Why is weed illegal?

[Kashology]

This video is a must-see for anyone interested in the legalization of weed:

 

[EZdelFresco]

Because it has TOTALLY killed more people than alcohol and cigarettes. Totally.

 

[EZdelFresco]

darn double post

 

[Louis Tursi]

The answer to that question is a question: Why isn't weed legal? Well, one could easily say it's common sense. It's addicting, it's bad for you, and there really are no positive benefits to it.
Plus, I really don't want to walk around constantly being offered some or having people show it off so much acting like their cool because quite frankly, 1. nobody gives a ****, and 2. I don't want any, please stop asking.
I even find myself asking why smoking in general isn't illegal yet! If you're gonna make weed illegal, smoking cigarettes' effects are equivalent to the reasons why weed is illegal, and it makes no sense to me.
I can't tell you or anybody what to do--it's your life decision if you want to take the health risks and of being caught if it's not legal, but all choices have consequences--and what you choose to do is up to you. So the best advice I can give right now if any is stay away from it. Simple. And also, Idk where you read or heard that many of the health risks are false, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't confirm it and publish it to the internet if it wasn't proven already...(if it's a reliable source, of course.)
So, to conclude, stay away from it, don't get addicted, and you'll be fine. But if you're asking out of sheer curiosity, I respect the fact that you wonder why. But the fact that actually smoking weed influenced you to write this thread, I don't think it's just curiosity, so take it from a guy who hasn't smoked weed--life is good, I never tried it, I don't wanna try it, and I don't want to take any risks. Not because I'm a goody-two-shoes who's scared to try anything new (especially if it's "bad"), I DO try plenty of things that not just anybody could do, but I'd rather live more of a clean slate and don't want rumors spreading like "Did you hear about so-and-so who did this and that?" instead of the opposite.

 

[pokemario]

Lol I'm not a stoner or anything but I smoked weed a couple of months ago and I just havd a few questions.

I don't understand how people can preach against marijuana when most of the health risks and dangers have been scientifically proven to be false. At one time it was said that smoking weed could, over time, cause brain damage and could also result in an increased risk of lung cancer, but it has never been proven. There has never been a single report of death or lung cancer in users caused purely by marijuana, and in fact, a study in 2006 actually showed that even heavy users had no sign of increased risk of cancer.

Also, current medical tests used to detect brain damage have yet to link brain damage of any sort to the use of marijuana, even in heavy users. Most of the health claims were based on reports that date back a quarter of a century, which had never been supported by scientific study. There has never been convincing evidence that marijuana has any harmful effects on the human body at all. Why then is it that this substance is illegal. However, tobacco and alcohol is legal within public acceptance and an age limit? Tobacco is the second leading cause of death world-wide with an annual death rate of over 440,000 for three reasons - lung cancer, COPD, and cardiovascular disease. Marijuana does not.
People smoke weed for the same reason people drink: euphoria. But alcohol, too, has been linked to a proven increased risk of various types of cancer, brain damage, kidney failure, and even strokes. Not only that, but alcohol is the cause of a staggering two million deaths a year world-wide, namely alcohol related car accidents. How often do you hear of someone getting in a head on collision because they were high? And while overdosing on marijuana is physically impossible, alcohol poisoning is actually more common than people think, and is sometimes fatal. I also strongly disagree with the people that say that marijuana is dangerous in the fact that it can be highly addictive. No it can't. The only reason marijuana is ever addictive, as with any substance, is because you have poor self-control. If you can't restrain yourself from taking certain actions and limiting your intake, then maybe you are the one who shouldn't be using the substance. It is not marijuana's fault that you can't realize what is a priority in your life, nor is marijuana the addiction problem. You are. It's the people that can't comprehend what is important in life, and what is not, and they need to learn to excersize self-control before you start blaming a substance for their own shortcomings like it's some kind of crusade against weed. You calling it an "addiction", like it couldn't have been prevented, is just a fine way to relinquish responsibility for their actions. It is only an "addiction" if you let it be, and just because a handful of people lacked the self-control to be responsible with a substance doesn't mean it's dangerous.

I am 13 years old, I get straight A's in school, and I smoked weed once before. However, I also knew how to use it in moderation so it will never get to a point in my life where I feel the need to do it, and I could easily choose not to. If everybody was able to do that, what do you think the general point of view would be? Why are you against using the substance, other than because it is illegal? What if it wasn't? Tobacco and alcohol is more dangerous and addictive than marijuana will ever be, so when it boils down to it what do you think the real reason is for it being illegal, when tobacco and alcohol is not? Because government can't put a tax on it?

Sorry for all the questions, it's just something I've been wondering about.
Note: I was not stoned while typing this. I know it is illegal to smoke weed and I have learned it what was wrong whatbI did but I want some answers and your point of view. Sorry this is an inappropriate topic for a game forum with young members, but I've been thinking about this for a long time.

Before I get into legal stuff, I just want to say that Marijuana damages parts of the brain such as memory, attention, and learning in general. It also affects judgment skills. It's incredibly damaging and destructive to the brain.

Marijuana, like alcohol and tobacco, is a very "seductive" thing. It reels people in with it's euphoric effects. However, while alcohol and tobacco have horrible affects on the body, marijuana is seen as more threatening. I'm not exactly sure why, but I also think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal as well, as they dumb down our country and even the world.

 

[MDAVE]

Not in my country at least, lol. Though, isn't it weird to get a bad reputation as a country only because we legalize weed? I hear from a lot of other countries we get associated with it a lot.

Weed seems to be a big deal, which I can kind of get into, considering the effects of it. But then again, as the person above me mentioned, alcohol should be illegal as well. It's all very strange. The effects are almost just as bad, but at the same time, when you only drink a bit of alcohol, it usually has no effect on the body. That might be why they wouldn't want it to be illegal?

I haven't touched a joint once in my life, maybe the joints in my hands, but that's it. (Sorry for that one.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Before I get into legal stuff, I just want to say that Marijuana damages parts of the brain such as memory, attention, and learning in general. It also affects judgment skills. It's incredibly damaging and destructive to the brain.

Cite please?

 

[pokemario]

Cite please?

I don't remember, I found this out a long time ago. I forget the cite...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't remember, I found this out a long time ago. I forget the cite...

I'd try to find it, or consider that you may be remembering it wrong and/or have been fed misinformation. I've heard these claims too; what I haven't heard is substantiation.

 

[pokemario]

I'd try to find it, or consider that you may be remembering it wrong and/or have been fed misinformation. I've heard these claims too; what I haven't heard is substantiation.

I'll try later.

 

[Cthulhu_MD]

Before I get into legal stuff, I just want to say that Marijuana damages parts of the brain such as memory, attention, and learning in general. It also affects judgment skills. It's incredibly damaging and destructive to the brain.

Marijuana, like alcohol and tobacco, is a very "seductive" thing. It reels people in with it's euphoric effects. However, while alcohol and tobacco have horrible affects on the body, marijuana is seen as more threatening. I'm not exactly sure why, but I also think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal as well, as they dumb down our country and even the world.

According to an article, cannabinoids promote brain cell growth/regrowth, even in adults.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

According to an article, cannabinoids promote brain cell growth/regrowth, even in adults.

I'd be very careful when using preliminary research to support anything. It's an animal model rather than a human model, and the effects of what's going on are largely guessed at rather than demonstrated. It's pretty standard preliminary research - a guy shouting, "Hey, look over here, there might be something to see here!" We still need to go investigate with higher-quality research (in particular, human clinical trials) to see if this is the case.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Because if people could use it for medication, and hemp for industry- all current "world power" businesses would go out of business real soon.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because if people could use it for medication, and hemp for industry- all current "world power" businesses would go out of business real soon.

Hey look another person I'm sure can provide a ****ing citation.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Hemp is easily throughout history the most used resource to provide us for, nearly about anything. Hemp textile is much more durable for example than the commonly used cotton, it's a source of food for it's seeds which are high in natural fatty oils and actually good for you, paper can be made out of it, and even fuel, plastic, and I believe just about anything.

Not to speak about the uses of cannabis itself as a medicine.

Check some facts for yourself here:

http://www.advancedholistichealth.org/history.html

 

[ValiantNorth]

This video is a must-see for anyone interested in the legalization of weed:

If I'm not mistaken, the reason Pot is (mostly) illegal in North America is due to an experiment conducted in the 50's, which is still used as the 'Standard' Model today.

"....notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis. This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International. Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year."

I could be wrong but a lot of the crap Weed gets now a days is centered around this controversy. The first test showed that monkeys who were deprived of oxygen and given only marijuana developed brain issues... but let's be real that's only because they let monkeys smoke only Columbia grade weed for 2 hours straight, killing them.

Anyways I'm probably wrong on this but I just wanted to throw that out there, couldn't site the original source for the Monkey Experiment by Robert Galbriath Heath but I'm sure... a quick Google search should enlighten anyone but I doubt any of this has been proven as fact (that I have seen anyways) so I'm a little bit on the fence.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hemp is easily throughout history the most used resource to provide us for, nearly about anything. Hemp textile is much more durable for example than the commonly used cotton, it's a source of food for it's seeds which are high in natural fatty oils and actually good for you, paper can be made out of it, and even fuel, plastic, and I believe just about anything.

Not to speak about the uses of cannabis itself as a medicine.

Check some facts for yourself here:

http://www.advancedholistichealth.org/history.html

Of course, none of this addresses the claims made (what's more, you think Phillip Morris wouldn't be all over weed if it became legal?). Hemp actually is legal; the promised "hemp plastics" (and hemp food, and textiles, paper, etc.) exist and are certainly interesting but didn't take the market by storm the way hemp advocates would like them to, although I'm not entirely sure why. Could be the price point.

As for your website, it's a massive list of historical facts about weed with dodgy sources and nothing particularly interesting about it. That's nice, what am I supposed to get out of this? FWIW, I support the legalization of weed on the grounds that it is fairly innocuous, especially compared to already-existing drugs.

@ ValiantNorth actually weed was banned before the 50s, although a study like that playing up the fears would not surprise me.

 

[Braydon]

So the arguments for weed are basically slander against anyone who does not support it? Saying we are either only apposing it for financial gain or because we are brainwashed by tobacco companies?

Oh I forgot the other argument, "But mommy, Jhony is smoking something why can't I!"

Oh ya and the third, marijuana is the magical miracle plant that cures cancer regrows brain cells and makes you live forever.



You want to know why marijuana is illegal? It's not to obstruct freedom, freedom doesn't mean everyone does whatever they feel like and to hell with the consequences, freedom also means you're free to live in a society where you don't have to deal with things you don't want, like a society full of degenerates who try and push mind altering drugs on everyone.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So the arguments for weed are basically slander against anyone who does not support it? Saying we are either only apposing it for financial gain or because we are brainwashed by tobacco companies?

Actually, the main argument is "this drug is significantly less harmful than numerous other substances that are not illegal, and personal freedom should remain intact. We don't just go around banning things willy-nilly, and there was never a good reason for weed to be illegal in the first place. Not only that, but the costs of weed being illegal to our prison system are immense, and it also harms any attempt to examine the medical properties of cannabinoids, which, while often overstated, are nothing to scoff at.

Look. It's simple. In a free society, to ban a substance, you need a good argument to do so. I'll just ignore every single other factor here. Give me one good argument why marijuana should be illegal. Just one. Go on, try it.

Oh I forgot the other argument, "But mommy, Jhony is smoking something why can't I!"

Oh ya and the third, marijuana is the magical miracle plant that cures cancer regrows brain cells and makes you live forever.

Are you high or something?

You want to know why marijuana is illegal? It's not to obstruct freedom, freedom doesn't mean everyone does whatever they feel like and to hell with the consequences, freedom also means you're free to live in a society where you don't have to deal with things you don't want, like a society full of degenerates who try and push mind altering drugs on everyone.

Yeah, obviously, freedom doesn't mean everyone does whatever they feel like. But it does mean that if it's not hurting others or society at large, you should be able to do it. Does marijuana smoking hurt others? There's no evidence implying that it does, especially compared to currently-legal substances (second-hand cigarette smoke and drunken accidents, in particular). Does marijuana smoking hurt society at large? There's no evidence whatsoever implying that it does, beyond dated stereotypes about the lazy stoner. And who's pushing mind-altering drugs on you? You mean like these guys? And unlike cannabis, there's actually a pretty significant death rate associated with alcohol. You could, as an alternative to limiting the recreation of others, just say no. Nobody's gonna force you to smoke weed.

 

[Braydon]

Smoking marijuana has many of the same negatives as smoking cigarettes, and it will definitely cause lung cancer. Inhaling any type of smoke is horrible for your lungs I can't see how you can debate that it causes lung cancer. Let's see, are you inhaling smoke from burning crap? Well guess what it causes lung cancer! This isn't something that is limited to tobacco... Obviously second hand marijuana smoke is harmful.

Further more it impairs your ability to drive and can lead to car accidents, and unlike alcohol you can get high second hand. Has anyone ever got second hand drunk and crashed their car? You've got to get drunk yourself to make that mistake now don't you?

Further more, tobacco isn't legal because it should be, it's legal because prohibition failed. Just because we fail at one thing doesn't mean we should throw a bunch of other laws out the window to. Ya maybe it's a more even handed approach to throw out other laws with it, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to do it.

Further more if it is legalized that makes it almost impossible to make it illegal, as prohibition showed letting people get hooked and then trying to take it away is extremely hard.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Smoking marijuana has many of the same negatives as smoking cigarettes, and it will definitely cause lung cancer.

Further more if it is legalized that makes it almost impossible to make it illegal, as prohibition showed letting people get hooked and then trying to take it away is extremely hard.

Okay, these completely ridiculously fallacious statements has made it official: You really cannot be taken seriously. First of all, your first point is completely false, and goodness knows where you got that idea. The least you could do is humor us by using citations and other sources (hell, use satirical sources, like The Onion, for all I care) to back up your point.

And your argument in the second quoted paragraph just makes no clear sense. Why don't you read up on why they repealed prohibition (link provided below)? Legalizing marijuana will help remove quite a bit of problems, the least of which includes genuinely good people being thrown in federal prison for having a small dime bag in their possession that they use for recreational use on their own time in the privacy of their own homes. Mind you, unlike drugs, such as meth or cocaine, marijuana has no real adverse effect on the human body or mind. Anything and everything "bad" that was taught in the 2000s and before were merely smear tactics against the plant:

http://historyofjournalism.onmason....arsts-smear-campaign-on-hemp-changes-history/

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/debunking-latest-pathetic-fear-smear-campaign-against-marijuana

Seriously, if everything you say are going to be baseless false statements with no attempt to back them up, then do us all a favor and stop trying your hand at debating. Please.

Repeal of prohibition in the U.S.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_Prohibition_in_the_United_States

 

[Braydon]

Can't stop laughing.

So you think inhaling smoke won't cause lung damage?

You're funny. Lol I'm saying ridiculously fallacious things like, inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs. How crazy I am.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Can't stop laughing.

So you think inhaling smoke won't cause lung damage?

You're funny. Lol I'm saying ridiculously fallacious things like, inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs. How crazy I am.

Seriously, read the bolded text in YOUR quote below.

Smoking marijuana has many of the same negatives as smoking cigarettes, and it will definitely cause lung cancer. Inhaling any type of smoke is horrible for your lungs I can't see how you can debate that it causes lung cancer.

I'm being very serious when I tell you to just stop trying to debate. You're not adding anything to this board. The vast majority of your posts, along with being baseless, has zero attempt at backing with citations, and yet you are still adamant in trying to convince us that your words, with no reliable backing, outweighs any argument we have (mind you, arguments we give that we actually back up). Just stop.

 

[Braydon]

Lol. Shouldn't have to site sources that say inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs. I didn't realize I was talking to someone with the knowledge of a ****ing 5 year old.

There is also the potential for chronic health effects from exposure to the components of smoke. Long term exposure to ambient air containing fine particles has been associated with increases in cardiovascular disease and mortality in populations living in areas with higher fine particulate air pollution. Frequent exposure to smoke for brief periods may also cause long-term health effects.

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/smoke_from_fire.htm

There's your source and it's not ****ing wikipedia! Still can't believe you're so ignorant you actually need one! I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you knew something.

You can't be taken seriously, it's not me. You don't know something your average 8 year old can tell you, sorry I assumed you would.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Lol. Shouldn't have to site sources that say inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs. I didn't realize I was talking to someone with the knowledge of a ****ing 5 year old.

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/smoke_from_fire.htm

There's your source and it's not ****ing wikipedia! Still can't believe you're so ignorant you actually need one! I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you knew something.

You can't be taken seriously, it's not me. You don't know something your average 8 year old can tell you, sorry I assumed you would.

You're ignorant if you believe smoke from fire is akin to smoke from marijuana.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/casual-marijuana-smoking/

Try harder next time.

 

[Braydon]

Umm... The source I posted, clearly says, smoke from ANY SOURCE. Guess what, marijuna smoke is got by, get this, lighting it on ****ing fire! You get soot in your lungs if you breath it in, it's not soot free genius.

I think the .gov sites are a little more reliable than "scientificamerican."

 

[Claire Diviner]

Umm... The source I posted, clearly says, smoke from ANY SOURCE. Guess what, marijuna smoke is got by, get this, lighting it on ****ing fire! You get soot in your lungs if you breath it in, it's not soot free genius.

I think the .gov sites are a little more reliable than "scientificamerican."

First of all, you're quoting your own source wrong, so I'm assuming you only saw the article, assumed it contains what you want it to say, and used it as a citation to futilely back up your argument. Nowhere does is say "ANY SOURCE", and the sources it does give are as follows:

- Forest
- Brush
- Crop
- Structure
- Tires
- Waste
- Burning Wood

Secondly, it makes no mention of marijuana (or cigarette) smoke as a hazard. It has a separate link detailing secondhand smoke and its dangers, but only details cigarettes, because unlike marijuana, cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that I'm amazed the government makes legal for its citizens to put into their bodies.

Wanna try again?

 

[Braydon]

Oh I'm sorry, it says any type of fire I'm sorry it didn't say any source, oh my god I said something with the same meaning as it, instead of the same exact words, oh my god that makes up for your stupidity. Forest, brush, crops, those are examples, not the only things that produce soot when you light them on fire.

This is any fire, meaning lighting weed on fire counts. It has soot, soot gets in your lungs *cough* *cough* your lungs are crying for help stupid, 40 years lung cancer, and then you don't understand why.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Oh I'm sorry, it says any type of fire I'm sorry it didn't say any source, oh my god I said something with the same meaning as it, instead of the same exact words, oh my god that makes up for your stupidity. Forest, brush, crops, those are examples, not the only things that produce soot when you light them on fire.

This is any fire, meaning lighting weed on fire counts. It has soot, soot gets in your lungs *cough* *cough* your lungs are crying for help stupid, 40 years lung cancer, and then you don't understand why.

I'm done with you. You fail to back up anything you say, you give baseless rebuttals, links with erroneous points to your already flawed arguments, and now have resorted to blatant flaming, which last I checked is against Debate Hall rules. Debating with you has become nothing but a big waste of time and energy. Do the hall a favor and stop.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Smoking marijuana has many of the same negatives as smoking cigarettes, and it will definitely cause lung cancer. Inhaling any type of smoke is horrible for your lungs I can't see how you can debate that it causes lung cancer. Let's see, are you inhaling smoke from burning crap? Well guess what it causes lung cancer! This isn't something that is limited to tobacco... Obviously second hand marijuana smoke is harmful.

Well, there is basic research suggesting that this may not be the case. However, it's not exactly a clinical trial, so it needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. This is a bit stronger, though.

But, you know what, let's grant the assumption that cannabis smoke is similarly toxic to, or more toxic than cigarette smoke. There's certainly research showing, for example, that equivalent amounts of tobacco and cannabis leads to four times as much tar in the lungs of the cannabis smoker than the tobacco smoker. The fact remains that many smokers are pack-a-day or more. Potheads simply do not take in anywhere near as much. But what's the point? We allow people to do things that hurt themselves, or increase their risk of dying, on an hourly basis.

Further more it impairs your ability to drive and can lead to car accidents, and unlike alcohol you can get high second hand. Has anyone ever got second hand drunk and crashed their car? You've got to get drunk yourself to make that mistake now don't you?

You can get high secondhand? News to me. And to these guys. Unless you're intentionally subjecting yourself to hotboxing, you can't even get enough THC in the bloodstream from second-hand smoke to fail a drug test. The amount of THC exhaled simply is not very high. It'd be like if you were the designated driver at a party, and someone splashed a sip of beer into your cola - it's not 0 alcohol, but it's so close that you hardly need to worry about making it home.

Further more, tobacco isn't legal because it should be, it's legal because prohibition failed. Just because we fail at one thing doesn't mean we should throw a bunch of other laws out the window to. Ya maybe it's a more even handed approach to throw out other laws with it, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to do it.

None of this is an argument for why weed should be illegal. It's not even an argument for why tobacco should be illegal. You think tobacco shouldn't be legal? Why not? Why should it be banned? Give us a good reason.

 

[Braydon]

Oh so I started the flaming now did I?

Okay, these completely ridiculously fallacious statements has made it official: You really cannot be taken seriously. First of all, your first point is completely false, and goodness knows where you got that idea. The least you could do is humor us by using citations and other sources

Seriously, if everything you say are going to be baseless false statements with no attempt to back them up, then do us all a favor and stop trying your hand at debating. Please.

I'm being very serious when I tell you to just stop trying to debate. You're not adding anything to this board. The vast majority of your posts, along with being baseless, has zero attempt at backing with citations, and yet you are still adamant in trying to convince us that your words, with no reliable backing, outweighs any argument we have (mind you, arguments we give that we actually back up). Just stop.

Seems to me like you're saying everything that comes out of my mouth is just a bunch of drivel from a brain dead idiot. And I don't like being insulted by a woman with the intelligence of a turtle.

You know people who are gracious in defeat? You're not even close to being one. Instead you just insult me more.

My source is about proven studies that show burning and inhaling almost anything can cause lung cancer, it doesn't magically not apply to weed because you can't admit you're ever wrong.

@ Budget Player Cadet_
Well thanks for having not entirely fictional counter arguments.

You can definitely get high second hand, might not happen much now but if it were legalized, whats to stop 30-40 people over the course of an hour or two going into a bar and lighting up, it's not got the best ventilation, sooner or later you're hotboxing aren't you?

Not saying that's going to happen in every bar, or every bar where a lot of people are smoking, but you don't think there won't be places where for a period of time there is enough smoke in the air to have a second hand effect? Sure it's not going to happen every day, not all the time, but it'd happen sometimes.

Now if you outlaw driving while high to stop impaired people crashing into people, then what happens if you get second hand high and drive, you could crash, and more likely, get a DUI even though you didn't smoke it yourself.



Anyway I do think ideally cigarettes would be outlawed, second hand smoke might not be enough you get lung cancer, but it still burns and stinks, and there's no advantage to letting it be legal now is there? It just gets people hooked and winds up killing them. It's destructive with no advantage to having it legal.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Oh so I started the flaming now did I?


Seems to me like you're saying everything that comes out of my mouth is just a bunch of drivel from a brain dead idiot. And I don't like being insulted by a woman with the intelligence of a turtle.

I never did call you a "brain dead idiot", nor did I insult your intelligence, but if the shoe fits, then by all means.

You know people who are gracious in defeat? You're not even close to being one. Instead you just insult me more.

You imply too much if you think you've defeated anyone.

My source is about proven studies that show burning and inhaling almost anything can cause lung cancer, it doesn't magically not apply to weed because you can't admit you're ever wrong.

Goodness forbid I accidentally burn a steak in the kitchen and get cancer from the smoke.

You can definitely get high second hand, might not happen much now but if it were legalized, whats to stop 30-40 people over the course of an hour or two going into a bar and lighting up, it's not got the best ventilation, sooner or later you're hotboxing aren't you?

Not saying that's going to happen in every bar, or every bar where a lot of people are smoking, but you don't think there won't be places where for a period of time there is enough smoke in the air to have a second hand effect? Sure it's not going to happen every day, not all the time, but it'd happen sometimes.

Give this a read. While contact high is possible, it requires extreme conditions, and as Budget Player Cadet_ mentioned, it will not happen under normal situations.

http://www.businessinsider.com/randi-kaye-contact-high-2014-1

Furthermore, smoking in public establishments, including a majority of bars is illegal, so the odds of a bar hotboxing is pretty low, especially since not everyone in a bar will be a pot smoker. At the end of each night, whatever weed smoke would have existed would have already died down as well.

By the way:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/state-smoking-bans/

Now if you outlaw driving while high to stop impaired people crashing into people, then what happens if you get second hand high and drive, you could crash, and more likely, get a DUI even though you didn't smoke it yourself.

Again, as the study showed, and as mentioned by Budget Player, there'd have to be a pretty extreme case of marijuana smoking, and the average pothead smokes no more than a blunt every so often, much less during the entirety of a car ride, so a DUI from secondhand pot smoke is highly unlikely. Now, if you were to, say, pack 10-15 people in a vehicle like a clown car and they all happened to light up, then you've got yourself a successful, obviously intentional hotbox.

That said, it's highly doubtful anyone would go to that extreme a measure. If they do, and I'm sure there's a group of idiots out there who would, it would have to be intentional.

Anyway I do think ideally cigarettes would be outlawed, second hand smoke might not be enough you get lung cancer, but it still burns and stinks, and there's no advantage to letting it be legal now is there? It just gets people hooked and winds up killing them. It's destructive with no advantage to having it legal.

As a matter of fact, secondhand cigarette smoke can and does cause lung cancer, what with the thousands of chemicals cigarettes contain. Ironically, this is detailed in the link within the very government link you provided earlier.

https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/3432/

To answer your question, there is no benefit to its legality, especially with the massive number of lives claimed by cigarettes alone. The only reason it's still legal is because cigarettes are a multi-billion dollar business, and the government wouldn't just give that up.

In case you were wondering, here are some numbers of cigarette tax revenues over the years. With numbers that high, it's no wonder they're not outlawed in the U.S.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

 

[Braydon]

I never did call you a "brain dead idiot", nor did I insult your intelligence, but if the shoe fits, then by all means.

You didn't say I was brain dead, you just implied it, and now said it... That's great.

You imply too much if you think you've defeated anyone.

Really? I'm pretty sure I just posted proof you're wrong about that whole, "marijuana is magically safe to smoke" thing.

Goodness forbid I accidentally burn a steak in the kitchen and get cancer from the smoke.

Now you don't do that often do you? Plus if you did you probably have a vent over your stove.

Give this a read. While contact high is possible, it requires extreme conditions, and as Budget Player Cadet_ mentioned, it will not happen under normal situations.

http://www.businessinsider.com/randi-kaye-contact-high-2014-1

Furthermore, smoking in public establishments, including a majority of bars is illegal, so the odds of a bar hotboxing is pretty low, especially since not everyone in a bar will be a pot smoker. At the end of each night, whatever weed smoke would have existed would have already died down as well.

By the way:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/state-smoking-bans/

Again, as the study showed, and as mentioned by Budget Player, there'd have to be a pretty extreme case of marijuana smoking, and the average pothead smokes no more than a blunt every so often, much less during the entirety of a car ride, so a DUI from secondhand pot smoke is highly unlikely. Now, if you were to, say, pack 10-15 people in a vehicle like a clown car and they all happened to light up, then you've got yourself a successful, obviously intentional hotbox.

That said, it's highly doubtful anyone would go to that extreme a measure. If they do, and I'm sure there's a group of idiots out there who would, it would have to be intentional.

And if a popular bar allows smoking, you're there for, two hours, over the course of the time, 32 people light up, out of 100 that are in there through out that time. According to that study you might have 2 joints worth of smoke in you. The point is extreme circumstances doesn't mean it won't happen, it only means it won't happen often.

As a matter of fact, secondhand cigarette smoke can and does cause lung cancer, what with the thousands of chemicals cigarettes contain. Ironically, this is detailed in the link within the very government link you provided earlier.

https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/3432/

To answer your question, there is no benefit to its legality, especially with the massive number of lives claimed by cigarettes alone. The only reason it's still legal is because cigarettes are a multi-billion dollar business, and the government wouldn't just give that up.

I only said it might not because it doesn't always, not because it can't, that's not what I meant. Though again, this further backs up my point, and just because the government wont outlaw cigarettes doesn't mean they should legalize smoking other things.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Really? I'm pretty sure I just posted proof you're wrong about that whole, "marijuana is magically safe to smoke" thing.

You really didn't.

And if a popular bar allows smoking, you're there for, two hours, over the course of the time, 32 people light up, out of 100 that are in there through out that time. According to that study you might have 2 joints worth of smoke in you. The point is extreme circumstances doesn't mean it won't happen, it only means it won't happen often.

This also implies that there will be that many smokers of pot. Not everyone in a bar will smoke, so the odds of 36 people, or even 10 people who just so happen to smoke pot and deciding to all light up at once is very situational. Okay, so it won't happen often, sure, but by that, I mean those extreme circumstances will almost never happen. There are laws that set a cap to the amount of patrons a bar can have at any one time, so with people going in and out, plus bars having ventilation safety measures as well as a constantly opening front door, do you really believe a hotboxed public establishment will really be a thing? Below is one example of a bar law in Milwaukee.

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/dnscms/pdf/forms/Tavern_Capacity_flyer2.pdf

If I didn't know any better, it sounds like you expect things to get like this upon legalization:

Spoiler

I only said it might not because it doesn't always, not because it can't, that's not what I meant. Though again, this further backs up my point, and just because the government wont outlaw cigarettes doesn't mean they should legalize smoking other things.

The only point it backs up is merely from a moral standpoint. We're not necessarily discussing morals. In a perfect world, all smoking would be banned, but that's not the case. Still, if we had to choose between cigarettes or marijuana...


EDIT: So this article appeared today...

http://www.iflscience.com/health-an...s-risks-marijuana-use-have-been-overestimated

 

[Braydon]

You really didn't.

This also implies that there will be that many smokers of pot. Not everyone in a bar will smoke, so the odds of 36 people, or even 10 people who just so happen to smoke pot and deciding to all light up at once is very situational. Okay, so it won't happen often, sure, but by that, I mean those extreme circumstances will almost never happen. There are laws that set a cap to the amount of patrons a bar can have at any one time, so with people going in and out, plus bars having ventilation safety measures as well as a constantly opening front door, do you really believe a hotboxed public establishment will really be a thing? Below is one example of a bar law in Milwaukee.

The only point it backs up is merely from a moral standpoint. We're not necessarily discussing morals. In a perfect world, all smoking would be banned, but that's not the case. Still, if we had to choose between cigarettes or marijuana...

EDIT: So this article appeared today...
http://www.iflscience.com/health-an...s-risks-marijuana-use-have-been-overestimated

First, marijuana smoke is smoke, and smoke is proven to cause disease, and therefor, you are wrong, deal with it.
Second, they don't all need to light up at once, the THC lasts in your system a long time so it could add up over 2 hours, maybe more. They don't even necessarily have to be in the bar at the same time.
Third, last I checked we base laws of morals, so if I have a point from a moral standpoint I have a point against legalization.

 

[Claire Diviner]

First, marijuana smoke is smoke, and smoke is proven to cause disease, and therefor, you are wrong, deal with it.

No, smoke from the sources your link listed can cause disease. There are other sources I'm sure, but not all smoke cause disease, lest chefs would have pretty short-lived careers.

Second, they don't all need to light up at once, the THC lasts in your system a long time so it could add up over 2 hours, maybe more. They don't even necessarily have to be in the bar at the same time.

Even two hours worth wouldn't be enough, because I have personally hung out with friends who smoke pot and I got no contact high off the fumes, and I was hanging out with them the whole night as they smoked in a modestly-sized den with no open windows or doors.

Third, last I checked we base laws of morals, so if I have a point from a moral standpoint I have a point against legalization.

But it does nothing to address why marijuana should remain illegal outside of "I think it's bad for society".

You're not making anything you say look strong. All you're doing is "This is what it is, because I said so, therefore I win". The only citation you gave had nothing to do with marijuana, and your failure comes in your adamant decision in simply saying it does and leaving the conversation at that. At least attempt to look for actual scientific sources that address marijuana in particular that does prove merit to your argument. I'd respect you more if you even used satire, like National Report, or hell, even blatantly right wing and biased BS, like Fox News, to try and strengthen your points. Did you even bother reading any of the citations I've posted, like that article I've added to my last post as an edit? I'm beginning to think you didn't.

 

[Braydon]

Smoke from burning carbon containing materials causes lung cancer, are you telling me weed doesn't contain carbon, last I checked it was part of a plant and plants are carbon based life. Chefs don't die because they don't fricken burn it, they don't cook with a flamethrower, and even when it burns a little they have great ventilation.

I don't see how you think sitting with some stoner friends of yours shows you can't get a contact high. All it shows is you didn't, and even the source you linked says tolerance varies, maybe it just doesn't effect your little reptile brain as much.

I don't think my argument was "I think it's bad for society" I thought it was that it IS bad and has no advantages... Plenty of sources have been sited through out this thread that show the risks. Your best argument is because we have one thing that's legal despite being screwed up, we need to legalize for things we shouldn't, just to be even handed. What the ****? Ya lets screw some stuff up just to make it even, tear away a bunch of other laws because some are missing. Your best argument is that you think two rights make a wrong.

That article said cocaine was less bad than alcohol, and I stopped reading. But then I came back and read until the point where it said the researchers said a moderate amount of alcohol was less bad then taking heroin. And during that time I read that they were weighting it to the amount used, and that's just a dumbass study. It's not comparing a cigarette to a cigarette between weed and tobacco, it's comparing amount smoked by the smokers they surveyed, amount of weed smoked would increase if it was legal wouldn't it? If it was as cheap as a pack of cigarettes people could chain smoke them. And anyway it's not exactly reasonable not to count a cigarette to a cigarette, because most people will smoke one at a time, the chain smokers spike the tobacco consumption statistic, but they're dead either way smoking a pack of anything a day.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ Budget Player Cadet_
Well thanks for having not entirely fictional counter arguments.

You can definitely get high second hand,

Under specific, controlled circumstances.

might not happen much now but if it were legalized, whats to stop 30-40 people over the course of an hour or two going into a bar and lighting up, it's not got the best ventilation, sooner or later you're hotboxing aren't you?

I think you're underestimating the level of hotboxing necessary. The amount of second-hand smoke needed to cause significant effects is not realistic in a space the size of a bar. But perhaps more to the point, have you ever been around someone smoking weed? You can smell it very distinctly. In any situation where second-hand highs are going to be a problem, it is immediately and clearly recognizable. Now add to that the fact that a great many locales already ban smoking on the premises, and many places have laws against smoking in public establishments.

Now if you outlaw driving while high to stop impaired people crashing into people, then what happens if you get second hand high and drive, you could crash, and more likely, get a DUI even though you didn't smoke it yourself.

To bring it back to the drunk driving analogy, if second-hand-smoke from one dude smoking a joint is that tiny splash of booze in your drink that you didn't notice and which couldn't possibly have impaired your driving, the people driving after encountering second-hand smoke in such great volume are like people who didn't notice that their glass of water was swapped for vodka, or notice and decide to drink it and drive anyways. The former case will never happen; in the latter case they are responsible.

Anyway I do think ideally cigarettes would be outlawed, second hand smoke might not be enough you get lung cancer, but it still burns and stinks, and there's no advantage to letting it be legal now is there? It just gets people hooked and winds up killing them. It's destructive with no advantage to having it legal.

Advantage to having it legal... How about basic personal freedom? The ability to do what you want with your own body within reasonable limits? There are plenty of things that are legal that are dangerous and/or pointless with "no advantage". Extreme sports. Organized religion. Fireplaces in homes (seriously, if you look at the research for this one, it's actually shocking just how bad it is for you!). Organic farming. 3000-calorie diets. And yet, we don't ban any of that. Why? Because personal freedom is an important concept!

How about the advantage of "getting high is fun"? How 'bout that? Is that not a legitimate advantage? Is people's enjoyment of a substance or activity somehow not relevant at all? I like to smoke weed. I enjoy smoking weed. Smoking weed is fun. I write better music when I'm high. Is this "no advantage"?

None of this amounts to any sort of argument on your end to why it should be outlawed. You seem to be under the impression that we should ban virtually any narcotic substance, and that personal freedom has no role in this. I'm sorry, but that attitude is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with the idea of a free society. Think of all the things we'd need to ban, all the laws we'd have to pass. Draw it to its logical conclusion and things get really nasty.

First, marijuana smoke is smoke, and smoke is proven to cause disease, and therefor, you are wrong, deal with it.

*sigh*

There is no safe dose for radiation. None. No amount of radiation is ever safe; the dose-response curve has no threshhold. The more radiation you are exposed to, the more likely you are to get cancer. Now, with that in mind, you are exposed to radiation levels up to 30x background. What does this mean? Exactly jack ****. Oh, marijuana smoke is smoke, and smoke is proven to cause disease. Okay, in what quantities? With what likelihood? These figures are important, because here's a picture of the list of things in life that are not associated with some kind of risk:

Saying "smoke causes disease" is meaningless. Okay, with what likelihood? What amount of smoke? What's the dose-response curve like? Every idiot knows that a chain smoker or someone who's constantly stoned is likely to get lung cancer, and that standing up in a smoky, burning building is a bad idea. But how about someone who smokes every once in a while? What about that guy? Is he doomed to lung cancer as well? How 'bout the guy exposed to a tiny amount of second-hand-smoke once a month? Nuance does not seem to be your specialty, but it's kind of important in discussions like this.

 

[Braydon]

Right, I'm just going to leave, because there's not point talking to you degenerates. You're just going to insult me because you prefer to be in denial about what you're doing and get all up in arms. Pitiful really.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Right, I'm just going to leave, because there's not point talking to you degenerates. You're just going to insult me because you prefer to be in denial about what you're doing and get all up in arms. Pitiful really.

Calling us degenerates for being supportive of something that you don't like? Yeah, sure. I can assure with your absence, you will not be missed.