Why is weed illegal?

[Thor]

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.

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

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?

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.

No worries. lol

Banning would see rise in criminal activity because bootlegging and people resisting the law. It's all speculation, but if we could somehow reshape norms, banning it would probably be net beneficial. I'm very aware of Al Capone's work that got alcohol re-legalized [there's a level of sarcasm in that statement]. It WOULD lead to a reduction in harms from alcohol consumption [some people would willingly stop drinking], but others would commit more crimes because of it.

Not to mention jobs lost from bars and breweries.

DUI is the primary issue with marijuana, OD's are supposed to be nearly impossible [though that's not an argument for legalization, since it still has negative impacts on the body.]

Alcohol can thin the bloodstream if used in moderation every day [hence the "drink a glass of wine everyday" suggestion given to old people - though the other benefits in wine are the primary reason for this of course]. Junk food still technically has nutritional value [you get calories and fat and salts - and while many don't need salts, it's not a bad thing if you've been eating stuff without much or any salt for a few days and also had been exercising heavily]. Marijuana can't claim to do anything like that, as far as I know.

There's also [at least with junk food] a significantly stronger freedom of choice argument than with marijuana, because junk food doesn't alter your mental state enough to make you miss details and be less able to focus and drive coherently [or directly reduce your brain material] - you don't put others at risk [dumb your mom jokes about sitting around the house and crushing people, and making others uncomfortable on airplanes aside] when you eat junk food, but you do when you consume marijuana [unless you're telling me everyone doesn't operate machinery or do anything that puts others at risk if they are doing inebriated, which I frankly can't believe, in light of current driving while intoxicated statistics that say more than 0 people do so].

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

I'm going to drop this argument, not because I don't see merit in it but because in fact this is how regulation for virtually any consumable is done. My problem here is mainly the categorization of marijuana as a "psychoactive drug", but the fact is that even if it was just a type of fruit, the FDA would still have its hands all over it. And perhaps more to the point, we have good evidence that it's not dangerous, at least not to the degree that anyone else needs to worry about another person's marijuana use.

Case in point:

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.

The amount IQ was lowered was actually fairly marginal. That is, unless I'm reading this wrong, the control group had an average of 110.9 ± 11.6, and the cannabis group had an average of 105.8 ± 12.2. I'm not going to question the study too much - PNAS is a legitimately top tier journal, and these scientists have their ducks in a row when it comes to study design (even though the sample size is somewhat small - for non-retrospective human testing, it's painfully expensive to have large sample sizes, and slightly under 100 total should suffice when you only have case and control groups).

I will say that taking this as evidence that marijuana is dangerous and needs to be banned is particularly weak. Even with the minor effect on IQ, so what? Dropping a few IQ points over ten years of use is not the end of the world. The neurodegenerative effects are still somewhat unclear, but given that connectivity, an important part of brain communication, was also higher among habitual marijuana users, it's hard to say that it's really that bad. Certainly from my own observations (sample size: >10) among some of my family's old friends who have been toking for decades, I'm not seeing particularly many people destroyed by brain degeneration - instead, I see a bunch of very successful aging hippies.

I don't see this as sufficient justification to ban a recreational drug. The detrimental effects of cannabis cannot even begin to compare to the detrimental effects of high-fructose corn syrup or fast food, let alone to alcohol. I put a high premium on the freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, and a clinically insignificant* drop in IQ, some mild changes to brain structure which don't seem to cause larger problems, and a mild addictive factor which is not strong enough to encourage antisocial behavior are not justification to claim that it is "hurting others" in a way worth abridging personal liberty over.

And even if it were, would that harm outweigh the harm of stuffing our prison system full of non-violent offenders? No. No it would not.


*Clinically insignificant: when a change is statistically significant but still doesn't matter. For example, if, on a scale from 0 to 100 of pain response, patients with the drug rate 30% and those with the placebo rate 35%, even if this is statistically significant there's no reason to believe that this 5% reduction is actually noticeable in a clinical setting. What I'm saying, in other words, is that a 5-point drop in IQ is not something anyone would be able to notice.

Yes because paranoid people are predictable.

Even my girlfriend understands that this is laughable, and her entire exposure to marijuana was hanging around me and my friends for a month in the US. Have you ever been around someone who's high? I think if you had, it'd clear up a few misconceptions. The thing about paranoid people on weed is that they're paranoid, but they're also really lazy.

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

My point still stands. Also, you didn't answer my question about how long is long enough, nor did you address the serious issues marijuana prohibition causes or whether or not you even consider them for your cost/benefit analysis.

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.

The arguments are not all the same, but yes, I do favor legalizing prostitution. In fact, it's legal in many places in Europe (including the city I live in), and the main result is that sex workers are more empowered, less likely to give you an STD, and less likely to get murdered or rob you. Why the hell shouldn't prostitution be legal?

 

[Braydon]

Alright I'm done. You are clearly willing to go to any lengths to try and have your way and it's disgusting. Trying to dismiss 5 IQ point loss as irrelevant? What the ****? The difference between average and borderline ******** is 30 points, 5 points is a sixth the difference between being average and ********, it's a noticeable amount on the low end of the scale even outside of clinically.

The fact that you think prostitution should be legal shows that I was right to not try to bring in moral arguments, as I suspected you're incapable of understanding the meaning of the word moral.

It seems everyday I get more and more certain this sociopathic generation will ruin and destroy the world, probably cause nuclear war when they get in control. I'm going to go look at bomb shelters now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Alright I'm done. You are clearly willing to go to any lengths to try and have your way and it's disgusting. Trying to dismiss 5 IQ point loss as irrelevant? What the ****? The difference between average and borderline ******** is 30 points, 5 points is a sixth the difference between being average and ********, it's a noticeable amount on the low end of the scale even outside of clinically.

The fact that you think prostitution should be legal shows that I was right to not try to bring in moral arguments, as I suspected you're incapable of understanding the meaning of the word moral.

It seems everyday I get more and more certain this sociopathic generation will ruin and destroy the world, probably cause nuclear war when they get in control. I'm going to go look at bomb shelters now.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

Go away.

Never mind the various problems with using IQ as a metric in general, but 5 points over a decade is not worth flipping one's **** over. Especially when you consider the error margins are +/- 12 points. You may care; that's fine. Don't smoke. But to justify banning it for others, you have to make the case that nobody in their right mind would accept that or that it harms society as a whole. I don't think it matters particularly much to society as a whole. This isn't crack cocaine or heroin, whose effects can reasonably be described as "epidemic" and which is both addictive and destructive to the point where addicts will kill or steal to get their fix, and often cannot function in society. The very worst we can find are 5 IQ points now and maybe a tenuous link to alzheimer's later in life.

And let me ask you something. How old are you? I'm guessing 15 or 16, because the last time I was that nasty and judgmental about things I thought I understood (but didn't) was around that time. Your moralistic bull**** aside, I welcome you to tell me what's immoral about one person having sex with another for money if both are consenting adults. Because I don't think you can. Either way, feel free to find a different forum to post in. I don't think you'll be missed.

EDIT: 17. Not far off. Grow up and get some perspective, why don't you.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Alright I'm done. You are clearly willing to go to any lengths to try and have your way and it's disgusting. Trying to dismiss 5 IQ point loss as irrelevant? What the ****? The difference between average and borderline ******** is 30 points, 5 points is a sixth the difference between being average and ********, it's a noticeable amount on the low end of the scale even outside of clinically.

The problem with this argument is that 30-35 is still pretty low regardless. So someone with an IQ of 30, having an IQ of 25 after smoking enough marijuana isn't exactly going to affect their brain function anymore than a genius with an IQ of 160 having used weed and being lowered to 155, which is still god tier level. Mind you, this study is only showing averages spanning a pretty small study group as well, so while valid, it does not speak for a larger majority.

The fact that you think prostitution should be legal shows that I was right to not try to bring in moral arguments, as I suspected you're incapable of understanding the meaning of the word moral.

While I don't care for prostitution, you cannot be one to judge it on moral grounds. What is wrong in your eyes with the way you were taught is nothing to hate in the eyes of others.

Prostitution is legal in various countries around the world, and is also legal in the state of Nevada. Surely, you wouldn't parade to those countries or said state and try to preach about how wrong they are for having a culture that has been in practice for longer than your parents were around, would you?

It seems everyday I get more and more certain this sociopathic generation will ruin and destroy the world, probably cause nuclear war when they get in control. I'm going to go look at bomb shelters now.

No. Just no.

 

[Lichi]

Please forgive me my laziness to dig through all of these posts, but as far as I have, the problem here seems to be that no 'proof' of marijuana actually being harmful has been delivered so far, no? At least that's the impression I get from reading the last 2 pages.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Please forgive me my laziness to dig through all of these posts, but as far as I have, the problem here seems to be that no 'proof' of marijuana actually being harmful has been delivered so far, no? At least that's the impression I get from reading the last 2 pages.

Not exactly. There's pretty good evidence that Marijuana is in some regards harmful. It causes a mild IQ drop in longtime users, it should in theory increase the risk of lung cancer, and it does increase the risk of a couple of mental disorders in old age. Additionally, it is mildly addictive.

The problem is that none of this amounts to a strong argument to ban the substance. It's considerably less harmful than various already-legal substances (particularly alcohol is a very egregious example), and more importantly, nothing on this list would cause someone to drift into "swinging their arms at my nose" territory. Nothing here causes a person to explicitly harm another, or generally become a detriment to society. Therefore, I can't really find justification for banning it. And even beyond that, the problem is that drug prohibition is not a particularly good way of handling the problem.

 

[Lichi]

Well okay, that is pretty much what I thought.

The fact that smoking marijuana increases the risk for lung cancer certainly is no reason for a ban at all, true. I mean, everything we smoke does, some substances more than others. But we also 'get cancer' (as synonym for increasing the risk of getting it) by eating everyday food. I think one of the most common examples would be meat that you grilled for a bit too long... yet nobody really cares.

Concerning the decrement of IQ: Assuming IQ would really and directly reflect intelligence, being dumb is no crime (sadly). Personally, I find those individuals, who chose to buy a mostly illegal and quite expensive substance to, what seems to be the most common reasons, relax, be happy and fool around, to already be of questionable intelligence. Even if it were to be legal and likely become cheaper as a result, smoking something that random people put into bags is off-putting to me. That's the same level of stupidity to me as drinking self made alcohol.

Anyway, my cynical views of people intoxicating themselves with substances of unknown origin are no argument for or against anything. I'd like everyone to know where I stand in these debate though before I really enter it.
I don't think it is bad that marijuana is an illegal drug in my country, but I would not actively resist its legalization. The city I live in houses a lot of consumers, and if they want to, they may get as high as ****, I don't care. I'd just prefer it staying somewhat underground, as I have absolutely no desire to be in touch with those people when they've smoked some. I have a personal grudge against the state this drug puts people into, though I do not think myself that they are particularly dangerous.
For clarification, I'd also want alcohol to become somewhat more restricted. It's a drug just like so many others, and I'd like to not stumble across drunk football fans in trains or such.
TL;DR - I personally do not care enough to ban marijuana, but you won't find me giving support to its way into the legal zone either.


That being sad, there certainly are studies that establish links between the use of marijuana and lethal car accidents.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-16961112
While there are studies that show a correlation between the two, there are also others who contradict these. And while a correlation is a correlation, it does not have to show the proximate cause. So it is somewhat uncertain whether stoners really are dangerous to others should they drive a car.
There's also plenty of resources suggesting that the consumption of marijuana does affect your reaction time and general awareness. So I'd like stoners not to meet me on the streets - but this could be resolved the same way as with alcohol. No drinking and driving -> no smoking and driving.

The more exciting issue for me is that there's plenty of material to find that says "Long term use of marijuana affects your (social) life in a negative way". This includes decrease or even depletion of social networks (as not in facebook and twitter), underachieving in jobs and school, being less successful in general and an increase of risking industrial accidents. Especially the increased rate of industrial accidents (if really true) would sway me to believe a continued ban is correct. But there's a catch! Statistically, the Netherlands (as a country where you'd believe more of those accidents to happen) show no higher number than other countries. So how does that fit in?
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...-marijuana-use-affect-school-work-social-life
http://luxury.rehabs.com/marijuana-rehab/social-impact-and-effects-of-marijuana/
There's more to find if you just google something like "effects of marijuana on life"

"That said, marijuana users themselves report a perceived influence of their marijuana use on poor outcomes on a variety of life satisfaction and achievement measures."

You could argue that a substance that makes people less productive and achieve less actually is harmful to society. People not accomplishing what they potentially could and failing in education, work and on a social basis are not what we need to succeed as a whole. Assuming this was a fact, I guess I do not need to elaborate on why I would not want this.

So long story short, with just 10 minutes worth of my time I could find some stuff that looks quite decent and trustworthy, and, looked at solely, would rather strengthen the position of those wanting marijuana to stay illegal. Tbh, I think it is possible to find 'proof' for anything on the internet. But, the uncertainty is not negligible. Somewhere in the depths of this thread I've read a pretty hilarious comparison regarding the ban with the reasoning behind it being "We don't know what it does lol", but I found that to be silly and not fit for purpose. Humanity has seen on many occasions that the legal use of not fully researched chemicals is not always a good idea. You should better be safe than sorry, and the ban is the safer way of preventing eventual harm, as we have clear indicators that marijuana could be harmful to not only the smoker's lungs and IQ.
As I don't see drawbacks in it being illegal I don't see why the ban should be lifted until we know for certain.

 

[Braydon]

@ Lichi
No we're not allowed to make laws based on caution, we all have to take stupid risks because budget wants us to and therefor it's right. Come on budget wants us to all be forced to take a stupid risk based on his say so, clearly I am insane for having a problem with that.

/thread

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ Lichi
No we're not allowed to make laws based on caution, we all have to take stupid risks because budget wants us to and therefor it's right. Come on budget wants us to all be forced to take a stupid risk based on his say so, clearly I am insane for having a problem with that.

/thread

I'd appreciate it if you:

1. Stopped attributing arguments to me that I abandoned
2. Actually held to your word and left when you decided to leave

Thanks.

 

[Braydon]

I'd appreciate it if you:

1. Stopped attributing arguments to me that I abandoned
2. Actually held to your word and left when you decided to leave

Thanks.

If you can't counter that argument I don't see how you can argue for legalization.

I did keep my word about looking up bomb shelters though, it seems the only even remotely cost effective method is to retrofit a preexisting underground structure though.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If you can't counter that argument I don't see how you can argue for legalization.

But I can. We've been living in a society where marijuana use is widespread for decades now. Why would legalization cause new detrimental effects? Would use rate skyrocket? It hasn't exactly skyrocketed in Colorado; we've gone from 10% to 12%, which still doesn't put it ahead of Alaska. Figures for DC aren't out yet, but given the way the regulation works there, I expect you won't see a particularly large increase there either. You never answered my question on how long we'd have to wait to see those long-term effects; care to provide a number?

Also, how does morality even play into this? At what point does "I decide to take this drug" become a moral issue?

 

[Claire Diviner]

If you can't counter that argument I don't see how you can argue for legalization.

The only argument I saw was more ad hominem than a debate point, much less a valid one.

 

[Duplighost]

If you can't counter that argument I don't see how you can argue for legalization.

I did keep my word about looking up bomb shelters though, it seems the only even remotely cost effective method is to retrofit a preexisting underground structure though.

At what point, like it has been clearly stated above, would the use of weed be hazardous (if legalized), if it has already been being used for such a long period of time? Weed, regardless of its illegal or not, will be used/sold. Period. There is no way in stopping it, to put it simply. I respect your opinions, but based on statistics, marijuana has not done anything so inimical to health as to cause death. Let me restate that nobody has died from marijuana usage, and I have a website to prove this:
Marijuana Smoking Doesn't Kill - WebMD

Of course, if one already has a corrupt mindset and marijuana is combined in them with other hardcore drugs, of course it can have a negative effect on the body (as does any drug, notice). But marijuana alone will not kill anyone, even if so abused. It is a natural substance; it is much less of a threat as legalized substances such as alcohol. Why do you think weed is so immoral and dangerous?

And do you actually think our opinions are so extremely adverse it caused you to believe we are a "sociopathic generation", and that we would to some extent we'd advocate nuclear warfare on our own people? I'm hoping that was an exaggeration on your part.

 

[Braydon]

But I can. We've been living in a society where marijuana use is widespread for decades now. Why would legalization cause new detrimental effects? Would use rate skyrocket? It hasn't exactly skyrocketed in Colorado; we've gone from 10% to 12%, which still doesn't put it ahead of Alaska. Figures for DC aren't out yet, but given the way the regulation works there, I expect you won't see a particularly large increase there either. You never answered my question on how long we'd have to wait to see those long-term effects; care to provide a number?

The statistics you quoted show Colorado as the 3rd highest in the country within the 18-25 range, the range where it becomes legal in Colorado, the only reason you manage to get your only 2% increase statistic is by factoring in age ranges like 12-18 that have almost no relevance to the legalization, diluting your statistic to seem lower, and even so you show a noteworthy increase, a 20% increase in the number of people who smoke marijuana can hardly be considered trivial.

Obviously there is an increase in use upon legalization, and thus an increase in all the negatives, you entirely fail to address any argument that goes against you and just denote it as trivial.

Here you're telling me I don't have the right to go about my life without having to worry about airborne chemicals that cause brain damage, not to mention that it can cause drug reactions with anyone on prescription medication as well as being dangerous to people with certain predispositions such as a history of seizures.

And I'll say 10 years to see long term effects just to shut you up, though even then you still can't tell if it will have a bad long term effect, for instance it may cause brain damage to unborn children if their mother is exposed to a notable amount of smoke, but you wouldn't be able to tell until these children were at least a few years old if they have adverse effects.


When does morality play into this? Lets see when you're exposing people around you to potentially dangerous untested airborne drugs without their consent. If it were made legal there would be nothing stopping you. I know you think it's your sacred right to be able to expose people to potentially dangerous airborne drugs whether they like it or not but anyone who wasn't a ****ing sociopath and had some morals might see a problem.

Let's bring back the example of pregnancy, you can say second hand smoke is at most 1/16 as much as smoking a joint, and probably much lower, but for all you know a child in a crucial developmental stage could be hundreds of times more vulnerable to the effects of THC. Of course I'm sure you don't see any problem if you light up in a not so well ventilated apartment on a regular basis and a child is born with brain damage as a result.

And before you bring up how little is in a joint do you even consider the other methods of smoking it that have significantly higher levels of second hand smoke like a bong or pipe?

@ Duplighost
That is blatantly untrue. Yes I'm sure marijuana can't kill you if you don't count long term affects, drug reactions, allergic reactions, and the increased chance of an accident. Yes if you don't count the ways you can die from it, you'll reach a statistic of 0 deaths.

You're trying to counter something we've already established with a ****ing web MD article... What the ****? Web MD can barely be counted as a source and doesn't carry much weight at all, but you go so far as to say that this article proves it can't kill you. How am I supposed to take you at all seriously?

Do I actually think this generation will find a way to ruin the planet? Yes. Maybe not nuclear war, but they'll find a way to ruin ****ing everything.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The statistics you quoted show Colorado as the 3rd highest in the country within the 18-25 range, the range where it becomes legal in Colorado, the only reason you manage to get your only 2% increase statistic is by factoring in age ranges like 12-18 that have almost no relevance to the legalization, diluting your statistic to seem lower, and even so you show a noteworthy increase, a 20% increase in the number of people who smoke marijuana can hardly be considered trivial.

Everything you're saying pertains to legal substances too. Also, where did anyone mention a 20% increase in the number of people who smoke?

Obviously there is an increase in use upon legalization, and thus an increase in all the negatives, you entirely fail to address any argument that goes against you and just denote it as trivial.

He has been addressing the argument. You simply kept calling his argument "bull****".

Here you're telling me I don't have the right to go about my life without having to worry about airborne chemicals that cause brain damage, not to mention that it can cause drug reactions with anyone on prescription medication as well as being dangerous to people with certain predispositions such as a history of seizures.

When does morality play into this? Lets see when you're exposing people around you to potentially dangerous untested airborne drugs without their consent. If it were made legal there would be nothing stopping you. I know you think it's your sacred right to be able to expose people to potentially dangerous airborne drugs whether they like it or not but anyone who wasn't a ****ing sociopath and had some morals might see a problem.

So you mean to say that marijuana smoke can pollute the air outside as potently as the waste given off by factory exhaust? You can't seriously say with a straight face that marijuana will bring about a miasma if even 1000 people were to light up at once.

Furthermore, there are designated smoking zones for those who wish to light up, since smoking in public areas have become illegal in more and more places around the nation. As for smoking indoors in the privacy of one's home in the presence of a guest who wish to not inhale any smoke, there is always such a thing as asking the smoker to not smoke in front of them. Yes, even potheads have common courtesy, despite anything you say to convince yourself otherwise.

And I'll say 10 years to see long term effects just to shut you up, though even then you still can't tell if it will have a bad long term effect, for instance it may cause brain damage to unborn children if their mother is exposed to a notable amount of smoke, but you wouldn't be able to tell until these children were at least a few years old if they have adverse effects.

Same goes for cigarette smoke too. Where's your argument in that regard? If you're worried about pregnant women being exposed to smoke, see my point above.

Let's bring back the example of pregnancy, you can say second hand smoke is at most 1/16 as much as smoking a joint, and probably much lower, but for all you know a child in a crucial developmental stage could be hundreds of times more vulnerable to the effects of THC. Of course I'm sure you don't see any problem if you light up in a not so well ventilated apartment on a regular basis and a child is born with brain damage as a result.

"For all you know"? Okay, do you know? If so, I would love to see proof. You want to shut us up? Give us something that will strengthen such an empirical claim. Otherwise, do not try and make a mere speculation appear as if it has any weight to make your argument stronger.

And before you bring up how little is in a joint do you even consider the other methods of smoking it that have significantly higher levels of second hand smoke like a bong or pipe?

Gee, I don't think us dumb pot-smoking degenerates know. Do bongs, pipes, and hookahs generate more smoke? Educate us. If they do, what about things, such as pot brownies? Where do they fall in this debate and your moral standing against anything smoke?

That is blatantly untrue. Yes I'm sure marijuana can't kill you if you don't count long term affects, drug reactions, allergic reactions, and the increased chance of an accident. Yes if you don't count the ways you can die from it, you'll reach a statistic of 0 deaths.

You're trying to counter something we've already established with a ****ing web MD article... What the ****? Web MD can barely be counted as a source and doesn't carry much weight at all, but you go so far as to say that this article proves it can't kill you. How am I supposed to take you at all seriously?

I've looked everywhere for sources that states marijuana smoke alone can kill, and I found nothing. Yes, there have been some deaths related to driving while high, or other such things while under the influence, but the same can be said about alcohol, that not only claims lives from drunk driving alone, but can also kill if over-consumed. Mind you, no known cases have been discovered concerning marijuana-related deaths from simply smoking too much of it (and I seriously tried hard to find something, just to give your argument a remote chance).

Do I actually think this generation will find a way to ruin the planet? Yes. Maybe not nuclear war, but they'll find a way to ruin ****ing everything.

Then save the world, if you can.

 

[Duplighost]

...I used the Web MD article as a single example... and what's so blatantly untrue about a statistic that is factual?

Okay, I see your perspective of the negative impacts of marijuana (birth defects).
Take into account all the extremely harmful things in a cigarette versus weed. You do make the point of the impact of marijuana during fetal development and growth in babies, but imagine what a cigarette does to a baby. Cigarettes contain over 4,000 chemicals, may it be implied they are harmful. The nicotine and carbon monoxide in a cigarette reduce a baby's oxygen levels. It damages blood vessels in the umbilical cord and interferes with normal red blood cell functions.

Does marijuana do that?
If you don't smoke weed with tobacco, you are literally smoking an all-natural plant, correct? It's much better than your baby consuming tar, insecticides, acids, and hazardous chemicals found in cigarettes. Do you agree?
Why would smoking marijuana during pregnancy be so much worse than a cigarette?

I'm really just going to ignore the end of the world comment, because that is absolutely absurd.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Okay, I see your perspective of the negative impacts of marijuana (birth defects).
Take into account all the extremely harmful things in a cigarette versus weed. You do make the point of the impact of marijuana during fetal development and growth in babies, but imagine what a cigarette does to a baby. Cigarettes contain over 4,000 chemicals, may it be implied they are harmful. The nicotine and carbon monoxide in a cigarette reduce a baby's oxygen levels. It damages blood vessels in the umbilical cord and interferes with normal red blood cell functions.

Does marijuana do that?
If you don't smoke weed with tobacco, you are literally smoking an all-natural plant, correct? It's much better than your baby consuming tar, insecticides, acids, and hazardous chemicals found in cigarettes. Do you agree?
Why would smoking marijuana during pregnancy be so much worse than a cigarette?

To be fair, whether marijuana is as bad for pregnant mothers as cigarettes or not is irrelevant; no pregnant woman should smoke anything, period.

 

[Duplighost]

To be fair, whether marijuana is as bad for pregnant mothers as cigarettes or not is irrelevant; no pregnant woman should smoke anything, period.

I see your point, but @ B Braydon made a few of his statements based on pregnancy in the previous post, so I felt I needed to clear that up (that marijuana would be doing less harm to a child than what a cigarette would do).
But yes, I agree, women should not smoke when pregnant. Absolutely.

 

[Braydon]

...I used the Web MD article as a single example... and what's so blatantly untrue about a statistic that is factual?

Okay, I see your perspective of the negative impacts of marijuana (birth defects).
Take into account all the extremely harmful things in a cigarette versus weed. You do make the point of the impact of marijuana during fetal development and growth in babies, but imagine what a cigarette does to a baby. Cigarettes contain over 4,000 chemicals, may it be implied they are harmful. The nicotine and carbon monoxide in a cigarette reduce a baby's oxygen levels. It damages blood vessels in the umbilical cord and interferes with normal red blood cell functions.

Does marijuana do that?
If you don't smoke weed with tobacco, you are literally smoking an all-natural plant, correct? It's much better than your baby consuming tar, insecticides, acids, and hazardous chemicals found in cigarettes. Do you agree?
Why would smoking marijuana during pregnancy be so much worse than a cigarette?

I'm really just going to ignore the end of the world comment, because that is absolutely absurd.

The statistic is only related to overdose, it doesn't include other ways you can die, saying marijuana can't kill you just because you can't OD is untruthful. There are plenty of ways marijuana can kill you.

I'm entirely certain you don't have a clue how marijuana compares to tobacco. First of all you keep saying marijuana is natural as if this had the remotest relevance to it's safety. First of all it's not natural to smoke any plant, but more importantly natural things can be incredibly lethal, much worse than tobacco, cocaine and deadly nightshade are also plants, being a natural plant doesn't make it safe at all. Further more tobacco is a natural plant as well as marijuana, and a lot of the things you attribute to tobacco are also present in marijuana.

You bring up carbon monoxide as a negative for tobacco over marijuana, when marijuana smoke has comparable amounts of carbon monoxide to tobacco. Carbon monoxide is present during the burning of carbon containing, which includes all plants
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/smoke_from_fire.htm

The smoke released by any type of fire (forest, brush, crop, structure, tires, waste or wood burning) is a mixture of particles and chemicals produced by incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials. All smoke contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter (PM or soot).

You ask "does marijuana do that?" as if it's some gotcha question proving me wrong and the answer is yes marijuana does do that...

You mention insecticides as if they were inherent to tobacco, if marijuana was grown commercially it would be sprayed with insecticides and the current black market stuff may contain much worse.

Marijuana also contains tar like tobacco, http://www.lung.org/associations/states/colorado/tobacco/marijuana.html

Harmful chemicals? That is an incredibly vague term that can be used to apply to a great deal of things in marijuana.

Do I agree marijuana is much more healthy for babies than tobacco? Hell no!



On top of all this marijuana can cause brain damage, which I'd say is far far worse than any physical disability you may get from tobacco. And we have no clue how sensitive a fetus is to the effects of marijuana, second hand smoke from marijuana for all we know is a very legitimate threat to an unborn babies mental health.

 

[Duplighost]

There are plenty of ways marijuana can kill you.

Please name some ways marijuana alone can kill someone (when the death toll is approximately... zero). I agree overdose can be harmful, but there are no reported deaths from just marijuana on its own.

I'm entirely certain you don't have a clue how marijuana compares to tobacco. First of all you keep saying marijuana is natural as if this had the remotest relevance to it's safety. First of all it's not natural to smoke any plant, but more importantly natural things can be incredibly lethal, much worse than tobacco, cocaine and deadly nightshade are also plants, being a natural plant doesn't make it safe at all. Further more tobacco is a natural plant as well as marijuana, and a lot of the things you attribute to tobacco are also present in marijuana.

Here's a quote from this website...

Marijuana Shown to Be Less Damaging to Lungs Than Tobacco ... :

“Essentially with tobacco, the more you use, the more loss you have with both of the indicators, air flow rate and lung volume,” said the paper’s last author Stefan Kertesz, MD, MSc, associate professor in the Division of Preventive Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine and the Birmingham VA Medical Center. “There’s a straight-line relationship: the more you use, the more you lose.”

The same was not true with marijuana use. Air flow rate increased rather than decreased with increased exposure to marijuana up to a certain level.

“An important factor that helps explain the difference in effects from these two substances is the amount of each that is typically smoked,” Pletcher said. “Tobacco users typically smoke ten to 20 cigarettes/day, and some smoke much more than that. Marijuana users, on average, smoke only two to three times a month, so the typical exposure to marijuana is much lower than for tobacco.”

You bring up carbon monoxide as a negative for tobacco over marijuana, when marijuana smoke has comparable amounts of carbon monoxide to tobacco. Carbon monoxide is present during the burning of carbon containing, which includes all plants

This was referenced toward carbon monoxide and the nicotine working together in a cigarette only. I do realize what you stated above.

You ask "does marijuana do that?" as if it's some gotcha question proving me wrong and the answer is yes marijuana does do that...

Weed does not do all the things that a cigarette does (although marijuana can in fact be harmful if heavily used). To stray away from the pregnancy topic, I hope we can all agree a woman should not smoke anything whatsoever whilst pregnant.

You mention insecticides as if they were inherent to tobacco, if marijuana was grown commercially it would be sprayed with insecticides and the current black market stuff may contain much worse.

A good reason why it needs to be legalized. We may not have to deal with the infamous black markets selling substances illegally. If marijuana was legal, do you think there would be a need for black markets? If we were ensured with naturally-grown weed without pesticides before buying, we won't be doing much harm to anyone.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The statistics you quoted show Colorado as the 3rd highest in the country within the 18-25 range, the range where it becomes legal in Colorado, the only reason you manage to get your only 2% increase statistic is by factoring in age ranges like 12-18 that have almost no relevance to the legalization, diluting your statistic to seem lower, and even so you show a noteworthy increase, a 20% increase in the number of people who smoke marijuana can hardly be considered trivial.

The reason I considered it not particularly important was because it still didn't put Colorado at #1. In fact, regardless of which statistic you follow, there's a state where Marijuana is banned where more people partake.

Obviously there is an increase in use upon legalization, and thus an increase in all the negatives, you entirely fail to address any argument that goes against you and just denote it as trivial.

Which negatives have a clear effect on society that's worth worrying about?

Here you're telling me I don't have the right to go about my life without having to worry about airborne chemicals that cause brain damage, not to mention that it can cause drug reactions with anyone on prescription medication as well as being dangerous to people with certain predispositions such as a history of seizures.

Hyperbole is unbecoming. The amount of THC present in second-hand smoke is so close to zero as to be negligible. We went over this already. And airborne chemicals? You should worry about auto exhaust far sooner than about second-hand cannabis smoke - it's known to be toxic, it's ****ing everywhere, and it's killed a hell of a lot more people than cannabis.

And I'll say 10 years to see long term effects just to shut you up, though even then you still can't tell if it will have a bad long term effect, for instance it may cause brain damage to unborn children if their mother is exposed to a notable amount of smoke, but you wouldn't be able to tell until these children were at least a few years old if they have adverse effects.

Actually, when it comes to the unborn children, this is where the fact that a large portion of the country already smokes weed becomes crucially relevant. We have studied this.

http://www.mothertobabyca.org/high-...e-smoke-about-marijuana-use-during-pregnancy/

It's not some big question mark, and the fact is that most people know better than to smoke while pregnant.

When does morality play into this? Lets see when you're exposing people around you to potentially dangerous untested airborne drugs without their consent. If it were made legal there would be nothing stopping you. I know you think it's your sacred right to be able to expose people to potentially dangerous airborne drugs whether they like it or not but anyone who wasn't a ****ing sociopath and had some morals might see a problem.

Again with the hyperbole. You're about as likely to get high from second-hand pot smoke as you are to get drunk from smelling the breath of a guy who's spent all night at the bar. We've been over this.

But you know what? You're right, in theory - if there was a serious issue of pot smoke contaminating the environment, there would be a moral issue. I don't disagree with that. I also don't have a particular problem with the DC regulation that does not allow for pot smoking in public establishments such as bars and restaurants, although I think it's playing it safer than it needs to be. Similarly:

Let's bring back the example of pregnancy, you can say second hand smoke is at most 1/16 as much as smoking a joint, and probably much lower, but for all you know a child in a crucial developmental stage could be hundreds of times more vulnerable to the effects of THC. Of course I'm sure you don't see any problem if you light up in a not so well ventilated apartment on a regular basis and a child is born with brain damage as a result.

I would have no problem with regulation categorizing smoking marijuana while pregnant as child endangerment if such laws made any sense from a women's rights perspective (I'm assuming you're not a big fan of abortion if you're going to make this argument). I don't think they do, because a fetus isn't a child, but if we threw that out, then yes, it would make sense to make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke.

Also, where did you get that 1/16 figure? That's massively inflated based on the studies I've seen.

And before you bring up how little is in a joint do you even consider the other methods of smoking it that have significantly higher levels of second hand smoke like a bong or pipe?

Citation needed. The issue with second-hand cannabis smoke is that your body absorbs the THC very quickly, thus leaving very little when you breathe the smoke out. So why would a pipe or a bong lead to considerably more second-hand THC? Keep in mind that neither actually burns particularly quickly unless you're stimulating the flow of oxygen.

Do I actually think this generation will find a way to ruin the planet? Yes. Maybe not nuclear war, but they'll find a way to ruin ****ing everything.

I really don't mean this as a dig against you, but you're 17 and extremely judgmental. You don't know much about the world and you're acting as though it's going under. What's changed is that people are becoming more open-minded, more tolerant of different things, and less willing to butt into people's personal lives for no good reason. I implore you - seek out some perspective.

 

[Lichi]

Gotta love how fast this thread derailed again.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

@ B Braydon You just need to take a couple hits and relax dude.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Marijuanna can kill? Okay, too dangerous, ban this **** from the planet of Earth, now.



Derailed discussion indeed.

Can 1930s propoganda stay out of this please?

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Marijuanna can kill? Okay, too dangerous, ban this **** from the planet of Earth, now.



Derailed discussion indeed.

Can 1930s propoganda stay out of this please?

Direct deaths from water: 1,000,000+
Direct deaths from marijuana: None

I think we know what the real danger of this world is!

 

[Diddy Kong]

Direct deaths from water: 1,000,000+
Direct deaths from marijuana: None

I think we know what the real danger of this world is!

How would marijuana lead to death? I guess someone who's extremely high should avoid dangerous situations, but the smoker most likey would like to avoid such situations anyway.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

How would marijuana lead to death? I guess someone who's extremely high should avoid dangerous situations, but the smoker most likey would like to avoid such situations anyway.

It was more of a sarcastic comment. It's practically impossible to die from marijuana. If I'm not mistaken, you would need to absorb your entire body weight's worth of THC in 15 minutes in order to die from marijuana. At that rate, you would probably pass out from lack of oxygen before you could manage to die from overdosing. And similar to what you said, no one is trying to find a way to die, smokers are not idiots who are trying to hurt themselves, they just wanna have a good time.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

How would marijuana lead to death? I guess someone who's extremely high should avoid dangerous situations, but the smoker most likey would like to avoid such situations anyway.

http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/
And you can probably find more on accidents. Not a particularly strong argument against legalization, but we do ourselves a disservice when we pretend that there's no risk. We need to be honest and realistic about the dangers, and make people understand that we get it, and are in favor despite it.

It's like the people who claim Marijuana cures cancer. No. No it does not, and do you think that lying about, exaggerating the truth and making claims you cannot back up helps anyone? No. Marijuana is safe enough and has enough going for it without stretching the truth, without pretending the risks aren't there.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Smoking marijuana would not cure cancer no, not by itself. But oil made out of cannabis definitely does kill cancer, or at least does a significant amount of damage to cancer cells. In any way, it has proved that cannabis is beneficial for cancer patients because it makes them eat. In which case, lighting up a joint isn't a bad idea at all when you are having cancer, it's actually a good idea.

Then, there is also this:

http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/study-shows-marijuana-114-times-safer-than-drinking-alcohol.html

Study claiming that marijuana is 114 times safer than alcohol. You know, that socialy acceptable drug that people digest by drinking it. And that fact alone should make people realise that a world with cannabis reclassed as a legal substance is a much safer and therefore better world than we're leaving with the legal brew.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Smoking marijuana would not cure cancer no, not by itself. But oil made out of cannabis definitely does kill cancer, or at least does a significant amount of damage to cancer cells.

Cite?

In any way, it has proved that cannabis is beneficial for cancer patients because it makes them eat. In which case, lighting up a joint isn't a bad idea at all when you are having cancer, it's actually a good idea.

I'd be very careful introducing any non-approved foreign substances while you're on cancer - particularly while undergoing chemotherapy. It might be a good idea. It might not. Ask your doctor first.

Then, there is also this:

http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/study-shows-marijuana-114-times-safer-than-drinking-alcohol.html

Study claiming that marijuana is 114 times safer than alcohol. You know, that socialy acceptable drug that people digest by drinking it. And that fact alone should make people realise that a world with cannabis reclassed as a legal substance is a much safer and therefore better world than we're leaving with the legal brew.

This is part of why I'm so strongly in favor of Marijuana legalization - it really is about as safe as recreational drugs get, and when you consider various other things that are legal... There are substances that don't even count as recreational drugs, like sugar and fast food that are more dangerous.

 

[Lichi]

The fun thing is:
To all of you who say "We should legalize marijuana because alcohol is legal as well, and that's more dangerous", you sound like 12 year olds who shall present their homework they don't have and say "But Mikey also forgot his homework, and he has never done them in the first place.".
This does not only stand in no real relation to the real deal here. Also, you should consider why alcohol is still legal even though it is known to have killed. I'd just toss economical reasons into the room.

 

[Diddy Kong]

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...ids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat
http://www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/

And no am definitely not asking any doctor now. Have you heard how the 'health' system works? Doctors get paid more if they prescribe you their approved substances regardless if it actually makes you better. I do not trust doctors in these times, as I'm actually believing cancer is a money making business for the elite ruling class.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the-cancer-indust

Am glad though that you recognise marijuana indeed is far less dangerous than drugs as sugar and fast food though. That shows you indeed are informed enough about the matter. But am just not believing that this plant, which has been used for countless ages before modern day medicine, does not hold the answer to many health related problems we face in the world today. It's as this very plant by itself has the power to turn around the current medical and argocultural systems around. And that is dangerous for the people in control of this whole world economy- which is why there is so much propaganda surrounding the herb.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The fun thing is:
To all of you who say "We should legalize marijuana because alcohol is legal as well, and that's more dangerous", you sound like 12 year olds who shall present their homework they don't have and say "But Mikey also forgot his homework, and he has never done them in the first place.".
This does not only stand in no real relation to the real deal here. Also, you should consider why alcohol is still legal even though it is known to have killed. I'd just toss economical reasons into the room.

The reason why the comparison to alcohol is so useful is twofold.

Firstly, because we have experience with alcohol prohibition, and with alcohol being legal. We tried alcohol prohibition. It didn't work. At all. It lead to an explosion of organized crime, made criminals out of citizens, and was just an unmitigated disaster. With it legal, we have some consequences. Alcohol is kind of a really nasty drug. But compare that to Marijuana, and the results are overwhelmingly positive.

Secondly, alcohol provides a useful benchmark. We, as a society, are okay with alcohol being legal. We accept the serious negative consequences of a very addictive, highly lethal drug for the sake of the societal benefits of personal freedom, not flooding our prison systems, not encouraging organized crime, and being able to tax the substance. How in the world can we, at the same time, be against marijuana legalization? It is nice that most people here are at least consistent that if Marijuana should be illegal, then alcohol should definitely be illegal.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...ids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat
http://www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/

The former site is, as is expected, very cautious. Because it's true - there's very little solid research on cannibinoids in vivo, almost all of it is in vitro. This is a big deal, because there are a lot of things that kill cancer cells in vitro. As XKCD so famously put it:

It's an interesting vector for research but it needs far more than what it has now to be able to make any solid pronouncements. The second source offers no citations to primary research, so I'm going to disregard it.

And no am definitely not asking any doctor now. Have you heard how the 'health' system works? Doctors get paid more if they prescribe you their approved substances regardless if it actually makes you better. I do not trust doctors in these times, as I'm actually believing cancer is a money making business for the elite ruling class.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the-cancer-indust

I really wonder why you're citing Health Impact News at me. Is it because you think it's a good source? I hope not. HIN belongs to the same cadre of "alternative health" websites that spreads misleading and dangerous conspiracy theories about health, while touting "cures" that do not and cannot work. Case in point:

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/u-s-media-blackout-italian-courts-rule-vaccines-cause-autism/
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/how-homeopathy-is-healing-autism/
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/wi...ity-to-ban-public-fluoridation-of-city-water/
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/unapproved-but-effective-cancer-cures/

Look at those articles. I didn't even dig very hard - every one except that last one (where I decided on a whim to see if HIN had anything to say about Tullio Simoncini, who believes that cancer is a yeast infection) that's all right on the front page. If you can read those and tell me that Health Impact News is a reliable source on health news and information, then I'm done debating medicine with you, because you are bad at source analysis. As a general rule of thumb, the moment a website claims that vaccines cause autism is the moment you can stop listening to anything they have to say on the subject of health, because either they have not examined any of the research done on the topic, or they're lying.

And actually reading through the article in question, it's not much better. It starts right off the bat with a classic gambit - appealing to increased rates of cancer, without any explanation of why they're increasing. There's actually a reason for this - it's because modern medicine, that thing HIN so despises, has gotten really, really good at keeping people alive. Remember, cancer is not a question of "if", but "when" - if you live long enough, your odds of getting cancer become almost impossible to beat. This is just how cancer works.

Then it talks about cancer drugs making money. Yeah, no ****. Pharmaceutical companies don't work for free. Doctors and medical researchers, like everyone else, have to put food on the table. Let me give you a blunt example here, because your video makes this same mistake. What's worse, a cancer drug that, until the patent runs out (20 years), only the rich can afford, or not having that cancer drug at all? Obviously the latter. Could BAYER act out of the goodness of their heart and sell it cheaper? Maybe, but remember - they're a corporation. The bottom line is the bottom line. And medical corporations traditionally have a small profit margin. It's consistent, and a good return on investment but their profit margins are pretty small. And keep in mind we're talking about a product with a phenomenally long and pricy development cycle - not unreasonable for a medical drug (those always have long and pricy development cycles), but we're talking 11 years and enough funding for multiple human trials. That's some serious cash and some serious time.

People love to trot out this "cancer is worth so and so much". You know how much a cure for cancer would be worth if it could actually be shown to work? 50 trillion dollars. That is, about 57% of the GWP, and several times the USA's GDP. Just sayin'.

The next bits of relevant information are quotes from the documentary, "Cut, Poison, Burn". Such as:

“From 1920 to the present time, we have made little progress in the treatment of adult cancers. So, a person who gets prostate cancer or breast cancer today will live as long as a person who got it in 1920.” (Charles B. Simone, M.MS., M.D., Founder, Simone Protective Cancer Center)

This is not true. This isn't even close to true. In fact, it wasn't true in the 1980 either, and that's 35 years ago.

“Why are people terrified when they hear the word cancer? Because they know it [conventional cancer treatment] doesn’t work.” (Dr. Julian Whitaker, M.D. Founder, Whitaker Wellness Institute)

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud.” (Dr. Linus Pauling 1986, Nobel Laureate)

These are super turbo not true. Ever heard of the SEER database? It's a database set up by the NCI to help track various cancer treatments and their effectiveness. Analysis thereof shows that it is trivially obvious that modern cancer treatment works. Hell, this directly contradicts the example earlier from BAYER - Nexavar is incredibly useful in at least two types of cancer and it was developed in the last decade. So that puts the lie to both claims - both that conventional treatment doesn't work, and that cancer research is a fraud. And Pauling has his own page on Quackwatch - regardless of how good he was at chemistry, he embraced quite a bit of medical quackery.

Beyond that, there's a handful of studies examining the effectiveness of chemotherapy.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61625-5/abstract (here's Dr. Gorski's analysis if you can't understand the abstract)
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/45395/11060_2004?sequence=1
http://wiki.math.mcgill.ca/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/groups/dstephens/reading/earle2001.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567100/
...I found these in like 3 minutes on google, I'm sure if an actual oncologist spent time looking, they could offer you far more and far more important studies.

Should I keep going? Have I made my case that this article is full of **** yet?

Dr. Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D

Aight, I'm out.

The claim that chemo does not work is a lie.
The claim that cancer research is not being performed or is somehow fraudulent is a lie.
The claim that ketogenic diets will solve all your problems is a lie.
The claim that a cure for cancer exists and is being suppressed is almost certainly a lie.
The claim that all cancer research is based on genetic causes is a lie.
The claim that tumors are mostly fungal in nature is... Wait, what?!

Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda) Therapy
Dr. Tullio Simoncini is an Italian physician who has found that plain old baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) has a powerful ability to eradicate cancer from the digestive tract and other parts of the body. His research shows that tumors are mostly fungal in nature, and the baking soda is particularly effective for removing cancer. His therapy injects the baking soda directly into the cancer cells. In spite of his very impressive body of clinical research and success rates for over 20 years, he has been largely ostracized in Italy.

- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/unapproved-but-effective-cancer-cures/#sthash.hwtYN7sc.dpuf

And you know what the most depressing thing about all of this is? It's this kind of scientifically bankrupt bull**** that leads to people abandoning conventional cancer therapy, their best shot at survival, in favor of unproven or falsified alternatives that more often than not do nothing to stop the cancer*. Health Impact News, Natural News, Mercola, the whole ****ing band of them have blood on their hands for bull**** like this.

Please don't cite Health Impact News as a source. Please. This kind of misinformation needs to stop.


*In fact, there was a study done to try to assess how well patients of "conventional" therapy (read: real ****ing medicine) did as compared to those who reached for alternatives. The results?

The 5-year overall survival rates were 43.2% (95% CI: 32.0 to 54.4%) for those who refused standard treatments and 81.9% (95% CI: 76.9 to 86.9%) for those who received them.

[...]

Women who declined primary standard treatment had significantly worse survival than those who received standard treatments. There is no evidence to support using Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as primary cancer treatment.

 

[Emélie De Rochèfort]

...Because your question is so on topic. Let me remind you SmashBoards are about posting content that are related to Super Smash Bros. But,I am guessing I am going to give an answer either way.

The fun thing is:
To all of you who say "We should legalize marijuana because alcohol is legal as well, and that's more dangerous", you sound like 12 year olds who shall present their homework they don't have and say "But Mikey also forgot his homework, and he has never done them in the first place.".
This does not only stand in no real relation to the real deal here. Also, you should consider why alcohol is still legal even though it is known to have killed. I'd just toss economical reasons into the room.

I could not agree with Lichi more. I am not going into a fully detailed answer because It would take me so long to type it down,that the comment itself would have been a boring wall of text that no one would read anyway. What Lichi says is technically a shorter version of my own answer. Thank you for your attention.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...Because your question is so on topic. Let me remind you SmashBoards are about posting content that are related to Super Smash Bros.

This is the debate hall, in the section of the forum related to non-Smash topics. This is absolutely on topic, just as much as the thread about morality, the thread about evidence for god, and the thread about feminism. Ironically, the threads here which are off-topic are the ones asking "should brawl exist" "what's your idea of a DLC character" and the like.

I could not agree with Lichi more. I am not going into a fully detailed answer because It would take me so long to type it down,that the comment itself would have been a boring wall of text that no one would read anyway. What Lichi says is technically a shorter version of my own answer. Thank you for your attention.

Did you spend any time reading this thread? Not only are walls of text kind of the norm here, but I actually responded at length to Lichi's point.

The reason why the comparison to alcohol is so useful is twofold.

Firstly, because we have experience with alcohol prohibition, and with alcohol being legal. We tried alcohol prohibition. It didn't work. At all. It lead to an explosion of organized crime, made criminals out of citizens, and was just an unmitigated disaster. With it legal, we have some consequences. Alcohol is kind of a really nasty drug. But compare that to Marijuana, and the results are overwhelmingly positive.

Secondly, alcohol provides a useful benchmark. We, as a society, are okay with alcohol being legal. We accept the serious negative consequences of a very addictive, highly lethal drug for the sake of the societal benefits of personal freedom, not flooding our prison systems, not encouraging organized crime, and being able to tax the substance. How in the world can we, at the same time, be against marijuana legalization? It is nice that most people here are at least consistent that if Marijuana should be illegal, then alcohol should definitely be illegal.

 

[Emélie De Rochèfort]

This is the debate hall, in the section of the forum related to non-Smash topics. This is absolutely on topic, just as much as the thread about morality, the thread about evidence for god, and the thread about feminism. Ironically, the threads here which are off-topic are the ones asking "should brawl exist" "what's your idea of a DLC character" and the like.




Did you spend any time reading this thread? Not only are walls of text kind of the norm here, but I actually responded at length to Lichi's point.

I am so very sorry for my ignorance. When I came across this thread I was rushing myself,because I had to do something and didn't have time to read it and didn't think before posting. Now that I read your whole comment,I can say that is one complete answer. Your points were so true that,they could be in a book,To be honest! Again,My sincere apologies for ignoring your answer.

 

[Lysergic]

Because it's a drug, and drugs are bad.

Plain and simple.

 

[Sucumbio]

Except it's really just a plant tho. Plants are neither good or bad.