in it, and it most likely will have toxic substance in it. I know there is no chance cigarette companies are going to mass produce this, and not put addictive substance in it, like nicotine. Once it's mass produced, and sold in stores, people will stop buying imports or home made marijuana, and buy the cheaper kind from stores.

...so then you just buy organic cannabis. There are currently around 20 million frequent smokers in the US right now-- odds are, they know what they want, and they'll continue to smoke organic. The Feds or the FDA could even ban adding chemicals to marijuana products.

Regulation is extremely possible.

 

[AltF4]

So we should ban marijuana on the basis that, when legalized, some companies MIGHT add in extra substances that would be harmful?

How does that argument then not apply for ANY drug. Or food for that matter? Should we ban milk because I'm afraid that the milk companies might put nicotine in the milk to addict their customers?

 

[Maniclysane]

...so then you just buy organic cannabis. There are currently around 20 million frequent smokers in the US right now-- odds are, they know what they want, and they'll continue to smoke organic. The Feds or the FDA could even ban adding chemicals to marijuana products.

Regulation is extremely possible.

I don't know why they would want to ban extra chemicals. The companies will mass produce marijuana with addictive substance in it so that people will continue to buy it. It's a practice that's been done for a long time in the tobacco industry, and our government has done nothing to prevent companies from adding substances to their products. Odds are, they won't put rules like that on marijuana.

So we should ban marijuana on the basis that, when legalized, some companies MIGHT add in extra substances that would be harmful?

How does that argument then not apply for ANY drug. Or food for that matter? Should we ban milk because I'm afraid that the milk companies might put nicotine in the milk to addict their customers?

I never said anything about banning marijuana at all in my post. I'm saying that just because right now, there is no addictive substance in marijuana, does not mean there won't be addictive substance in it if it gets legalized.

 

[aeghrur]

Actually, there are some addictive substances in marijuana right now.
It's just not marijuana. Iirc, some marijuana contains tons of unclean crap to get people hooked or something. I really doubt that the FDA regulated marijuana will be less clean than the dealer grown marijuana. =/

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sorry for the long wait everyone; I've been busy with lots of schoolwork.

KrazyGlue, here's a chunk to chew on. I haven't really caught up with this thread, so if this point has been brought up, my apologies.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's new.

Marijuana's effects to the brain, and your judgement, is far less than that of alcohol. People like me, who used to drink every single day, quit drinking daily due to Marijuana. Meaning less drunk drivers, more high drivers-- and though that sounds bad, its actually a good thing. High drivers have more control, and are far less likely to crash-- which is probably why they're only at 8%. (I know the fact that it's illegal helps, but trust me. People who intend to smoke it when it's legal are probably already smoking it now.) No matter what happens, there WILL be irresponsible drivers out there.

Yes, the fact that it is illegal certainly helps.

Anyways, in terms of it marijuana being less detrimental to driving skills, I'd like to see some evidence. I've already given a source that marijuana has a definite effect on driving skills.

I myself did a little study:

Over 1.46 million people were arrested for DUI in 2006.
During 2006, 13491 deaths resulted from driving under the influence of alcohol that year.
http://www.madd.org/Professionals/Law-Enforcement/Statistics/AllStats.aspx#STAT_55
Now, by using the following source, I figured out the amount of DUI arrests for alcohol by adding up all of the state numbers. The total was 1,104,794.
http://www.1800duilaws.com/forms/duiarrest.asp
13491/1104794= approximately .012%, meaning there are 16 deaths from alcohol impaired driving per 1000 alcohol impaired drivers.

45% of those caught driving under the influence of something other than alcohol are caught under the influence of marijuana.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_5.htm
1,460,000-1,104,794=355,206
355,2096*.45=about 159,843 people caught under the influence of marijuana.
Now, from my previous study, I concluded that marijuana resulted in 1458 DUI deaths last year.
1458/159,843=.009%

That leaves marijuana at only 25% less likely to cause a DUI death, and even that may be partially because it is easier to obtain large amounts of alcohol.

Legalizing marijuana would cause a pretty big shift from drinkers to smokers. Almost all the hardcore alcohol lovers I know prefer marijuana, but don't smoke it due to legal issues. I'd say that legalizing marijuana would actually decrease the amount of drunk drivers on the road. Not by much, but if anything, I think it'll reduce the amount of DUI's.

Well these are just really your personal experiences and opinions, not really something debatable. Plus you can't deny the risk of DUI, second hand smoke, etc. happening.

On top of that, it'll save the lives of people that may instead die from liver disease or alcohol poisoning.

And instead let them die from cancer...

I'm not sure if that made any sense. The pros heavily outweigh the cons. If you want me to, I can even give a you a giant pro-marijuana speech.

Ok, I'm ready to hear it.

Also, where are you getting your facts? Marijuana has no addictive substances, and no toxic substances. There is no proof that it causes any sort of cancer, and it is impossible to OD on.

There is no proof of anything you just said. You haven't provided any sources.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/

If you look through, you'll find that according to this source, marijuana has addictive and toxic substances, and has been linked to lung cancer.

There are also some studies that suggest marijuana can cause testicular cancer: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/02/marijuana-use-a.html

No matter how much you smoke, you can not die from marijuana. Unless you're actually breaking nothing but smoke and you die from lack of oxygen.

Marijuana causes death through DUI, second hand smoke, lung and testicular cancer, etc.

Plus, Marijuana can be baked and consumed, thus defeating the argument all together.

That doesn't mean everyone actually will bake it. I would be willing to bet most people wouldn't want to spend the time.

 

[Darxmarth23]

If you take a look at things in a bigger scale: The only things that will stop a drug war by ending distribution would be:

1) Law
2) Technology
3) Money

But each one can be bypassed. Laws will always be broken(duh).

If technology advances to help stop a drug war, then technology can also be advanced to help promote it.

Money is value. And to lessen the value of a drug is to introduce a newer, and more "efficient" drug. But more importantly the money can be be in the cartels themselves.

The payroll graph of a drug cartel is exponential. The higher your placing, the more(and more) moeney you make.

There is no real way to stop a war.

Unless you want communism or something of that sort.....

Those are just my opinions on the subject backed with my knowledge of advanced crime.

 

[Pr0phetic]

If you take a look at things in a bigger scale: The only things that will stop a drug war by ending distribution would be:

1) Law
2) Technology
3) Money

But each one can be bypassed. Laws will always be broken(duh).

If technology advances to help stop a drug war, then technology can also be advanced to help promote it.

Money is value. And to lessen the value of a drug is to introduce a newer, and more "efficient" drug. But more importantly the money can be be in the cartels themselves.

The payroll graph of a drug cartel is exponential. The higher your placing, the more(and more) moeney you make.

There is no real way to stop a war.

Unless you want communism or something of that sort.....

Those are just my opinions on the subject backed with my knowledge of advanced crime.

There's the most risky and uncertain way, but if both sides stick to their word it'll be surefire: peace agreement. There is rational and ways to stop it, but it can't counter personalities.

 

[aeghrur]

Money... isn't... value. >_<
Money represents trade.
It's a product, it only has value because people want it.

 

[manhunter098]

This isn't true in the slightest. First of all the dose barely affects the intensity of the trip, which will always affect your judgement but mostly the length of the trip.
Also saying that it doesn't affect judgement is absurd...it heavily affects it. If you really know your stuff about LSD you should know that the brain can't handle the impresstions perceived by your senses anymore resulting in an "overlapping" of these impressions (you start to hear colors and see music). Your senses and your brain are completely unreliable during a trip and screw your judgement pretty badly.

Having several experiences with LSD at different dosages and having friends with the same experience, I am going to have to say that the intensity is affected by the dose. With a single dose given average strength you really wont get any visuals and most of what you will experience is a heightening of the senses, a little bit of overlapping, but mostly just a body high. As for judgement I dont mean judgement based on the senses, I mean judgement in terms of making right and wrong decisions, like attacking somebody or running around with your clothes off, that kind of judgement. And when you have an intense trip you can definitely lapse in judgment but with only a mild trip your judgement will not be impaired to a notable degree.

That leaves marijuana at only 25% less likely to cause a DUI death, and even that may be partially because it is easier to obtain large amounts of alcohol.

Its actually rather easy to get large amounts of marijuana too, at least in terms of how much you need in order to get extremely high.

Well these are just really your personal experiences and opinions, not really something debatable. Plus you can't deny the risk of DUI, second hand smoke, etc. happening.

And instead let them die from cancer...

Secondhand smoke from marijuana is less dangerous to the lungs than secondhand smoke from tobacco. Some of the cannabinoids in marijuana actually prevent cancer and also help to prevent it from metastasizing.

There is no proof of anything you just said. You haven't provided any sources.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/

If you look through, you'll find that according to this source, marijuana has addictive and toxic substances, and has been linked to lung cancer.

There are also some studies that suggest marijuana can cause testicular cancer: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/02/marijuana-use-a.html

Here is some more accurate information on the results from the largest study of the link between marijuana and lung cancer found no link at all between lung cancer and even heavy smoking of marijuana.

Ill give you the testicular cancer one, but there are a lot of other factors that do apply to the group of people who smoke marijuana, typically younger adults under 35, who also expose themselves to a lot of drinking and poor diet. Modern environmental factors in these people could also play a role.

That doesn't mean everyone actually will bake it. I would be willing to bet most people wouldn't want to spend the time.

Baking it is good, in fact its the best, but vaporizing marijuana is also much healthier for your lungs than smoking it, and it is easy to do in your own home as it not any more complicated than packing a bowl or rolling a joint, actually, its a LOT easier than rolling a joint or blunt. They do tend to be pricy, but a good glass bong will run you about as much anyways.

 

[Darxmarth23]

There's the most risky and uncertain way, but if both sides stick to their word it'll be surefire: peace agreement. There is rational and ways to stop it, but it can't counter personalities.

Those agreements will most likely be broken. Elsewhere, maybe. But when cartels get bigger, they have the capacity to do more. And most of the effective cartels are located in places where the crime rate is already high, and law enforcement is low. They can break any agreement, and have the ability to crush whatever comes their way. The only thing that can really stop an effective cartel is another equally or better cartel. And that usually happens by pure brute force.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Its actually rather easy to get large amounts of marijuana too, at least in terms of how much you need in order to get extremely high.

It may be relatively easy, but it's not as easy. All you have to do to get dangerous amounts of alcohol is go to some local store and buy a six pack of beer (which is enough to make almost anyone intoxicated). You can't tell me it's as easy to get dangerous amounts of marijuana as it is to go out and buy a six pack of beer.

Secondhand smoke from marijuana is less dangerous to the lungs than secondhand smoke from tobacco. Some of the cannabinoids in marijuana actually prevent cancer and also help to prevent it from metastasizing.

I'd like to see a source for this.

In the source I posted, it mentioned that a recent study found that marijuana smoke had more toxic substances than tobacco smoke, including 20 times more ammonia and 5 times more hydrogen cyanide.

Here is some more accurate information on the results from the largest study of the link between marijuana and lung cancer found no link at all between lung cancer and even heavy smoking of marijuana.

Did you mean to post a link (I'm just wondering since you said "here is some more information")?

Ill give you the testicular cancer one, but there are a lot of other factors that do apply to the group of people who smoke marijuana, typically younger adults under 35, who also expose themselves to a lot of drinking and poor diet. Modern environmental factors in these people could also play a role.

Well, yes, there are other factors, but that's almost always true in studies like these. There's no way to make a perfect study that is unaffected by outside factors.

Baking it is good, in fact its the best, but vaporizing marijuana is also much healthier for your lungs than smoking it, and it is easy to do in your own home as it not any more complicated than packing a bowl or rolling a joint, actually, its a LOT easier than rolling a joint or blunt. They do tend to be pricy, but a good glass bong will run you about as much anyways.

Regardless of which method is better (I personally have no idea), my point was that there's no guarantee that people will bake it or vaporize it. I actually don't really think most people would take the time to do either of these things.

_______________________________

Still, nobody has challenged that there are major risks to legalizing marijuana. We're also now in agreement that marijuana contributes to testicular cancer. So unless there is some major proof that legalizing marijuana is safe, I don't see why we should.

 

[manhunter098]

Yes I meant to put a link there, I dont know why it didnt make it I could have sworn I had put it in. Either way here is the same link. Its an article about one of the largest studies of lung cancer and marijuana.

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


There is also no truly dangerous amount of marijuana. Its impossible to overdose on it and its not going to make you into a raging and violent person if you smoke too much.

And Ill certainly oblige you with a source about cannabinoids and cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/6/1943

 

[Darxmarth23]

Marijuana is a "versatile" weapon in the drug war, and a staple to your capos arsenal. Even though it isn't as harmful, it possesses faint properties that make it a gateway drug. Faint though. But if someone will succumb to marijuana, they can easily succumb to anything else offered by the cartel.

This is another reason why the "legalize marijuana?" debate is raging a bit.

 

[blazedaces]

Marijuana is a "versatile" weapon in the drug war, and a staple to your capos arsenal. Even though it isn't as harmful, it possesses faint properties that make it a gateway drug. Faint though. But if someone will succumb to marijuana, they can easily succumb to anything else offered by the cartel.

This is another reason why the "legalize marijuana?" debate is raging a bit.

Provide proof that it's a "gateway drug". I could prove to you that caffeine is a gateway drug, but that doesn't make it so.

If marijuana was legal this wouldn't be the case...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Studies have shown Marijuana is not a gate way drug, in fact there's enough scientific evidence to cast doubt on the gate way argument.

Furthermore it's become apparent that people who start using harder drugs after using Marijuana would have used those harder drugs regardless of trying Marijuana first.

 

[Maniclysane]

Studies have shown Marijuana is not a gate way drug, in fact there's enough scientific evidence to cast doubt on the gate way argument.

Furthermore it's become apparent that people who start using harder drugs after using Marijuana would have used those harder drugs regardless of trying Marijuana first.

I'd really like a link to these studies. These sound like really hard things to prove through a study, especially the second part of your post.

 

[Aesir]

I'd really like a link to these studies. These sound like really hard things to prove through a study, especially the second part of your post.

If I could find it again I would, it was one of those late night research things that I felt like doing.

Exactly how would it be hard to prove? It's quite obvious a persons social background will tell you what a person might do then whether or not they smoke a joint. It really comes down to what your background and up bringing are, if you were brought up with very little parental involvement and if you live in neighborhood where you have endless amounts of resources to do drugs, chances are you will.

 

[cF=)]

Myth: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. Even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" like heroin, LSD, and cocaine.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.

- Morral, Andrew R.; McCaffrey, Daniel F. and Susan M. Paddock. “Reassessing the marijuana gateway effect.” Addiction 97.12 (2002): 1493-504.
- United States. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1994. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.
- National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1994. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
- D.B. Kandel and M. Davies, “Progression to Regular Marijuana Involvement: Phenomenology and Risk Factors for Near-Daily Use,” Vulnerability to Drug Abuse, Eds. M. Glantz and R. Pickens. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1992: 211-253.

SOURCE: http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#gateway

EDIT: I'm sorry if this is copy/paste at its best, I just thought the original format would be better than any reformulation I could do.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes I meant to put a link there, I dont know why it didnt make it I could have sworn I had put it in. Either way here is the same link. Its an article about one of the largest studies of lung cancer and marijuana.

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


There is also no truly dangerous amount of marijuana. Its impossible to overdose on it and its not going to make you into a raging and violent person if you smoke too much.

First of all, I'd like to show you something the article also said:

-"In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar."

Basically, this is saying there are more cancerous substances than tobacco. Even if it doesn't cause those three types of cancer (and even this is disputed by other studies), it can still cause other kinds, such as testicular.

And Ill certainly oblige you with a source about cannabinoids and cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

Cannabidiol is not the same thing as marijuana. Yes, marijuana has cannabidiol in it, but that's only the non-psychoactive part of it. I'm not saying cannabidiol should be illegal, I'm saying marijuana should be. Even then, I can see why cannabidiol is illegal, due to how easily it can be converted to THC. But I digress...

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/6/1943

Do you realize this source is against you? Just look at the title: "Cannabinoids Induce Cancer Cell Proliferation..." Proliferation, by definition, means rapid duplication or increasing. So basically your source is saying cannabinoids cause cancer cells to multiply and increase progression in cancer.

 

[aeghrur]

The second quote you stated is talking about cigarettes Krazy.
Not marijuana. The second just affirms the correlation of cigarettes to lung cancer.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The second quote you stated is talking about cigarettes Krazy.
Not marijuana. The second just affirms the correlation of cigarettes to lung cancer.

Cigarettes usually are for tobacco, but can also be rolled up marijuana. It's really unclear, but the study is about marijuana, so it shouldn't have produced any results on tobacco.

 

[aeghrur]

It could very well be referencing another study for comparison.
Furthermore, it speaks of packs of cigarettes. It might be my ignorance, but I never knew marijuana were smoked in cigarette packs. O_O

 

[KrazyGlue]

It could very well be referencing another study for comparison.

It says that these results were in the study findings: "...the study findings... did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day."

Furthermore, it speaks of packs of cigarettes. It might be my ignorance, but I never knew marijuana were smoked in cigarette packs. O_O

I don't know, maybe it's not, maybe it is. Honestly, it's a very confusing and unclear quote. I'll go edit it out...

 

[manhunter098]

The reference to packs of cigarettes is not a reference to marijuana because the study uses joints over a lifetime as a measure of marijuana smoking.

And I suppose I know less about cannabinoids than I thought, I didnt expect to find a study saying the opposite of what I knew. Still my stance on marijuana comes from a civil liberties perspective more so than actual harm reduction. Im going to look more into the issue though since a study citing cannabinoids as a cause for an increase in cancer seems rather contrary to most studies of the correlation between marijuana and lung cancer. It might be a dose dependent issue though.

Oh and by the way, did anyone hear about the Drug Czar's decision to discontinue the use of the term "The War On Drugs" stating that a country should never be at war with its own people if I correctly recall his reasoning.

 

[aeghrur]

Interesting, this topic is up in the debate hall too.
And funnily enough, someone linked this topic to Alternative medicine by saying Acupuncture>Marijuana despite that acupuncture effects are often seen as results of placebo.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Well, if you take a technological standpoint to this:

If you advance technology to stop the drug war, the negative will also advance technology to keep it.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

In order to make a long post short, here's a rough vid I made a few weeks ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kVDHRrIIYo

If Marijuana can't be legalized, I think that hemp should at least be. For environmental and economical reasons.

 

[aeghrur]

In order to make a long post short, here's a rough vid I made a few weeks ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kVDHRrIIYo

If Marijuana can't be legalized, I think that hemp should at least be. For environmental and economical reasons.

I agree with the hemp part, but if we do start growing hemp, where will we grow it?
On the farms we already use to produce food products?
On the forests we are just building up again?
I agree with using hemp, but I wonder where we would grow it, how it affects the soil, how it would change the ecosystem, etc.

 

[manhunter098]

Well we farmed it before and I can't think of any locations that are dealing with wild hemp destroying their local ecosystems, and the seeds are actually VERY nutritious. On top of that if you are using it for its fibers, you don't need to grow it on as much acreage as you would need to grow trees.

Hemp though isnt really a drug, though I guess you could call it a casualty in the war on drugs.

 

[Lythium]

Sources please? For the hemp facts.

The legalization of drugs, such as marijuana, mushrooms, etc., could only bring about better things, especially in North America. You wouldn't have to buy it from a dealer, so it could potentially decrease crime. It certainly couldn't hurt the economy. The government would likely tax it, like alcohol and cigarettes. Also, you don't smoke a joint, and then go home and beat your wife and kids.

On a side note, how would this affect the global market of growing/selling drugs? In countries such as Colombia, coca farmers rely on the drug trade to keep them afloat. I found this vid to be quite interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_bZZt1zs60

EDIT: I just read the rest of the first page. I basically just reiterated what CK said.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Sources please? For the hemp facts.

The legalization of drugs, such as marijuana, mushrooms, etc., could only bring about better things, especially in North America. You wouldn't have to buy it from a dealer, so it could potentially decrease crime. It certainly couldn't hurt the economy. The government would likely tax it, like alcohol and cigarettes. Also, you don't smoke a joint, and then go home and beat your wife and kids.

On a side note, how would this affect the global market of growing/selling drugs? In countries such as Colombia, coca farmers rely on the drug trade to keep them afloat. I found this vid to be quite interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_bZZt1zs60

EDIT: I just read the rest of the first page. I basically just reiterated what CK said.

Umm legalization of these drugs have a huge uncertainty, and could have a massive pendulum effect. it may be positive at first, but very disastrous later. This can be a free ticket to more problems including: failing education, deaths related to accidents while being high, war for control (Opium War ring a bell?)

 

[Neisan]

As others have said, legalizing cannabis is currently needed. As of right now, the pros outweigh the cons, to our current knowledge. Marijuana doesn't make you a terrible member of society (see: Obama), the effects aren't bad enough. Currently we don't even have proof it's addictive. Possibly mentally to a few exceptions, but not physically (aka cigarettes).
There's also the fact that we can regulate and tax it, potentially removing a large amount of cash flow to dealers.
There's yet to been a death caused by it, and btw, the effects calm you, not send you on a rage or trip you out like some other drugs. Cannabis also has Medicinal purposes.
Cons? Addiction-Nope. Cancer-Not yet proven (possible though, but cigarettes do that much worse). Accidents? Very unlikely due to the effects it has. Overdose? Nope.
Only possibility would be drug cartels attempting to retaliate.
I.e., we've established prohibition doesn't work.

 

[Pr0phetic]

As others have said, legalizing cannabis is currently needed. As of right now, the pros outweigh the cons, to our current knowledge. Marijuana doesn't make you a terrible member of society (see: Obama), the effects aren't bad enough. Currently we don't even have proof it's addictive. Possibly mentally to a few exceptions, but not physically (aka cigarettes).
There's also the fact that we can regulate and tax it, potentially removing a large amount of cash flow to dealers.
There's yet to been a death caused by it, and btw, the effects calm you, not send you on a rage or trip you out like some other drugs. Cannabis also has Medicinal purposes.
Cons? Addiction-Nope. Cancer-Not yet proven (possible though, but cigarettes do that much worse). Accidents? Very unlikely due to the effects it has. Overdose? Nope.
Only possibility would be drug cartels attempting to retaliate.
I.e., we've established prohibition doesn't work.

I'm on the fence right now, as his plant is very mystified. There is currently only a few symptons actually linked to drug use, which don't even match the positives of the hemp/marijuana. However it'd be kind of foolish to say marijuana hasn't caused death, as it has caused a lot of accident related injuries and death.

* Triggers a short-term drop in the hormones that direct growth and development.
* Lowers sperm production in males, resulting in fewer normal sperm cells.
* Tinkers with the balance of hormones that control the menstrual cycles of girls and women.

These a some potentially serious side effects, and it effects the largest user group, teens.

The short-term effects of marijuana include:

* Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)
* Problems with memory and learning
* Loss of coordination
* Trouble with thinking and problem-solving
* Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure

I'm not convinced marijuana is legal ready just so far.

 

[manhunter098]

How about reclassification then, marijuana is most certainly not a schedule 1 drug. Current federal penalties do not at all reflect the actual severity of marijuana use and possession.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Currently we don't even have proof it's addictive. Possibly mentally to a few exceptions, but not physically (aka cigarettes).

Well of course we don't have proof, technically nothing can be scientifically proven. But beyond that, not proving something is no reason to legalize marijuana. Knowing that marijuana already causes deaths in America (I posted info on this below) should mean that we have to almost prove that it isn't harmful.

There's also the fact that we can regulate and tax it, potentially removing a large amount of cash flow to dealers.

Considering the possibly large amounts of deaths it could cause through factors such as DUI, this shouldn't be our primary focus. We could make plenty of currently illegal products legal, put huge taxes on them, and make them legal, but does that mean the product would be good for society? No.

There's yet to been a death caused by it,

Wrong. Look back through the thread.

Actually, nevermind, I'll re-post it.

Basically, 45% of people not DUI because of alcohol are DUI with marijuana. Marijuana is involved in about 8.1% of all DUI deaths. Almost 18000 died from DUI crashes in 2003 (http://www.dui.com/dui-library/fatal...add-dui-deaths), meaning that marijuana was involved in about 1458 DUI deaths. If it was legalized, we'd be increasing this number unnecessarily.

and btw, the effects calm you, not send you on a rage or trip you out like some other drugs.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that marijuana enrages the user. It does, however, impair them, and has been linked to lung and testicular cancer (not proven, but it is highly suspected of being a factor in them).

Cannabis also has Medicinal purposes.

True, parts of it have medical purposes. As I mentioned before (4th page), Cannabidiol, which is part of marijuana, can be helpful. However, that's no reason to legalize marijuana, seeing as it also contains dangerous chemicals such as THC. I'm not saying all parts of marijuana should be banned, I'm just saying as a whole it is dangerous.

Cons? Addiction-Nope.

This hasn't been proven.

Cancer-Not yet proven (possible though, but cigarettes do that much worse).

We're not comparing marijuana to cigarettes here. As I've stated before, I believe that banning tobacco would be good in theory, but due to the nation's current dependence on that industry, it's not currently possible to do so. However, that is a separate debate, and has nothing to do with whether cancer should be legalized.

Accidents? Very unlikely due to the effects it has.

The quote about marijuana DUI deaths applies here.

Overdose? Nope.

This is one of the few things that I'll admit is quite possibly true. Although, interestingly enough, I heard that if one were to smoke unrealistically large amounts of marijuana, an overdose could occur. However, nobody is realistically going to smoke that much marijuana, so I'll give you this.

drug cartels attempting to retaliate.

This too.
_____________________________

You might want to look through the third and fourth page of this thread to see some of my arguments, if you're interested.

Example of something important:

In the source I posted, it mentioned that a recent study found that marijuana smoke had more toxic substances than tobacco smoke, including 20 times more ammonia and 5 times more hydrogen cyanide.

The source being this.

 

[Aesir]

I like how the number constantly changes, it goes from 5 times to 20 then back down to 5. if you compare how much a chain smoker smokes compared to a heavy pot smoker you'll find they engage in their habit a lot less. Furthermore Cigs are far more addicting then Joints.


Furthermore there are other ways to intake your pot product, jointing it is one of many ways.

Also!

Shows that Marijuana is actually less harmful than tobacco.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Excuse me for being an idiot, but what is that graph displaying?

 

[aeghrur]

A scale of how dangerous each drug is based upon certain values?
That's my guess.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

That's what I assumed. And I'm guessing that Class A is the most dangerous, so on and so forth?