Legalize it?

[Toon324]

A lot of people want weed to be legalized for public use. People claim that weed is better for you than cigs. That's not what we're here to debate though. This debate is about this: should smoking weed and cigs be legal on private property, and strictly banned in all public locations? Further restrictions would include that you must be 50 feet from public land and any private land who doesnt approve of the practice. Weed and cigs would also carry a transport policy similiar to alchohol; that is, they must be in sealed, non-opened packaging. Also, you must be 21. Why should we allow it at all, you might ask. CA alone has an 8 billion dollar industry in weed sales. Those people are doing it anyways, no matter the law. Why not cash in on it?

Comments, questions, concerns?

[RodziR]

I don't mind people smoking anywhere (except inside).

[DeathsFriend22]

Weed stunts your mental growth, i.e. it makes you stupider. If you smoke it at age 14, for example, you will always be stuck with the mentality of a 14 year old.

Food for thought.

[Zackj191]

Weed stunts your mental growth, i.e. it makes you stupider. If you smoke it at age 14, for example, you will always be stuck with the mentality of a 14 year old.

Food for thought.


Find one study where this has actually been found true and was held by non-biased, government funded (not privately funded) and with at least 500 different people then I might believe it. Otherwise don't try to make up stupid shit or say what the dumb housecunt across the street told you.

[MNM1245]

Find one study where this has actually been found true and was held by non-biased, government funded (not privately funded) and with at least 500 different people then I might believe it. Otherwise don't try to make up stupid shit or say what the dumb housecunt across the street told you.


You don't need a study. I just have to look at the few hundred pot heads in my school. 90% are all fucking retarded and failing.

I'm sure there are studies out there though but from experience weed messes people up.

[RightSideTheory]

Did you ever think that perhaps they're slow and don't care about school, so they smoke weed? Or perhaps, they happen to be below average in the intelligence department, and also smoke weed.

Saying "hurr-durr, if you smoke weed you are dumb, lol" is idiotic in and of itself, and false.


I don't smoke weed, but I don't think it should be illegal. That's letting telling me owning trees is illegal, or having a rose bush in my front house. It's banning something that grows naturally on earth, which is, in my opinion, fucking retarded. Also, look at tobacco products, tobacco by its self isn't so bad, but they put tons of chemicals in all the products (Tar? The fuck?), and that shits legal.

[Zackj191]

I feel as though weed should be legalized anywhere. If a specific establishment bans the use of marijuana within their premises then they should have the ability to outlaw it within their private property, just like smoking cigarettes.


The number one cash crop for the state of California, the number one agricultural supplier in the world, is marijuana at 8 billion in revenue, while it is illegal. If weed is legalized and there are taxes on buying it that could potentially increase the 8 billion to more than 10 or even 12 billion, solving some of California's deficit problems.


Studies have shown that roughly 60% of the population smoke marijuana. If weed was made legal, hopefully following the trend of the Netherlands, the amount of usage would drop down to under 10% of the population. One of the main reasons that teenagers smoke weed or try smoking weed has been known to be curiosity. They are curious as to what will happen and are attracted to the allure that the illegality of the weed causes. It makes them feel rebellious.


All the chemicals found in, and released during the usage of marijuana, are all naturally found in the human body. The main chemical released in marijuana that causes the feeling of a "high", tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short, causes the activation of nerve receptors in your brain that normally remain inactive and these receptors.

"The pharmacological actions of THC result from its binding to the cannabinoid receptor CB1, located mainly in the central nervous system, and the CB2 receptor, mainly present in cells of the immune system. It acts as a partial agonist on both receptors, i.e., it activates them but not to their full extent. The psychoactive effects of THC are mediated by its activation of the CB1 receptor, which is the most abundant G protein-coupled receptor in the brain."

There have been no positive correlation between the use of marijuana and any negative effects on the users health. The only side effects of smoking marijuana is the smoke itself, which could be avoided if one decides instead to consume a variation of marijuana which has been cooked into a pastry or brewed into a tea. The irritation of the lungs and mouth caused by the smoke inhalation are also common to people who smoke cigarettes and people who smoke cigars, albeit cigar smoking only effects the mouth due to the fact that when smoking a cigar one doesn't inhale the fumes into their lungs. Both lung and mouth irritation are temporary, and last for, at the worst, several hours, however normally the duration of these effects are only noticed or felt for much short periods of time.

[DeathsFriend22]

Find one study where this has actually been found true and was held by non-biased, government funded (not privately funded) and with at least 500 different people then I might believe it. Otherwise don't try to make up stupid shit or say what the dumb housecunt across the street told you.

Don't just start throwing around insults until you know I'm wrong pal. 5 minutes on Google will tell you the same thing. You're never going to find a study using MRI scans for 500 people at $2,000 a person, government funded or not, so you can drop that (almost literal, it seems) pipe dream right now. However there are plenty of studies using 20-50 people that all have proven the same thing.

Fact: Smoking marijuana stunts mental growth in adolescents.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2009/02/05/teen-brains-damaged-by-heavy-marijuana-smoking.htm
http://www.everybody.co.nz/page-00885817-85ae-4377-bfac-bb0f33d2417d.aspx
http://memoryzine.com/2010/11/19/young-marijuana-users%E2%80%A6-why-do-you-think-they-call-it-%E2%80%98dope%E2%80%99/
http://www.empowereddoctor.com/marijuana-brain-study
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html

[Zackj191]

You don't need a study. I just have to look at the few hundred pot heads in my school. 90% are all fucking retarded and failing.

I'm sure there are studies out there though but from experience weed messes people up.


Actually, by law, you do need a study, or some sort of factual evidence to support your claims. That's why weed legalization has been making so much progress in the past decade. People finally stand up and say "why should we just believe these old, McCarthy-era, congressmen who have never tried weed or even observed the effects first hand? Why don't we have people actually test to see if it's bad?" So they do, and they find literally no correlation between negative side effects and marijuana use. In every case study they have done both sides of the study (the people who don't smoke and the people who do) stay the exact same, excluding outliers (on BOTH sides) where someone contracts a major disease or illness outside of the study.

[Zackj191]

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2009/02/05/teen-brains-damaged-by-heavy-marijuana-smoking.htm


What study? That's kind of odd that they never mentioned where this study was published or any of the notes from the researchers.

http://www.everybody.co.nz/page-00885817-85ae-4377-bfac-bb0f33d2417d.aspx"This information is intended solely for New Zealand residents and is of a general nature only and no person should act in reliance on any statement contained in the information provided"


http://memoryzine.com/2010/11/19/young-marijuana-users%E2%80%A6-why-do-you-think-they-call-it-%E2%80%98dope%E2%80%99/A WordPress blog? Do you want me to just write my own blog post and put a link to the HOMEPAGE of a random medical site at the end?


http://www.empowereddoctor.com/marijuana-brain-study
Anyone with an account at EmpoweredDoctor can change the post, it's like using wikipedia as a legitimate source.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html (http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html)The only site which I find actually trustworthy out of all the sites you linked, and it just says "can" not "does".


Why do none of the links you pasted tell about the HUGE percentage of people who get through High School just fine with perfect grade that do smoke weed? One of my best friends smokes weed almost every single day and she was nominated for the GYLC (Girls Youth Leadership Conference), graduated with a 4.0 and fluently speaks two languages and part of a third? That seems to be WAY better than most people in High School and she smokes all the time.

[ShortkidPena]

Im gonna go with yes only if it has an extremely high tax and is limited to people 18 yrs and older. Kids will still get it but now the idea of being a "badass" and a rebel against your parents really isnt such a big deal. I agree that pot isnt helping kids become any smarter, but it also isnt making anyone dumber. The kids that are failing all their classes choose to not because pot is making them stupid. They are stupid because they are smoking pot

Oh and a kid at my school who smoked everyday before lacrosse and football graduated with a 4.1 GPA and is playing football at USC. And hes not black. I don't know how he does it, but he was just insane

[DeathsFriend22]

The only site which I find actually trustworthy out of all the sites you linked, and it just says "can" not "does".


Why do none of the links you pasted tell about the HUGE percentage of people who get through High School just fine with perfect grade that do smoke weed? One of my best friends smokes weed almost every single day and she was nominated for the GYLC (Girls Youth Leadership Conference), graduated with a 4.0 and fluently speaks two languages and part of a third? That seems to be WAY better than most people in High School and she smokes all the time.

There are outliers to every study, your friend is one of them.

I don't personally know any people who smoke week regularly and get good grades, in fact most of the ones I know have below a 2.0.

You're arguing semantics with the whole "can" vs. "does" thing, quit grasping at straws.

Since you get to challenge me to find a study, you do the same. Find me a study that says that weed is not harmful in any way whatsoever.

[Zackj191]

There are outliers to every study, your friend is one of them.

I don't personally know any people who smoke week regularly and get good grades, in fact most of the ones I know have below a 2.0.

You're arguing semantics with the whole "can" vs. "does" thing, quit grasping at straws.

Since you get to challenge me to find a study, you do the same. Find me a study that says that weed is not harmful in any way whatsoever.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

It's strange, this one actually links to a REAL study done, not just someone quoting a doctor without any signs of any study or anything.

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509.html (that's the actual scientific journal of the study done)

[Zackj191]

Also, here's an interesting read I found. This is someones rough draft about leagalization they wrote.



Legalization of Cannabis Sativa, Commonly Known as Marijuana


Cannabis sativa, commonly known as marijuana, is a plant species that is mainly known for its psychoactive effects when consumed – either through smoking, ingesting, or vaporizing. Being outlawed in most states by the year 1937 (Marijuana: The Facts), it has since been falsely accused with many negative side-effects... almost none being scientifically proven. It causes a knowledgeable person to wonder why marijuana is kept prohibited, while harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco are kept legal and supported by the government subsidiaries. Basing its legalization on another fallacy is illogical. However, basing its justification on sheer evidence and practical morals is quite the contrast.
There are many common misconceptions on marijuana; its’ supposed physically addictive properties being one of them. The hype around marijuana’s addictiveness is misleading to the core. In fact, marijuana has shown to be the least addictive out of 6 commonly used drugs – caffeine, alcohol, heroin, cocaine, nicotine, and marijuana (Markoff). Studies show that it can actually help patients who are dependent on ‘hard’ drugs, such as cocaine, in the battle on their dependence (Hess). Not only are its physically addictive properties a misconception, but also its psychologically addictive properties:
Studies have estimated that between 5 and 10% of those who try smoking cannabis will become daily users sometime during their life, but most of these smokers will have given up the habit by age 30 and few remain daily smokers after age 40. (Erowid)
In fact, marijuana’s addictiveness is so highly disregarded by doctors that it is more than 3 times less addictive when compared to caffeine. Moreover, nicotine is more addictive than the 5 other drugs in the study – alcohol, heroin, cocaine, caffeine, and marijuana. In addition, alcohol is more addictive as well (Markoff). Making the addictive properties of marijuana a foundation in an argument supporting its prohibition is a true lapse in logic. When in comparison to the other 5 commonly used drugs, marijuana’s addiction is obviously insignificant. It leaves one standing shocked when pondering over the fact that nicotine and alcohol are still legal, even with proven negative side effects.
Another false belief of marijuana is its connection to various types of cancer, such as lung and oral cancer. This belief is supported by the fact that marijuana contains 50 percent more carcinogens (cancer causing substances) than tobacco (BBCNews). However, research has proven that marijuana use is not connected to a much higher risk of cancer. Many studies actually show no sign of increased risk at all (Boyles, Bates, Gardner). Surprisingly enough, marijuana use causes a positive affect on cancerous tumors. The main ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been attributed to this positive effect, says the American Association for Cancer Research. (AACR). Even more surprising, the government’s Drug Enforcement Administration) (DEA), learned of this positive effect after a 1974 study, only to halt the research and destroy its results. This study was next replicated in 2000, but this time the results were released (Cushing 1). The question of whether or not the government is truly looking out for our best interests comes to mind when presented with these facts.
“Smoking marijuana makes you dumb”, or so the general populous believes. Yet again, this misconception of marijuana is disproved by research. It is believed that it causes brain cells to die (a common effect of alcohol intake). However, research says otherwise. Contrary to wide belief, marijuana use actually promotes neurogenesis - the growth of brain cells (University of Saskatchewan), and causes no negative cerebral structural changes (DeLisi).
One of the major problems in today’s prescribed drugs is their addictive and harmful side-effects. A prime example is a prescribed painkiller known as OxyContin whose main ingredient is oxycodone. If used over a long period of time, oxycodone causes dependence in the user (Profile: Oxycodone). On the other hand, marijuana not only helps with chronic pain in many patients, but it also sidesteps the negative side effects that come along with most prescription painkillers (Weiss). It is morally wrong to allow patients to continually suffer from the negative side affects of their prescribed drugs, when there is a safe and logical alternative – marijuana. Not only does marijuana act as an analgesic, it also aids a variety, and can even prevent, of other illnesses. These include, but are not limited to: ADD/ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Anorexia, Arthritis, Asthma, Atherosclerosis, Chemotherapy, Diabetes, Depression, Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, Glaucoma, Heart and Cardiovascular Disease, Hepatits, Herpes, HIV and AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Neuropathic Pain, Osteoporosis, Parkinson’s Disease, and Post traumatic stress syndrome (Cannabis Research). With all of these different illnesses come consequences, which include their associated prescriptions. Like all prescriptions, one runs the risk of an accidental overdose. However, with marijuana there have been no reported overdoses. According to government authorities, one would have to either smoke 1/3 of their body weight within a time of 15 minutes ("Lethal Dose of Maijuana").
With marijuana’s multiple medicinal advantages, one may begin to wonder why it is prohibited. While the lungs exposure to marijuana smoke over causes a slight decrease in lung capacity (no research proves this thus far), there are safe alternatives. One way is through the means of ingestion. There are a variety of ways to prepare marijuana in food, and it is a perfectly safe alternative to smoking. Another perfectly safe alternative is the act of vaporizing.
Vaporization is a technique for avoiding irritating respiratory toxins in marijuana smoke by heating cannabis to a temperature where the psychoactive ingredients evaporate without causing combustion. You inhale a mist instead of actual smoke (Marijuana Vaporizers).
This allows for the same medical and psychoactive benefits of marijuana, without any harmful toxins being inhaled into your lungs. It leads one to ask “Why not?”
Sadly, there are even more false arguments against marijuana use. The majority of people believe that if marijuana were to be legalized, it would cause many “high-driving” incidents. Supposedly, marijuana use hinders one’s driving ability. Yet again, ignorance is the disease, and research is the vaccine. In fact, marijuana use has actually shown to increase caution in drivers, as they are aware of their state of mind. This causes them to drive slower and less dangerously. Also, research has not been able to link a higher risk of a traffic collision in people who drive while under marijuana’s influence. For example, a recent study sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involving analysis of nearly 2000 fatal accident cases, found 6.7 % of drivers positive for marijuana. In more than two-thirds of those, alcohol was present and may have been the primary contributor to the fatal outcome (Zimmer).
Asides from refuting all of the misinformed arguments against marijuana, and stating its potential for being used for multiple medicinal reasons, there is yet another significant reason behind the legalization of marijuana – its nutritional benefits. The seeds of marijuana, known as hemp seeds, contain all of the amino acids none to man, which includes 8 that the human body can't make, and 2 which the body can't make in sufficient quantity. If you are knowledgeable about seeds, then you can respond with a quizzical reply of “well, they aren't the only seeds that consist of all of the amino acids... Flax seeds, and many others, do as well.” True, but the significance in the hemp seed doesn't lie solely in the fact that it contains all amino acids, but that 65% of the hemp seed's is globulin edistin. That is the largest percentage of globulin edistin in any substance known in the plant kingdom Here's a quick note on globulin edistin protein:
“Globulins are one of seven classes of simple proteins. Simple proteins are constructed from amino acids and contain no non-protein substances. Globulins are in seeds and animal blood. Edistins are found in seeds; serum globulin is in blood. Edistins are plant globulins. And globulins along with albumins are classified as globular proteins. All enzymes, antibodies, many hormones, hemoglobin and fibrogin (the body converts fibrogin into non-soluble, fibrin, a blood clotting agent) are globular proteins. They carry out the main work of living.”
and:
“Globulin is the third most abundant protein in the human body. Globulins perform many enzymatic (causing reactions to take place) functions within the plasma itself. More importantly, they are responsible for both the natural and acquired immunity a person has against invading organisms. The body uses globulin proteins to make antibodies which attack infecting agents (antigens) that invade the body. Globulins like gamma globulin are absolutely essential to maintain a healthy immune system. They neutralize alien microorganisms and toxins.”
And, finally:
“Since hemp seed protein is 65% globulin edistin, and also includes quantities of albumin, its protein is readily available in a form quite similar to that found in blood plasma. Eating hemp seeds gives the body all the essential amino acids required to maintain health, and provides the necessary kinds and amounts of amino acids the body needs to make human serum albumin and serum globulins like the immune enhancing gamma globulins. Eating hemp seeds could aid, if not heal, people suffering from immune deficiency diseases. This conclusion is supported by the fact that hemp seed was used to treat nutritional deficiencies brought on by tuberculosis, a severe nutrition blocking disease that causes the body to waste away.“ (Osburn 14-15)
Not only does cannabis possess all of the essential amino acids with 65% of its protein being globulin edistin, it ALSO consists of the two essential fatty acids, EFAs, that the humans require – Omega 3 and Omega 6. To add on to this picture of perfection, in a study analyzing the optimum ratio for Omega 3 and Omega 6 consumption, hemp seed oil is the closest to this golden ratio. A reminder for the importance of EFAs as well:
“EFAs are utilized by many of the body's systems to maintain proper tissue function. EFAs are required for energy production, proper functioning of the nervous system, brain development and function, skin health and elasticity, digestive efficiency, normal cardiovascular function, hormone production, and efficient immune response. Studies have shown that GLA improves memory, and overall mental health, as well as reducing symptoms of skin ailments like eczema and even fibrocystic disease.” (“Hemp Seed Nutrition”)
It is morally and logically wrong for the continued prohibition of marijuana. If one does not condone research as the foundation of the legalization of any potentially harmful substance, then what? Marijuana use should be legal within the private confines of an individual’s house. If not legal for all, marijuana should be legal as a medical drug for peoples in all 50 states. Marijuana has been proven safe and its prohibition is lawfully, morally, and logically wrong.
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln
December, 1840


American Association for Cancer Research. "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows." ScienceDaily 17 April 2007. 9 December 2008 <http://www.sciencedaily.com* (http://www.sciencedaily.com%c2%ad/) /releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm>.
Bates, Karl. " Study fails to find link between marijuana use and cancer." The University RECORD Online 16 Oct 2006 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Oct16_06/01.shtml>.
Battle, Allen. Web Chat interview. 15 May 2005. <http://www.utmedicalgroup.com/pages/webchat_addiction.html>
Boyles. Salynn. "Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk," FOX News 23 May 2006. 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html>
"Cannabis Research." Above the IGNORANCE. Above The IGNORANCE. 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.abovetheignorance.org/>.
"Cannabis smoke 'worse' than tobacco," BBCNews 11 Nov 2002. 9 Dec 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm>
Cushing, Raymond. "Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74." AlterNet 31 May 2000 1-2. 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/>.
DeLisi, Lynn. "A preliminary DTI study showing no brain structural change associated with adolescent cannabis use." Harm Reduction Journal 3:179 May 2006 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/17>.
Erowid, "Cannabis Basics." EROWID. 8 July 2007. Erowid. 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_basics.shtml>.




Gardner, Fred. "Smoking Cannabis Does Not Cause Cancer Of Lung or Upper Airways, Tashkin FInds; Data Suggests Possible Protective Effect." California Cannabis Research Medical Group 2005 9 Dec 2008 <http://ccrmg.org/journal/05aut/nocancer.html>
"Hemp 101." Living Harvest - Hemp Seed Nutrition Web.10 May 2009. <http://www.worldpantry.com/cgi- bin/ncommerce3/ExecMacro/livingharvest/hemp101.d2w/report>.
Hess. Michael "Moderate Marijuana Use Helpful in ADHD Cocaine Addicts," BBSNews 10 Dec 2006. 9 Dec 2008 <http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20061210235129584>
"Marijuana Vaporizers." weedsthatplease. 15 Dec 2008 <http://www.weedsthatplease.com/vaporizer.htm>.
"Marijuana: The Facts." Drug Policy Alliance Network. Drug Policy Alliance Network. 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/>.
Markoff, Stephen. "Is Marijuana Addictive?." Is Marijuana Addictive? 15 May 1997 9 Dec 2008
Addictive marijuana? (http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm)
Osburn, Lynn. "HEMP SEED: THE MOST NUTRITIONALLY COMPLETE FOOD SOURCE IN THE WORLD ." Hemp Line Journal 1(1992): 14-15. Print.
"Profile: Oxycodone." cesar.umd.org. The Center for Substance Abuse Research. 9 Dec 2008 <http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/pubs/oxy.pdf>. University Of Saskatchewan.
"University Of Saskatchewan Research Suggests Marijuana Analogue Stimulates Brain Cell Growth." ScienceDaily 16 October 2005. 9 December 2008 <http://www.sciencedaily.com* (http://www.sciencedaily.com%c2%ad/)/releases/2005/10/051016083817.htm>.
Weiss. Rick. "Research Supports Medicinal Marijuana AIDS Patients in Controlled Study Had Significant Pain Relief," Washington Post 13 Feb 2007. 9 Dec 2008 Research Supports Medicinal Marijuana - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201332.html)
"What is the lethal dose of marijuana? ." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 9 Dec 2008 <http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm>.
Zimmer, Lynn. "Marijuana Myths, Claim No. 12." EROWID. 1995. Erowid. 15 Dec 2008 <http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml>.

[Letol]

A lot of people want weed to be legalized for public use. People claim that weed is better for you than cigs. That's not what we're here to debate though. This debate is about this: should smoking weed and cigs be legal on private property, and strictly banned in all public locations? Further restrictions would include that you must be 50 feet from public land and any private land who doesnt approve of the practice. Weed and cigs would also carry a transport policy similiar to alchohol; that is, they must be in sealed, non-opened packaging. Also, you must be 21. Why should we allow it at all, you might ask. CA alone has an 8 billion dollar industry in weed sales. Those people are doing it anyways, no matter the law. Why not cash in on it?

Comments, questions, concerns?

I'm just going to start out by saying that cigarettes are definitely much worse for you than marijuana. ;P

But on topic, cigarettes shouldn't be banned from public property. I don't smoke cigarettes myself, but knowing people who do, that would be a living nightmare for them. Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance and people would quite literally be suffering if they "needed" a cigarette, but they couldn't smoke due to being on public property. It's very hard to handle addiction and most people don't have enough composure to stop themselves from smoking when they feel they need to, and those people would probably smoke on public property when they felt they really needed to. If by some off chance this actually became law, people would start calling it another law that only exists to make money off of tickets.

Don't just start throwing around insults until you know I'm wrong pal. 5 minutes on Google will tell you the same thing. You're never going to find a study using MRI scans for 500 people at $2,000 a person, government funded or not, so you can drop that (almost literal, it seems) pipe dream right now. However there are plenty of studies using 20-50 people that all have proven the same thing.

Fact: Smoking marijuana stunts mental growth in adolescents.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2009/02/05/teen-brains-damaged-by-heavy-marijuana-smoking.htm
http://www.everybody.co.nz/page-00885817-85ae-4377-bfac-bb0f33d2417d.aspx
http://memoryzine.com/2010/11/19/young-marijuana-users%E2%80%A6-why-do-you-think-they-call-it-%E2%80%98dope%E2%80%99/
http://www.empowereddoctor.com/marijuana-brain-study
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html

I'm not even going to bother looking into those studies to see if it's true or not, because it doesn't really matter for the sake of this argument. If marijuana does, in fact, inhibit mental growth in adolescents, then why should it be illegal for adults? Take alcohol for example, why do you think it's restricted to anyone below the age of 21?

You don't need a study. I just have to look at the few hundred pot heads in my school. 90% are all fucking retarded and failing.

I'm sure there are studies out there though but from experience weed messes people up.

Actually, yes, you do need a study. There are endless amounts of outlying factors that could affect any of those people you know in your school that could be observed and recorded during a study. These factors could determine why they're failing, why they're smoking marijuana, or both, and you can't just instantly assume that the marijuana is connected to the failing without proof that there were no outside factors.

[Iron]

why do you think it's restricted to anyone below the age of 18?

Fix'd
And meh, I really don't care if they do or don't. IMO nothing will change, there will still be dumb people who are stoners in school and drop outs and etc.

[Time Glitch]

Yes.

Alcohol is by far a worse mood-altering drug than THC. Alcohol a depressant, and actively destroys brain cells. THC, however, has actually been prescribed as an anti-depressant (One of the many medical marijuana uses), and it does not ACTIVELY destroy brain cells. Instead, it simply slows down the connections between your nerves.

Prolonged use of THC can slow down brain function...But so does Alcohol...And again, that's legal...

Point: Alcohol is worse than Weed. Why the f*** is weed illegal?

[Letol]

Fix'd

Fixed for Canadians, and even so, it's still 19 in some other areas of Canada. Regardless, it's 21 in the US, and that seems to be Toon's main area of focus.

Point: Alcohol is worse than Weed. Why the f*** is weed illegal?

Or why is alcohol legal if marijuana isn't?

[Zackj191]

To everyone wondering why weed is illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal, look at the number one companies funding anti-drug movements. The top two parties funding the movement are the alcohol industry, and the cigarette industry. The next top funders are the companies which sell legal drugs. Why would Tylenol want weed to be legal? Drug companies make no money if people can grow something in their backyard that gets rid of their migraine headaches.

[Letol]

To everyone wondering why weed is illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal, look at the number one companies funding anti-drug movements. The top two parties funding the movement are the alcohol industry, and the cigarette industry. The next top funders are the companies which sell legal drugs. Why would Tylenol want weed to be legal? Drug companies make no money if people can grow something in their backyard that gets rid of their migraine headaches.

The reason it's illegal in the first place, though, has to do with the history of hemp, racial issues, etc.

[xFear The Herox]

this is a great thread,

i don't smoke cigs or weed

however i believe that cigs should be illegal, they cause too much damage to people who are not smoking them, so it causes harm to the people who choose not to smoke but are still left with the side- effects from them.

while i believe that smoking weed should be legal.
here are a few points
it will give the government a ton of of money, right now we spend around 6 million a year to destroy around 8 million, this is all money that could help the U.S get out of debt.

it helps people sleep.

it doesn't destroy brain cells if you smoke it only once a day, any more then that then it will destroy some but far less then drinking alcohol.

it relieves pain.

its organic.

and it puts people in better moods so productivity can go up in a business.

these are a few points to why it should be legal.




the only reason weed is illegal is b.c the drug became popular between the blacks and the poor in the 30's

so the rich white people who were in power made it illegal so they could control them.

the reason about the lumber company being the reason is wrong they played a tiny part in it but not enough to make it illegal.

[Murdock Sampson]

Saying "hurr-durr, if you smoke weed you are dumb, lol" is idiotic in and of itself, and false.
I'm going to ignore your whole point and just look at this right now. Because there is, in fact, a way to get through an entire debate without calling the other person stupid. It makes you look a lot more credible, too. Attacking the person rather than their statements is what turns debates into pointless arguments where no progress is made but everyone just gets angry.
Besides, he wasn't saying that anyways. He was saying that from his personal experience, most the kids that smoke pot at his school are stupid. I think we can all agree to that (those of us who went to high school).

Why do none of the links you pasted tell about the HUGE percentage of people who get through High School just fine with perfect grade that do smoke weed? One of my best friends smokes weed almost every single day and she was nominated for the GYLC (Girls Youth Leadership Conference), graduated with a 4.0 and fluently speaks two languages and part of a third? That seems to be WAY better than most people in High School and she smokes all the time.
So now personal experiences are acceptable evidence?

There's no such thing as an unbiased study, for the record. Or an unbiased person for that matter. Everything gets indoctrinated one way or another, whether it's through procedure or the results. People take the evidence that fits their hypothesis rather than framing their ideas around the evidence. That's just how it goes. I was always confused why you needed to make a hypothesis in science because it seems like those are going to be the results you look for.

It seems like the people who are making the best points are the one's who aren't trying to get into the debate at all, just listing their opinions like ShortKid and RodziR. No point in trying to change anyone's mind anyways, right?

Anyways, the question was never "does marijuana have harmful effects?" I think we can all agree the answer to that is yes anyways. The question isn't really even about weed being legal (I guess that's part), but if it were to be legal for private use, should it be legal in public areas. Here's my opinion on it:

I would never (ever) smoke. That's something I've come to terms with myself on. I don't want the adverse side effects, the addiction, and this is more superficial but I don't really want to be roped into the same category as most the people I know who smoke. I've promised myself I'll never do any other drugs either. It's not what I want for myself.

That being said, I think people should be able to do whatever harmful, stupid stuff to themselves they want. That's why we live in America. So sure, marijuana should be legal. It should be a moral question for each individual, not decided by government. A lot of things should be this way, but obviously not like murder and extortion because these hurt other people. If someone wants to do something where they're only hurting themselves, why shouldn't they be able to?

Besides, my opinion of the law is that people will pretty much do what they want regardless of the law. Smokers will smoke, drinkers will drink (prohibition showed us that), murderers will murder. There might be a slight demographic that says, "hey since this is legal, I might as well", but for the most part people who want to do something will. Most people have progressed past the state in moral development which is dictated by rules and laws (that's for children under ten I believe). Most of us have reached the moral state that says "I'm going to do this because I know/believe that this is the right thing to do (or else it's the wrong thing and we justify it)." The law is just repercussions for choices we've already made.

Also, if we're going to legalize it, we should probably make it less expensive. That'll drive the drug dealers out of business. Afterwards, we can tax the hell out of it, because as my economics teacher always told us, "it's easy to tax sin."

With that out of the way, I'll address the second part of the question. Like I said, people should be allowed to do harmful things to themselves if they please. But smoking in public can be harmful to others, and that's where I draw the line. You shouldn't be able to harm other people. Plain and simple. You can't smoke anywhere within 50 feet of a school building, library, or Chuck E. Cheese. Any public building or private property that doesn't okay it.

[Murdock Sampson]

this is a great thread,

i don't smoke cigs or weed

however i believe that cigs should be illegal, they cause too much damage to people who are not smoking them, so it causes harm to the people who choose not to smoke but are still left with the side- effects from them.

while i believe that smoking weed should be legal.
here are a few points
it will give the government a ton of of money, right now we spend around 6 million a year to destroy around 8 million, this is all money that could help the U.S get out of debt.

it helps people sleep.

it doesn't destroy brain cells if you smoke it only once a day, any more then that then it will destroy some but far less then drinking alcohol.

it relieves pain.

its organic.

and it puts people in better moods so productivity can go up in a business.

these are a few points to why it should be legal.




the only reason weed is illegal is b.c the drug became popular between the blacks and the poor in the 30's

so the rich white people who were in power made it illegal so they could control them.

the reason about the lumber company being the reason is wrong they played a tiny part in it but not enough to make it illegal.

Thank you for being sensible and succinct. I couldn't handle either one of those things, but I agree with a lot of what you said.

[xFear The Herox]

Thank you for being sensible and succinct. I couldn't handle either one of those things, but I agree with a lot of what you said.

Thank you

[Zackj191]

Anyways, the question was never "does marijuana have harmful effects?" I think we can all agree the answer to that is yes anyways. The question isn't really even about weed being legal (I guess that's part), but if it were to be legal for private use, should it be legal in public areas. Here's my opinion on it:

Marijuana is NOT harmful at all to the individual using it. There have never been any real studies done that show any positive correlation between marijuana and any harmful side effects.


I would never (ever) smoke. That's something I've come to terms with myself on. I don't want the adverse side effects, the addiction, and this is more superficial but I don't really want to be roped into the same category as most the people I know who smoke. I've promised myself I'll never do any other drugs either. It's not what I want for myself.

Are you fucking crazy? It isn't addictive, to be addictive something (doesn't have to be a drug) has to have withdraws when the user quits. There have never once been a pothead with withdraws. There are no addictive chemicals, release, produced, or ingested when smoking or using marijuana AT ALL.





-As a side note, I want everyone (want, I doubt anyone will actually follow this) who is against weed that has never smoked, at least once just to try it, to shut the fuck up. It's like arguing that chocolate is gross without ever trying it.

[DeathsFriend22]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

It's strange, this one actually links to a REAL study done, not just someone quoting a doctor without any signs of any study or anything.

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509.html (that's the actual scientific journal of the study done)

It's strange, HU210 isn't THC. THC is found in marijuana. HU210 is not. The only thing the article says on THC is "yeah we tested to see if it would do the same thing but it didn't."

If you're going to link me to a study at least make sure they got the chemicals right.


and it puts people in better moods so productivity can go up in a business.


I have honestly never seen a person be productive while they were high, and coming from my high school I had a pretty large sample size.


-As a side note, I want everyone (want, I doubt anyone will actually follow this) who is against weed that has never smoked, at least once just to try it, to shut the fuck up. It's like arguing that chocolate is gross without ever trying it.

Yeah, because having tried it makes you the authority on the subject. What the hell does it have to do with anything? Trying it gives you a grand total of 0 extra credibility. The fact that you've tried it means you're willing to break the law to do it anyway, so why does it even matter to you if it's legalized or not? Besides, I'm not putting my military career in jeopardy over this discussion, fuck that.

[Zackj191]

Yeah, because having tried it makes you the authority on the subject. What the hell does it have to do with anything? Trying it gives you a grand total of 0 extra credibility. The fact that you've tried it means you're willing to break the law to do it anyway, so why does it even matter to you if it's legalized or not? Besides, I'm not putting my military career in jeopardy over this discussion, fuck that.


Because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are only getting what you think you know from other sources.

[DeathsFriend22]

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are only getting what you think you know from other sources.

The scientists you link to probably haven't tried it, but they observe. I've observed plenty of people while they were high and understand that it turns you into a staring lazy retard for a few hours. Besides, you haven't even given me a legit study to look at yet. Come on man, you're slacking.

[Zackj191]

The scientists you link to probably haven't tried it, but they observe. I've observed plenty of people while they were high and understand that it turns you into a staring lazy retard for a few hours. Besides, you haven't even given me a legit study to look at yet. Come on man, you're slacking.

Neither have you. I know that when you are high you don't become a "staring lazy retard." Good "observations" but they aren't true. Try smoking weed for yourself and see, it's nothing like you think and like the propaganda against it says.

[DeathsFriend22]

Neither have you. Try smoking weed for yourself and see, it's nothing like you think and like the propaganda against it says.

I'm not forfeiting my military career just to appease you in this discussion when my standpoint will remain the same. Not a chance.

I have provided a legit article, you said yourself that you trusted it (though of course with some bullshit about "can" vs "does").

If that's not enough for you, each (http://www.livescience.com/5298-marijuana-disrupt-brain-development.html) of (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm) these (http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html) words (http://www.panicattacks.com.au/articles/mari.html) links (http://www.examiner.com/mental-health-in-san-francisco/how-marijuana-creates-paranoia) to (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311782/?page=2) a (http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html) different (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive) study (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/marijuana.potency/) or article about the harmful effects of marijuana on the body and the mind.

A summary of those articles: 3 blunts of marijuana is as harmful to your lungs as 20 cigarettes, it can cause paranoia, can cause schizophrenia, can stunt mental development, raises your risk of heart attack, users are more likely to become ill or miss work on a regular basis, and it is in fact somewhat addictive. Oh, and it increases your risk of lung cancer by a shitload. (http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280)

I think I win.

[Murdock Sampson]

There have never been any real studies done.
There. I fixed it so it works for all of your arguments.
It isn't addictive, to be addictive something (doesn't have to be a drug) has to have withdraws when the user quits. There have never once been a pothead with withdraws. There are no addictive chemicals, release, produced, or ingested when smoking or using marijuana AT ALL.
It's not about being physically addictive. I know it's not physically addictive. It doesn't have to be physically addictive to be addictive. One can have a psychological dependency. It occurs pretty frequently actually. You're basically saying gambling and stuff like that isn't addictive, when we all are aware that there are in fact addicts to these things.
As a side note, I want everyone (want, I doubt anyone will actually follow this) who is against weed that has never smoked, at least once just to try it, to shut the fuck up.
But maybe then I'd be dumb enough to believe your opinion.
Okay, that was a joke, but you're mad aren't you :p

[wiggums]

It's sad that people still don't realize how harmless weed is, at least compared to many legal alternatives. But even if it killed you after 15 hits I'd still want it legalized. You don't want to smoke it? Ok, then DON'T. It's that simple. What right do you have to say that other people shouldn't do what they want in the privacy of their own home? Alcohol is actually addictive and does terrible damage but it's legal. This same argument should be made for not just weed, but every fucking drug out there. People have this habit of splitting medicinal drugs and illegal drugs into 2 opposite categories. Well here's a bit of information for you: They're the same thing. Advil is a drug taken from the bark of some special kind of tree. If hemp grew on Advil instead of on weed, you'd be taking your daily dose of marijuana in a pill for your headache while debating if Advil should be legalized for smoking right now.

The point is, many things "stunt" your brain development. Guess what? You don't have to take part. If others want to though, who are you to say they can't? Let people be responsible for themselves.

Oh, and legalized gay marriage already, it's just getting plain pathetic.

[ShortkidPena]

-As a side note, I want everyone (want, I doubt anyone will actually follow this) who is against weed that has never smoked, at least once just to try it, to shut the fuck up. It's like arguing that chocolate is gross without ever trying it.

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac178/3P5/LOL-umad-bro.jpg


I'm sorry, I just couldn't help it. And I'm just trying to loosen tensions, not stir up more arguments :D

[DeathsFriend22]

how harmless weed is

False.

looks like you didn't red the thread. Here it is again for you:
each (http://www.livescience.com/5298-marijuana-disrupt-brain-development.html) of (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm) these (http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html) words (http://www.panicattacks.com.au/articles/mari.html) links (http://www.examiner.com/mental-health-in-san-francisco/how-marijuana-creates-paranoia) to (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311782/?page=2) a (http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html) different (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive) study (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/marijuana.potency/) or article about the harmful effects of marijuana on the body and the mind.

One study notes that 3 blunts is the equivalent of 20 cigarettes in regards to damage done to your lungs.


But even if it killed you after 15 hits I'd still want it legalized. You don't want to smoke it? Ok, then DON'T. It's that simple. What right do you have to say that other people shouldn't do what they want in the privacy of their own home? Alcohol is actually addictive and does terrible damage but it's legal. This same argument should be made for not just weed, but every fucking drug out there. People have this habit of splitting medicinal drugs and illegal drugs into 2 opposite categories. Well here's a bit of information for you: They're the same thing. Advil is a drug taken from the bark of some special kind of tree. If hemp grew on Advil instead of on weed, you'd be taking your daily dose of marijuana in a pill for your headache while debating if Advil should be legalized for smoking right now.

The point is, many things "stunt" your brain development. Guess what? You don't have to take part. If others want to though, who are you to say they can't? Let people be responsible for themselves

You know, there is such a thing as secondhand smoke. That's exactly why I wish cigarettes were illegal too, because you're not just taking your own life into your hands, you're taking the health of everyone around you into your hands as well.

[Murdock Sampson]

It's sad that people still don't realize how harmless weed is, at least compared to many legal alternatives. But even if it killed you after 15 hits I'd still want it legalized. You don't want to smoke it? Ok, then DON'T. It's that simple. What right do you have to say that other people shouldn't do what they want in the privacy of their own home? Alcohol is actually addictive and does terrible damage but it's legal. This same argument should be made for not just weed, but every fucking drug out there. People have this habit of splitting medicinal drugs and illegal drugs into 2 opposite categories. Well here's a bit of information for you: They're the same thing. Advil is a drug taken from the bark of some special kind of tree. If hemp grew on Advil instead of on weed, you'd be taking your daily dose of marijuana in a pill for your headache while debating if Advil should be legalized for smoking right now.

The point is, many things "stunt" your brain development. Guess what? You don't have to take part. If others want to though, who are you to say they can't? Let people be responsible for themselves.

Oh, and legalized gay marriage already, it's just getting plain pathetic.
Yeah I agree. Except for the harmless thing. But we're allowed to disagree on that, since our course of action would be the same thing.

ShortkidPena thanks for your attempts. I don't think it'll work though. This is a pretty heated debate. People can get pretty carried away in things like this.

[Zackj191]

Especially when people are risking their military careers in here.

Not like the 3 different people at my work who have smoked weed everyday since they were like 16, and yet still happened to all be in the military at some point or another.



And, since I find this point never goes anywhere but I thought it was really interesting, does anyone know the number of people who have died from smoking marijuana? Oh that's right, it's zero. No one has ever died from smoking marijuana. Cigarettes, alcohol, even fucking Tylenol, kill more people every year than marijuana. It's more probable to get killed by a coconut falling on your head and causing blunt trauma to skull and dying from that, then anyone in the world dying from marijuana. Fun fact.

[DeathsFriend22]

Especially when people are risking their military careers in here.

Not like the 3 different people at my work who have smoked weed everyday since they were like 16, and yet still happened to all be in the military at some point or another.

how old are they? They didn't test for weed back in the day. I also like how you ignored all my links.


And, since I find this point never goes anywhere but I thought it was really interesting, does anyone know the number of people who have died from smoking marijuana? Oh that's right, it's zero. No one has ever died from smoking marijuana. Cigarettes, alcohol, even fucking Tylenol, kill more people every year than marijuana. It's more probable to get killed by a coconut falling on your head and causing blunt trauma to skull and dying from that, then anyone in the world dying from marijuana. Fun fact.

Hi. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445718/Cannabis-use-causes-hundreds-of-deaths-a-year-coroner-warns.html)

Even if what you're saying is true (and I'm borrowing from Cracked here) the same can be said for anything. You could make it legal for 12 year olds to carry concealed weapons in public schools and the deaths would be fewr than alcohol or tobacco. The argument is invalid. Those are not reasons to legalize weed, they're reasons to ban tobacco and alcohol.

[Dratical]

Honestly, weed doesn't decrease mental capacity. I know many people who smoke weed consistently, they happen to be straight A students.

[Toon324]

Guys, although I love the debate here, can we please NOT INSULT ONE ANOTHER? That is not how a debate is done. It is point, counter-point, and so on. CALLING ONE ANOTHER STUPID is childish. If you can't be mature, please remove yourself from the thread.

Anyways, on to the points I read:

These people X smoke pot every X days and they have X grade point average.

There are plenty of studies that show that people with a low grade point average tend to participate in more illegal or risky activities than their piers. Saying smoking pot = low GPA is the same as saying underage sex = low GPA. It's the other way around WHEN CONSIDERING THE WAY YOUR STATEMENTS ARE WORDED. Assuming that Pot DOES hamper your brain development like alcohol does, the person would stay the same GPA. Smart people would stay smart, etc.

Out of time, will post more later.

[mista tipsta]

CALLING ONE ANOTHER STUPID is childish. If you can't be mature, please remove yourself from the thread.
If it becomes too much of a problem, @Null Parameter (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/member.php?u=2) has the power to make the Debate Forum blocked for members who can't handle it.

[Null Parameter]

If it becomes too much of a problem, @Null Parameter (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/member.php?u=2) has the power to make the Debate Forum blocked for members who can't handle it.
Indeed. The Debate forum is for those who can handle debating MATURELY.

Report any posts you see that break that rule and, assuming I agree, that user will forever be removed from the Debate Forum as a whole. This is your only warning.

[MultiLockOn]

Indeed. The Debate forum is for those who can handle debating MATURELY.

Report any posts you see that break that rule and, assuming I agree, that user will forever be removed from the Debate Forum as a whole. This is your only warning.
You're hot.

I don't feel the need to find my sources and waste 4 hours jumping in this debate to be honest, DeathsFriend has cited more than needed. I've always thought the idea of legalizing marijuana was stupid right from the start, and it never fails to make me chuckle when I see someone say 'It's totally harmless bro!' when it's not even negotiable as to whether or not it's dangerous. The studies are there and they're not hard to find. And of course the people defending it are the potheads such as Zack and Wiggums who are the people who have smoked. And may I add to Zack, I don't need to quote my sources. You want to know why? I have a major in philosophy and three minors in biology, neuroscience, and kinesiology. I know everything there is to know about how the brain functions. Absolutely nothing is more harmful to your brain than drug use, marijuana included. Arguing that making it legal will somehow make the number of marijuana users go down is just absurd.

[Murdock Sampson]

Honestly, weed doesn't decrease mental capacity. I know many people who smoke weed consistently, they happen to be straight A students.
I know a guy who got shot in the head and didn't die. I'm not going to stand up and say that getting shot in the head isn't lethal though, and if you shoot someone else in the head then it's not your fault if he/she dies.

There are plenty of studies that show that people with a low grade point average tend to participate in more illegal or risky activities than their piers. Saying smoking pot = low GPA is the same as saying underage sex = low GPA. It's the other way around WHEN CONSIDERING THE WAY YOUR STATEMENTS ARE WORDED. Assuming that Pot DOES hamper your brain development like alcohol does, the person would stay the same GPA. Smart people would stay smart, etc.
While you make a good point, at large what you're saying falls into the same thinking error, which is "correlation=causation". If we were completely trying to eliminate erroneous thinking, we would allow three possible correlations:


People who smoke are dumb because they smoke
Dumb people are more drawn to make risky/illegal decisions, such as smoking weed
A third factor both makes people dumb and draws them to smoking (peers? who knows?)

Edit: This is only for the "dumb" pot head that people are referencing. I know that others know intelligent pot users, those are not accounted for. I'm not trying to say it's only possible for those who smoke to be dumb.
Indeed. The Debate forum is for those who can handle debating MATURELY.

Report any posts you see that break that rule and, assuming I agree, that user will forever be removed from the Debate Forum as a whole. This is your only warning.
Thanks for the heads up. I personally want this debate to end (or continue) without having insulting/immature comments sully an otherwise unmarked relationship between two of our members.

[Letol]

The fact that you've tried it means you're willing to break the law to do it anyway, so why does it even matter to you if it's legalized or not?

Because the police will go completely out of their way to royally screw you over as much as humanly possible if they catch you with it. It's completely absurd, seeing as how it's in no way a threat to the community's safety by itself.

Besides, I'm not putting my military career in jeopardy over this discussion, fuck that.

If you've never smoked marijuana before, it could be completely clear out of your system in less than a week. I'm not telling you to go out and smoke it, but if you aren't already in the military, it wouldn't screw your career over in any way unless you got yourself caught in the act.

One study notes that 3 blunts is the equivalent of 20 cigarettes in regards to damage done to your lungs.

You see, it's actually rather funny. People don't smoke 3 blunts at a time, and people certainly don't smoke a blunt by themselves unless they've got a huge tolerance or are looking to become absolutely stoned out of their mind. Also, unlike cigarettes, blunts vary in size. Unless they cited how much marijuana was used in the blunts, there's no way to tell how fat or skinny they were, thus making the information useless.

Oh, and just throwing it out there, 20 cigarettes isn't really a huge amount to begin with.

And of course the people defending it are the potheads such as Zack and Wiggums who are the people who have smoked.

And of course the people arguing against it are most likely people who've never smoked it before. I don't see the point of this statement.

Arguing that making it legal will somehow make the number of marijuana users go down is just absurd.

Tell that to Portugal.

[GOG TOXIC]

Not legalized entirely. Just decriminalized. Illegal to sell and grow, but you can't get arrested for use of it.

[Toon324]

Murdock Sampson
That was the point I was trying to make, thanks for clearing up the correlation stuff.

Null Parameter
Thanks for the heads up on moderation. It will be observed.

@Else
I don't mean to break the train of conversation, but I haven't heard much about the original topic of this debate. It's not if weed has any health benefits, it's not if weed can save the economy, and it's not about weed usage patterns. Although all those factors are important to consider in this debate, the main question is: Should weed be legal to smoke in a private setting, such as your backyard, and so long as that setting is 50 feet away from public land or another private setting that prohibits it's use?

As someone here said, "Let people hurt themselves if they want, so long as they don't hurt others while doing so."

[Letol]

@Else
I don't mean to break the train of conversation, but I haven't heard much about the original topic of this debate. It's not if weed has any health benefits, it's not if weed can save the economy, and it's not about weed usage patterns. Although all those factors are important to consider in this debate, the main question is: Should weed be legal to smoke in a private setting, such as your backyard, and so long as that setting is 50 feet away from public land or another private setting that prohibits it's use?

As someone here said, "Let people hurt themselves if they want, so long as they don't hurt others while doing so."

If you're not including cigarettes anymore, I see no reason why it shouldn't work that way.

[wiggums]

False.

looks like you didn't red the thread.


Looks like you didn't read my post.


how harmless weed is, at least compared to many legal alternatives.



You know, there is such a thing as secondhand smoke. That's exactly why I wish cigarettes were illegal too, because you're not just taking your own life into your hands, you're taking the health of everyone around you into your hands as well.

... once again.

What right do you have to say that other people shouldn't do what they want in the privacy of their own home?

Oh look, I only had to finish the sentences I already posted to stop both of your arguments.

[Murdock Sampson]

Even in your homes, you can still damage those around you. Kids and spouses are constantly in danger of secondhand smoke.

[Murdock Sampson]

@Else
I don't mean to break the train of conversation, but I haven't heard much about the original topic of this debate. It's not if weed has any health benefits, it's not if weed can save the economy, and it's not about weed usage patterns. Although all those factors are important to consider in this debate, the main question is: Should weed be legal to smoke in a private setting, such as your backyard, and so long as that setting is 50 feet away from public land or another private setting that prohibits it's use?

As someone here said, "Let people hurt themselves if they want, so long as they don't hurt others while doing so."
Yeah thanks for clarifying. I was trying to point out that we were straying far from topic like a page or so ago. Anyways, I think you might've been quoting me, but if not, I agree with that opinion. Whether or not it's harmful, those who don't want to be exposed to it shouldn't be exposed to it.

[DeathsFriend22]

Because the police will go completely out of their way to royally screw you over as much as humanly possible if they catch you with it. It's completely absurd, seeing as how it's in no way a threat to the community's safety by itself.

That's because it's freaking illegal. They'll do the exact same thing to anybody caught drinking underage, or driving recklessly. Underage drinking may "not be a hazard in the privacy of your homes" but it's still illegal.


If you've never smoked marijuana before, it could be completely clear out of your system in less than a week. I'm not telling you to go out and smoke it, but if you aren't already in the military, it wouldn't screw your career over in any way unless you got yourself caught in the act.
One week is too long, I have MEPS in 4 days.

Looks like you didn't read my post.

Oh look, I only had to finish the sentences I already posted to stop both of your arguments.

Fine, how's this: the fact that it's "less harmful than other drugs" is irrelevant. That's not a reason to legalize marijuana, that's a reason to ban the other drugs.

as for "the privacy of their homes" bit, what about anybody who's around you? Parents, friends, siblings, children, significant others - all affected.

[MNM1245]

But on topic, cigarettes shouldn't be banned from public property. I don't smoke cigarettes myself, but knowing people who do, that would be a living nightmare for them. Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance and people would quite literally be suffering if they "needed" a cigarette, but they couldn't smoke due to being on public property. It's very hard to handle addiction and most people don't have enough composure to stop themselves from smoking when they feel they need to, and those people would probably smoke on public property when they felt they really needed to. If by some off chance this actually became law, people would start calling it another law that only exists to make money off of tickets.

**Edit: I don't think Canada has outlawed smoking. I think it is only Ontario doing what I said below**


Kinda late but in Canada you can't smoke within like 10 meters of any public places (Malls, and stuff) and in clubs/restaurants that do allow it it has to be outside on a patio that is open and not near any public sidewalks or anything. Gotta say the law is working pretty good here. When I visited the US, and the UK last summer I was scared by how many people smoke in public places. I hate being in peoples cigarette smoke but in the US/UK I found that the majority of people smoke. I never realized how much Canada had changed in the past 5-10 years with all the anti smoking laws they've put into place. Canada did it right though and didn't just force no smoking on public property. They started with a law that said it had to be outdoors, then slowly phased smoking out of most places. I know that 2 of my neighbours have stopped smoking since these laws were passed. People that are so addicted that they can't stop aren't so addicted but more just too lazy to change. Once Canada made it harder to smoke though they just got over it. I can't think of any riots or protests about it. It was relatively welcomed.

It went very well when Canada started to phase out smoking and in the end it worked out.

[wiggums]

Fine, how's this: the fact that it's "less harmful than other drugs" is irrelevant. That's not a reason to legalize marijuana, that's a reason to ban the other drugs.

I think this is where the major split forms here. You say it's harmful so it should be illegal, but I say no one should tell you whether to do something harmful or not. If you want to eat paint chips, by all means, go for it. If you aren't trying to kill yourself, then I have no problem with it. As long as you aren't killing me or anyone else then go ahead and snort 10 lines of coke.

The point is, everything has some kind of negative effect. Chemo therapy for one has many negative effects, yet it's perfectly legal and is being practiced daily. Even simpler than that is basically every prescription drug out there. Those side effects they always talk about in commercials? Not exactly the most pleasant things. (http://www.oddee.com/item_96885.aspx)

These drugs all are designed to alleviate or cure some kind of ailment. Some make you eat more, some make you eat less. Some help with depression, some dull your senses to alleviate pain. All of these also take some toll on your body. Without a doubt they can do a lot of bad stuff. Hell, take enough Ibuprofen and you won't wake up tomorrow. Guess what? Marijuana alleviates pain, can help with depression, and makes you eat more! If this was put in tablet form (which it can be) what negative effect would it have? No smoking involved :)

Another idea, why doesn't the government legalize it, and then use the huge amount of saved money and the new revenue on therapy for people who have been harmed by it?


as for "the privacy of their homes" bit, what about anybody who's around you? Parents, friends, siblings, children, significant others - all affected.
You aren't forced to be around someone who is smoking. If you are uncomfortable with it and feel that you are being harmed, then either ask them to stop or walk away. That should be common sense.

[Murdock Sampson]

I think this is where the major split forms here. You say it's harmful so it should be illegal, but I say no one should tell you whether to do something harmful or not. If you want to eat paint chips, by all means, go for it. If you aren't trying to kill yourself, then I have no problem with it. As long as you aren't killing me or anyone else then go ahead and snort 10 lines of coke.
I agree, but I think like with cigarettes it shouldn't be available to kids or anyone who is too young or ignorant (the original meaning) to know the potential harm.
Another idea, why doesn't the government legalize it, and then use the huge amount of saved money and the new revenue on therapy for people who have been harmed by it?
A lot of that money would have to be used to regulate it. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that every cent spent on law enforcement is just up for grabs. It takes a huge amount of money to regulate alcohol an tobacco and law enforcement is just the beginning of it. Marijuana would be similar.
You aren't forced to be around someone who is smoking. If you are uncomfortable with it and feel that you are being harmed, then either ask them to stop or walk away. That should be common sense.
This isn't always an easy option for young children. Do you think a five year old child is going to tell their parent to stop smoking because they don't like breathing? They probably don't even know the difference, much less what harm it is doing them. Unless you're a hermit, your choices affect other people, and while you shouldn't let that dictate everything you do, it should influence some of your decisions, especially in cases where you could be harming loved ones.

[DeathsFriend22]

I agree, but I think like with cigarettes it shouldn't be available to kids or anyone who is too young or ignorant (the original meaning) to know the potential harm.
But that's just it. Look at how many times in this thread alone marijuana has been described as "harmless". You get the same argument from 20 year olds and 30 year olds, too, who don't have a clue.

[Murdock Sampson]

But that's just it. Look at how many times in this thread alone marijuana has been described as "harmless". You get the same argument from 20 year olds and 30 year olds, too, who don't have a clue.
There is a difference between chosen ignorance and being ignorant because you the knowledge was never presented to you.

[wiggums]

A lot of that money would have to be used to regulate it. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that every cent spent on law enforcement is just up for grabs. It takes a huge amount of money to regulate alcohol an tobacco and law enforcement is just the beginning of it. Marijuana would be similar.


I'm sorry, but the cost for prohibition will always cost more than regulating it as a prescription drug. You can't tell me that adding another item to the list of prescription drugs will cost more than trying to keep it from crossing our borders, and incarcerating all offenders? Bullshit. The War on Drugs in total has been nothing but a cash-drain (http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock) for the U.S. ever since it started.


This isn't always an easy option for young children. Do you think a five year old child is going to tell their parent to stop smoking because they don't like breathing? They probably don't even know the difference, much less what harm it is doing them. Unless you're a hermit, your choices affect other people, and while you shouldn't let that dictate everything you do, it should influence some of your decisions, especially in cases where you could be harming loved ones.

Do you think a five year old child is going to tell their parent to stop beating them? Or tell them to stop molesting them? People do bad things, and I doubt that prohibiting marijuana will stop a parent from smoking in front of their child if they really felt like it. It sure doesn't stop the rest of the millions who participate in the weed market nowadays.

[Toon324]

Do you think a five year old child is going to tell their parent to stop beating them? Or tell them to stop molesting them? People do bad things, and I doubt that prohibiting marijuana will stop a parent from smoking in front of their child if they really felt like it.

It's the same issue as with smoking. Secondhand smoke is bad. By all rights, indoor smoking should be illegal. But that's besides the point.

Let's assume we give weed the same restriction as we gave cigs. Public land and buildings is no smoking. Private businesses, like a bar, can choose to have a smoking section or not. Said smoking section would have to be separated by wall and door from the non-smoking section. Smoke isn't stopped by some invisible line between the two. Smoking at home should be legal if done outside, and you're not to close to neighbors who don't approve. Alcohol is pretty good as-is.

Also, stop trying to get people to try out weed. Drop that topic entirely. This is purely for debate, as we can't change anything. So, again, drop it now.

[wiggums]

Also, stop trying to get people to try out weed. Drop that topic entirely. This is purely for debate, as we can't change anything. So, again, drop it now.

I assume you're talking to Zack?

[DeathsFriend22]

I'm sorry, but the cost for prohibition will always cost more than regulating it as a prescription drug. You can't tell me that adding another item to the list of prescription drugs will cost more than trying to keep it from crossing our borders, and incarcerating all offenders? Bullshit. The War on Drugs in total has been nothing but a cash-drain (http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock) for the U.S. ever since it started.


oh, stop it.

You and I both know you don't give a damn about people who may or may not need it as a prescription drug. That's a bullshit, backdoor argument. I want you to admit something right now:

You want it to be legal so you can get stoned without breaking the law.

In any case, any time it's legalized in that capacity, people abuse the fuck out of it. (http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v10/n815/a11.html)

[wiggums]

oh, stop it.

You and I both know you don't give a damn about people who may or may not need it as a prescription drug. That's a bullshit, backdoor argument. I want you to admit something right now:

You want it to be legal so you can get stoned without breaking the law.

In any case, any time it's legalized in that capacity, people abuse the fuck out of it. (http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v10/n815/a11.html)

I'm not denying I'd use it for recreational purposes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated like an over the counter drug. There's nothing different between the pills and this kind of drug, so why treat them differently? Sure, one is used recreation-ally more often than the other, but really, what's the problem with it?

It's harmful.

Sure, but not nearly as harmful as many other common practices and traditions. Even so, why is being harmed so mildly considered so terrible? For certain there are positive sides that many people would consider to make it worth it. Instant relief of pain, no pressure from a stressful day or situation, etc. It makes you feel good, and that can be very hard for many people who are in bad situations.

[DeathsFriend22]

I'm not denying I'd use it for recreational purposes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated like an over the counter drug. There's nothing different between the pills and this kind of drug, so why treat them differently? Sure, one is used recreation-ally more often than the other, but really, what's the problem with it?

Look, the idea behind a prescription drug is that only people who need it get to use it (Frankly there are plenty of safer alternatives to MJ that they can use anyway). If you want it legalized in a medical sense, and you don't need it, you still shouldn't have it.


It's harmful.

Sure, but not nearly as harmful as many other common practices and traditions.

It's funny you should say that. Imagine a 6 year old stamping his foot and asking his parents why he can't play Halo when his friend Johnny down the street gets to play Grand Theft Auto, "and that's way worse!"

That's what you sound like when you make this argument. No matter how bad something someone else does is, you're still arguing to make things worse than they were before.

Even so, why is being harmed so mildly considered so terrible?

maybe if you read some of the links I've posted you'd realize that the harm is a lot less "mild" than you think. How about the one that correlates marijuana usage to a significant increase in lung cancer, or the one that consists of over 30 studies linking marijuana to schizophrenia, for starters?

For certain there are positive sides that many people would consider to make it worth it. Instant relief of pain, no pressure from a stressful day or situation, etc. It makes you feel good, and that can be very hard for many people who are in bad situations.

shit happens. Everyone goes through stressful situations and hard times. You shouldn't need a drug to make you feel good, even after a rough day. I don't. Granted, there are some exceptions, but those are the people that have legitimate mental conditions, and there are other ways to treat those.

[wiggums]

Look, the idea behind a prescription drug is that only people who need it get to use it (Frankly there are plenty of safer alternatives to MJ that they can use anyway). If you want it legalized in a medical sense, and you don't need it, you still shouldn't have it.

That's why I said over the counter, sorry for the mix-up. Different drugs work better for different ailments on different people.


It's funny you should say that. Imagine a 6 year old stamping his foot and asking his parents why he can't play Halo when his friend Johnny down the street gets to play Grand Theft Auto, "and that's way worse!"

That's what you sound like when you make this argument. No matter how bad something someone else does is, you're still arguing to make things worse than they were before.

A 6 year old and video games, huh? Yeah.... sounds exactly like what I'm talking about. I'm saying everything we do harms us in some way or another and we shouldn't be so terrified of it. The way I see it, if you're going to prohibit this, then you might as well prohibit everything else. All these studies have been done on countless other legal drugs and have come up with the same results. At what point do you call a drug "bad"? Where is the line that divides healthy and harmful? Drugs aren't such a black and white thing, and neither is the rest of the world.


shit happens. Everyone goes through stressful situations and hard times. You shouldn't need a drug to make you feel good, even after a rough day. I don't. Granted, there are some exceptions, but those are the people that have legitimate mental conditions, and there are other ways to treat those.
Maybe in your opinion you shouldn't, but what you should and shouldn't do is up for you to decide. Why don't you let everyone else decide that for themselves.


Bottom line, don't tell others what to do. If they don't mean you any harm you shouldn't be bothered by their practices. It's only when you feel personally threatened that you need to take a stand.

[DeathsFriend22]

That's why I said over the counter, sorry for the mix-up. Different drugs work better for different ailments on different people.

See, this is exactly what I was expecting. Go back and read your previous post about how "regulating it as a prescription drug will cost less" than whatever. It's quoted in the spot where i said "oh stop it" as well. Now you're saying you want it over the counter. That's exactly the progression it would have to take before it was legalized for recreational use because in the end, that's your goal. There is no reason to legalize it.

A 6 year old and video games, huh? Yeah.... sounds exactly like what I'm talking about. I'm saying everything we do harms us in some way or another and we shouldn't be so terrified of it. The way I see it, if you're going to prohibit this, then you might as well prohibit everything else. All these studies have been done on countless other legal drugs and have come up with the same results. At what point do you call a drug "bad"? Where is the line that divides healthy and harmful? Drugs aren't such a black and white thing, and neither is the rest of the world.

It's an analogy. I'm trying to explain to you that no matter the cause, you're still arguing to make things worse.

We've tried prohibiting everything else, it didn't work. The thing with everything else though is that it's much more easily regulated than weed. Furthermore, you're going to need a shitload of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity you're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do you get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? So then you need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and figuring out what weed does to your health insurance premiums, etc. billions of dollars spent, completely offsetting any potential economic benefit. It's unnecessary and not worth it at all.


Maybe in your opinion you shouldn't, but what you should and shouldn't do is up for you to decide. Why don't you let everyone else decide that for themselves.


Bottom line, don't tell others what to do. If they don't mean you any harm you shouldn't be bothered by their practices. It's only when you feel personally threatened that you need to take a stand.
Plenty of things happen to people when others don't mean any harm, just look at all the DUI related deaths every year. Marijuana has been proven to cause severe mental disorders, and even if that's a small percentage it's a percentage of a few hundred thousand people who are being harmed or are harming others due to their new disorder. Everything you do effects people around you unless you live by yourself on an island somewhere.

[wiggums]

See, this is exactly what I was expecting. Go back and read your previous post about how "regulating it as a prescription drug will cost less" than whatever. It's quoted in the spot where i said "oh stop it" as well. Now you're saying you want it over the counter.

That's why I said over the counter, sorry for the mix-up.



That's exactly the progression it would have to take before it was legalized for recreational use because in the end, that's your goal. There is no reason to legalize it.
There's no reason to legalize it? You make it sound like it's illegal in its natural state. I don't think there's any reason to prohibit it at all! Let people do what they want with their lives. When it's time for them to die, they're going to die, not you.



It's an analogy. I'm trying to explain to you that no matter the cause, you're still arguing to make things worse.

I know it's an analogy, it was just a bad one. The second sentence I'm not so sure about.


We've tried prohibiting everything else, it didn't work. The thing with everything else though is that it's much more easily regulated than weed. Furthermore, you're going to need a shitload of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity you're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do you get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? So then you need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and figuring out what weed does to your health insurance premiums, etc. billions of dollars spent, completely offsetting any potential economic benefit. It's unnecessary and not worth it at all.

Everything you described would be 10x more lenient than the current regulations. I.E. Less border control, less illegal sales, less offenders to put in jail or try. If you ask me that'd be cheaper.


Plenty of things happen to people when others don't mean any harm, just look at all the DUI related deaths every year. Marijuana has been proven to cause severe mental disorders, and even if that's a small percentage it's a percentage of a few hundred thousand people who are being harmed or are harming others due to their new disorder. Everything you do effects people around you unless you live by yourself on an island somewhere.

Yes and people are idiots. This is the part where the government and private organizations start advertising safety messages about this sort of thing. "Don't drink and drive" is just a way to get people to be safer without having to prohibit alcohol entirely. As you said earlier, shit happens. Life has its way with you, and there's nothing you can do about it. Oh wait, I suppose you could prohibit everything that causes brain damage or is proven to be related to schizophrenia. That would work, because we all know when something is illegal no one ever touches it.

My question still remains, what makes marijuana different from all the other drugs we take daily? The ones that sometimes kill us, or give us brain tumors or dementia? If you're going to prohibit weed, then please, by all means prohibit everything else.

[Murdock Sampson]

I'm sorry, but the cost for prohibition will always cost more than regulating it as a prescription drug. You can't tell me that adding another item to the list of prescription drugs will cost more than trying to keep it from crossing our borders, and incarcerating all offenders? Bullshit. The War on Drugs in total has been nothing but a cash-drain (http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock) for the U.S. ever since it started.
How do you figure? Paying for legislation being made, testing to be done (because a lot more research will have to be done to figure out lethality, what negative side effects are, and what sort of contents should and shouldn't be allowed), and pretty much the same amount of law enforcement... I don't have any idea how that could cost less. Even if it did, it wouldn't be significantly less.

And please, no clocks. Seriously? It's not like there's just accountants awake all hours of the day continuously signing checks for $500 every second. Plus, those numbers seem ridiculously high.
Do you think a five year old child is going to tell their parent to stop beating them? Or tell them to stop molesting them? People do bad things, and I doubt that prohibiting marijuana will stop a parent from smoking in front of their child if they really felt like it. It sure doesn't stop the rest of the millions who participate in the weed market nowadays.
That doesn't justify allowing people to do more harmful things to their child. I don't even think this is the best point, but this counter-point seems sorta like the whole "there are more harmful things" point. Just because there are worse things doesn't justify the bad things.

[wiggums]

How do you figure? Paying for legislation being made, testing to be done (because a lot more research will have to be done to figure out lethality, what negative side effects are, and what sort of contents should and shouldn't be allowed), and pretty much the same amount of law enforcement... I don't have any idea how that could cost less. Even if it did, it wouldn't be significantly less.
Bolded the part that caught my eye. Explain to me that sentence, please. I've already backed up my side of the argument on this particular point and I'm interested in how you got to that conclusion.


And please, no clocks. Seriously? It's not like there's just accountants awake all hours of the day continuously signing checks for $500 every second. Plus, those numbers seem ridiculously high.

It's called an average buddy. It's not a literal thing, you get that? They take the cost in a year and they divide that by however many seconds are in a year. Boom, you got yourself an average cost per second. It's just math, nothing to be afraid of. If those numbers seem ridiculously high, then congratulations, you have a brain! You are one of the few sensible people in this world! It is ridiculous that we are spending that much per year on this, isn't it?


That doesn't justify allowing people to do more harmful things to their child. I don't even think this is the best point, but this counter-point seems sorta like the whole "there are more harmful things" point. Just because there are worse things doesn't justify the bad things.
It doesn't justify them, it just puts them in their place. Bad things happen, we all agree to that. If you allow certain things, bad things can make their way in. Still, same with alcohol, you can either totally prohibit it and have people still use it, or you can legalize it, and try your best to stop the small percentage of crimes from occuring. Because some rednecks decide to beat their kids while drunk doesn't mean you should prohibit alcohol, it means you should put that sorry son of a bitch in jail. People should be held accountable for their actions, not whatever they were "on".

Oh, and this is from above but:

(because a lot more research will have to be done to figure out lethality, what negative side effects are, and what sort of contents should and shouldn't be allowed)

Lawl. As if we've never done any of that.

[Toon324]

I assume you're talking to Zack?

No names will be mentioned. You know who you are.

Also, this debate is getting a LOTTT of argument. No progress though. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Will think on this.

[Letol]

That's because it's freaking illegal. They'll do the exact same thing to anybody caught drinking underage, or driving recklessly. Underage drinking may "not be a hazard in the privacy of your homes" but it's still illegal.

Actually, no, no they won't. Have you ever seen cops pull their guns out, run up to a car with kids drinking underage, quite literally pull them out of their cars, handcuff them, and tear the car apart looking for alcohol? I sure as hell haven't, but I've seen it happen to people who the police suspected had marijuana in their car due to blatant profiling without any substantial evidence.

(Frankly there are plenty of safer alternatives to MJ that they can use anyway).

Safer alternatives that you can easily OD on, as opposed to THC which is near impossible to OD on? Realisticly, it's only possible to OD on THC in the same sense as people who die due to drinking too much water in a water chugging contest.

In what other ways is THC dangerous in the form of a pill? Unless you're speaking in the sense that people would sell marijuana in a prescription drug store, which I highly doubt. If by some off chance they did, people don't have to smoke it in order to get the effects that they strive for. They can use a vaporizer or even cook it into food, or purchase it in the form of food as can be seen in stores in California.

If you want it legalized in a medical sense, and you don't need it, you still shouldn't have it.

And? That seems fairly obvious.

It's funny you should say that. Imagine a 6 year old stamping his foot and asking his parents why he can't play Halo when his friend Johnny down the street gets to play Grand Theft Auto, "and that's way worse!"

Okay, now imagine a 21 year old getting pissed off because the guy down the street gets to kill himself with tobacco and alcohol, but he can't smoke marijuana.

That's what you sound like when you make this argument. No matter how bad something someone else does is, you're still arguing to make things worse than they were before.

If you're going to actively stand for the idea that marijuana shouldn't be legalized because it's supposedly dangerous, then why don't you actively stand for the idea that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal for being even more dangerous? And no, I don't just mean on these forums and in debates.

Also, this debate is getting a LOTTT of argument. No progress though. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Will think on this.

Welcome to the debate on drugs. On one side stands the people who've most likely never tried them and and are trying to tell other people that they don't have the rights to use them, and on the other side stands the people who have most likely tried them and believe that they should have the rights to use them. In the middle stands a large amount of biased research, for both sides, completely clouding any logic and reason. Hooray.

[Murdock Sampson]

Bolded the part that caught my eye. Explain to me that sentence, please. I've already backed up my side of the argument on this particular point and I'm interested in how you got to that conclusion.
Well law enforcement will never cost less. It's not like even if they stopped regulating it all together they would just strip down police forces everywhere. If they did at all it'd be an almost significant amount. Secondly, they do have to regulate it. If marijuana was legal, it's not like everyone could grow it in their backyard. They'd have to regulate that. There would still be people selling it illegally; selling stronger stuff than the regulated limit, selling it cheaper than legal businesses because they don't pay taxes, selling to underage, etc. This would all have to be prevented and regulated.

It's called an average buddy. It's not a literal thing, you get that? They take the cost in a year and they divide that by however many seconds are in a year. Boom, you got yourself an average cost per second. It's just math, nothing to be afraid of. If those numbers seem ridiculously high, then congratulations, you have a brain! You are one of the few sensible people in this world! It is ridiculous that we are spending that much per year on this, isn't it?
I understand it's an average, but spending rarely works on an average (outside of like monthly payments). Say I bought a video game yesterday. I spent $60 in one day. I can't then make a clock saying I'll spend $2.5 every hour or $60 for the rest of my life and then just let it add up. Null had a baby a few weeks ago, but now if he assumed that on average he'd have a baby every month or so, we'd all think it was ridiculous. Of course my analogies are exaggerated, but they represent the same erroneous idea: spending (or increase of posterity in Null's case) is consistent. It's not. One year we might pass a new bill and implement new policies which are significantly expensive. One year we might drastically cut costs. It's not going to be the same between years, and sometimes the change will be substantial.
Secondly, I was saying the numbers were high relative to other counts I've seen. They're actually relative tiny compared to amounts we spend on other things (as they should be). This is my point overall, that the economic side of the debate doesn't make a lot of sense. The money gained from taxing it won't cover all of the costs I mentioned previously that had to do with legalization. And overall even either way, even if we did break even by legalizing it, it's a tiny amount of money compared to our spending. And more than likely they costs will be identical either way. So I guess what I'm saying is that there isn't really an economic side if it doesn't make a difference.
It doesn't justify them, it just puts them in their place. Bad things happen, we all agree to that. If you allow certain things, bad things can make their way in. Still, same with alcohol, you can either totally prohibit it and have people still use it, or you can legalize it, and try your best to stop the small percentage of crimes from occuring. Because some rednecks decide to beat their kids while drunk doesn't mean you should prohibit alcohol, it means you should put that sorry son of a bitch in jail. People should be held accountable for their actions, not whatever they were "on".
Once again, this more says to me "make alcohol illegal" than "legalize marijuana". Anyways, I highly doubt that the demographic of abusive parents is limited to just rednecks. Alcoholics are a widespread group, and while they're not all abusive, an already abusive person is more likely to be abusive while drunk (please say I don't need to find a study to make this point. This is something we can all agree on right?). We're getting exceedingly far from my original point which is: marijuana can still cause others harm. I'm not saying that's why we don't legalize it (if you can recall, I never even said we shouldn't legalize it), I'm just trying to refute the point that it's harmless outside of the person using it.
Lawl. As if we've never done any of that.
If this thread has shown me anything, it's that no study has been done which satisfies both parties.

Also, this debate is getting a LOTTT of argument. No progress though.
What else is debate for? Those with uninformed opinions (on either side) will give their two sense and then just leave because they don't care. Those with informed opinions are so sure of them because of their research that they won't shake their established beliefs.

[RightSideTheory]

You guys are making this argument really complicated with long, drawn out posts, but I have yet to see you make a point... Don't take it in a bad way, I'll explain.

We've explained why we think it should be legalized... but so far, all anyone has been able to muster against it is. "It's illegal now, so it shouldn't be legal", and "It's not healthy for you".

Well, okay, the first one doesn't make much sense, but yeah, stuff that's not healthy for you, I can see you saying that's "bad". But so far, all you guys have done is argue against our points, instead of come up with your own. It's like trying to argue with somebody that doesn't have a stance in the argument, other than trying to go against every point we make, but never actually saying anything for their side.

You see what I'm saying?

Make a statement for your side that makes sense. And not "oh it's not healthy" because we both know that tobacco companies control half of america, and tobacco is about the most deadly product you can put in your body short of some sort of poison made to kill people. And saying "Don't complain about fairness, it's childish" Is childish in and of itself, if anything, people all over the world should strive for fairness, because it's what's right and what should be allowed.

Using the example of a family doesn't really work, because that's the perfect example of a dictatorship if I've ever seen one, and here in america, we like a little thing called Democracy, which comes with added perks such as: Equality, fairness (no one side being above another for no reason), and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, besides "being a bit unhealthy for you" there really aren't any reasons that I see for weed being illegal. The whole "it maekz peopul dumb" argument doesn't really work, because alcohol kills brain cells too. And poisons your body. Alcohol is legal.

"But David, Weed kills brain cells in young adults and kids! And you're not allowed to consume alcohol under the age of twenty one!"

Well, this is true my dapper young friend, alcohol is illegal until you're twenty one, and you know what? I agree that either eighteen, or twenty one is a perfectly good limit on legalized marijuana! I wouldn't want to see kids running around at age twelve with cigarettes and a fifth of jack, so I certainly wouldn't want to see young children running around with marijuana!

But you see, that argument doesn't show any indication that marijuana shouldn't be legal, just that it should be regulated just like tobacco products, and alcohol.

So you see, I'm at a loss here, I really don't see your argument, and I really would love to discuss this, but you seem to be, quite frankly, just opposed to they idea and bashing it, when it's perfectly logical for it to be legal.

In fact, it could do nothing but boost our economy, which wouldn't be so bad, if you look at national debt.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's irrational and illogical to argue for the continued prohibition of marijuana products, but if you disagree, then tell me why, don't just try to shoot down my points, and the points of others. By all means, disagree with some of my points, but come up with your own as well.

[Zackj191]

Also, stop trying to get people to try out weed. Drop that topic entirely. This is purely for debate, as we can't change anything. So, again, drop it now.


I can ask people to try whatever they want to try. It doesn't matter if I ask because the decision is always theirs. I'm not coming to your house, tying you up, then forcing you to smoke by hot boxing the room.

[RightSideTheory]

Zack, I understand where you coming from wanting people to try it, but you're not helping your side of the argument any, and you're only serving to further frustrate people.

So, why not drop it, and we'll get this debate back and track?

[Zackj191]

So, why not drop it, and we'll get this debate back and track?


That's the problem I have, the original question was actually kind of lame. It doesn't say "should weed be legal" it says "should weed be allowed to be smoked on public property."


So, if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, then weed should be legal as well since the negative side effects are drastically less than alcohol or cigarettes and should be allowed to be smoked on private property. And should be allowed to be transported in sealed, un-opened packaging. However I feel the age restriction should be 18 instead of 21, because cigarettes are 18, and if you can be drafted to die for your country, you should be okay to smoke weed as well.

As a side note, alcohol's required drinking age should be dropped to 18 as well. I don't see any problem with people between 18-21 dying from alcohol poisoning because they were afraid to call for help because they were underage happening in Canada.

[DeathsFriend22]

You guys are making this argument really complicated with long, drawn out posts, but I have yet to see you make a point... Don't take it in a bad way, I'll explain.

We've explained why we think it should be legalized... but so far, all anyone has been able to muster against it is. "It's illegal now, so it shouldn't be legal", and "It's not healthy for you".

Well, okay, the first one doesn't make much sense, but yeah, stuff that's not healthy for you, I can see you saying that's "bad". But so far, all you guys have done is argue against our points, instead of come up with your own. It's like trying to argue with somebody that doesn't have a stance in the argument, other than trying to go against every point we make, but never actually saying anything for their side.

You see what I'm saying?

Make a statement for your side that makes sense. And not "oh it's not healthy" because we both know that tobacco companies control half of america, and tobacco is about the most deadly product you can put in your body short of some sort of poison made to kill people. And saying "Don't complain about fairness, it's childish" Is childish in and of itself, if anything, people all over the world should strive for fairness, because it's what's right and what should be allowed.

Using the example of a family doesn't really work, because that's the perfect example of a dictatorship if I've ever seen one, and here in america, we like a little thing called Democracy, which comes with added perks such as: Equality, fairness (no one side being above another for no reason), and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, besides "being a bit unhealthy for you" there really aren't any reasons that I see for weed being illegal. The whole "it maekz peopul dumb" argument doesn't really work, because alcohol kills brain cells too. And poisons your body. Alcohol is legal.

"But David, Weed kills brain cells in young adults and kids! And you're not allowed to consume alcohol under the age of twenty one!"

Well, this is true my dapper young friend, alcohol is illegal until you're twenty one, and you know what? I agree that either eighteen, or twenty one is a perfectly good limit on legalized marijuana! I wouldn't want to see kids running around at age twelve with cigarettes and a fifth of jack, so I certainly wouldn't want to see young children running around with marijuana!

But you see, that argument doesn't show any indication that marijuana shouldn't be legal, just that it should be regulated just like tobacco products, and alcohol.

So you see, I'm at a loss here, I really don't see your argument, and I really would love to discuss this, but you seem to be, quite frankly, just opposed to they idea and bashing it, when it's perfectly logical for it to be legal.

In fact, it could do nothing but boost our economy, which wouldn't be so bad, if you look at national debt.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's irrational and illogical to argue for the continued prohibition of marijuana products, but if you disagree, then tell me why, don't just try to shoot down my points, and the points of others. By all means, disagree with some of my points, but come up with your own as well.


OK RST, i'm going to go ahead and reply to the bulk of the arguments for weed here, including the ones from the most recent posts. By the way, this is called presenting "counter-points," which is part of having an actual debate.

1. Weed will help the economy.
Man, is this one getting old. Look, even if you loosened regulations you still have to regulate it. And as Murdock pointed out, police resources are used for more than just marijuana. You still have to figure out what you're legalizing and you still have to be able to bust people illegally selling the more powerful, unregulated stuff. Tax revenue will be next to nothing because people are still going to buy it illegally, and you still need enforcement to keep people from growing it themselves. Legalizing it brings no help for the economy, and if it did, it wouldn't even be enough to be worth it. At least this way, the process is simple: you get busted, you get penalized. There's no argument of "yeah, but it was only this much, etc." Proceedings will be slowed heavily by such a thing.


2. Weed isn't as bad as tobacco and alcohol, and THEY'RE legal! Weed doesn't even kill people!
Weed has been proven to cause severe mental disorders in a percentage of people who use it. These disorders, such as schizophrenia and depression, can lead to the harm of others as well. It turns them into a permanent threat to the safety of others.
Wiggums pointed out that because some redneck beats his kids while he's drunk, it doesn't mean alcohol should be illegal, just that the guy be thrown in jail. That's because being drunk is not a defense in a court of law, for any crime. Having a mental disease, on the other hand, is considered a legitimate defense. If someone kills another person and they have a legitimate mental disease, they are put into an asylum, by all accounts nicer than a prison, and rehabilitated (which going back to the economy thing, costs more than just incarcerating them). Imagine how much this would be abused, used as an excuse to avoid prison. "Oh, I smoke marijuana, so I could have a mental disorder. That means I can't be held responsible for what I did." Marijuana would be used as an out, allowing a completley normal person to claim they've become mentally ill because they smoke marijuana.

Right now, that doesn't fly because smoking marijuana is illegal, and therefore the government doesn't recognize anything that happens to the people who smoke it illegally. Long story short, the court system would become an even bigger mess than it already is.

3. But if it's only hurting me, why should you care?
Like I mentioned above, the moment someone develops a mental disorder as a result of its use, it has the potential to hurt everyone.

4. Other drugs that we use every day can do the same thing, and they're legal.
So why would anyone want to add another potentially harmful drug to the list? Aren't there already more than enough as it is? Especially when the use of this one would be so widespread!

On another note, I'd like someone to link me to a few drugs that "people use every day" that have over 30 studies linking them to severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia.

5. You haven't tried it, so you have no right to talk.
Most of the doctors who study it's effects probably haven't tried it either, but they know what they're talking about. Having smoked it doesn't mean you have any idea what it does to you other than "it totally makes you feel good, brah." You don't study the actual dangerous effects of it while you're high, so for the sake of argument, asking me to try it just makes it look like you're grasping at straws. Chances are if I was dumb enough to go out and try it I wouldn't be here arguing against it anyways.

[RightSideTheory]

By the way, this is called presenting "counter-points," which is part of having an actual debate.



You're either so unintelligent that you don't understand that I was saying that you have to have your own reasons for something, as well as counter points to the other sides points, or, you're insulting my intelligence.

Either way, I've decided that wasting my time and energy would, in fact, be a monumentally pointless move, as everything that can be said in this argument has been said, counter-pointed, re-phrased, counter-counter pointed, signed in triplicate, lost, found, buried in soil for three months, dug up, re-read, and burned, so there is not really a point in continuing, as clearly, you're not going to change what you believe, and you're not going to convince Zack or myself that you're wrong.

All debating on the internet (and it could be said, all debating in general, unless one or both parties have the power to effect change) is a waste of time, because neither party is going to change the other party's ideas, or achieve anything at all.

tl;dr
We've made our points, you've made yours, there's really nothing more to say, and nobody is ever going to change their opinion on the internet.

And I hope somebody catches the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe reference =P

[Toon324]

And I hope somebody catches the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe reference =P

Sure did, and I was about to comment on it too.

Here's some new points then:

For: "The tax can help fix our debt".
The estimated annual trade of weed in CA is a $8 billion dollar industry. Assuming we have it country wide and tax a certain percent, we can assume 10 billion.
That's 10,000,000,000.
Our debt is 4 Trillion. That helps the US less than me picking up a peny. I r poor.

[Letol]

Sure did, and I was about to comment on it too.

Here's some new points then:

For: "The tax can help fix our debt".
The estimated annual trade of weed in CA is a $8 billion dollar industry. Assuming we have it country wide and tax a certain percent, we can assume 10 billion.
That's 10,000,000,000.
Our debt is 4 Trillion. That helps the US less than me picking up a peny. I r poor.

So if something doesn't solve the debt crisis in one swift move, it isn't worth doing at all? That doesn't make sense at all, seeing as how the debt crisis would never be solved. Every little step in the right direction helps, and this is one of them.

[DeathsFriend22]

You're either so unintelligent that you don't understand that I was saying that you have to have your own reasons for something, as well as counter points to the other sides points, or, you're insulting my intelligence.

I was joking, if you consider that an insult. I'm sorry.

In any case, I have presented a point that nobody has even addressed yet - that given the amount of people who develop mental diseases as a result of marijuana use, it is dangerous to not only those who use it but to those around them. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against that one.

[Murdock Sampson]

You guys are making this argument really complicated with long, drawn out posts, but I have yet to see you make a point... Don't take it in a bad way, I'll explain.

We've explained why we think it should be legalized... but so far, all anyone has been able to muster against it is. "It's illegal now, so it shouldn't be legal", and "It's not healthy for you".
Do you see what I'm saying? It's irrational and illogical to argue for the continued prohibition of marijuana products, but if you disagree, then tell me why, don't just try to shoot down my points, and the points of others. By all means, disagree with some of my points, but come up with your own as well.
You're either so unintelligent that you don't understand that I was saying that you have to have your own reasons for something, as well as counter points to the other sides points, or, you're insulting my intelligence.
Thinly veiled and obvious insults alike should be avoided in a debate. Another thing to understand about debate: there are two sides to any debate. But debate isn't like most sports. Both sides aren't trying to win the same way. There's an affirmative side, this is the side which is in favor of the proposition ("legalization of marijuana use on private property"). In order to win, this side must effectively prove to an audience (in this case no one since this debate is just for fun) that the change proposed is the most ethical, logical, morally correct or whatever decision.
The second side is the negative side. They are going against the proposed change. In order to win, they only need to keep the audience from changing their minds from the opinion they hold. This means that the negative side could consist of a team of not a single person and still win if the affirmative side was completely inept.
Debate isn't capture the flag, it's 1-flag. The negative side, those who think that marijuana shouldn't be legal at all, only have to make counter points to win. They don't have to go on the offense, although they can, to win. If the affirmative side makes a good point and then the negative side makes a more effective counter point (this is called rebuttal), then negative side won. Because they don't have to convince anyone of anything. They just have to keep things the way they are.
Make a statement for your side that makes sense. And not "oh it's not healthy" because we both know that tobacco companies control half of america, and tobacco is about the most deadly product you can put in your body short of some sort of poison made to kill people. And saying "Don't complain about fairness, it's childish" Is childish in and of itself, if anything, people all over the world should strive for fairness, because it's what's right and what should be allowed.
Now, besides "being a bit unhealthy for you" there really aren't any reasons that I see for weed being illegal. The whole "it maekz peopul dumb" argument doesn't really work, because alcohol kills brain cells too. And poisons your body. Alcohol is legal.
I'm glad you don't want anyone to make that statement, because we already have and it's pretty cut and dry. The point that there are more harmful things which are legal doesn't justify legalization of a harmful substance. It's that simple. Tobacco and alcohol related illnesses and death have millions of victims. That doesn't mean we should legalize something just because it could potentially have fewer.
Using the example of a family doesn't really work, because that's the perfect example of a dictatorship if I've ever seen one, and here in america, we like a little thing called Democracy, which comes with added perks such as: Equality, fairness (no one side being above another for no reason), and the pursuit of happiness.
You can call me stupid (and I know you wouldn't miss an opportunity for that), but I didn't follow this paragraph at all. I don't get the jump from being concerned about those in a family setting to being a dictator. In our democracy, those politicians who are elected commonly run on a campaign of family values.
But let's stray from that example. Let's go far more general. Any person who doesn't live alone, that's a large majority of Americans, could affect others by smoking in their presence.

That's the problem I have, the original question was actually kind of lame. It doesn't say "should weed be legal" it says "should weed be allowed to be smoked on public property."
Try another debate? Besides, the first thing in quotations is pretty much what's been argued anyways.
So, if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, then weed should be legal as well since the negative side effects are drastically less than alcohol or cigarettes and should be allowed to be smoked on private property.
I can't believe we're still getting this argument. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Either way, I've decided that wasting my time and energy would, in fact, be a monumentally pointless move, as everything that can be said in this argument has been said, counter-pointed, re-phrased, counter-counter pointed, signed in triplicate, lost, found, buried in soil for three months, dug up, re-read, and burned, so there is not really a point in continuing, as clearly, you're not going to change what you believe, and you're not going to convince Zack or myself that we're wrong.
It's called "agreeing to disagree" and it's how 95% of debates end.
All debating on the internet (and it could be said, all debating in general, unless one or both parties have the power to effect change) is a waste of time, because neither party is going to change the other party's ideas, or achieve anything at all.
That's how you it goes. More than anything people hate admitting they were wrong. If you did change anyone's mind, it would be hard for them to come out and say, "oh okay, you're right".

[Letol]

That's how you it goes. More than anything people hate admitting they were wrong. If you did change anyone's mind, it would be hard for them to come out and say, "oh okay, you're right".

Then people need to get over themselves and deflate their egos. Everyone's wrong at some point in their life, and rather than deny it, they should learn from it.

Before anyone gets paranoid, that wasn't directed towards any individual here.

[Zackj191]

In any case, I have presented a point that nobody has even addressed yet - that given the amount of people who develop mental diseases as a result of marijuana use, it is dangerous to not only those who use it but to those around them. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against that one.


I have never once found a study, with a link to the journal or research notes, that you linked that shows any sort of actual correlation between schizophrenia and marijuana use. You linked that similar parts of the brain are effected when someone uses marijuana and when someone has schizophrenia but no actual link has been made. Also, one of the articles you link said that, and if I am remembering this correctly, that it only increases the chances of having schizophrenia while the subject is under the influence. Once the brain receptors that were activated while high stop connecting after you come down your schizophrenia should go away.

I'm going to say this, but when I'm like really, really, high, sometimes I feel as though I might have mild schizophrenia but as soon as I come down it goes away :/

[Toon324]

Here's this: Cigs are linked to a cancer in virtually all parts of the body. It contains various cleaning solutions and poisons. I think we can all agree that it is bad for you, and so is weed (to what extent can be argued, but that's not the point).

My question is, does that mean weed should be legal like cigs, or cigs should be outlawed by weed?

And another question, tobacco is naturally grown. Does anyone know what natural tobacco do to the body when smoked? Is it comparable to weed?

[Iron]

Here's this: Cigs are linked to a cancer in virtually all parts of the body. It contains various cleaning solutions and poisons. I think we can all agree that it is bad for you, and so is weed (to what extent can be argued, but that's not the point).

My question is, does that mean weed should be legal like cigs, or cigs should be outlawed by weed?

And another question, tobacco is naturally grown. Does anyone know what natural tobacco do to the body when smoked? Is it comparable to weed?

Well you chew tobacco, and that still makes your teeth look like shit and I know it does cause some minor problems, but not as much as when you inhale the smoke from Cigarettes.

[DeathsFriend22]

I have never once found a study, with a link to the journal or research notes, that you linked that shows any sort of actual correlation between schizophrenia and marijuana use. You linked that similar parts of the brain are effected when someone uses marijuana and when someone has schizophrenia but no actual link has been made. Also, one of the articles you link said that, and if I am remembering this correctly, that it only increases the chances of having schizophrenia while the subject is under the influence. Once the brain receptors that were activated while high stop connecting after you come down your schizophrenia should go away.

I'm going to say this, but when I'm like really, really, high, sometimes I feel as though I might have mild schizophrenia but as soon as I come down it goes away :/

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html
A recent Dutch study showed that teenagers who indulge in cannabis as few as five times in their life significantly increase their risk of psychotic symptoms.

Researchers in New Zealand found that those who used cannabis by the age of 15 were more than three times (300%) more likely to develop illnesses such as schizophrenia. Other research has backed this up, showing that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis by up to 700% for heavy users, and that the risk increases in proportion to the amount of cannabis used (smoked or consumed). Additionally, the younger a person smokes/uses cannabis, the higher the risk for schizophrenia, and the worse the schizophrenia is when the person does develop it. Research by psychiatrists in inner-city areas speak of cannabis being a factor in up to 80 percent of schizophrenia cases.

[Murdock Sampson]

Then people need to get over themselves and deflate their egos. Everyone's wrong at some point in their life, and rather than deny it, they should learn from it.

Before anyone gets paranoid, that wasn't directed towards any individual here.
It's just the way it is. I personally am not afraid of being wrong, although it's hard to know exactly when you're being close-minded.

[Toon324]

Well you chew tobacco, and that still makes your teeth look like shit and I know it does cause some minor problems, but not as much as when you inhale the smoke from Cigarettes.

There's chewing tobacco, but what if you rolled it up and smoked it? What then?

[Zackj191]

There's chewing tobacco, but what if you rolled it up and smoked it? What then?


You don't know very much about smoking. That would be a cigar. A cigar is just tobacco with a couple additive to it and cigarettes are like tobacco with a toxic waste container dumped on it. Smoking any kind of tobacco is bad for your lungs since the tar in the smoke stays in your lungs after you exhale since it's denser than the smoke.


DeathsFriend22 Then make it illegal to smoke before the age of 18, like cigarettes. I never once thought the debate was about making it okay for 5 years olds to smoke, but to legalize it for adults. Find a study that links mental illnesses with adults not people who are still developing and growing.

[Letol]

and so is weed (to what extent can be argued, but that's not the point).

And it's very arguable.

And another question, tobacco is naturally grown. Does anyone know what natural tobacco do to the body when smoked? Is it comparable to weed?

Nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco and is one of the main reasons for the massive addiction. Nicotine is also very carcinogenic. Thus the reason why there's no safe tobacco product.

No, it is not comparable to marijuana.

Well you chew tobacco, and that still makes your teeth look like shit and I know it does cause some minor problems, but not as much as when you inhale the smoke from Cigarettes.

It also is still very carcinogenic, just it affects your mouth more rather than your lungs.

[DeathsFriend22]

DeathsFriend22 Then make it illegal to smoke before the age of 18, like cigarettes. I never once thought the debate was about making it okay for 5 years olds to smoke, but to legalize it for adults. Find a study that links mental illnesses with adults not people who are still developing and growing.

The site said that it carries a huge risk until the age of 21. After 21, the risk is reduced but not eliminated, especially in people who could be vulnerable to schizophrenia or other psychosis.

[wiggums]

It hurts you. A lot of things do. If you don't think the risk is worth it, then don't do it. That doesn't mean you should force others to not have the choice though. You're telling us that no one is allowed to ever do it. We are giving you the choice to do it or not. Which one sounds more fair? (and dare I say, more free?) If regulated to the point that others using it would bring no harm to you (similar to cigarettes or alcohol) then what problem do you have with it? Weed has enough up-sides to make it worth it for me. That doesn't make me a bad person, or a stupid schizophrenic stoner. (As some studies posted here would say) It simply means I'm willing to take the risk. I'm not planning on driving while under the influence and risking your life. I'm not planning on walking into your house and lighting up right in front of you. Tell me, honestly, what is your problem with that?

Driving in a car is dangerous, but you get around fast enough. Many people in the world think that's worth it.

Flying in a plane can be expensive, but you get around very fast. Many people in the world think that's worth it.

Smoking weed can be bad for your health, but you become happier, more creative, and care-free for a short while. Many people in the world think that's worth it.

[DeathsFriend22]

It hurts you. A lot of things do. If you don't think the risk is worth it, then don't do it. That doesn't mean you should force others to not have the choice though. You're telling us that no one is allowed to ever do it. We are giving you the choice to do it or not. Which one sounds more fair? (and dare I say, more free?) If regulated to the point that others using it would bring no harm to you (similar to cigarettes or alcohol) then what problem do you have with it? Weed has enough up-sides to make it worth it for me. That doesn't make me a bad person, or a stupid schizophrenic stoner. (As some studies posted here would say) It simply means I'm willing to take the risk. I'm not planning on driving while under the influence and risking your life. I'm not planning on walking into your house and lighting up right in front of you. Tell me, honestly, what is your problem with that?

Driving in a car is dangerous, but you get around fast enough. Many people in the world think that's worth it.

Flying in a plane can be expensive, but you get around very fast. Many people in the world think that's worth it.

Smoking weed can be bad for your health, but you become happier, more creative, and care-free for a short while. Many people in the world think that's worth it.

I can't believe we're still getting this argument. Have I not explained more than once in this thread that weed is not just dangerous to the smoker?

Sure you're not smoking it in front of me, but what happens if you develop paranoia or something as a result of smoking and you hurt someone else? Then that person is paying for your actions as well.

[wiggums]

I can't believe we're still getting this argument. Have I not explained more than once in this thread that weed is not just dangerous to the smoker?

Sure you're not smoking it in front of me, but what happens if you develop paranoia or something as a result of smoking and you hurt someone else? Then that person is paying for your actions as well.

I think developing paranoia and then somehow hurting someone is a lot less likely then getting drunk from alcohol (which happens 100% of the time ;) ) and then driving head-on into another car, killing a family of four. Was it their fault? Yes. Is it a tragedy? Yes. But overall, no matter how hard it is, you can't just take it all away from everyone to make sure it never happens again. If that were the case we wouldn't have any drugs at all!

A lot of schizophrenics are born that way, or simply develop it as they age. It can't be helped. No matter what you do, (especially in a world with such a large population) you'll never be able to make everything 100% safe. People die. People will always be killed by other's mistakes. It really is terrible, and all you can do is make sure you don't do it.

You know why it's associated with schizophrenia? Because it releases dopamine, which is released by practically every drug out there! Actually more than just drugs too, in fact eating a chocolate bar would release dopamine. Or watching a movie that you like. Dopamine is pretty natural.

You still go outside, even though there are plenty of schizophrenics in the world. You still drive, even though there are plenty of people who drink and drive. These are risks you take living in a free world. That's the point, you can do what you want. We shouldn't try to take away all the bad choices from everyone's lives, we should educate them of the possible results and let them choose for themselves. That's part of growing as a person, and as a country. (Hopefully the world, too)

Oh, and research (http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509/version/1) these days can have quite different results. Bias sucks.

[Zackj191]

I can't believe we're still getting this argument. Have I not explained more than once in this thread that weed is not just dangerous to the smoker?

Sure you're not smoking it in front of me, but what happens if you develop paranoia or something as a result of smoking and you hurt someone else? Then that person is paying for your actions as well.


Paranoia doesn't cause you to kill people, probably the exact opposite really. If you become incredibly paranoid you would most likely just lock yourself in your house and not talk to anyone, I don't see how that could possibly kill you in a judgement-reduced blur with your car driving the wrong way down a one way street.

[DeathsFriend22]

I think developing paranoia and then somehow hurting someone is a lot less likely then getting drunk from alcohol (which happens 100% of the time ;) ) and then driving head-on into another car, killing a family of four. Was it their fault? Yes. Is it a tragedy? Yes. But overall, no matter how hard it is, you can't just take it all away from everyone to make sure it never happens again. If that were the case we wouldn't have any drugs at all!

A lot of schizophrenics are born that way, or simply develop it as they age. It can't be helped. No matter what you do, (especially in a world with such a large population) you'll never be able to make everything 100% safe. People die. People will always be killed by other's mistakes. It really is terrible, and all you can do is make sure you don't do it.

You know why it's associated with schizophrenia? Because it releases dopamine, which is released by practically every drug out there! Actually more than just drugs too, in fact eating a chocolate bar would release dopamine. Or watching a movie that you like. Dopamine is pretty natural.

You still go outside, even though there are plenty of schizophrenics in the world. You still drive, even though there are plenty of people who drink and drive. These are risks you take living in a free world. That's the point, you can do what you want. We shouldn't try to take away all the bad choices from everyone's lives, we should educate them of the possible results and let them choose for themselves. That's part of growing as a person, and as a country. (Hopefully the world, too)


Paranoia is a mental disease that can cause people to act in fear, whether that act is fatal to someone else or not. THAT can't be helped.

Drinking and Drinking and Driving are two separate things. D&D is a crime because no matter how drunk you are you're still in control enough to know you should not be driving. People with paranoia might do something because they think someone is trying to kill them. To them it was self defense.

There's a reason "I was drunk" is not a legitimate excuse for a crime in a court of law but having a mental illness is. Stop comparing the two.

as for the dopamine thing I feel it's necessary to point out that no drug has been linked to schizophrenia more than marijuana.


Oh, and research (http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509/version/1) these days can have quite different results. Bias sucks.

Oh, this again. Yeah Zack pointed out the same thing. Fun Fact: that study was done using a chemical called HU210. It is mentioned in this article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html) that another study revealed that THC didn't have the same effect. Last I checked, THC is in marijuana, not HU210. Come on man, if you're going to accuse me of not having my research done at least do some yourself.

[Zackj191]

Oh, this again. Yeah Zack pointed out the same thing. Fun Fact: that study was done using a chemical called HU210. It is mentioned in this article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html) that another study revealed that THC didn't have the same effect. Last I checked, THC is in marijuana, not HU210. Come on man, if you're going to accuse me of not having my research done at least do some yourself.


Actually, if you bothered to read it, you will find that they used HU210 to activate the cannibinoid receptors that THC ALSO activates.

[Zackj191]

he goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that the potent synthetic cannabinoid HU210 is able to promote hippocampal neurogenesis, leading to the anxiolytic and antidepressant effects of cannabinoids.

At the end of the Introduction paragraph. HU210 is a synthetic (man-made) chemical that causes CB1 and CB2 receptors in the brain to activate. Those ALSO happen to be the same cannabanoid receptors that THC activates.

[wiggums]

Paranoia is a mental disease that can cause people to act in fear, whether that act is fatal to someone else or not. THAT can't be helped.

Drinking and Drinking and Driving are two separate things. D&D is a crime because no matter how drunk you are you're still in control enough to know you should not be driving. People with paranoia might do something because they think someone is trying to kill them. To them it was self defense.

There's a reason "I was drunk" is not a legitimate excuse for a crime in a court of law but having a mental illness is. Stop comparing the two.

as for the dopamine thing I feel it's necessary to point out that no drug has been linked to schizophrenia more than marijuana.
I only "compared" the two because they are both threats to your life. In the same way drinking is legal away from the wheel, weed can be legal.

In response to "the dopamine thing" you raise a very good question. Why does this drug which releases a fraction of the amount of dopamine other drugs release have so many studies linking it to it? Does that make sense to you that less creates a greater risk of schizophrenia?



Oh, this again. Yeah Zack pointed out the same thing. Fun Fact: that study was done using a chemical called HU210. It is mentioned in this article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html) that another study revealed that THC didn't have the same effect. Last I checked, THC is in marijuana, not HU210. Come on man, if you're going to accuse me of not having my research done at least do some yourself.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm here to debate, not to squabble around like a 4 year old. By the way, HU210 is almost structurally identical to THC, both have similar effects, (though HU210 is much more potent) and both are schedule 1 illicit drugs in the U.S. Sure this debate is about weed but as far as I'm concerned all these arguments could be made for any drug. You're scared that someone is gonna go crazy after smoking a whole bunch and kill you or a loved one. I get that, but I don't see why such extreme manners such as prohibition would ever be considered to be effective or fair.

Besides, if weed doesn't make you schizophrenic, you probably already got it from your mum. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/lead.html) I guess we should prohibit gasoline, paint, and alcohol now shouldn't we? Oh wait, instead we could just take the lead out! Still, that doesn't fix all the reports that simply bad nutrition could make kids much more likely to develop it...

[DeathsFriend22]

At the end of the Introduction paragraph. HU210 is a synthetic (man-made) chemical that causes CB1 and CB2 receptors in the brain to activate. Those ALSO happen to be the same cannabanoid receptors that THC activates.

In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for.

The fact is that THC didn't produce the same result. It doesn't matter what HU210 does because it's not THC, and the different results prove that.

[Zackj191]

The fact is that THC didn't produce the same result. It doesn't matter what HU210 does because it's not THC, and the different results prove that.


HU210 is like THC on steroids. It's like comparing a beer to a Handle of Vodka, the beer wouldn't get you drunk but a fucking handle of 40% alcohol, content vodka would easily knock you out, or even kill you.

Also, after looking into it, the number one most likely cause of schizophrenia is stress as a child and as a developing adult.

[DeathsFriend22]

I only "compared" the two because they are both threats to your life. In the same way drinking is legal away from the wheel, weed can be legal.

In response to "the dopamine thing" you raise a very good question. Why does this drug which releases a fraction of the amount of dopamine other drugs release have so many studies linking it to it? Does that make sense to you that less creates a greater risk of schizophrenia?

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm here to debate, not to squabble around like a 4 year old. By the way, HU210 is almost structurally identical to THC, both have similar effects, (though HU210 is much more potent) and both are schedule 1 illicit drugs in the U.S. Sure this debate is about weed but as far as I'm concerned all these arguments could be made for any drug. You're scared that someone is gonna go crazy after smoking a whole bunch and kill you or a loved one. I get that, but I don't see why such extreme manners such as prohibition would ever be considered to be effective or fair.

Besides, if weed doesn't make you schizophrenic, you probably already got it from your mum. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/lead.html) I guess we should prohibit gasoline, paint, and alcohol now shouldn't we?
Mental illnesses are a threat everywhere, not just behind the wheel. And they're permanent. That's the difference.


I don't know whether dopamine really is the cause or not. In any case it is the most linked and the most prevalent drug out there. I guess it's much easier to study because of the enormous sample size, but I think that's a problem in itself.

"In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for."
I don't know why we're still talking about HU210. It clearly doesn't have the same effect.

As for me being scared some crazy person will kill me or my family, sure, that's a perfectly rational fear. But is it so wrong to be concerned for others as well? It is a tragedy when an innocent person is killed, especially when the cause was completely unnecessary and avoidable.

2 of the 3 things you mentioned are actually useful things. Paint can be done without, sure, but most of it isn't even lead based anymore, as far as I'm aware. Banning gasoline is an absurd proposition. It's a staple in our energy supply and our economy. Alcohol is easy to regulate, and my mom loved me, she didn't drink while she was pregnant. The ban alcohol argument holds no water with me, because I don't drink so i don't care. Meanwhile weed's only use is to get you stoned and it's nearly impossible to keep track of. The only way to try to control it is to ban it completely.

[Zackj191]

Meanwhile weed's only use is to get you stoned and it's nearly impossible to keep track of. The only way to try to control it is to ban it completely.


Since when? You do realize they ACTUALLY prescribe it to people who DO need it right? Like, not just because people want to get high but some doctors will actually prescribe it to people who are anorexic or bulimic (like they actually are, not just saying that to get a card) and to people who are in an insurmountable amount of pain. As far as I know THC is stronger than Vicodin for pain mediation and, unless I'm mistaken, almost as strong as morphine, without that incredibly high you get form morphine. That means that weed is a much better pain killer than even morphine for the simple fact it can't kill you if you take even 5mg too much of it. You literally can't die from weed. You can die from hitting a tree while high, but no the weed itself.

[wiggums]

DeathsFriend22

That's the thing about free will though. You can either have everything that could possibly have a bad effect on people prohibited, and eliminate all possible bad choices for people, or you could leave them there, educate, and leave them alone. Sure, talk to them if you're worried. Let them know the dangers of their actions. If you think something is unsafe you have every right to speak up. If you get to make your own choices then so should everybody else. But like I said earlier, a lot of people find the risk for damage to their bodies to be worth it. They don't regret it. If they do, they stop. They go on knowing they've made their own decisions rather than being told what is good and bad. Everyone is different, so it makes no sense to hold everyone by the same restrictions.

I've known people who made decisions I wouldn't. I felt for them so I let them know what I thought about the situation. They decided on their own. It was good for them, even if they made the decision I wouldn't have. They were aware of the dangers and decided the risk was worth it. That's them, not me, so I'm perfectly ok with that. I understand this wouldn't be as extreme as a life or death situation, but it still relates.

For me, the risk of someone else making a bad choice is worth it to be living in a truly free society, because I know that people reap what they sow. You have all the right in the world to worry about this kind of stuff, and you have every right to try and educate others of your opinion, but you do not have the right to tell anyone how they should or should not be. If they mean you no harm, and they know the risks of what they are getting into, it's still free choice, and that's what we need.

For me it's not about getting high easier. It's already legal medically here and extremely easy to get. It's a matter of free will.

[Letol]

The fact is that THC didn't produce the same result. It doesn't matter what HU210 does because it's not THC, and the different results prove that.

No, no actually. If it's activating the same receptors, it's going to affect the brain in the same exact ways. That's pretty much the main premise behind drugs.

[DeathsFriend22]

Since when? You do realize they ACTUALLY prescribe it to people who DO need it right? Like, not just because people want to get high but some doctors will actually prescribe it to people who are anorexic or bulimic (like they actually are, not just saying that to get a card) and to people who are in an insurmountable amount of pain. As far as I know THC is stronger than Vicodin for pain mediation and, unless I'm mistaken, almost as strong as morphine, without that incredibly high you get form morphine. That means that weed is a much better pain killer than even morphine for the simple fact it can't kill you if you take even 5mg too much of it. You literally can't die from weed. You can die from hitting a tree while high, but no the weed itself.

As far as I'm aware, you are not one of these people, nor do you give a shit about them. I want you to do the same thing wiggums did a few pages back. Admit it.

you want it to be legalized so you can get stoned without breaking the law.


DeathsFriend22

That's the thing about free will though. You can either have everything that could possibly have a bad effect on people prohibited, and eliminate all possible bad choices for people, or you could leave them there, educate, and leave them alone. Sure, talk to them if you're worried. Let them know the dangers of their actions. If you think something is unsafe you have every right to speak up. If you get to make your own choices then so should everybody else. But like I said earlier, a lot of people find the risk for damage to their bodies to be worth it. They don't regret it. If they do, they stop. They go on knowing they've made their own decisions rather than being told what is good and bad. Everyone is different, so it makes no sense to hold everyone by the same restrictions.

I've known people who made decisions I wouldn't. I felt for them so I let them know what I thought about the situation. They decided on their own. It was good for them, even if they made the decision I wouldn't have. They were aware of the dangers and decided the risk was worth it. That's them, not me, so I'm perfectly ok with that. I understand this wouldn't be as extreme as a life or death situation, but it still relates.

For me, the risk of someone else making a bad choice is worth it to be living in a truly free society, because I know that people reap what they sow. You have all the right in the world to worry about this kind of stuff, and you have every right to try and educate others of your opinion, but you do not have the right to tell anyone how they should or should not be. If they mean you no harm, and they know the risks of what they are getting into, it's still free choice, and that's what we need.

For me it's not about getting high easier. It's already legal medically here and extremely easy to get. It's a matter of free will.

I don't get it. If a guy goes out and kills or wounds 4 people and dies in the process, aren't those 4 people paying the price for his actions? That isn't fair at all. Nothing is without consequence. would you have (and I know this is extreme, but I'm trying to get a point across. Don't freak out.) another 9/11 happen in order to live in a "free world"? Or a VT shooting? The victims in those incidents - was it their choice to die? There are plenty of examples where other people paid for the needless actions of others. I'm sure you would not feel the same if your friends' actions had harmed you as well. Any time someone hurts someone else, they are not the only one paying for their actions, and if Marijuana can create more people willing to harm others, why let it stick around?

Letol
I don't get why we're still talking about this. HU210 promotes neurogenesis. THC did not have the same effect when tested. It's pretty black and white.

[Letol]

@Letol (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/member.php?u=446)
I don't get why we're still talking about this. HU210 promotes neurogenesis. THC did not have the same effect when tested. It's pretty black and white.

Because "HU-210 is 100 to 800 times more potent than natural THC from cannabis and has an extended duration of action"?

[Zackj191]

As far as I'm aware, you are not one of these people, nor do you give a shit about them. I want you to do the same thing wiggums did a few pages back. Admit it.

you want it to be legalized so you can get stoned without breaking the law.


As wiggums said, weed is easy as fuck to get. I could go, literally right now, and get more if I wanted. I want it to be legalized for the people who want to try it but feel as though they will get arrested or something. Everyone should be able to try whatever they want. I'm not voicing that trying meth is good, but if you are stupid enough, go ahead. Natural Selection (on the meth thing).




I don't get it. If a guy goes out and kills or wounds 4 people and dies in the process, aren't those 4 people paying the price for his actions? That isn't fair at all. Nothing is without consequence. would you have (and I know this is extreme, but I'm trying to get a point across. Don't freak out.) another 9/11 happen in order to live in a "free world"? Or a VT shooting? The victims in those incidents - was it their choice to die? There are plenty of examples where other people paid for the needless actions of others. I'm sure you would not feel the same if your friends' actions had harmed you as well. Any time someone hurts someone else, they are not the only one paying for their actions, and if Marijuana can create more people willing to harm others, why let it stick around?

First off, 9/11 was actually by a terrorist group AGAINST free will, (religious free will to be exact) so that was a stupid point to use.

Second, you seem so caught up in this idea that smoking weed causes people to do horrible things. It doesn't. I can bet you (depending on where you live) that you seem at least 100 people whoa re high every day and don't know it. Since you have never been high you don't know how the feeling is, but you can function normally. Albeit you might function slightly slower or with a little less reasoning, but you can still do whatever you want just fine. I drive all the time while high and it's not like I'm swerving around or crashing into people, I drive perfectly fine. If anything, while you're high you drive safer. When people are high they tend to drive slower because it feels like you are going really fast so people actually drive 25 in a neighborhood instead of driving down the street going 40.

[DeathsFriend22]

Because "HU-210 is 100 to 800 times more potent than natural THC from cannabis and has an extended duration of action"?
Then maybe the reason HU210 was able to cause neurogenesis and THC was not was because of HU210's incredible potency. THC does not have the same positive effect, and that's all that really matters.

As wiggums said, weed is easy as fuck to get. I could go, literally right now, and get more if I wanted. I want it to be legalized for the people who want to try it but feel as though they will get arrested or something. Everyone should be able to try whatever they want. I'm not voicing that trying meth is good, but if you are stupid enough, go ahead. Natural Selection (on the meth thing).

First off, 9/11 was actually by a terrorist group AGAINST free will, (religious free will to be exact) so that was a stupid point to use.

Second, you seem so caught up in this idea that smoking weed causes people to do horrible things. It doesn't. I can bet you (depending on where you live) that you seem at least 100 people whoa re high every day and don't know it. Since you have never been high you don't know how the feeling is, but you can function normally. Albeit you might function slightly slower or with a little less reasoning, but you can still do whatever you want just fine. I drive all the time while high and it's not like I'm swerving around or crashing into people, I drive perfectly fine. If anything, while you're high you drive safer. When people are high they tend to drive slower because it feels like you are going really fast so people actually drive 25 in a neighborhood instead of driving down the street going 40.

:facepalm::facepalm: I wasn't using 9/11 as an example of free will. I was using it to illustrate that the consequences of your actions go beyond just yourself.

Smoking weed doesn't cause people to do horrible things. Mental illness, however, sometimes does. If even ONE of those 100 people ends up with psychosis as a result of marijuana use and kills someone else, that's one more death than there needed to be. And for what? So someone could feel good for a couple of hours? Give me a break.

[Letol]

Then maybe the reason HU210 was able to cause neurogenesis and THC was not was because of HU210's incredible potency. THC does not have the same positive effect, and that's all that really matters.

With that reasoning, THC could produce the same exact effects at higher doses, so yes, it actually does matter.

If even ONE of those 100 people ends up with psychosis as a result of marijuana use and kills someone else, that's one more death than there needed to be. And for what? So someone could feel good for a couple of hours? Give me a break.

With that logic, violent videogames should be banned for the possibility of causing impressionable kids to go on a shooting spree, cars should be banned for the possibility of fatal accidents, caffeine should be banned for the possibility of causing fatal heart attacks, stairs should be banned for the possibility of someone falling down them and dying, etc. etc. etc. Does that really make sense?

[wiggums]

With that logic, violent videogames should be banned for the possibility of causing impressionable kids to go on a shooting spree, cars should be banned for the possibility of fatal accidents, caffeine should be banned for the possibility of causing fatal heart attacks, stairs should be banned for the possibility of someone falling down them and dying, etc. etc. etc. Does that really make sense?

Exactly. 1 in a million chances are going to happen, and living on a planet with 7 billion people, it's going to happen often.

DeathsFriend22
I'm not saying a person has the right to go out and kill as many people as he wants. Although, we could probably cut down that sort of stuff from happening if we were to take away the right to bear arms, right? Wrong. None of my examples had a person deliberately trying to hurt another for a reason. You seem totally ok with the possibility that someone can get drunk and plow head on into you, and I'm ok with that risk too. It's worth the very small risk to be able to get around fast. Alcohol has a much higher tendency to make people violent than marijuana does. It's simply unreasonable to try and stop every single little chance that you or a loved one might get killed by these millions of things that might go wrong.

If you ask me, that's called being paranoid.

[Zackj191]

I'm pretty sure that worrying about someone maybe become paranoid and maybe doing something that might kill you and stewing over it and fighting about the fact that it could maybe happen seems like it might be a case of paranoia.

[DeathsFriend22]

With that reasoning, THC could produce the same exact effects at higher doses, so yes, it actually does matter.



With that logic, violent videogames should be banned for the possibility of causing impressionable kids to go on a shooting spree, cars should be banned for the possibility of fatal accidents, caffeine should be banned for the possibility of causing fatal heart attacks, stairs should be banned for the possibility of someone falling down them and dying, etc. etc. etc. Does that really make sense?

Only assuming that violent video games have an actual impression on kids in the first place (and lets face it, they shouldn't be playing M rated games anyway). You and I both know how stupid the "kid shoots parents after playing violent video game" headlines are, especially when it can be concluded the kid has actual problems. A video game isn't going to cause anyone to do anything to anyone else.

Cars are used for transportation. Weed is used to get high. Which is more necessary?

A heart attack is only going to hurt the person who has it.

How many people have killed themselves falling down a set of stairs?


Exactly. 1 in a million chances are going to happen, and living on a planet with 7 billion people, it's going to happen often.



DeathsFriend22
I'm not saying a person has the right to go out and kill as many people as he wants. Although, we could probably cut down that sort of stuff from happening if we were to take away the right to bear arms, right? Wrong. None of my examples had a person deliberately trying to hurt another for a reason. You seem totally ok with the possibility that someone can get drunk and plow head on into you, and I'm ok with that risk too. It's worth the very small risk to be able to get around fast. Alcohol has a much higher tendency to make people violent than marijuana does. It's simply unreasonable to try and stop every single little chance that you or a loved one might get killed by these millions of things that might go wrong.

If you ask me, that's called being paranoid.

You just don't get it do you? Driving under the influence is NOT a result of Alcohol, it's a result of some dipshit's choice to drive when his ability to drive has been impaired by his consumption of alcohol. There's a reason drinking is not a punishable offense as long as you're not driving, because no matter how drunk you might be, overall you are still in control.

However, anyone who smokes marijuana and ends up with psychosis is no longer in complete control. Any harm they do could be as a direct result of their new condition. Even under the influence of alcohol, the bottom line is that the alcoholic in question is still in control.

A person who drinks and drives makes 2 decisions: one to drink and one to drive. A person who smokes marijuana and ends up psychotic makes one decision: the decision to smoke marijuana. It is out of their hands once they've smoked whether or not they end up with a form of psychosis or not. A person can be convinced not to drive after they've had a few beers. The same cannot be said for anyone who ends up crazy because they smoked marijuana. I don't know how I could possibly spell it out any clearer.

P.S. it's not paranoia. Paranoia is the idea someone around you is actively trying to kill you or hurt you in some way. What I'm talking about is called prevention. Airports don't allow weapons on airplanes. People are not allowed to bring guns anywhere near the president. Is that paranoia? I don't think so. Not when there's legitimate cause for concern, and the way I see it there is.

[l33tmeerkatslol]

Admit it.

you want it to be legalized so you can get stoned without breaking the law.

I want to see this too. If it's as readily available as you guys say it is, then if someone needs it medically, they really shouldn't have a problem getting it.

I want it to be legalized for the people who want to try it but feel as though they will get arrested or something. Everyone should be able to try whatever they want.

If someone wants to try it, they will. I don't, so I don't. It's as simple as that. How many people actually buy their music from iTunes out of fear of being caught for torrenting? Very few people. They'll do it to support the artist or because they can afford it. Most people download their music regardless of it being against the law because the chance of them being caught is small, because so many people do it.

[wiggums]

How many people have killed themselves falling down a set of stairs?


Ever meet the elderly? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/790609.stm)


You just don't get it do you? Driving under the influence is NOT a result of Alcohol, it's a result of some dipshit's choice to drive when his ability to drive has been impaired by his consumption of alcohol. There's a reason drinking is not a punishable offense as long as you're not driving, because no matter how drunk you might be, overall you are still in control.

However, anyone who smokes marijuana and ends up with psychosis is no longer in complete control. Any harm they do could be as a direct result of their new condition. Even under the influence of alcohol, the bottom line is that the alcoholic in question is still in control.

A person who drinks and drives makes 2 decisions: one to drink and one to drive. A person who smokes marijuana and ends up psychotic makes one decision: the decision to smoke marijuana. It is out of their hands once they've smoked whether or not they end up with a form of psychosis or not. A person can be convinced not to drive after they've had a few beers. The same cannot be said for anyone who ends up crazy because they smoked marijuana. I don't know how I could possibly spell it out any clearer.


You act as if weed has a guarantee to cause psychosis. People who smoke still have the choice to drive or not. I'm sorry, but it seems you're raising alcohol above all else like it just gets you drunk and is perfectly fine for your health. Alcohol has been linked to psychosis, just as pretty much everything else has. Just simple stress is one of the main theories.

The bottom line, drugs are always going to be around. Even when illegal. Prohibition is just an extreme option that doesn't work.

[DeathsFriend22]

You act as if weed has a guarantee to cause psychosis. People who smoke still have the choice to drive or not. I'm sorry, but it seems you're raising alcohol above all else like it just gets you drunk and is perfectly fine for your health. Alcohol has been linked to psychosis, just as pretty much everything else has. Just simple stress is one of the main theories.

I never said weed was guaranteed to induce psychosis. But if just 1 in 100 people (for purposes of illustration) become psychotic as a result of weed smoking, and 50,000 people do it, that's 500 people who now have a mental disorder and are therefore a potential threat to others. I didn't say anything about smoking and driving. Just that if someone does come down with psychosis, their actions are no longer those of a rational person.

As for alcohol, I am not raising it above anything. I'm only pointing out that someone who is drunk is still technically considered a rational person (the proof being "I was drunk" is not an acceptable defense in a court of law), while someone who is psychotic is not. Just out of curiosity, how many studies with conclusive evidence have been done linking alcohol to permanent forms of psychosis? (P.S. We have already tried prohibiting alcohol. It didn't work.) Alcohol is also easier to regulate, making its legalization more sensible.

This is also something we've been over about 10 times since the start of this thread. You are making an argument to ban alcohol, not to legalize marijuana. Like I've said, it's like a kid complaining he can't play Halo when his friend down the street plays GTA. I know you don't like the analogy, but it holds, and I'd challenge you to explain to me how it doesn't.

The bottom line, drugs are always going to be around. Even when illegal. Prohibition is just an extreme option that doesn't work.
Sure, but it's simply not worth the cost or the risk to legalize such a frivolous drug. Because lets face it, that's all it is: A frivolous, idiotic drug.

[Letol]

Only assuming that violent video games have an actual impression on kids in the first place (and lets face it, they shouldn't be playing M rated games anyway).

There's no definitive study and there's a lot of bias in the arguments used on either side, I'm just pointing out the potential for disaster and why it should be banned. Sound familiar?

You and I both know how stupid the "kid shoots parents after playing violent video game" headlines are, especially when it can be concluded the kid has actual problems. A video game isn't going to cause anyone to do anything to anyone else.

The same exact thing can be said about marijuana. Do you not understand this?

Cars are used for transportation. Weed is used to get high. Which is more necessary?

People survived just fine before cars were invented.

A heart attack is only going to hurt the person who has it.

You're always assuming worst case scenarios when it comes to psychosis and homicides, so here's one for you. What if an airliner pilot has a heart attack while flying? What if an automobile driver has a heart attack while going down the highway? What if pilot in a single person aircraft has a heart attack while flying over a city?

How many people have killed themselves falling down a set of stairs?

You really think no one has ever died falling down stairs?

[Link (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/25/man-falls-death-soekarnohatta-airport.html)]
[Link (http://www.mtn18.com/latest_news/2010/05/boone-man-dies-after-falling-down-stairs.html)]
[Link (http://thetoiletreader.com/2011/05/11/homeless-man-dies-after-falling-down-stairs-with-his-pants-down/)]
[Link (http://udontalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1733)]
[Link (http://www.austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2011-03-14/31431/Carinthian_man_dies_falling_down_stairs)]

And there are countless more.

You just don't get it do you? Driving under the influence is NOT a result of Alcohol, it's a result of some dipshit's choice to drive when his ability to drive has been impaired by his consumption of alcohol.

Not necessarily, alcohol makes you a blabbering idiot capable of very limited thought processes. Marijuana, on the other hand, does nothing of the sort.

There's a reason drinking is not a punishable offense as long as you're not driving,

Public intoxication.

because no matter how drunk you might be, overall you are still in control.

No... no, not really. Actually, not at all. How much experience do you have with alcohol and people heavily under the influence of alcohol?

I don't think so. Not when there's legitimate cause for concern, and the way I see it there is.

Show me reason to have legitimate concern, then. Find any article, any, where a homicide was proven to be linked to brain degeneration due to marijuana use.

I want to see this too. If it's as readily available as you guys say it is, then if someone needs it medically, they really shouldn't have a problem getting it.

Again, (and I stress the again, as I've already had to reply to this same exact idea before) it isn't the problem getting it, it's the fact that it's illegal. The reason that it matters is:

Because the police will go completely out of their way to royally screw you over as much as humanly possible if they catch you with it. It's completely absurd, seeing as how it's in no way a threat to the community's safety by itself.

If your response is going to be of similar nature to this:

That's because it's freaking illegal. They'll do the exact same thing to anybody caught drinking underage, or driving recklessly. Underage drinking may "not be a hazard in the privacy of your homes" but it's still illegal.

Then:

Actually, no, no they won't. Have you ever seen cops pull their guns out, run up to a car with kids drinking underage, quite literally pull them out of their cars, handcuff them, and tear the car apart looking for alcohol? I sure as hell haven't, but I've seen it happen to people who the police suspected had marijuana in their car due to blatant profiling without any substantial evidence.

It's absolutely absurd how much weight is put on the importance of this prohibition given the minimal effects of marijuana on society as a whole versus the individual.

If someone wants to try it, they will. I don't, so I don't. It's as simple as that. How many people actually buy their music from iTunes out of fear of being caught for torrenting? Very few people. They'll do it to support the artist or because they can afford it. Most people download their music regardless of it being against the law because the chance of them being caught is small, because so many people do it.

No, it's actually rather different. I know handfuls of people who are interested in the general idea of the drug, but are scared shitless of even being around it due to the illegality. The consequences of having marijuana far surpass the consequences of downloading music illegally.

I'm only pointing out that someone who is drunk is still technically considered a rational person (the proof being "I was drunk" is not an acceptable defense in a court of law), while someone who is psychotic is not.

The proof of "I was drunk" is not an acceptable defense in a court of law because anyone could use it to get out of practically anything. Things are not the way they are because a drunk person is a rational person, that assumption is completely false.

(I am by no means glorifying alcohol, but we have already tried prohibiting it. It didn't work.)

Yes, the prohibition of alcohol didn't work because too many people consumed it regardless of laws and constantly rebelled against the government for their rights. What is any different about marijuana?

Like I've said, it's like a kid complaining he can't play Halo when his friend down the street plays GTA. I know you don't like the analogy, but it holds, and I'd challenge you to explain to me how it doesn't.

It doesn't because it's unrelevant to the discussion and, whether purposefully or not, compares the people arguing for their rights to a whining little child. When put into the actual analogy, something like, oh I don't know, exactly what I said earlier:

Okay, now imagine a 21 year old getting pissed off because the guy down the street gets to kill himself with tobacco and alcohol, but he can't smoke marijuana.

It sounds a little different, doesn't it?

You're falling back on statements that you've already said and that we've already responded to, yet you aren't even responding to our responses. If this is all that this debate has left to offer, I see no reason in even continuing it.

Sure, but it's simply not worth the cost or the risk to legalize such a frivolous drug. Because lets face it, that's all it is: A frivolous, idiotic drug.

The cost to legalize it? The very improbable worst case scenario of someone smoking pot, undergoing psychosis, and going on a killing spree?

Also, you're correct in calling it a frivolous drug. It lacks any serious purpose, so why is it taken so uncharacteristically serious by the law? It makes no sense.

[CostlyAxis]

I'm going to straight out honest with my reply here: I've probably only read about half (at most) of what has been posted in this thread so I'm sure this is going to come off as highly ignorant in some way (It does to me at least). However, I have a little to say on the matter, but of course come with no (cited) facts to present as they are not needed for what I wish to say. I come only with my opinion and interpretation of what I've seen and read, but not being entirely found in this thread.

My biggest issue with your arguments is that they are openly hypocritical of what you do. Such as openly admitting you're making it just to smoke it to relieve "pain". Or telling endless stories of how high you've gotten. That's no different from taking something like Vicodin because you want to relieve the pain or get a high. However, you don't go around announcing to everyone that you're taking a drug that is usually prescribed to patients who have injuries (or diseases) that should have killed them when all you have is a foot ache (in my context this is only an example). Take something more suited for that, or deal with it. Present to me why marijuana is such a good alternative when medicines exist with far less consequences (for example, the lack of need to inhale smoke) to their use (Vicodin no longer being referred to in this instance).

I personally don't like speculative arguments of what benefits there could be. I like the facts hard and cold (I'm sure this one sentence will be warped to no ends). We're not here to argue that one thing should be legal because something else is; that's just stupid. It's like saying "well, cigarettes are legal so teenagers should be able to carry guns on their person at all times because they're also potentially lethal". (I acknowledge that cigarettes are illegal to those under eighteen, but many still use them regardless of that fact. To that matter, there is still 18 and 19.)

In all honestly, I would love alcohol, cigarettes, and many other drugs to be illegal. However, for this discussion they're irrelevant to even mention. We're talking about marijuana here. Don't be so conceited to believe you can base your reasoning off of comparing two negatives while arguing one is better than the other. Both are bad choices in the end.

I don't intend to say anything further than this. I have not properly formulated facts to present my view further because I'm fully aware of how hypocritical the entire system is, and my own personal beliefs. The only thing I wish to accomplish with this is to point out the irrelevance that I can only assume is occurring in this debate.

[wiggums]

I never said weed was guaranteed to induce psychosis. But if just 1 in 100 people (for purposes of illustration) become psychotic as a result of weed smoking, and 50,000 people do it, that's 500 people who now have a mental disorder and are therefore a potential threat to others. I didn't say anything about smoking and driving. Just that if someone does come down with psychosis, their actions are no longer those of a rational person.
That's also 49,500 people who smoke, feel good, and continue to live normal lives. What a tragedy.

But if just 1 in 100 people (for purposes of illustration) decide to drive drunk as a result of drinking, and 50,000 people do it, that's 500 people who now have a much higher chance of killing somebody than someone who smokes pot.


Alcohol is also easier to regulate, making its legalization more sensible.

This is also something we've been over about 10 times since the start of this thread. You are making an argument to ban alcohol, not to legalize marijuana.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I say these things have risks that come along with them, especially with such a large population. You say that there shouldn't be accidents at all and that keeping it illegal would somehow fix that. Also, regulating alcohol (even though I support it) because its easier just seems like a stupid reason to keep it legal. You act so paranoid that someone smoking weed is going to somehow harm you, and yet you completely blow off all the alcohol related deaths/crimes that happen every year. (Not just driving accidents; murders, overdoses, robberies) In your way of thinking it would make sense to be even more against alcohol than weed, since its obviously so much more dangerous, and yet you say its "sensible" to keep it regulated simply because its "easier". This seems like flawed thinking to me. I'm sorry but I've yet to hear anyone talking about the "terrible dangers of psychotic people on pot". You're terrified of psychotic persons, and yet you say all drunk people are sensible individuals. You're far more likely to get killed by a drunk man dude, it's just the truth.

It just seems like your whole argument now is simply that someone could go insane and kill us all. That hardly seems like even a foundation for a reason for keeping weed prohibited. I guess my only advice at this point is to just stay away from psych-wards if you are really that scared of the small chance one of them might decide to eat you.

Buuuut, I guess I'm just a whining 4 year old on this one.



Present to me why marijuana is such a good alternative when medicines exist with far less consequences (for example, the lack of need to inhale smoke) to their use

Um, you don't have to smoke it. You realize that you could smoke the natural form of advil, right? You could put marijuana in a pill. Just sayin'



We're not here to argue that one thing should be legal because something else is; that's just stupid.


Actually, it isn't. Many of these drugs are very similar, and yet some are denounced as the "bad" drugs and some are considered "good" drugs. It makes no sense. It isn't so black and white.

You said it yourself:

That's no different from taking something like Vicodin because you want to relieve the pain or get a high.

You're right. Prescribed drugs are abused all the time, and people die from overdoses often as well. Doesn't sound like a good side-effect to me.


In all honestly, I would love alcohol, cigarettes, and many other drugs to be illegal.
YouTube - &#x202a;AC/DC - Highway To Hell (with Bon Scott)&#x202c;&rlm;

[DeathsFriend22]

There's no definitive study and there's a lot of bias in the arguments used on either side, I'm just pointing out the potential for disaster and why it should be banned. Sound familiar?
The same exact thing can be said about marijuana. Do you not understand this?
Plenty of studies have been done on marijuana conclusively linking it to a 400 percent increase in psychosis. The same cannot be said for video games.

People survived just fine before cars were invented.


LOL. Just LOL. I can't believe you just said that. Go without using your car or riding in anyone else's car at all for two weeks, see how well you do.


You're always assuming worst case scenarios when it comes to psychosis and homicides, so here's one for you. What if an airliner pilot has a heart attack while flying? What if an automobile driver has a heart attack while going down the highway? What if pilot in a single person aircraft has a heart attack while flying over a city?

How many pilots are there at risk of a heart attack? I'll answer that question for you: None of them are. In order to be a pilot you must pass an FAA physical exam which means you can't have any heart conditions, which is also a prerequisite to have a heart attack, caffeine or not, in case you didn't know.


You really think no one has ever died falling down stairs?

[Link (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/25/man-falls-death-soekarnohatta-airport.html)]
[Link (http://www.mtn18.com/latest_news/2010/05/boone-man-dies-after-falling-down-stairs.html)]
[Link (http://thetoiletreader.com/2011/05/11/homeless-man-dies-after-falling-down-stairs-with-his-pants-down/)]
[Link (http://udontalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1733)]
[Link (http://www.austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2011-03-14/31431/Carinthian_man_dies_falling_down_stairs)]

And there are countless more.

Stairs are a cheap efficient way to move vertically. In other words, they are useful. Marijuana is not, particularly for recreational purposes.

Not necessarily, alcohol makes you a blabbering idiot capable of very limited thought processes. Marijuana, on the other hand, does nothing of the sort.
I have friends who have shown me otherwise, and there are plenty of studies that have prevent marijuana slows motor functions, impairs short term memory, and impairs rational thought.

[quote]Show me reason to have legitimate concern, then. Find any article, any, where a homicide was proven to be linked to brain degeneration due to marijuana use.

Your request is too specific. I can find plenty of studies linking weed to schizophrenia, and plenty of cases where people killed others as a result of schizophrenia, but you're asking for a chain of events to be described in one article.

So let's do a little math here. If 8-13% of schizophrenics have their condition because of marijuana use, and there are (and this number is for purposes of illustration only, because this is simply too much googling) 100 homicides due to schizophrenia in a year, then it can be extrapolated that 8-13 murders were committed as a result of mental degeneration due to marijuana usage, not including those attributed to depression, anxiety, or paranoia.


Again, (and I stress the again, as I've already had to reply to this same exact idea before) it isn't the problem getting it, it's the fact that it's illegal. The reason that it matters is:

If your response is going to be of similar nature to this:
[quote]That's because it's freaking illegal. They'll do the exact same thing to anybody caught drinking underage, or driving recklessly. Underage drinking may "not be a hazard in the privacy of your homes" but it's still illegal.
Then:

Actually, no, no they won't. Have you ever seen cops pull their guns out, run up to a car with kids drinking underage, quite literally pull them out of their cars, handcuff them, and tear the car apart looking for alcohol? I sure as hell haven't, but I've seen it happen to people who the police suspected had marijuana in their car due to blatant profiling without any substantial evidence.

It's absolutely absurd how much weight is put on the importance of this prohibition given the minimal effects of marijuana on society as a whole versus the individual.


Let me tell you why they won't "rip up your car looking for alcohol," like they'll do with marijuana. It's because of this thing called a breathalyser. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's really cool: You blow into it and it tells them whether or not you've been drinking, so it's not necessary to find it in your car! Isn't that wonderful?

I ignored that particular quote the first time because it was a very poor argument in the first place. If you get caught drinking underage, you're going to be arrested (that means the handcuffs might come out, kids). The cops have to "rip your car apart looking for marijuana" because there's no way short of a piss test to immediately detect marijuana in your system. You also have to know how much marijuana the kids possessed because that directly influences how large their fine or sentence will be.



No, it's actually rather different. I know handfuls of people who are interested in the general idea of the drug, but are scared shitless of even being around it due to the illegality. The consequences of having marijuana far surpass the consequences of downloading music illegally.

Absolute bullshit. The RIAA is capable of suing for up to $150,000 per song that someone downloads illegally. Typically cases are settled for around $5,000. That's more than twice as much money as the maximum fine for possession of marijuana.


Yes, the prohibition of alcohol didn't work because too many people consumed it regardless of laws and constantly rebelled against the government for their rights. What is any different about marijuana?

The difference twofold:

First, many more people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana, and banning it caused mass outrage and dissent.

Second, alcohol is easier to regulate, and therefore more logical to make legal.


It doesn't because it's unrelevant to the discussion and, whether purposefully or not, compares the people arguing for their rights to a whining little child. When put into the actual analogy, something like, oh I don't know, exactly what I said earlier:

Okay, now imagine a 21 year old getting pissed off because the guy down the street gets to kill himself with tobacco and alcohol, but he can't smoke marijuana.

It sounds a little different, doesn't it?

No, not really. Not to me, at least. Please explain to me how the two are fundamentally different. You are still arguing for the right to make things worse than they already are, I'm just explaining it to you on a different scale.

You're falling back on statements that you've already said and that we've already responded to, yet you aren't even responding to our responses. If this is all that this debate has left to offer, I see no reason in even continuing it.

As I explained above, some of your rebuttals are so obviously weak that I didn't bother responding to them.


The cost to legalize it? The very improbable worst case scenario of someone smoking pot, undergoing psychosis, and going on a killing spree?
The cost being huge amounts of time, money and resources required to legalize it, in addition to the scenario described in this quote.
In order to legalize it you're going to need a shitload of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity you're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do you get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? So then you need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and figuring out what weed does to your health insurance premiums, etc.

All of this is a huge waste of valuable time and resources, particularly for, as has been established, such a frivolous, unnecessary drug. When marijuana has a legitimate use for the general population, come talk me.


Also, you're correct in calling it a frivolous drug. It lacks any serious purpose, so why is it taken so uncharacteristically serious by the law? It makes no sense.

Heroine and Crack lack "serious purpose" too. Would you have those legalized as well?

[wiggums]

How many pilots are there at risk of a heart attack? I'll answer that question for you: None of them are. In order to be a pilot you must pass an FAA physical exam which means you can't have any heart conditions, which is also a prerequisite to have a heart attack, caffeine or not, in case you didn't know.

Welcome to real life. (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/19/Pilot-died-of-heart-attack-in-mid-flight/UPI-25531245432466/)


All of this is a huge waste of valuable time and resources, particularly for, as has been established, such a frivolous, unnecessary drug.
Exactly! Why are we doing so much to keep this stuff out of our country when it would be so much cheaper and safer when legal.


Absolute bullshit. The RIAA is capable of suing for up to $150,000 per song that someone downloads illegally. Typically cases are settled for around $5,000. That's more than twice as much money as the maximum fine for possession of marijuana.

I don't think anybody has gone to jail with 6 months of probation (http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/merrittherald/news/124048389.html) for pirating music.



When marijuana has a legitimate use for the general population, come talk me.

Heroine and Crack lack "serious purpose" too. Would you have those legalized as well?

Entertainment? Meaningful experiences? Seeing things from a different perspective? Do none of these things matter? I assume vodka has a legitimate use for the general population as well?

Don't be so condescending and irritable, it doesn't make a good impression.

[DeathsFriend22]

Welcome to real life. (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/19/Pilot-died-of-heart-attack-in-mid-flight/UPI-25531245432466/)


Wow, ok, so one pilot dies of a heart attack and the copilot took over and finished the flight. That's what a copilot is there for.

As for single-pilot airplanes, there is always a safety pilot in the plane who is essentially a passenger unless something happens to the pilot, so the scenario is impossible.

Exactly! Why are we doing so much to keep this stuff out of our country when it would be so much cheaper and safer when legal.
Wow, way to take that one WAY out of context. I'm not even going to bother replying to this one.


I don't think anybody has gone to jail with 6 months of probation (http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/merrittherald/news/124048389.html) for pirating music.
That motherfucker had 75 marijuana plants in his house, and he was selling it to teenagers. Did you know that possession and distribution are two different crimes? Because bclocalnews.com doesn't appear to.

On another note, I would rather go to jail than be faced with $15,000,000 in fines for 100 illegally downloaded songs. Even ONE song can result in a fine of 150,000 dollars. I mentioned that, right?

I assume vodka has a legitimate use for the general population as well?

I say again (emphasis on the again because this must be the hundredth time I've said it), that is an argument to ban alcohol, not to legalize marijuana. Drop it immediately, my response is not going to change. I may start simply quoting myself every time this argument comes up. Or ignoring it. Whichever I feel like at the time. It is truly frustrating to have to repeat myself so much.

Entertainment? Meaningful experiences? Seeing things from a different perspective? Do none of these things matter?
Entertainment? Go see a movie, play a game, or go to an amusement park. I watched the movie I Saw the Devil the other day, it was awesome.

Meaningful experience? Do any of those 3 things with a significant other, or participate in an event for charity. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Get a job. Join the military.

Seeing things from a different perspective? Go read a book with a different viewpoint from one you currently hold. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a good one. Movies work fine to achieve this goal as well. Fight Club is one of the ones more widely known that challenges commonly held beliefs.

People around the world achieve all 3 of those things without the use of marijuana. Why can't you?

[wiggums]

Wow, ok, so one pilot dies of a heart attack and the copilot took over and finished the flight. That's what a copilot is there for.

As for single-pilot airplanes, there is always a safety pilot in the plane who is essentially a passenger unless something happens to the pilot, so the scenario is impossible.
So it's impossible for this to happen, but it's perfectly possible for a person to become psychotic from weed and murder you?


Wow, way to take that one WAY out of context. I'm not even going to bother replying to this one.

I was simply taking your statement and turning it around on you. It is a valid question. Why is such a relatively harmless drug (Notice the world RELATIVELY right next to harmless. You got it?) causing so much controversy? It seems very odd to me that something that our society is already accustomed to is being shunned to this extreme.


That motherfucker had 75 marijuana plants in his house, and he was selling it to teenagers. Did you know that possession and distribution are two different crimes? Because bclocalnews.com doesn't appear to.

On another note, I would rather go to jail than be faced with $15,000,000 in fines for 100 illegally downloaded songs. Even ONE song can result in a fine of 150,000 dollars. I mentioned that, right?

That "motherfucker" may have been also dealing, but jail time is still considered more serious than a fine. I realize 10 days is worth less than 150,000 dollars, but those fines are so high because copyright infringement like that is so common, and very hard to trace. I don't think pirating belongs in this thread anyway. It's pretty much irrelevant.


I say again (emphasis on the again because this must be the hundredth time I've said it), that is an argument to ban alcohol, not to legalize marijuana. Drop it immediately, my response is not going to change. I may start simply quoting myself every time this argument comes up. Or ignoring it. Whichever I feel like at the time. It is truly frustrating to have to repeat myself so much.

The thing is I'm not trying to ban alcohol. I support it's current position. In this way, my argument makes sense. Alcohol is worse, alcohol is legal. Your only response to this is that alcohol is easier to regulate, so it is "sensible" to make legal. Just because something is more difficult to regulate doesn't mean it should be illegal.


Entertainment? Go see a movie, play a game, or go to an amusement park. I watched the movie I Saw the Devil the other day, it was awesome.

Meaningful experience? Do any of those 3 things with a significant other, or participate in an event for charity. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Get a job. Join the military.

Seeing things from a different perspective? Go read a book with a different viewpoint from one you currently hold. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a good one. Movies work fine to achieve this goal as well. Fight Club is one of the ones more widely known that challenges commonly held beliefs.

People around the world achieve all 3 of those things without the use of marijuana. Why can't you?
All of these things work, sure, but what makes you say you must be confined to them? This is what I mean when I say you should let others do what they want. If they prefer to get high while watching a movie to make it even better for them, then why must you spoil it for them? It's not a very reasonable thing to start accusing them of having psychosis. Or what about using it for religious reasons? Surely you are not going to deprive a person of becoming closer to god as they believe?

fIt's funny you mentioned Fight Club, because that could definitely be considered a danger to our world. Many people were influenced by the novel and film. Fight clubs actually started up all around the country. This obviously was harming people, so why don't we just ban it? (don't say "This is a ridiculous statement" like you did before. It's called sarcasm, get used to it) They are experiencing new perspectives, being entertained, and having meaningful experiences by kicking the shit out of each other. But as you said,


People around the world achieve all 3 of those things without the use of marijuana violence. Why can't you? they?

Because that's their choice. Who are you to take that away?

[DeathsFriend22]

So it's impossible for this to happen, but it's perfectly possible for a person to become psychotic from weed and murder you?
There is no safety pilot for going insane.


I was simply taking your statement and turning it around on you. It is a valid question. Why is such a relatively harmless drug (Notice the world RELATIVELY right next to harmless. You got it?) causing so much controversy? It seems very odd to me that something that our society is already accustomed to is being shunned to this extreme.
You read that paragraph, right? The one about how much shit would have to be done in order to legalize marijuana? You understand that that costs a lot more time and money than it's worth, right?


The thing is I'm not trying to ban alcohol. I support it's current position. In this way, my argument makes sense. Alcohol is worse, alcohol is legal. Your only response to this is that alcohol is easier to regulate, so it is "sensible" to make legal. Just because something is more difficult to regulate doesn't mean it should be illegal.

That is still not a reason to legalize marijuana, no matter where you stand. Marijuana is an almost strictly recreational drug. Alcohol is not.

Alcohol is used in many soaps and hand sanitizers. It's in mouthwash. It is used in its purest form for rubbing on your skin or on hard surfaces. It is used in perfumes and paint thinner. It is used in windshield wiper fluid. It can be used as fuel. It is used in feminine cosmetics. The list goes on. Between that and the relative ease of regulation, it makes sense for alcohol to be legal.

The same can't be said for marijuana.

But all of this is irrelevant, because as I keep saying, no matter where you're coming from that is not an argument to make marijuana legal, it is an argument to ban alcohol. You could make the same argument for almost anything. "Let's make it legal for 12 year olds to carry concealed weapons to school, it would have fewer consequences than using alcohol or tobacco." Do you get it yet? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? You aren't getting anywhere with that argument. So for the last time, drop it. If you don't want to make it illegal, quit making the argument for doing so. I am going to ignore any further comment about alcohol being legal.


All of these things work, sure, but what makes you say you must be confined to them? This is what I mean when I say you should let others do what they want. If they prefer to get high while watching a movie to make it even better for them, then why must you spoil it for them? It's not a very reasonable thing to start accusing them of having psychosis. Or what about using it for religious reasons? Surely you are not going to deprive a person of becoming closer to god as they believe?

I'm not accusing anyone of psychosis because they smoke pot, I'm saying the chances they may develop it are increased because they smoke pot. It's not as if it happens right away. It can take up to 15 years. Like I said, even if only 1 of 100 people who smoked it became psychotic, and 50,000 people smoked it, that's 500 people with psychosis. If 30 of them kill someone or commit suicide, that's 30 or more lives wasted. Will that have been worth it? would you trade 30 people's lives to get high for a few hours and make a movie better than it is when you're sober? Honestly movies are good enough these days you shouldn't need weed to make it better.

As for religion, remind me which current religions use marijuana as part of their regular practice?

fIt's funny you mentioned Fight Club, because that could definitely be considered a danger to our world. Many people were influenced by the novel and film. Fight clubs actually started up all around the country. This obviously was harming people, so why don't we just ban it? (don't say "This is a ridiculous statement" like you did before. It's called sarcasm, get used to it) They are experiencing new perspectives, being entertained, and having meaningful experiences by kicking the shit out of each other. But as you said,

Because that's their choice. Who are you to take that away?

Look, if some people want to beat the shit out of each other, that's on them. They knowingly assume the risk of severe injury. However the moment even one person who smokes pot goes nuts and kills someone (and it only takes one) someone else has now paid the price for all the pot smokers out there.

[wiggums]

http://i.imgur.com/1dBag.jpg

[Letol]

LOL. Just LOL. I can't believe you just said that. Go without using your car or riding in anyone else's car at all for two weeks, see how well you do.

I personally can't believe that you think cars are that necessary to live your life. I know a handful of people who don't have cars and get along just fine, two of which actually deny rides when offered. Walking and riding a bike won't kill you, you know.

Absolute bullshit. The RIAA is capable of suing for up to $150,000 per song that someone downloads illegally.

Hm, I didn't realize that.

All of this is a huge waste of valuable time and resources, particularly for, as has been established, such a frivolous, unnecessary drug. When marijuana has a legitimate use for the general population, come talk me.

You're being incredibly self-centered when it comes to your view on the legalization of marijuana. Just because it's of no use to you doesn't mean it's instantly a "huge waste of valuable time and resources". Sure, it might be to you, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a waste to the over 50% of young adults that have used marijuana at some point in their lifetime (percentage according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy).

Heroine and Crack lack "serious purpose" too. Would you have those legalized as well?

Sure. I wouldn't actively fight for them to be legalized, but if someone else wants to, all the power to them.

"I've got my own life to live
I'm the one that's gonna have to die
When it's time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to."



Anyways, I had a response written up, then accidentally closed the tab and lost everything. I'm not going to exert the effort to retype everything up for multiple reasons, one of which being:

As I explained above, some of your rebuttals are so obviously weak that I didn't bother responding to them.

If this debate is going to turn from making counter points into blatantly insulting what the other person has said, I wish to no longer take part in it.

Even so, as someone said before, this is going nowhere and there's no reason to keep this debate alive if it's obvious that no one is going to change their opinion.

[Fractured Aura]

I think weed should be legal as long as it has limits like Toon324 has stated. The Human brain reaches its full growth around 21. If it was legal to those 21 and up, brain growth being halted would not be a problem. As for other harmful effects, marijuana stands out to me because it is a natural substance, unlike meth and hu-210.
Like alcohol, it was once banned everywhere in the United States and lead to crime. This was known as prohibition. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, when they started, seemed to have noble causes. However, Prohibition ended because it was harmful rather than helpful.
I bring up alcohol because it is harmful if used incorrectly or abused. These dangers will always be present. Yet it still happens and there are laws to counter it.
Weed should be not used if you are going to drive, operate heavy machinery, etc.

In conclusion, I believe that marijuana should be legalized as long as limitations are put in place to make dangers of its use less likely to happen.

PS: I have never smoked weed.

[Zackj191]

The prohibition was ended because the Great Depression.

[wiggums]

I'm just going to get all of my opinion in one place here.

I'm not trying to make weed legal just so I can get high. I want it legal because I believe it's the right thing to do. I don't understand why we try to control so many things in this world when it simply won't work. Why can't we give people a choice? Let them do what they want, and you carry on your own way. Obviously the things that are blatant and complete dangers should be regulated. Like driving intoxicated, or early age exposure. There is no reason this should be considered anything but just a regular drug in our society. It is not irregular.

Before I continue, I'd like to point out one thing. If I believe a point I am making has merit, I do not have to drop it. So I will continue with my argument as I see fit.

Risks are everywhere. You take one leaving your house every morning. It sincerely makes no sense to worry about one of the least likely so much that it becomes a priority over many other risks that are more likely to be dangerous or even fatal. Drunk driving is illegal, and yet people still break the law and end up killing themselves and others. Everyone knows this, and instead of freaking out about possible fatalities and prohibiting it all, we simply try to educate people on the dangers, and how they can be safe. I'm sorry, but a man who is drunk isn't always in control. They can't be as reasonable when they aren't sober. This is one of the main reasons why they drive drunk. Not the only one, I do realize many people are well aware of what they are doing but do it anyway, but a main one. I don't know if you've ever been drunk before, but it makes you stupid. It depends on how much you've had, but let's assume someone gets wasted like so many others do every weekend. They can't walk straight, they are much more likely to start a fight or to react extremely to a small situation. They often believe they are totally fit to drive, which is where the danger comes in. In that way, I don't think they are in total control, very similar to your explanation of paranoia.

Now, to this part again.

But if just 1 in 100 people (for purposes of illustration) become psychotic as a result of weed smoking, and 50,000 people do it, that's 500 people who now have a mental disorder and are therefore a potential threat to others. I didn't say anything about smoking and driving. Just that if someone does come down with psychosis, their actions are no longer those of a rational person.


So if just 1 in 1 people (for purposes of illustration) become wasted as a result of regular drinking, and 50,000 people do it, that's 50,000 people who now have limited reasoning and are therefore a potential threat to others. I didn't say anything about drinking and driving. Just that if someone does get wasted, their actions are no longer those of a rational person.

Yes, I am comparing it to alcohol. No, I'm not trying to ban both. I'm saying we live with these truths all day every day. It's a part of life, to wake up and not know 100% if you'll make it till tomorrow. You have to realize that when we give everyone choices, some will choose the riskier option. A fraction of those who choose the riskier option could lose the odds. If someone decides to smoke, let them. If you feel that someone is in danger, try to stop it. Taking it away from every single person though seems very extreme to accomplish this. I'm sorry, but anyone who smokes weed chooses to. They know it's risky, and if something goes wrong that's just part of the risk. Besides, if someone develops psychosis, it's not like they immediately lose control. There are stages that can be pretty easy to tell if something is wrong. They don't get very serious either until the final stages, if the condition is serious at all. (I shouldn't have to provide you with this information, but if you want I will.) Most people like this get help, just like the millions of other people who need attention for their mental disorders. If you really are scared of someone becoming psychotic from marijuana, it won't make a difference if it's legal or not. Obviously a lot of people are smoking it already. Example shows that when an illicit drug is legalized it isn't very likely to change it's number of users. Portugal legalized all illicit drugs, and the usage actually went down. The only difference for us now is that our money is going to Mexican gangsters to fund the current drug war when it could be going to our country.

But that doesn't really matter anyway. My point is that being given an honest choice will create less biased opinions and more of an understanding between everyone. Accepting it as a part of the world will do you wonders.

Overall, there's obviously a problem here. But in my opinion, if something is broken, you can't fix it by doing absolutely nothing. We're fueling a drug war in Mexico, we're spending so much money on trying to stop it from entering our borders, (how can you not call that a waste?) and we've been at it for years. Obviously some change needs to be made.

[DeathsFriend22]

I personally can't believe that you think cars are that necessary to live your life. I know a handful of people who don't have cars and get along just fine, two of which actually deny rides when offered. Walking and riding a bike won't kill you, you know.

You're forgetting that a lot of people have upwards of an hour long drive just getting to work. It's great for your friends whose jobs are just a few miles from their homes, but my dad's commute is 45 minutes each way, and that's driving. On a good day. consider an average speed of 45 miles per hour and you're looking at a 30 mile trip on foot or on a bike. That is simply too much to ask to spend 2 hours in one direction on a bike especially when it's 98 degrees outside, or in the case of the winter, 15 degrees outside. Cars allow people to avoid these major inconveniences.

What use does marijuana have again? Other than getting you high, I mean.


You're being incredibly self-centered when it comes to your view on the legalization of marijuana. Just because it's of no use to you doesn't mean it's instantly a "huge waste of valuable time and resources". Sure, it might be to you, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a waste to the over 50% of young adults that have used marijuana at some point in their lifetime (percentage according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy).

Who's going to pay for the time and resources it takes to get this done? Not the majority of marijuana smokers (people under the age of 18). They don't pay taxes, the revenue of which would have to be diverted from other government projects in order to legalize marijuana. They don't donate to the private businesses that would have to put a lot of time, money, and effort into allowing a bunch of kids to smoke marijuana.

What incentive do these businesses have to want marijuana to be legalized?

If this debate is going to turn from making counter points into blatantly insulting what the other person has said, I wish to no longer take part in it.

Sorry. I get a little irritated sometimes when there is just so much wrong with a statement and I have to take the time to explain why when it almost feels like my opponent didn't put any thought into it at all. That particular statement was directed towards the one about the cops running up to a car with underage kids drinking.

I'm just going to get all of my opinion in one place here.

I'm not trying to make weed legal just so I can get high. I want it legal because I believe it's the right thing to do. I don't understand why we try to control so many things in this world when it simply won't work. Why can't we give people a choice? Let them do what they want, and you carry on your own way. Obviously the things that are blatant and complete dangers should be regulated. Like driving intoxicated, or early age exposure. There is no reason this should be considered anything but just a regular drug in our society. It is not irregular.

See above. The part about who's going to pay for it. Are you going to do that? I doubt it.

At this point all you're doing is saying "I want it!"... And that's it. Here's your problem: That's exactly what every other marijuana user is also doing. I'm willing to bet that a majority of regular users of marijuana can't vote. You don't donate to organizations that lobby for marijuana legalization and you haven't actually helped your cause one single bit. This is all on top of what I've told Letol in this same post.



Risks are everywhere. You take one leaving your house every morning. It sincerely makes no sense to worry about one of the least likely so much that it becomes a priority over many other risks that are more likely to be dangerous or even fatal. Drunk driving is illegal, and yet people still break the law and end up killing themselves and others. Everyone knows this, and instead of freaking out about possible fatalities and prohibiting it all, we simply try to educate people on the dangers, and how they can be safe. I'm sorry, but a man who is drunk isn't always in control. They can't be as reasonable when they aren't sober. This is one of the main reasons why they drive drunk. Not the only one, I do realize many people are well aware of what they are doing but do it anyway, but a main one. I don't know if you've ever been drunk before, but it makes you stupid. It depends on how much you've had, but let's assume someone gets wasted like so many others do every weekend. They can't walk straight, they are much more likely to start a fight or to react extremely to a small situation. They often believe they are totally fit to drive, which is where the danger comes in. In that way, I don't think they are in total control, very similar to your explanation of paranoia.

You can't educate anyone on the dangers of psychosis. You can educate them on the dangers of drunk driving. You can't fine someone for going insane. You can fine someone for DUI. You can't make it illegal to have a mental illness. You can make it illegal to drive drunk.

I have used alcohol exactly 2 times in my life. The first was on accident (I was 13 and thought the Margarita machine was a slushie machine. But that's a story for later.) and the second time was because my friends happened to have some and I was bored. I did have some trouble balancing properly, but it's not like I did anything stupid. When we went out for lunch directly afterward I made sure the one who was driving was the sober guy in our group before I got in the car. I can tell you first hand that being drunk is not an excuse for making stupid decisions.


So if just 1 in 1 people (for purposes of illustration) become wasted as a result of regular drinking, and 50,000 people do it, that's 50,000 people who now have limited reasoning and are therefore a potential threat to others. I didn't say anything about drinking and driving. Just that if someone does get wasted, their actions are no longer those of a rational person.

Yes, I am comparing it to alcohol. No, I'm not trying to ban both.
Your argument says otherwise to everyone but yourself, not just me. Refer to Costly's post if you would like the opinion of someone viewing this discussion from the outside.

I'm saying we live with these truths all day every day. It's a part of life, to wake up and not know 100% if you'll make it till tomorrow. You have to realize that when we give everyone choices, some will choose the riskier option. A fraction of those who choose the riskier option could lose the odds. If someone decides to smoke, let them. If you feel that someone is in danger, try to stop it. Taking it away from every single person though seems very extreme to accomplish this.
I still don't see why making more negative drugs legal sounds like a good idea to you.

Let's say a car has a safety rating of 3/10. Are the manufacturers of that car going to say "Well the safety rating is already really low, so why not add this other thing to it? It'll take another point off the safety rating but it'll be SOO COOL!"

No. If they decide to do anything, they're going to try to improve the safety rating. That means beefing up the safety elements of the car (airbags, seat belts, etc) while reducing the hazardous elements of the car

The car is society. The safety elements are law enforcement agencies and awareness. The hazardous elements are alcohol, tobacco, and all the other dangerous things out there. The manufacturer is the government. This is why your argument doesn't work.


I'm sorry, but anyone who smokes weed chooses to. They know it's risky, and if something goes wrong that's just part of the risk.

Do they now? Before we started this debate did you know that marijuana is a proponent of psychosis, or that the smoke damage to your lungs is much greater than that of a cigarette? Did you know it increases your chances of lung cancer by 8% for every year you smoke? I'd be willing to bet you didn't know at least 2 of those three things, and you're probably in the more knowledgeable group of weed smokers. Want proof? Look at Zack, who before I referenced a good 15 sites claimed that marijuana was "harmless."

Besides, if someone develops psychosis, it's not like they immediately lose control. There are stages that can be pretty easy to tell if something is wrong. They don't get very serious either until the final stages, if the condition is serious at all. (I shouldn't have to provide you with this information, but if you want I will.) Most people like this get help, just like the millions of other people who need attention for their mental disorders.
How many kids are going to tell their parents when weird things start happening to them? Do you really think your average kid is going to admit to smoking to his parents? I have a friend who has started seeing things sometimes even while he isn't high. When I told hime "hey man, maybe you should let someone know about that," he replied "nah man, it's cool. Once I'm out of High School I'm done with drugs for life. I'll be fine."

The problem is that a majority of kids have the same or similar thought processes.

If you really are scared of someone becoming psychotic from marijuana, it won't make a difference if it's legal or not. Obviously a lot of people are smoking it already. Example shows that when an illicit drug is legalized it isn't very likely to change it's number of users. Portugal legalized all illicit drugs, and the usage actually went down. The only difference for us now is that our money is going to Mexican gangsters to fund the current drug war when it could be going to our country.

Either way we're still going to see marijuana being sold illegally. The United States will not see a whole lot of revenue from legalizing marijuana because chances are that more people will just start growing it in their homes. Sure, you cut some small amount of funds from the drug lords but depending on the prices set by retail stores it could end up being cheaper to buy it from them anyways. Not a whole lot changes, but you still have to spend a ton of time and money to make the change in the first place.


But that doesn't really matter anyway. My point is that being given an honest choice will create less biased opinions and more of an understanding between everyone. Accepting it as a part of the world will do you wonders.
But now you're contradicting yourself. If so many people are going to use it anyways, they've already made an "honest" choice (whatever that means).

Overall, there's obviously a problem here. But in my opinion, if something is broken, you can't fix it by doing absolutely nothing. We're fueling a drug war in Mexico, we're spending so much money on trying to stop it from entering our borders, (how can you not call that a waste?) and we've been at it for years. Obviously some change needs to be made.

Here's the reverse of your argument:
The drug trade will continue whether we legalize marijuana or not. America's economy can't sustain practically giving away marijuana, while the drug lords probably can (They have no economy or middle men to deal with, no rules, and no taxes). We need to spend more money on border control, and not just because of the drug trade. We're still incapable of stopping all the friggin illegals from crossing our borders, let alone the drug lords. We need to spend more, not less.

[wiggums]

This isn't even a debate anymore. You consider our opinions to contain "so much wrong" but you don't even try to consider that right and wrong are subjective. If something is right to you, it doesn't mean it's right to someone else. Please, if you really think you know, tell me what is right to do, and what is wrong to do. I'm fascinated by your ability to remain so resolute.

This is where I have been coming from. I believe that there are no absolutes, and as such there can be no right and wrong in the law. This is what my proposition of choice was conceived from. This lets people to live their life according to what they believe is right and wrong. You say it has "so much wrong" but I think it's the right. What really makes your argument any better than mine?


Sorry. I get a little irritated sometimes when there is just so much wrong with a statement and I have to take the time to explain why when it almost feels like my opponent didn't put any thought into it at all.


You can't go into an argument that way. I'm sorry, but you are way too condescending. It's not a good way to convince someone of anything, and it definitely isn't a good way to open your mind to opposite points of view.

[DeathsFriend22]

This isn't even a debate anymore. You consider our opinions to contain "so much wrong" but you don't even try to consider that right and wrong are subjective.
You're taking that sentence the wrong way. That was directed solely at this quote:

Actually, no, no they won't. Have you ever seen cops pull their guns out, run up to a car with kids drinking underage, quite literally pull them out of their cars, handcuff them, and tear the car apart looking for alcohol? I sure as hell haven't, but I've seen it happen to people who the police suspected had marijuana in their car due to blatant profiling without any substantial evidence.

I'm sure you can see what the problem is here:
1. With marijuana, the cops pull out their guns because it's possible one of them is a dealer, and may be armed. I'm sure you hear about the shootings all the time, depending on where you live.

2. In order to give the appropriate punishment for possession of marijuana, the courts have to know how much the
kids had. Determining the punishment when the crime is underage drinking is as simple as a quick breathalyser test.

3. "without any substantial evidence" being what exactly? They have to have something to go on, whether it's a strong smell of marijuana, or the car is hotboxed or the kids are actually smoking it when the cops show up or whatever. The cops don't just start tearing someone's car apart for no reason.

If something is right to you, it doesn't mean it's right to someone else. Please, if you really think you know, tell me what is right to do, and what is wrong to do. I'm fascinated by your ability to remain so resolute.
This is where I have been coming from. I believe that there are no absolutes, and as such there can be no right and wrong in the law. This is what my proposition of choice was conceived from. This lets people to live their life according to what they believe is right and wrong. You say it has "so much wrong" but I think it's the right. What really makes your argument any better than mine?

I am not telling you what's right and wrong. My argument comes from not only a moral but a financial point of view as well. Let's take away all of my moral objections to marijuana for a moment and analyze the financial and political perspective from the point of view of someone in the government or a private organization:

The financial costs of legalizing marijuana far outweigh the potential benefit.
We're going to need a metric ton of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity we're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do we get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? If we do, we need someone to decide how much THC should be in it.

Then we need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and all kind of other legal crap, etc. etc. It's not as if we'll no longer need to spend money enforcing drug laws, we'll just have to spend it enforcing different drug laws.

Private businesses will also have to spend a lot of hours changing policies (health care and car insurance providers spring to mind). What will smoking marijuana do to premiums?

All of this stuff has to be paid for somehow. The majority of people who regularly smoke marijuana are either under the age of 18 or in the young adult category of under 25 years old. These are not people who pay many taxes. So in order to appease these people, we're going to have to divert already existing tax revenue from other government projects to get this done. The organizations who want it are poorly funded as well because again, the supporters are mostly under 25. They can't donate to my company or my cause, so why should I be on their side? It's not as if marijuana is actually useful anyway.


The economy doesn't stand to gain much either. Chances are no matter how cheap stores could afford to make it drug lords can make it cheaper. Drug lords don't have to pay for a whole lot of shipping, go through red tape, or follow zoning laws regarding where they can grow their weed. If a person can buy a ziplock bag of weed at the store for 20 bucks, but they can buy the same amount of much stronger weed for 10 bucks, which one are they going to buy? Most likely the stronger, cheaper stuff. So we hardly put a dent in the drug lords' funds and some companies actually lose money.

And again, they're mostly under 25. Most of them don't or can't even vote, so why should I care?

This is your largest obstacle to legalizing marijuana, and the reason it will not be legalized any time soon.

[Letol]

Sorry. I get a little irritated sometimes when there is just so much wrong with a statement and I have to take the time to explain why when it almost feels like my opponent didn't put any thought into it at all.

Trust me, I've seen statements on the side of keeping marijuana illegal that have made me think the same exact thing. When people have such largely differing views on a topic, this is bound to happen and it's just best to assume that they have some reason for saying what they did.