Why is weed illegal?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

Go away.

Also, I know you left, but I just read this:

If it was as cheap as a pack of cigarettes people could chain smoke them.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about, do you? After a few joints, most people end up kinda tired and busted out. Nobody is going to chain-smoke a pack of joints, even if it weren't prohibitively expensive (something legalization is not likely to fix entirely - picking weed is considerably more difficult and labor-intensive than picking tobacco). I remember one time I went to a friend's house with the intention of getting as high as humanly possible. We ended up doing something like 4-5 bowls (shared between us), and after that, I was just KO. So was he. Neither of us had any interest in more. Weed just doesn't work like cigarettes do.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

You wanna know why it's illegal? Because our generation is full of self-righteous jack-asses who think everyone should live by their rules. Same reason that gay marriage was illegal, because people were upset for no good reason. It doesn't harm you, so why does it matter?

The other reasons it's illegal are because of racism, greed, false journalism, and fear of the unknown. (Read all about it here). I think the other problem is that you always hear about the bad people on drugs, but you never hear about the good ones. You never hear about someone doing something great, "and by the way, he smokes recreationally!" You only hear about "he was a murder...and he does drugs." There's this bull**** where it's compared to a moral evil, and for whatever reason, no one seems to think twice about it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You wanna know why it's illegal? Because our generation is full of self-righteous jack-***** who think everyone should live by their rules. Same reason that gay marriage was illegal, because people were upset for no good reason. It doesn't harm you, so why does it matter?

Wow, that's a gross oversimplification of both marijuana legalization and gay marriage.

 

[Braydon]

You wanna know why it's illegal? Because our generation is full of self-righteous jack-***** who think everyone should live by their rules. Same reason that gay marriage was illegal, because people were upset for no good reason. It doesn't harm you, so why does it matter?

The other reasons it's illegal are because of racism, greed, false journalism, and fear of the unknown. (Read all about it here). I think the other problem is that you always hear about the bad people on drugs, but you never hear about the good ones. You never hear about someone doing something great, "and by the way, he smokes recreationally!" You only hear about "he was a murder...and he does drugs." There's this bull**** where it's compared to a moral evil, and for whatever reason, no one seems to think twice about it.

You're right, clearly I'm a self-righteous-jack-ass because you want to smoke illicit drugs. I'm also a homophobic liar. Clearly you couldn't be projecting anything that maybe, best describes you. Ignore function seems to be really useful in this sub..

 

[Duplighost]

Marijuana's purpose is for a sedating effect, to lessen aggressive activity in someone. But some people's body reacts differently to different drugs, so sometimes it can cause panic and anxiety, leading to violent outbursts (but not everyone). If you handle marijuana how you're supposed to, and you don't abuse the drug, it should not harm you.

We often hear of the abuse of weed when referenced to murderers or psychologically damaged people, so our brains just correlate weed with something bad, rather than the good it also supplies. To medical patients who need it, this herbal drug is often necessary to relieve stress and pain.

My opinion is that it should be illegal when not being used for medicinal purposes. Weed isn't as addictive as a cigarette, but some people will, in fact, abuse its sole purpose to be used medically; marijuana increases heart rate, potentially causing a heart attack, one's vision is impaired so driving may be an issue.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

You're right, clearly I'm a self-righteous-jack-*** because you want to smoke illicit drugs. I'm also a homophobic liar. Clearly you couldn't be projecting anything that maybe, best describes you. Ignore function seems to be really useful in this sub..

I think you misunderstand...?

 

[Duplighost]

I think the main problem here is that some people are trying to see who could insult the other better, rather than focusing on why weed is illegal and what our opinions are on it. I realize every controversial topic has an argument, but really guys, but lets be mature and state our views here rather than antagonizing a fight.

 

[Braydon]

Saying marijuana has medical uses is bull crap. Yes it can sedate people and ease pain, but there are other, better options. We could use cocaine to ease pain, that doesn't mean any half decent doctor would be willing to prescribe it over a prescription pain killer.

Marijuana is not the most effective pain killer or sedative we have, so there's no real reason to use it medically.

Unless someone by happened to have a severe reaction to all mainstream medical pain killers or sedatives, there would be no reason to choose to prescribe marijuana.


@Rawkstar
I understand perfectly well, everyone who doesn't support the legalization of marijuana is a terrible evil self-righteous-jack-ass. I am, a horrible person, trying to impede on your freedom.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

My opinion is that it should be illegal when not being used for medicinal purposes. Weed isn't as addictive as a cigarette, but some people will, in fact, abuse its sole purpose to be used medically; marijuana increases heart rate, potentially causing a heart attack, one's vision is impaired so driving may be an issue.

First of all, marijuana does increase your heart rate. About as much as sex does. That's not exactly cause for alarm. Nobody advocates legalizing driving while under the influence.

But perhaps more to the point, when should recreational drugs be illegal? Under what conditions?

For example, I think at this point it should be pretty much beyond reproach that marijuana is considerably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is more dangerous in the short and long term, more likely to induce dangerous or lethal behavior, considerably more dangerous behind the wheel, and considerably more addictive. Not to mention that it is virtually impossible to OD on cannabis, and alcohol overdose kills something like 6 people per day in the US alone. Should we ban alcohol?

I don't think so. Not only does it quite emphatically not work (this is something a lot of people miss, but marijuana prohibition has worked out about as well as alcohol prohibition did back in the day - there's a thriving black market, and chances are the average kid in your high school district is going to have an easier time buying weed than booze), but it ignores the idea that we should have some freedom over our own bodies. Marijuana is an extremely innocuous drug with minor side-effects that does not encourage anti-social behavior. Why should that be illegal?

And where does it end? Should we be allowed to eat at Ruby Tuesday's, despite the fact that the healthiest burger on the menu has over half your daily allotment of calories and your entire recommended daily allotment of sodium? I guarantee you, obesity is a bigger health problem than marijuana is.

 

[Duplighost]

First of all, marijuana does increase your heart rate. About as much as sex does. That's not exactly cause for alarm. Nobody advocates legalizing driving while under the influence.

But perhaps more to the point, when should recreational drugs be illegal? Under what conditions?

For example, I think at this point it should be pretty much beyond reproach that marijuana is considerably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is more dangerous in the short and long term, more likely to induce dangerous or lethal behavior, considerably more dangerous behind the wheel, and considerably more addictive. Not to mention that it is virtually impossible to OD on cannabis, and alcohol overdose kills something like 6 people per day in the US alone. Should we ban alcohol?

I don't think so. Not only does it quite emphatically not work (this is something a lot of people miss, but marijuana prohibition has worked out about as well as alcohol prohibition did back in the day - there's a thriving black market, and chances are the average kid in your high school district is going to have an easier time buying weed than booze), but it ignores the idea that we should have some freedom over our own bodies. Marijuana is an extremely innocuous drug with minor side-effects that does not encourage anti-social behavior. Why should that be illegal?

And where does it end? Should we be allowed to eat at Ruby Tuesday's, despite the fact that the healthiest burger on the menu has over half your daily allotment of calories and your entire recommended daily allotment of sodium? I guarantee you, obesity is a bigger health problem than marijuana is.

You made some pretty good points, so I'm going to have to agree with you.
You know what, you actually influenced my whole perspective on this entire thing.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Saying marijuana has medical uses is bull crap. Yes it can sedate people and ease pain, but there are other, better options. We could use cocaine to ease pain, that doesn't mean any half decent doctor would be willing to prescribe it over a prescription pain killer.

Marijuana is not the most effective pain killer or sedative we have, so there's no real reason to use it medically.

Unless someone by happened to have a severe reaction to all mainstream medical pain killers or sedatives, there would be no reason to choose to prescribe marijuana.

You're at least half right on this one. Marijuana is not the gold standard when it comes to painkillers or sedatives. Indeed, it's not really much of a painkiller at all (its effects on acute pain are virtually non-existent; its effects on chronic pain are mild at best). There are sedatives that are stronger, and sedatives with less side-effects. However, it's important to know that biology is complex, and for some people in need of sedatives, Marijuana is simply the best option.

But okay, let's grant that there's always a better option (not really). There's two fields where Marijuana is pretty much unmatched, medicinally, and those are nausea relief and appetite stimulus. Weed helps people suffering from a lack of appetite (yes, this is a real thing - many AIDS patients lose a massive amount of weight because they just can't bring themselves to eat) and people suffering from nausea and vomiting (particularly during chemo).

And besides, like I said earlier, medicine is complex and difficult. Throwing out a potential pharmacological treatment for chronic pain entirely just because we have better options is not a good idea - these "better options" often just don't work with the patients, and can have some quite nasty side effects. And cannabis has a lot of potential uses that are still being studied.

 

[Duplighost]

Saying marijuana has medical uses is bull crap.

I read that and completely shuddered.

My best friend's father suffers from cancer, and uses marijuana as a pain-relieving alternative. In absolutely no way is the marijuana altering his train of thought or causing harm; in fact, it makes him better. This was prescribed by a certified doctor, so yes, marijuana has medical use. Period.

My good friend was diagnosed with depression and began to self harm regularly, became socially anxious, and felt she wasn't worth anything in this world. She uses marijuana to ease her anxiety and depression, which is much better than cutting up her own skin, wouldn't you agree? Sorry, but is this medical use still "bull crap" to you? This is absolutely off-topic, but I had a friend who committed suicide years ago. If marijuana were to help them, I'd absolutely vouch for them to use it.

Marijuana has medical use is a fact, not an opinion, although you may have a different view on it. I hate to have blown a fuse up there, but I have very strong opinions on this. Again, marijuana is not the #1 way to relieve one's symptoms, but if it helps, then I don't see anything wrong with using it. Everyone's body is different, and sometimes marijuana is the best alternative for their body.

 

[Braydon]

Still not backing up your side because, taken from your own source.
Based on a number of studies, dronabinol (THC taken by mouth) can be helpful for reducing nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

Dronabinol is a prescription form of THC that would make more sense to use than marijuana.

Edit:
@ Duplighost
Marijuana has medical use in the same sense that crack can be used to lose weight. It'd work, but that doesn't mean it's a good choice.

And again, dronabinol would make mores sense than marijuana in pretty much any situation.

 

[Duplighost]

Still not backing up your side because, taken from your own source.
Based on a number of studies, dronabinol (THC taken by mouth) can be helpful for reducing nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

Dronabinol is a prescription form of THC that would make more sense to use than marijuana.

Dronabinol is a cannabinoid that affects the brain for nausea and appetite, and yes, it can have similar outcomes as marijuana can. But may I repeat that someone's body may handle dronabinol differently than someone else's, so marijuana should definitely be an alternative if necessary. Everyone's needs are different. We also have to consider allergies and the amount of alcohol they consume regularly; this could disrupt the dronabinol's affect.

To conclude my opinions on this topic:
Marijuana, to put it simply, should be a legal drug when used for medicinal purposes. Although, there are other drugs that can better sustain one's needs (dronabinol for example, or cannabinoids of the sort). Marijuana should be legalized, but we should all be very aware that it should not be abused, as with any drug.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Still not backing up your side because, taken from your own source.
Based on a number of studies, dronabinol (THC taken by mouth) can be helpful for reducing nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

Dronabinol is a prescription form of THC that would make more sense to use than marijuana.

Edit:
@ Duplighost
Marijuana has medical use in the same sense that crack can be used to lose weight. It'd work, but that doesn't mean it's a good choice.

Yes, dronabinol is also used for the same things, because it contains the main active ingredient. It also contains a lot of other ingredients to help bind the THC and make it absorb into the bloodstream correctly, and those can cause problems in some patients. Again, you're missing the big picture here. Often times, the "gold standard" just doesn't work. The patient is allergic to something in it, or it causes weird negative side-effects for some reason, or they have a genetic disposition that causes problems, or...

Look, the point I'm getting at is that pharmacology is really really difficult.

Would it make more sense to use Dronabinol in most cases? No idea - you completely fail to back up your claim, beyond just asserting that it's "obvious". But let's just take your word for it.
Would it make more sense to use Dronabinol in all cases? No.

This is why the mere fact that something does not quite hold up to the "gold standard" does not mean it should be treated as though it was worthless. Marijuana has clearly useful medicinal effects, and in some cases, it's reasonable to believe that it is a good choice for the patient in question. Not all, not necessarily most, but to ignore it completely because there are alternatives is a really bad idea. It's not a placebo, and it's not the kind of drug we can immediately exclude as a form of treatment due to its side-effects (which is a large part of what makes your comparison to crack cocaine so bizarre - the side-effects of Marijuana simply are not particularly drastic, even when compared to similar proscription drugs). It's a viable alternative. And those, while not worth their weight in gold, are still definitely valuable.



...And of course, you have yet to offer any justification for why Marijuana should be illegal, or any sort of categorization for recreational substances. When I asked you for it, you ignored me, then left the thread in a huff, calling us "degenerates". Maybe now that you've come back with a slightly clearer head, you could provide the logical framework?

 

[Braydon]

@ Duplighost & @ Budget Player Cadet_
The active ingredient that effects nausea is THC in both of them, so you won't have a drug reaction to dronabinol but not marijuana. You could react to the suspension but that would only mean they should have an alternate suspension. If you can use marijuana you could use some form of THC capsule or tablet.

Marijuana is less pure than dronabinol, it has more variables making it less predictable and more likely to have a negative reaction.

And I'm sorry @ Budget Player Cadet_ but I think it is obvious that using marijuana which has a bunch of extra variables for no real reason is a terrible idea. In pretty much any situation more variables means there are more chances for a problem to occur.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ Duplighost & @ Budget Player Cadet_
The active ingredient that effects nausea is THC in both of them, so you won't have a drug reaction to dronabinol but not marijuana. You could react to the suspension but that would only mean they should have an alternate suspension. If you can use marijuana you could use some form of THC capsule or tablet.

Except that non-interactive delivery mechanisms are not free to develop or mass-produce. Yes, in an ideal world, the raw product would be unnecessary. We don't live in that world.

And I'm sorry @ Budget Player Cadet_ but I think it is obvious that using marijuana which has a bunch of extra variables for no real reason is a terrible idea. In pretty much any situation more variables means there are more chances for a problem to occur.

I could repeat myself here, but I figure why not just quote myself.

Advantage to having it legal... How about basic personal freedom? The ability to do what you want with your own body within reasonable limits (such as avoiding antisocial behavior)? 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!). 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.

"A bunch of extra variables". Tell me, under that vague justification, what wouldn't we ban?

Look, in your opinion, it's a bad idea to use marijuana. You've done the risk/reward calculations and think it's a bad idea for you. Okay, that's fine. Now why should that apply to me? I've weighed the risk and reward for me and I think the pleasure I derive from it is very much worth the small dangers I incur in the process. Why should your opinion curtail my freedom? And how would your argument not apply to, I dunno, literally anything that is potentially dangerous? Marijuana, sure, but alcohol, bungie-jumping, BBQ, cars (more variables, and we know how people can use cars to kill themselves!)... I dunno man. You seem to have a really bizarre attitude on what should and should not be made illegal.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Okay, I admit, my response was a bit immature, so let me reiterate...

I am a weed smoker. I don't smoke often, roughly...no more than 4 times in a 30 day period (that was the most I've ever done it). I got into it because I was curious, and I enjoyed it, so I did it some more. I don't smoke to be cool, I don't smoke for medical reasons, I don't smoke because I'm addicted, I smoke because I like it, therefore I am here to defend the substance and the use of it. Recreational and medical.

As Budget Player Cadet_ pointed out, it's safer than alcohol, it has no proven long term affects, and was made illegal for very petty reasons (click here to see why). Guess how many people have died from drinking too much water? We lost count. Guess how many have died from weed? None! (Hmm...by this logic, we should all stop drinking water too, because it's dangerous). Jokes aside, many of the arguments against weed are silly. People say it's a gateway drug, because "80% of people who do crack started with marijuana." This is not a correlation, it's a coincidence. It's a correlation if the numbers mirror each other, which they don't. (Also, after the legalization in Colorado and Washington, I haven't seen a growth in the use of any major drugs...) That "fact" that people throw around is silly. What if I told you that "80% of heroine addicts enjoy the taste of orange juice." Well ****, it only makes sense to criminalize orange juice, right?

Spoiler: OTHER REASONS TO LEGALIZE

• Grows naturally
  
• Not chemically addictive
  
• Does not cause death
• Does not cause lung cancer
• Can cure/treat caner
• Can cure/treat anxiety
• Can cure/treat depression
  
• Can cure/treat insomnia
• Can cure/treat pain (internal and external)
  
• THC is less toxic than nicotine (which is hardly toxic)
• Will cause a spike in economic growth
• Drug prevention has had very little affect thus far
• Legalization prevents people from buying laced drugs
  
• Stupid reason for someone to go to jail
  
• Legalization hurts the drug cartel

The last thing, and I believe to be most important reason that weed should be legal is because it's not harming anyone. If weed becomes legal, no one is going to force you to smoke it, so it won't change your lifestyle at all. (Like I said above, it's the same thing with gay marriage: two people's love doesn't affect your life whatsoever, so I hardly see a reason to make it illegal). Point is, people enjoy this activity, so why take it away from them? If alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why shouldn't marijuana be?

 

[Braydon]

I could repeat myself here, but I figure why not just quote myself.



"A bunch of extra variables". Tell me, under that vague justification, what wouldn't we ban?

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about medical use. If it has a bunch of extra variables and no advantage over existing drugs it shouldn't be ****ing used in medicine. Quoting your personal freedom post when we're talking about medical use... It doesn't apply to medicine at all.

Look, in your opinion, it's a bad idea to use marijuana. You've done the risk/reward calculations and think it's a bad idea for you. Okay, that's fine. Now why should that apply to me? I've weighed the risk and reward for me and I think the pleasure I derive from it is very much worth the small dangers I incur in the process. Why should your opinion curtail my freedom? And how would your argument not apply to, I dunno, literally anything that is potentially dangerous? Marijuana, sure, but alcohol, bungie-jumping, BBQ, cars (more variables, and we know how people can use cars to kill themselves!)... I dunno man. You seem to have a really bizarre attitude on what should and should not be made illegal.

You're just using personal freedom as a catch 22 cop out to justify what ever you do, then you criticize me, saying my attitude is bizarre. Personal freedom can be used as an argument for cocaine and heroine as well. Further more, I don't think you are capable of doing the risk/reward calculations, and I know claire isn't, she thought it can't cause lung cancer, she clearly does not fully understand the risk, and therefor is incapable of doing the risk/reward calculation.

Seriously do you have any better reason than, "but I want to!"

Okay, I admit, my response was a bit immature, so let me reiterate...

I am a weed smoker. I don't smoke often, roughly...no more than 4 times in a 30 day period (that was the most I've ever done it). I got into it because I was curious, and I enjoyed it, so I did it some more. I don't smoke to be cool, I don't smoke for medical reasons, I don't smoke because I'm addicted, I smoke because I like it, therefore I am here to defend the substance and the use of it. Recreational and medical.

As Budget Player Cadet_ pointed out, it's safer than alcohol, it has no proven long term affects, and was made illegal for very petty reasons (click here to see why). Guess how many people have died from drinking too much water? We lost count. Guess how many have died from weed? None! (Hmm...by this logic, we should all stop drinking water too, because it's dangerous). Jokes aside, many of the arguments against weed are silly. People say it's a gateway drug, because "80% of people who do crack started with marijuana." This is not a correlation, it's a coincidence. It's a correlation if the numbers mirror each other, which they don't. (Also, after the legalization in Colorado and Washington, I haven't seen a growth in the use of any major drugs...) That "fact" that people throw around is silly. What if I told you that "80% of heroine addicts enjoy the taste of orange juice." Well ****, it only makes sense to criminalize orange juice, right?

Many of the arguments are silly, but not all, and fine, the gateway drug argument is a bit of a stretch, but one bad argument doesn't discredit other arguments, you can't discredit all arguments against it. I don't see how you can say it should be legalized because there are bad arguments against legalization, there are good ones as well.

Grows naturally

So does cocaine, opiates, and shrooms, I don't even see how it growing naturally could be considered as a reason to legalize it, I mean what the ****? How the hell is this supposed to support it being legalized?

Not chemically addictive

This does not mean it's not addictive, and besides we don't legalize everything that's not addictive.

Does not cause death

It can, this has already been addressed in a previous post, you can read that.

Does not cause lung cancer

Yes it does, this has already been addressed and it's a blatant lie spread by dealers.

Can cure/treat caner

Bull****. There are a million bogus cures for counter, marijuana is one of them.

Can cure/treat anxiety

Already addressed this, there are better options.

Can cure/treat depression

Already addressed this, there are better options.

Can cure/treat insomnia

Already addressed this, there are better options.

Can cure/treat pain (internal and external)

Already addressed this, there are better options.

THC is less toxic than nicotine (which is hardly toxic)

And? Toxicity isn't the only factor.

Will cause a spike in economic growth

Seriously it won't help the economy in the slightest, you're quoting the people who repeatedly fail to do anything to help the economy. I'm sure you criticize them to, unless you thought the 2008 financial crisis was perfectly reasonable and unavoidable.

This is based on the idea that we get wealthier every time money changes hands, that just as long as money is flowing we will get stuff accomplished, this is an unbelievably stupid idea. I mean what? Spinning money in a circle between a bunch of assholes is gonna build houses and feed the poor? No, it's just a bunch of idiots handing money back and forth getting nothing accomplished. At the end of the day some pot got smoked and some idiot gave money to some other idiot.

Oh the GDP went up, oh yay, oh wait, that means nothing. GDP by itself is meaningless, plenty of things drive GDP up without having a positive effect, increasing GDP can be a product of inflation so it can be a bad thing.

Drug prevention has had very little affect thus far

That seems like a reason to increase the effort to me.

Legalization prevents people from buying laced drugs

Who the hells fault is it if you buy lead laced weed?

Stupid reason for someone to go to jail

Supporting the blackmarket is a stupid reason to go to jail? You're an accessory to crime, if yours comes from a cartel like you think you're an accessory to smuggling and almost certainly murder. Even if it's locally grown you are still an accessory to crime. I'm sorry, it's an entirely legitimate reason for you to go to jail.

Legalization hurts the drug cartel

Or encourages them to smuggle other substances, guns, get in to human sex trafficking, etc. I can't even begin to understand this argument, what you think that cartels are just going to give up and go work on a farm in rural Mexico?

The last thing, and I believe to be most important reason that weed should be legal is because it's not harming anyone. If weed becomes legal, no one is going to force you to smoke it, so it won't change your lifestyle at all. (Like I said above, it's the same thing with gay marriage: two people's love doesn't affect your life whatsoever, so I hardly see a reason to make it illegal). Point is, people enjoy this activity, so why take it away from them? If alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why shouldn't marijuana be?

So you think it will have no effect on me at all? Denying that it will have an affect on society on a larger scale is just, what you want me to take that seriously? So suddenly everyone who smokes weed becomes perfectly responsible and keeps it to themselves.

I honestly don't even see how you can compare gay marriage and smoking weed. The only thing they have in common at all is that they've both gained a lot of support for legalization recently, that's literally all they have in common.

Why take it away from people? Well first of all you were never allowed to ****ing have it so if it gets taken away from you that's your fault now isn't it? Don't see how you can blame that on people who want it to be illegal. But secondly and more importantly it's destructive to society and I'm really sick of being expected to even consider that it's not. The entire argument against it being bad for society is just people being in denial.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about medical use. If it has a bunch of extra variables and no advantage over existing drugs it shouldn't be ****ing used in medicine. Quoting your personal freedom post when we're talking about medical use... It doesn't apply to medicine at all.

My mistake, I thought that your claim addressed my comments about "justification for banning it". Which you never actually addressed. Yeah, freedom has little to do with medicinal value. But I have nothing but to continue repeating the point you continue to ignore - pharmacology is difficult, and a drug which works, even if it works slightly worse than the gold standard, should not be dismissed out of hand. Not unless its side-effects are not worth the effects it has.

You're just using personal freedom as a catch 22 cop out to justify what ever you do,

I don't think you know what that means, and I don't think you understood my argument. Do you understand the concept of personal freedom? Do you think it holds any merit?

Can you please provide a solid framework for what should and should not be illegal when it comes to consumable recreational substances, and perhaps justify it?

then you criticize me, saying my attitude is bizarre.

Well yes, it is. It seems to me like your argument against legalizing marijuana is "it's not clearly beneficial to society". As though that was how we made laws or how we decided what should or should not be illegal. That's why this is not the first time I've asked you for your philosophical framework on what should and should not be illegal. Without that, there's simply no way forward. Enough missing the forest for the trees. Please explain what criteria you use to decide whether a certain substance should be legal or illegal. Because this?

Why take it away from people? Well first of all you were never allowed to ****ing have it so if it gets taken away from you that's your fault now isn't it? Don't see how you can blame that on people who want it to be illegal. But secondly and more importantly it's destructive to society and I'm really sick of being expected to even consider that it's not.

This ain't it.

Firstly you appeal to tradition. If chocolate was banned in the 30s and they didn't have a good reason then, the fact that chocolate is illegal would hold no weight when talking about whether or not it should be legal. Appealing to tradition is worthless. It does not shift the burden of proof and it does not count as evidence. Especially when we know so much about why marijuana was banned in the first place.

Secondly, you simply claim, with no basis, that it is "destructive to society". I'm sorry, but you need to actually make a case. And then you need to make the case that the drug being legalized is more destructive to society than the drug being illegal is - prohibition does very little to actually stop the drug being sold, it contributes to prison overcrowding, it ensures that much of the money spent on the drug goes to things like mexican drug cartels, it robs the government of tax revenue, and encourages gangs and cartels. Then you need to either agree that the substances currently legal that are more dangerous/"destructive" need to go, or you need to make a case for why, among others,

• Alcohol
• Tobacco
• Oxycontin
• High Fructose Corn Syrup

Shouldn't all be banned.

Oh, and for the record:

So you think it will have no effect on me at all? Denying that it will have an affect on society on a larger scale is just, what you want me to take that seriously? So suddenly everyone who smokes weed becomes perfectly responsible and keeps it to themselves.

Lemme let you in on a little secret. Pretty much everyone who wants to smoke weed smokes weed. The drug is everywhere. The black market is neither particularly dangerous to the end user nor particularly hard to find; I'm fairly certain that at my old school in the US, over half of the seniors toked and almost everyone could point you to someone in their class who either sold it or knew a guy. It was literally easier to buy weed than it is to buy alcohol. At least, this is how it was in the town I lived in in Maine. I can't really say if that's representative throughout the country, but it does give pause to any argument that legalizing it will have some big negative effect.

But hey, you know what, we've actually got something of a natural experiment going on in Colorado. Weed is actually legal for recreational use there, and we have plenty of data from before and after it was legalized. Other states are going the same way. So if these large-scale societal effects are real and problematic, then you should be able to find evidence of them in the statistics. So... yeah, cite?

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Many of the arguments are silly, but not all, and fine, the gateway drug argument is a bit of a stretch, but one bad argument doesn't discredit other arguments, you can't discredit all arguments against it. I don't see how you can say it should be legalized because there are bad arguments against legalization, there are good ones as well.

So does cocaine, opiates, and shrooms, I don't even see how it growing naturally could be considered as a reason to legalize it, I mean what the ****? How the hell is this supposed to support it being legalized?
Both opiates and cocaine can be used medically as well. Ever heard of morphine?

This does not mean it's not addictive, and besides we don't legalize everything that's not addictive.
If you look at the world with that mentality, EVERYTHING IS ADDICTIVE. When CHEMICALLY SPEAKING there is nothing that causes physical addiction. Yes, you can get addicted to marijuana mentally, but you can get addicted to cereal or porn in the same sense.

It can, this has already been addressed in a previous post, you can read that.
I am unfamiliar with the post you speak of. However, without solid proof of a direct correlation between marijuana use and death, the above statement remains a fact.

Yes it does, this has already been addressed and it's a blatant lie spread by dealers.
Haha, no. Recent studies have shown no correlation. The results from past studies have shown that marijuana use does in fact lead to lung cancer, but the majority of the smokers also used cigarettes on a regular basis. Recent studies have shown no connection between the two. Also, with the drug being illegal, it's much harder to actually prove either side of the issue, so no one will know FOR SURE until tests can be conducted legally.

Bull****. There are a million bogus cures for counter, marijuana is one of them.
Notice one of the posts above.

Already addressed this, there are better options.
Your opinions are not equivalent to facts.

Already addressed this, there are better options.
Your opinions are not equivalent to facts.

Already addressed this, there are better options.
Your opinions are not equivalent to facts.

Already addressed this, there are better options.
Your opinions are not equivalent to facts.

And? Toxicity isn't the only factor.
Toxicity is a major argument against the drug. With that being said, there are other factors, you are right, but the fact is everything has negative factors. Soft drinks such as Sprite or Mountain Dew have a series of horrible factors.

Seriously it won't help the economy in the slightest, you're quoting the people who repeatedly fail to do anything to help the economy. I'm sure you criticize them to, unless you thought the 2008 financial crisis was perfectly reasonable and unavoidable.

This is based on the idea that we get wealthier every time money changes hands, that just as long as money is flowing we will get stuff accomplished, this is an unbelievably stupid idea. I mean what? Spinning money in a circle between a bunch of *******s is gonna build houses and feed the poor? No, it's just a bunch of idiots handing money back and forth getting nothing accomplished. At the end of the day some pot got smoked and some idiot gave money to some other idiot.

Oh the GDP went up, oh yay, oh wait, that means nothing. GDP by itself is meaningless, plenty of things drive GDP up without having a positive effect, increasing GDP can be a product of inflation so it can be a bad thing.

Okay, this is where you are wrong. Lets look at the facts...

• An estimated $13.7 Billion Saved On Prohibition Enforcement Costs says 300 economists
• Prison cost savings. (Keeping people in prison is expensive if you weren't aware). Saves an estimated $1.0 Billion
  
• Prohibition costs taxpayers roughly $42 Billion as written by Forbes
  
• TIME Magazine reports that Marijuana growers account for $14 Billion a year. (Making it the most valuable cash crop).
  
• Estimated that illegal sales of marijuana total to $36 Billion
  
• Estimated that legal sales of marijuana could range from $45 Billion to $100 Billion
  
• Ads would boost newspaper revenue
  
• SEVERAL OTHER SMALLER NUMBERS LISTED IN THIS ARTICLE BY HUFFINGTON POST

Lets add up those numbers...That's $56.7 Billion saved, and would generate anywhere from $45 Billion to over $100 Billion. Sorry kid, but I think that does help the economy out to an extent. Similarly, jobs would be created in the industry.

That seems like a reason to increase the effort to me.
You suggest there should be MORE spending on drug prevention? That only creates curiosity, which in turn causes people to experiment anyway.

Who the hells fault is it if you buy lead laced weed?
The point is that if it was legalized, people would be sure that they were buying from a legitimate source. There would be no more people getting fooled and abused by their providers. It would be safer for the people who are already doing it, and legal at the same time. The drug literally becomes safer if it's legalized (silly as it may sound).

Supporting the blackmarket is a stupid reason to go to jail? You're an accessory to crime, if yours comes from a cartel like you think you're an accessory to smuggling and almost certainly murder. Even if it's locally grown you are still an accessory to crime. I'm sorry, it's an entirely legitimate reason for you to go to jail.
At one point it was illegal to carry alcohol. At one point it was illegal for people of color to sit in the front of a bus or use the same bathrooms as white people. Just because something is illegal does not automatically mean it is immoral or wrong, it means that the law is ****ed up. When it comes to murder, theft, treason, and so on, I can see why people get punished. But I fail to see the "evil" in smoking a plant. I fail to see how that is offensive to anyone, and why that deserves punishment?

Or encourages them to smuggle other substances, guns, get in to human sex trafficking, etc. I can't even begin to understand this argument, what you think that cartels are just going to give up and go work on a farm in rural Mexico?
You say that like they don't already smuggle other substances, guns, sex trafficking, etc. The bigger the empire stands, the more deadly it becomes. No it won't stop them, but it will take away a huge chunk of their power, and I dunno about you, but I'd say that's a pretty good thing. Less money for the cartels = less power.

So you think it will have no effect on me at all? Denying that it will have an affect on society on a larger scale is just, what you want me to take that seriously? So suddenly everyone who smokes weed becomes perfectly responsible and keeps it to themselves.
I never said it won't be used irresponsibly, but that's just how life goes. People drink irresponsibly, people use guns irresponsibly, people go to their everyday jobs, and act irresponsibly. This argument is irrelevant in a world where nothing else is taken seriously.

I honestly don't even see how you can compare gay marriage and smoking weed. The only thing they have in common at all is that they've both gained a lot of support for legalization recently, that's literally all they have in common.

Why take it away from people? Well first of all you were never allowed to ****ing have it so if it gets taken away from you that's your fault now isn't it? Don't see how you can blame that on people who want it to be illegal. But secondly and more importantly it's destructive to society and I'm really sick of being expected to even consider that it's not. The entire argument against it being bad for society is just people being in denial.
Stop blurting out "facts". Marijuana was legal to smoke in the United States until 1906 when restrictions began. During the 1920s was the time of prohibition, and it was in 1936 that the drug was actually regulated. As I've mentioned before, the drug was made illegal by yellow journalism, racism, protection of corporate profits, and other petty reasons. (LINK). Second, never call something "destructive to society". Cell phones are destructive to society in a social sense, fracking is destructive to society in an economic sense...you could argue that almost anything is destructive to society one way or another, but in the end, that argument comes from (a) the fear of the unknown, and (b) the fear of change. People are scared of what's different. I'm not saying everyone who is against the legalization is close-minded but a good number of them are.

My input = everything in bold.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

My input = everything in bold.

Please for the love of god don't do this. Like, line-by-line is bad enough, but this just makes it almost impossible to quote your post.

Also, cite on those recent studies? I took a look and found this. What's more, marijuana is known to contain many of the same carcinogens as tobacco and to cause inflamed states that are known precursors to cancer, so the idea that it doesn't increase your lung cancer risk should be held to a somewhat higher scrutiny.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Please for the love of god don't do this. Like, line-by-line is bad enough, but this just makes it almost impossible to quote your post.

Also, cite on those recent studies? I took a look and found this. What's more, marijuana is known to contain many of the same carcinogens as tobacco and to cause inflamed states that are known precursors to cancer, so the idea that it doesn't increase your lung cancer risk should be held to a somewhat higher scrutiny.

Sorry I was too lazy to actually rewrite the code over and over. This is one of the recent studies I was referring to. I've seen other posts, but I'll need some time to go through and find them. But I think the important point is that it's going to be very hard to say whether or not marijuana does cause cancer or not if it's illegal and there is no reasonable way to test it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Sorry I was too lazy to actually rewrite the code over and over. This is one of the recent studies I was referring to. I've seen other posts, but I'll need some time to go through and find them. But I think the important point is that it's going to be very hard to say whether or not marijuana does cause cancer or not if it's illegal and there is no reasonable way to test it.

The actual study. It's not exactly a slam-dunk. It seems to match up more or less with what you would expect from a mild carcinogen - mild effects and a weak correlation (because of the relatively low exposure) with increased risk with increased exposure. More or less in line with previous examinations. The main thing that tilts this is the application of Bayesian statistics. We know that numerous compounds that are inhaled when cannabis is smoked are carcinogenic, and that in high concentrations they definitely increase your likelihood of cancer substantially. With that in mind, a weak correlation found in a study should be looked at somewhat skeptically, because we'd expect to find a correlation based on the analytical science. This may sound biased, but look at it this way - if a study came out saying that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, you'd probably use the same analysis to say, "hang on, that can't be right".

 

[Claire Diviner]

I came across two interesting articles, though they seem to somewhat contradict one another (even if they're 4 months apart). In either case, the thing to take away from it is that marijuana is far less a risk compared to currently legal substances (alcohol, cigarettes, etc.), so having it illegal is pretty much pointless. Marijuana isn't something that is 100% risk-free either, but you'd have to be a chain smoker to really get those kinds of risks, and last I checked, that's pretty damn hard to do, since most pot smokers are done after a single joint.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...juana-is-not-actually-as-addictive-as-heroin/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eviously-thought-researchers-say/?tid=rssfeed

@ Duplighost
Marijuana has medical use in the same sense that crack can be used to lose weight. It'd work, but that doesn't mean it's a good choice.

You must be smoking some really good stuff if you believe crack has any medicinal properties, all joking aside. You are aware that actual licensed doctors prescribe marijuana to patients, right? Crack? Yayo? Heroin? Never heard of any doctor prescribing them, or any drug store carrying them.

Also, it's one thing if you're not for legalizing marijuana. It's a totally different thing if you chastise those who do support/smoke it. Mind you, any chastising you experience isn't from your lack of support, but from your refusal to properly back up your arguments.

 

[Claire Diviner]

(Didn't mean to double-post)

 

[Braydon]

I don't think you know what that means, and I don't think you understood my argument. Do you understand the concept of personal freedom? Do you think it holds any merit?

I understand it perfectly, you don't. Personal freedom doesn't mean everyone does whatever they want and to hell with the consequences. Personal freedom is an ideal, not a reason to legalize marijuana. Personal freedom means that we shouldn't over control people, that people can do whatever they want within reason. Personal freedom can only be taken so far or it can be used to justify anything.

Can you please provide a solid framework for what should and should not be illegal when it comes to consumable recreational substances, and perhaps justify it?

Well yes, it is. It seems to me like your argument against legalizing marijuana is "it's not clearly beneficial to society". As though that was how we made laws or how we decided what should or should not be illegal. That's why this is not the first
time I've asked you for your philosophical framework on what should and should not be illegal. Without that, there's simply no way forward. Enough missing the forest for the trees. Please explain what criteria you use to decide whether a certain substance should be legal or illegal.

Easy. No psychoactive drugs for recreational use, and no public sale of drugs that haven't been thoroughly tested. This is pretty much the framework used now, tobacco doesn't have a very noticeable effect outside of being stimulating and or relaxing.

Firstly you appeal to tradition. If chocolate was banned in the 30s and they didn't have a good reason then, the fact that chocolate is illegal would hold no weight when talking about whether or not it should be legal. Appealing to tradition is worthless. It does not shift the burden of proof and it does not count as evidence. Especially when we know so much about why marijuana was banned in the first place.

You've got that backward, the burden of proof lies entirely on those arguing to legalize marijuana. The burden of proof lies on the accused with individuals, not potentially dangerous drugs. What you're saying is that we as a nation have to take potentially dangerous risks every time we are uncertain about something, that's a terrible idea. The burden of proof always lies on drugs when allowing for their commercial sale.

Secondly, you simply claim, with no basis, that it is "destructive to society". I'm sorry, but you need to actually make a case. And then you need to make the case that the drug being legalized is more destructive to society than the drug being illegal is - prohibition does very little to actually stop the drug being sold, it contributes to prison overcrowding, it ensures that much of the money spent on the drug goes to things like mexican drug cartels, it robs the government of tax revenue, and encourages gangs and cartels. Then you need to either agree that the substances currently legal that are more dangerous/"destructive" need to go, or you need to make a case for why, among others,

• Alcohol
• Tobacco
• Oxycontin
• High Fructose Corn Syrup

Shouldn't all be banned.

Mind altering drugs are harmful to society. First of all the burden of proof should once again fall on you for this. You're saying the whole country should have to take risks based on your whims.

But more importantly mind altering drugs lead to sporadic unpredictable behavior, which can be harmful to those around you, and will certainly add up on the larger scale.

I already said tobacco would ideally be illegal so I don't see why I'm being asked to justify it being legal, Oxycontin is not legal for recreational use so I don't see why that's on there, high fructose corn syrup is not a drug and has no psychoactive effect, though ideally it wouldn't be legal to sell as it can easily kill you given time.

Lemme let you in on a little secret. Pretty much everyone who wants to smoke weed smokes weed. The drug is everywhere. The black market is neither particularly dangerous to the end user nor particularly hard to find; I'm fairly certain that at my old school in the US, over half of the seniors toked and almost everyone could point you to someone in their class who either sold it or knew a guy. It was literally easier to buy weed than it is to buy alcohol. At least, this is how it was in the town I lived in in Maine. I can't really say if that's representative throughout the country, but it does give pause to any argument that legalizing it will have some big negative effect.

I don't really see how this backs up legalization at all, the only thing I get from that is that you need better police. Further more I don't give a damn about what happens to the user, that's not why supporting the black market is criminal, it's criminal because other people get hurt along the way leading up to your purchase.

But hey, you know what, we've actually got something of a natural experiment going on in Colorado. Weed is actually legal for recreational use there, and we have plenty of data from before and after it was legalized. Other states are going the same way. So if these large-scale societal effects are real and problematic, then you should be able to find evidence of them in the statistics. So... yeah, cite?

Not enough time has gone by to see long term effects.

You must be smoking some really good stuff if you believe crack has any medicinal properties, all joking aside. You are aware that actual licensed doctors prescribe marijuana to patients, right? Crack? Yayo? Heroin? Never heard of any doctor prescribing them, or any drug store carrying them.

Ya, no. Heroine is an opiate and like all opiates a powerful painkiller, cocaine is an absurdly powerful painkiller and stimulant. Heroine is to morphine as weed is to dronabinol. Heroine is impure, and it makes it less predictable and more dangerous, just as weed has vastly more compounds than dronabinol and is less predictable. Being prescribed by a licensed doctor doesn't prove it has any medical use, the majority of doctors, competent doctors, would never prescribe weed.

Also, it's one thing if you're not for legalizing marijuana. It's a totally different thing if you chastise those who do support/smoke it. Mind you, any chastising you experience isn't from your lack of support, but from your refusal to properly back up your arguments.

Bull****, bull****, and more bull****. First of all, you are clearly, evidently "chastising" me because I appose legalization, if you were criticizing any argument that wasn't properly backed you would be all over @Rawkstar, but you're not are you?

Further more sources have already been sited for most of the things I've said in this thread, people had already cited sources for adverse health effects way before you started grilling me for it, I don't understand why the hell I would cite sources for something that has already been established.

And seriously are you telling me I can't criticize you for your actions? Please tell me why it is I can't criticize criminals who abuse drugs? You're just magically above judgement? You smoke mind altering drugs, you are almost certainly an accessory to some form of crime by supporting the black market. What the **** makes you above judgment? How insane do you have to be to believe that?

Further more, how can you believe you are backing your argument up with sources, you are linking to sources that are at best highly controversial as if they're fact, none of these sources can be taken too seriously.



@Rawkstar
I can't take any of that seriously. First of all we were talking about recreational use and you bring up how morphine is used medically, which is just irrelevant. You then proceed to respond to facts I stated by calling them opinions and saying they aren't equal to facts, when it had already been covered that marijuana has no advantage to dronabinol.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I understand it perfectly, you don't. Personal freedom doesn't mean everyone does whatever they want and to hell with the consequences. Personal freedom is an ideal, not a reason to legalize marijuana. Personal freedom means that we shouldn't over control people, that people can do whatever they want within reason. Personal freedom can only be taken so far or it can be used to justify anything.

In simplified terms, personal freedom means that I can do what I want so long as it doesn't harm others. Please demonstrate how a person smoking marijuana harms others.

You've got that backward, the burden of proof lies entirely on those arguing to legalize marijuana.

You're wrong. If something is illegal, then the burden of proof is still on those who would have it be illegal - it's just more or less assumed that those people have, at some point, fulfilled that burden of proof. Which I'm not convinced is the case here. Please demonstrate how a person smoking marijuana harms others.

Mind altering drugs are harmful to society.

Prove it.

First of all the burden of proof should once again fall on you for this.

Dude, do you have anything to offer other than unsubstantive shifting of the burden of proof? You're claiming that something is harmful to society. It is your job to prove that statement. It is not my job to prove you wrong. I'm not claiming that marijuana is safe. I'm saying that unless we know it's dangerous, we shouldn't ban it. And we don't know. If we find reason to believe that it's dangerous, then we can talk about banning it.

You're saying the whole country should have to take risks based on your whims.

What you're saying is that we as a nation have to take potentially dangerous risks every time we are uncertain about something, that's a terrible idea.

You keep throwing statements like this out there, and it's bull****. This logic can be applied to literally anything. Is the new Samsung Galaxy S6 dangerous to society? Do you know? I don't know. Let's ban it until we find out! Is this new type of wheat dangerous to society? I don't know. Let's ban it until we find out! Is GTA5 dangerous to society? I don't know. I wonder what Jack Thompson has to say on the subject. Et cetera. This is why we don't ban things until we know they're dangerous!

But more importantly mind altering drugs lead to sporadic unpredictable behavior, which can be harmful to those around you, and will certainly add up on the larger scale.

Dude, have you ever been around people high on weed? Like, really? "Unpredictable"? That's not a word I'd use to describe someone high on THC. Hungry? Sure. Lethargic? Definitely. Paranoid? Maybe sometimes. But "unpredictable"?

I don't really see how this backs up legalization at all,

The point being that we've already seen the effects of Marijuana being used by a very large portion of the populace. That we've had decades of a lot of people doing pot. Indeed, Colorado, even after legalization, is not where the most tokers are. So any real deleterious effects we'd see from pot smoking, we'd probably already have seen.

Not enough time has gone by to see long term effects.

Okay, how long is long enough? Gimme a number.

Also, you are aware of the rather obscene societal and monetary costs of marijuana prohibition? Do they interest you at all? Do they factor into the cost-benefit?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Ya, no. Heroine is an opiate and like all opiates a powerful painkiller, cocaine is an absurdly powerful painkiller and stimulant. Heroine is to morphine as weed is to dronabinol. Heroine is impure, and it makes it less predictable and more dangerous, just as weed has vastly more compounds than dronabinol and is less predictable. Being prescribed by a licensed doctor doesn't prove it has any medical use, the majority of doctors, competent doctors, would never prescribe weed.

Some proof would be nice. Hell, get me an article from National Report for all I care.

Bull****, bull****, and more bull****. First of all, you are clearly, evidently "chastising" me because I appose legalization, if you were criticizing any argument that wasn't properly backed you would be all over @Rawkstar, but you're not are you?

He has cited an article though, if you were paying attention. Your only real attempt was to a government cite that showed the safety revolving around smoke from fire - not even something that addressed cigarettes.

Further more sources have already been sited for most of the things I've said in this thread, people had already cited sources for adverse health effects way before you started grilling me for it, I don't understand why the hell I would cite sources for something that has already been established.

The same reason I've cited sources to make my arguments all the more stronger, unlike yours.

And seriously are you telling me I can't criticize you for your actions? Please tell me why it is I can't criticize criminals who abuse drugs? You're just magically above judgement? You smoke mind altering drugs, you are almost certainly an accessory to some form of crime by supporting the black market. What the **** makes you above judgment? How insane do you have to be to believe that?

You really assume WAY too much if you are trying to label me a "criminal". Secondly, saying something like "criminals who abuse drugs" alone involves a lot of assumptions, especially since there are plenty of good people out there who use it medicinally.

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/medical-marijuana-uses

Look, another source to further argue in favor of marijuana legalization. Your move.

Furthermore, you say how smoking marijuana makes one an accessory to the support of the black market, but what about those who don't pay a dime for it? Are they any different? Also, the same could have been said for alcohol back in the days of prohibition, yet, you say nothing on those who abuse alcohol, legality status notwithstanding. What makes alcohol any better outside of its legal status?

Further more, how can you believe you are backing your argument up with sources, you are linking to sources that are at best highly controversial as if they're fact, none of these sources can be taken too seriously.

The sources I cite are from well known websites. It's be totally different if they were from biased sites, like "supportweed.com", or "highandlovingit.net". The fact is, I'm citing news and scientific articles, while you have nothing.

You then proceed to respond to facts I stated by calling them opinions and saying they aren't equal to facts, when it had already been covered that marijuana has no advantage to dronabinol.

When you only comment about how you feel about an issue without any backing, your so-called facts can only be taken as opinion. And no, government links on fire safety does not strengthen your point; I could just as well cite a government link about drowning in deep water and say it's relevant to alcohol usage.

 

[Kursed]

I don't smoke marijuana or anything, but I do believe it could be illegal.
Where I live, Alcohol is legal yet marijuana is banned yet easily obtained. Alcohol is a downer, so it can bring people into depression and sadness. In fact, approximately 1800 college students die from large doses of alcohol. Marijuana is also a downer though it gets confused with being an upper at the beginning. If Marijuana could be in society like alcohol with age limits and with some restrictions, I don't see the problem.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, there's another side to this that people like @ B Braydon haven't really considered - keeping weed illegal has some serious costs.

For starters, there's the issue that it's easier for kids to get weed than it is for them to get alcohol. There are good reasons to believe that this is actually because weed is illegal. There's not much of a black market for alcohol, because adults who want it (the main consuming demographic) just go to the liquor store instead. But Ol' Mike down by the docks who sells dimebags, you think he's carding people? I doubt it. Legalizing and regulating marijuana would help solve this issue.

Then there's the way the war on drugs has led to a massive inflation of our prison population. Hundreds of thousands of people are arrested on possession charges (in 2013, 600,000), and not only is this a bit of a racial issue (drug use among whites and minorities are similar, but minorities are way more likely to get jail time for it), but it also puts an incredibly strain on our overflowing prison system for a crime that harms no-one but the user. Oh, and let's not forget that putting people in jail encourages them to actually become criminals, and makes life harder for them in a myriad of ways.

Then there's all the lost revenue. Legalizing and taxing weed is a huge amount of money for the state. We're already seeing this in Colorado, where they've made millions off taxing the drug. That's all money that, otherwise, would have gone into the black market.

Then there's purity issues. You know what's easy? Adulterating your product with something deadly or addictive if it's already illegal and those affected can't go to the police. You know what's not as easy? Doing that when it's regulated.

Honestly, it's sort of like how making prostitution legal doesn't actually stop prostitution from happening, it just makes life harder on the prostitutes.

 

[Braydon]

In simplified terms, personal freedom means that I can do what I want so long as it doesn't harm others. Please demonstrate how a person smoking marijuana harms others.

You're wrong. If something is illegal, then the burden of proof is still on those who would have it be illegal - it's just more or less assumed that those people have, at some point, fulfilled that burden of proof. Which I'm not convinced is the case here. Please demonstrate how a person smoking marijuana harms others.

No the burden of proof always lies on the legalization of psychoactive drugs, not the opposition, I don't even see how you could think otherwise. If you want to introduce a drug to the populace you have to prove it's safety and have it approved by the FDA. We don't just let anyone sell any drugs they want unless someone else proves they are dangerous, it would be to late.

We don't just legalize all drugs without a clue of the dangers and to hell with the consequences. This argument is insanity.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full

Here is a link to a legitimate study showing brain alterations and lower IQs on users.

Dude, do you have anything to offer other than unsubstantive shifting of the burden of proof? You're claiming that something is harmful to society. It is your job to prove that statement. It is not my job to prove you wrong. I'm not claiming that marijuana is safe. I'm saying that unless we know it's dangerous, we shouldn't ban it. And we don't know. If we find reason to believe that it's dangerous, then we can talk about banning it.

What the ****? So you think everyone else should have to take this risk based on your whims? That we shouldn't be allowed to have any level of caution in how we make our laws? I don't have studies to prove that recreational use of most psychiatric drugs is dangerous, are you saying we should just legalize the sale of every drug?

You keep throwing statements like this out there, and it's bull****. This logic can be applied to literally anything. Is the new Samsung Galaxy S6 dangerous to society? Do you know? I don't know. Let's ban it until we find out! Is this new type of wheat dangerous to society? I don't know. Let's ban it until we find out! Is GTA5 dangerous to society? I don't know. I wonder what Jack Thompson has to say on the subject. Et cetera. This is why we don't ban things until we know they're dangerous!

So my arguments are bull**** that can be applied to anything but your use of personal freedom to back whatever your agenda is isn't?

Dude, have you ever been around people high on weed? Like, really? "Unpredictable"? That's not a word I'd use to describe someone high on THC. Hungry? Sure. Lethargic? Definitely. Paranoid? Maybe sometimes. But "unpredictable"?

Yes because paranoid people are predictable.

The point being that we've already seen the effects of Marijuana being used by a very large portion of the populace. That we've had decades of a lot of people doing pot. Indeed, Colorado, even after legalization, is not where the most tokers are. So any real deleterious effects we'd see from pot smoking, we'd probably already have seen.

If you look at the statistics for 18-25, the age where it becomes legal, Colorado is the 3rd highest in the country...

Also, you are aware of the rather obscene societal and monetary costs of marijuana prohibition? Do they interest you at all? Do they factor into the cost-benefit?

Problem is the enforcement of new laws and new medical bills would generate massive problems and cost the government way more than leaving it illegal, at least for most substances (I do not know how numbers look on marijuana, but that may be a unique case, and I can say I have seen numbers that look similar to the ones I am about to present). For the record, the numbers on tobacco are this [at least for Minnesota, where I'm from]:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/Minnesota

Some proof would be nice. Hell, get me an article from National Report for all I care.

Unbelievable. I shouldn't have to and will not cite a source for potential medical use of heroine. You can't use your own ignorance as a counter argument, this is something you should know, it's common knowledge, go ****ing look it up.

He has cited an article though, if you were paying attention. Your only real attempt was to a government cite that showed the safety revolving around smoke from fire - not even something that addressed cigarettes.

It addresses smoke from all sources, guess what genius, smoke comes out of cigarettes when you light them on ****ing fire.

The same reason I've cited sources to make my arguments all the more stronger, unlike yours.

Your sources are bull****. Sources cited that are not credible don't back up your argument. Just having links to some other idiot saying the same thing doesn't back up your argument at all.

You really assume WAY too much if you are trying to label me a "criminal". Secondly, saying something like "criminals who abuse drugs" alone involves a lot of assumptions, especially since there are plenty of good people out there who use it medicinally.

I'm not making any assumptions, you're a criminal, you support the black market, use illegal illicit drugs, you are a criminal.

http://www.m.webmd.com/pain-management/features/medical-marijuana-uses

Look, another source to further argue in favor of marijuana legalization. Your move.

WebMD? That sources shows absolutely no advantage over dronabinol... Again this means nothing, dronabinol is a better option, failing to address that is just a pathetic attempt at skewing circumstantial evidence to seem to support you.

Furthermore, you say how smoking marijuana makes one an accessory to the support of the black market, but what about those who don't pay a dime for it? Are they any different? Also, the same could have been said for alcohol back in the days of prohibition, yet, you say nothing on those who abuse alcohol, legality status notwithstanding. What makes alcohol any better outside of its legal status?

I'm going to disregard this entirely. I never said it was fine to buy alcohol on the blackmarket, you're just trying to put words in my mouth.

Marijuana users who haven't ever payed a dime for it? Not sure they exist. If you're saying your smoking your friends weed your still an accessory to crime, if you grow your own, where did you get the seeds?

The sources I cite are from well known websites. It's be totally different if they were from biased sites, like "supportweed.com", or "highandlovingit.net". The fact is, I'm citing news and scientific articles, while you have nothing.

Well known doesn't equal reliable. Kim kardashian is a well known celebrity, but I'm not going to ask her for medical advice, or any advice for that matter.

When you only comment about how you feel about an issue without any backing, your so-called facts can only be taken as opinion. And no, government links on fire safety does not strengthen your point; I could just as well cite a government link about drowning in deep water and say it's relevant to alcohol usage.

Except that this is bull****.

Honestly, it's sort of like how making prostitution legal doesn't actually stop prostitution from happening, it just makes life harder on the prostitutes.

Are you now arguing to legalize prostitution? If not you can't use this to argue for marijuana, after all you admit these arguments are the same.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Seriously, @ B Braydon , if you're going to show this level of ignorance with your constant ad hominem, and your incessant refusal to show proof to back up your lofty claims, then you are clearly not doing this whole debating thing correctly and are naught but toxic to the Hall. Goodbye.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

@ B Braydon Look man, I understand that you're against the use of marijuana, but you aren't even listening to the majority of the arguments that people are bringing up. When faced with actual studies and experiments you either ignore it or write it off as bull**** like the conductors of the experiment twisted it or something. You have a right to your opinions, and I respect that, but I fail to see how your mentality trumps ours in this issue? Your responses seem closed minded and based around opinions and myths rather than factual information. As far as arguing goes, I'm pretty much done because (a) no one is willing to change their mind on this, and (b) I'm feeling a real lack of respect from you and your posts specifically. To wrap things up, I just want to say that I personally enjoy the occasional smoke, and fail to see the moral reasoning for making the substance illegal. Just because the law says something doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. And if you don't like it, well don't smoke it. Easy as that.

 

[Braydon]

Seriously, @ B Braydon , if you're going to show this level of ignorance with your constant ad hominem, and your incessant refusal to show proof to back up your lofty claims, then you are clearly not doing this whole debating thing correctly and are naught but toxic to the Hall. Goodbye.

You have done nothing but insult my credibility and insult me. You are here calling me ignorant because of things you don't know, calling me toxic, insulting everything I say. You are a hypocrite.

You are nothing but a detriment to any debate, you don't even understand the purpose of a debate. The purpose is to find an answer, but you think it's to defame and insult your opponent. You blatantly try to cheat your way out, twisting circumstantial evidence, trying to filibuster me, trying to weasel your way out of any argument where you're losing.

 

[Thor]

@ B Braydon Look man, I understand that you're against the use of marijuana, but you aren't even listening to the majority of the arguments that people are bringing up. When faced with actual studies and experiments you either ignore it or write it off as bull**** like the conductors of the experiment twisted it or something. You have a right to your opinions, and I respect that, but I fail to see how your mentality trumps ours in this issue? Your responses seem closed minded and based around opinions and myths rather than factual information. As far as arguing goes, I'm pretty much done because (a) no one is willing to change their mind on this, and (b) I'm feeling a real lack of respect from you and your posts specifically. To wrap things up, I just want to say that I personally enjoy the occasional smoke, and fail to see the moral reasoning for making the substance illegal. Just because the law says something doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. And if you don't like it, well don't smoke it. Easy as that.

It doesn't have long-term benefits [as much as people like to claim alcohol is worse, both on a societal and physical level, there's 3 issues - 1) Alcohol actually can have long-term benefits to the bloodstream [thinning] in moderation, which is infinitely more benefits than marijuana has - thus use in moderation actually makes sense 2) this is because it's legal - if alcohol were illegal, use would decline at least somewhat, leading to a reduction in harms, and 3) [this is an inversion of sorts] if other drugs were legal, economists estimate that there'd be a doubling or tripling of users of the newly legal drugs [more in some cases] which would drastically increase the harms due to tons of new overdoses, tons of new incidents of driving while intoxicated [and the deaths because of it], tons of new law enforcement issues [which is a money cost], and more]. This is I think sufficient reasoning to ban it - it's illegal to take poison [suicide is illegal: http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/07/24/is-suicide-illegal-suicide-laws-by-country/], and because marijuana has negative effects [messes with REM sleep, lowers brain matter (there's a compensation effect, but I don't think it fully offsets it), poses risks to others if you operate machinery or work a job with objects that are potentially dangerous [heavy, sharp etc] but none positive [pair relief is not a health benefit - you feel better, but it doesn't make your body function better, and we also spend a lot of money on trying to find other methods of pain relief], it can be viewed as a poison (both through a working definition and through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison).

Just my two cents on an old thread now filled with mudslinging [so I'm not particularly eager to even post this much, but I will then duck and cover].

 

[Deleted member 269706]

You have done nothing but insult my credibility and insult me. You are here calling me ignorant because of things you don't know, calling me toxic, insulting everything I say. You are a hypocrite.

You are nothing but a detriment to any debate, you don't even understand the purpose of a debate. The purpose is to find an answer, but you think it's to defame and insult your opponent. You blatantly try to cheat your way out, twisting circumstantial evidence, trying to filibuster me, trying to weasel your way out of any argument where you're losing.

Please don't make this personal, stay to the topic and ignore everything else. By calling her a hypocrite and then calling him a "detriment to any debate" without even mentioning what the debate is about is exactly what you are doing as well.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Please don't make this personal, stay to the topic and ignore everything else. By calling him a hypocrite and then calling him a "detriment to any debate" without even mentioning what the debate is about is exactly what you are doing as well.

Last I checked, I am a her, not a him.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

It doesn't have long-term benefits [as much as people like to claim alcohol is worse, both on a societal and physical level, there's 3 issues - 1) Alcohol actually can have long-term benefits to the bloodstream [thinning] in moderation, which is infinitely more benefits than marijuana has - thus use in moderation actually makes sense 2) this is because it's legal - if alcohol were illegal, use would decline at least somewhat, leading to a reduction in harms, and 3) [this is an inversion of sorts] if other drugs were legal, economists estimate that there'd be a doubling or tripling of users of the newly legal drugs [more in some cases] which would drastically increase the harms due to tons of new overdoses, tons of new incidents of driving while intoxicated [and the deaths because of it], tons of new law enforcement issues [which is a money cost], and more]. This is I think sufficient reasoning to ban it - it's illegal to take poison [suicide is illegal: http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/07/24/is-suicide-illegal-suicide-laws-by-country/], and because marijuana has negative effects [messes with REM sleep, lowers brain matter (there's a compensation effect, but I don't think it fully offsets it), poses risks to others if you operate machinery or work a job with objects that are potentially dangerous [heavy, sharp etc] but none positive [pair relief is not a health benefit - you feel better, but it doesn't make your body function better, and we also spend a lot of money on trying to find other methods of pain relief], it can be viewed as a poison (both through a working definition and through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison).

Just my two cents on an old thread now filled with mudslinging [so I'm not particularly eager to even post this much, but I will then duck and cover].

Respectable argument. What you say is true, there are health effects (whether the positive or the negative outweigh the other will always be up for debate). I think that it's not lethal enough to be considered a poison (this is my opinion of course), especially when cigarettes, cigars, and other harmful substances exist. As I'm sure you know, I think it should be legal, but I think there does need to be a form of regulation to prevent people driving under the influence as that could cause a lot of problems. I think it should be treated in a similar way as alcohol.

Last I checked, I am a her, not a him.

CHECK AGAIN!! (Nah, but seriously) Apologies, I was in a rush to get that response out, didn't bother to check. I meant no offense and hope that I have done nothing to make you think less of me. Fixed the original post. Again, my mistake.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It doesn't have long-term benefits [as much as people like to claim alcohol is worse, both on a societal and physical level, there's 3 issues - 1) Alcohol actually can have long-term benefits to the bloodstream [thinning] in moderation, which is infinitely more benefits than marijuana has - thus use in moderation actually makes sense 2) this is because it's legal - if alcohol were illegal, use would decline at least somewhat, leading to a reduction in harms

I don't know. I'm pretty sure the banning of alcohol would see a rise in criminal activity as seen during the era of prohibition, with not much in the way of a decrease in usage, though the latter point is merely speculation, and it's doubtful any of us can see into such a future.

, and 3) [this is an inversion of sorts] if other drugs were legal, economists estimate that there'd be a doubling or tripling of users of the newly legal drugs [more in some cases] which would drastically increase the harms due to tons of new overdoses, tons of new incidents of driving while intoxicated [and the deaths because of it], tons of new law enforcement issues [which is a money cost], and more].

While I can understand the DUI issue, I've never heard any reports of anyone having OD'd on marijuana. Heroin and cocaine, yes.

This is I think sufficient reasoning to ban it - it's illegal to take poison [suicide is illegal: http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/07/24/is-suicide-illegal-suicide-laws-by-country/], and because marijuana has negative effects [messes with REM sleep, lowers brain matter (there's a compensation effect, but I don't think it fully offsets it), poses risks to others if you operate machinery or work a job with objects that are potentially dangerous [heavy, sharp etc] but none positive [pair relief is not a health benefit - you feel better, but it doesn't make your body function better, and we also spend a lot of money on trying to find other methods of pain relief], it can be viewed as a poison (both through a working definition and through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison).

The same could be said for the likes of alcohol, or even the junk food at fast food establishments that people consume on a daily basis, no?

Just my two cents on an old thread now filled with mudslinging [so I'm not particularly eager to even post this much, but I will then duck and cover].

You're not the one posting ad hominem, so you should be good. lol

But yeah, this thread has gone downhill in a bad way.

(Nah, but seriously) Apologies, I was in a rush to get that response out, didn't bother to check. I meant no offense and hope that I have done nothing to make you think less of me. Fixed the original post. Again, my mistake.

No worries. lol