Why should marijuana be kept illegal?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Heronblade:
Concerning Hendrix, he was in one of the very rare professions where analytical thought was definitely not in demand. He also was not in control of either his habit or himself. Might want to make sure your examples are not known for drug and alcohol fueled violent rampages.

Might want to make sure you know who Hendrix was before you say he can't handle marijuana. Hendrix was in complete control of his pot use. I put it to you to prove that grass negatively impacted him, or his career. Prove it. Prove Hendrix was ruined by marijuana. Go.

Hendrix was worse on alcohol then grass, alcohol did not play nice with Hendrix. Guess what? Not relevant to his marijuana use. Marijuana doesn't turn you into an angry drunk. I knew you'd bring that up. You've been confusing correlation with causation, you've been treating anecdotal evidence as reliable and accurate, and now you're using logic not altogether dissimilar to this:

The point was that the man's use of intoxicating substances pretty much destroyed him. Marijuana played a part, how much of one is impossible to prove, we could sit here debating that point for years and get nowhere. Please recall that I didn't bring him up in the first place, he fails to represent a clear case for either argument.

Reginald:

Heronblade:
There's a condition known as Schizophrenia that would like to have words with you. Go ahead, have a long chat.

The paranoia resulting from schizophrenia is real paranoia. The paranoia actually exists, the subject, however, may not. The hallucinations are actual hallucinations. The hallucinations don't exist in the physical world, as they are, in fact hallucinations. The delusions are bizarre, and incorrect, but they're real delusions. Someone suffering delusions is suffering from delusions.

If someone smokes, and they feel at peace for a while, then that's how they feel. That's a real feeling. That's as real as the love someone feels for someone else. When I'm having a good time, I don't pretend or imagine I'm happy. That's actual happiness. When someone is hight, they're actually high.

Again, not the point. The defining hallmark of schizophrenia isn't the paranoia, or even necessarily the hallucinations (although those play a major part), it is an inability to distinguish experiences that actually occur from those that do not. The effects of recreational drugs are only real in the same sense that the voice gibbering in patient X's ear is real. By insisting that experiences within the brain are all that is required to be reality, you are effectively arguing that you are INSANE. That is not quite what I actually think is the case, but I am willing to pursue the angle.

And then I scroll down further, and find out that you are completely ignorant of how the human brain actually functions, which goes a long way toward explaining your bizarre and irrational attitudes towards subjective experience.

Okay, the problem with trying to discuss this scientifically is that we don't have good information. Most of the research opposed to marijuana was either biased or half-assed, only vaguely establishing correlation but never showing proper causation. Most of the research in favor of marijuana was either biased or half-assed, a lot of the medicinal effects are questionable. We really don't have reliable data for or against, marijuana is still too much of a boogeyman for some and a mysterious item for others.

As for my two cents though, it should be made legal or have it's status changed. Right now it's treated as a schedule one narcotic even though it's impossible to consume a lethal dose of marijuana, so i think it should be given the same legal status as alcohol. It should be restricted to people too young to make smart decisions, there should be laws against driving while listening to Grateful Dead, and it should be heavily stressed that marijuana does affect the brain and therefore has radically different effects on person to person. Some people are immune to THC, some become extremely paranoid when smoking marijuana, some just get the munchies and watch Friendship is Murder. Marijuana should either be legalized or have all crimes tied to it reduced to misdemeanors, felony charges for possession are fucking absurd and it's legal status does keep some research from being done properly.

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Heronblade:
There's a condition known as Schizophrenia that would like to have words with you. Go ahead, have a long chat.

The paranoia resulting from schizophrenia is real paranoia. The paranoia actually exists, the subject, however, may not. The hallucinations are actual hallucinations. The hallucinations don't exist in the physical world, as they are, in fact hallucinations. The delusions are bizarre, and incorrect, but they're real delusions. Someone suffering delusions is suffering from delusions.

If someone smokes, and they feel at peace for a while, then that's how they feel. That's a real feeling. That's as real as the love someone feels for someone else. When I'm having a good time, I don't pretend or imagine I'm happy. That's actual happiness. When someone is hight, they're actually high.

Again, not the point. The defining hallmark of schizophrenia isn't the paranoia, or even necessarily the hallucinations (although those play a major part), it is an inability to distinguish experiences that actually occur from those that do not. By insisting that experiences within the brain are all that is required to be reality, you are effectively arguing that you are INSANE. That is not quite what I actually think is the case, but I am willing to pursue the angle.

"Emotions exist."
"Some people can't differentiate between fantasy and reality! Also, you're crazy!"

There's no need for insults, chum. Maybe a nice fat doobie would help you calm down and find your centre.

Pyramid Head:
...there should be laws against driving while listening to Grateful Dead...

This worries me, since as a Deadhead, I live out of my vehicle. I'd walk, but I don't have any shoes.

Pyramid Head:
Right now it's treated as a schedule one narcotic even though it's impossible to consume a lethal dose of marijuana, so i think it should be given the same legal status as alcohol.

First, I hope you're aware that you can die from alcohol poisoning, which refers to the over consumption of the chemical.
Secondly, I take issue with your bolded statement...
http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738%2801%2900609-0/abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html
http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf
and
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWNMEAnnualReport2010/DAWN-ME-AnnualReport-2010.pdf
...I'm not sure how people have come to these baseless conclusions, but they seriously need to stop. All you do it perpetuate ignorance.

DevilWithaHalo:

Pyramid Head:
Right now it's treated as a schedule one narcotic even though it's impossible to consume a lethal dose of marijuana, so i think it should be given the same legal status as alcohol.

First, I hope you're aware that you can die from alcohol poisoning, which refers to the over consumption of the chemical.
Secondly, I take issue with your bolded statement...
http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738%2801%2900609-0/abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html
http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf
and
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWNMEAnnualReport2010/DAWN-ME-AnnualReport-2010.pdf
...I'm not sure how people have come to these baseless conclusions, but they seriously need to stop. All you do it perpetuate ignorance.

Oh sorry, i of course based that conclusion on tests showing what it took to cause a chemical overdose of the formula in marijuana and i checked the sources. Which you should have done because two of the citations you posted are biased, one won't give me access to the full report unless i pay and the other didn't definitively point to causation, only correlation. For as much as you scrutinized my post you should have done the same with yours. My claim still stands, the average lethal dose of marijuana per gram of weight in the average human is physically impossible to achieve, you haven't demonstrated that i was wrong, you haven't even demonstrated freak exceptions, only that some people were high when they had heart attacks.

Heronblade:

Smeatza:

It's up to me to decide whether the collateral is worth it or not, for myself. It is not your business and not the government's business.
After all, unhealthy foods do more collateral damage to health in the developed western world than anything else. Are you in favour for banning all unhealthy food?

And as long as you aren't inhaling second hand marijuana smoke, it is only affecting the user. So as long as (like tobacco) there are rules on where and when you can smoke it, there is no issue.

I do not speak merely of collateral damage to oneself.

Among other things, there's the impact on the user's family (admittedly this varies), the increased odds of poor academic performance (which wastes time and money for everyone involved), the increased odds of critical errors at the workplace due to lapsed judgement (many don't seem to be aware that one doesn't need to be actively high to be adversely affected), and the increased odds of the user simply not being able to hold a job at all (and thus draining already stretched welfare).

Even if all of what you say is true (which I seriously doubt) it only applies to irresponsible use. One has no right to stop people from doing something just because there is a chance they might not do it in moderation. Unless one has something against personal freedom.

It's fine to have a glass of wine with your meal at night. It's probably not fine to have a bottle.

I'll also point out that all of that applies to those who are overweight as well. You still haven't said whether you think unhealthy foods should be banned yet.

Vegosiux:

"It causes harm" is vague enough that anyone who would seriously base their argument on it would be a hypocrit to leave their own room. Or crawl from the hidey-hole under the bed in their room, for that matter.

True, and pointing out that hypocrisy (and any other hypocrisy--"it causes harm" isn't the only argument that people inconsistently apply against marijuana but not other drugs) is a valid argument.

But again, if people want to make a case for weed, that's what they should be making, not a case against the opponents of weed, not a case against alcohol or tobacco, and not a case for naming Vegosiux supreme overlord (which I wouldn't oppose, but it still wouldn't point out why weed should be legal).

It depends on the specific argument being made. If the argument is "weed is being unfairly legislated against" then it makes sense to point out bad logic being used by the opponents of marijuana.

lowhat:

Heronblade:
snip

And then I scroll down further, and find out that you are completely ignorant of how the human brain actually functions, which goes a long way toward explaining your bizarre and irrational attitudes towards subjective experience.

The principles I am using behind whether or not a subjective experience has basis in reality are quite common in philosophy. Similarly, The principle that it is unhealthy for a mind to learn to expect happiness from drugs is also quite common in both the psychological and physical branches of medical science.

It may very well be true that I take an unusually absolute stance on this matter, but there is nothing particularly bizarre or ignorant about my reasoning here.

Reginald:

Heronblade:

Reginald:

snip

Again, not the point. The defining hallmark of schizophrenia isn't the paranoia, or even necessarily the hallucinations (although those play a major part), it is an inability to distinguish experiences that actually occur from those that do not. By insisting that experiences within the brain are all that is required to be reality, you are effectively arguing that you are INSANE. That is not quite what I actually think is the case, but I am willing to pursue the angle.

"Emotions exist."
"Some people can't differentiate between fantasy and reality! Also, you're crazy!"

There's no need for insults, chum. Maybe a nice fat doobie would help you calm down and find your centre.

It was not intended as an insult, but to point out a serious flaw in your last few arguments. From both a philosophical and practical point of view, there absolutely must be a dividing line between experiences that have a tangible cause behind them, and those that do not.

Smeatza:

Heronblade:

Among other things, there's the impact on the user's family (admittedly this varies), the increased odds of poor academic performance (which wastes time and money for everyone involved), the increased odds of critical errors at the workplace due to lapsed judgement (many don't seem to be aware that one doesn't need to be actively high to be adversely affected), and the increased odds of the user simply not being able to hold a job at all (and thus draining already stretched welfare).

Even if all of what you say is true (which I seriously doubt) it only applies to irresponsible use. One has no right to stop people from doing something just because there is a chance they might not do it in moderation. Unless one has something against personal freedom.

It's fine to have a glass of wine with your meal at night. It's probably not fine to have a bottle.

I'll also point out that all of that applies to those who are overweight as well. You still haven't said whether you think unhealthy foods should be banned yet.

Unlike alcohol, and unhealthy foods for that matter, one does not have to overtly abuse marijuana to have it cause problems.

Let me put it this way. An individual could have a glass of wine every night for the rest of his or her life with zero appreciable affect on their life, at least assuming a normal level of alcohol tolerance. A person who regularly smokes a joint once a week however experiences a constant marked decrease in learning ability and response time, even when not actively high. This effect is not permanent, as some would claim, but it does take a good while to disappear, particularly for a habitual user. I shouldn't have to tell you how dangerous that kind of effect can be.

Between that, the medical issues with breathing in boatloads of tar and carcinogens, and the normal problems associated with psychological and chemical dependence, I am frankly having a tough time understanding how people still cling to the notion that the drug is completely harmless.

Heronblade:
From both a philosophical and practical point of view, there absolutely must be a dividing line between experiences that have a tangible cause behind them, and those that do not.

There doesn't have to be any line. That's not some sort of universal philosophical truth. It's not even necessary from a practical point of view.

Reginald:

Heronblade:
From both a philosophical and practical point of view, there absolutely must be a dividing line between experiences that have a tangible cause behind them, and those that do not.

There doesn't have to be any line. That's not some sort of universal philosophical truth. It's not even necessary from a practical point of view.

And now we're back to the definition of insanity once more...

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Two individuals, both are happy and content for the time being. One is that way because he just used the narcotic of his choice. The other is feeling that way because he is spending some time playing with his four year old daughter. Can you at least appreciate that there is a difference between the nature and origin of these feelings?

Heronblade:

lowhat:

Heronblade:
snip

And then I scroll down further, and find out that you are completely ignorant of how the human brain actually functions, which goes a long way toward explaining your bizarre and irrational attitudes towards subjective experience.

The principles I am using behind whether or not a subjective experience has basis in reality are quite common in philosophy. Similarly, The principle that it is unhealthy for a mind to learn to expect happiness from drugs is also quite common in both the psychological and physical branches of medical science.

It may very well be true that I take an unusually absolute stance on this matter, but there is nothing particularly bizarre or ignorant about my reasoning here.

Reginald:

Heronblade:

Again, not the point. The defining hallmark of schizophrenia isn't the paranoia, or even necessarily the hallucinations (although those play a major part), it is an inability to distinguish experiences that actually occur from those that do not. By insisting that experiences within the brain are all that is required to be reality, you are effectively arguing that you are INSANE. That is not quite what I actually think is the case, but I am willing to pursue the angle.

"Emotions exist."
"Some people can't differentiate between fantasy and reality! Also, you're crazy!"

There's no need for insults, chum. Maybe a nice fat doobie would help you calm down and find your centre.

It was not intended as an insult, but to point out a serious flaw in your last few arguments. From both a philosophical and practical point of view, there absolutely must be a dividing line between experiences that have a tangible cause behind them, and those that do not.

Smeatza:

Heronblade:

Among other things, there's the impact on the user's family (admittedly this varies), the increased odds of poor academic performance (which wastes time and money for everyone involved), the increased odds of critical errors at the workplace due to lapsed judgement (many don't seem to be aware that one doesn't need to be actively high to be adversely affected), and the increased odds of the user simply not being able to hold a job at all (and thus draining already stretched welfare).

Even if all of what you say is true (which I seriously doubt) it only applies to irresponsible use. One has no right to stop people from doing something just because there is a chance they might not do it in moderation. Unless one has something against personal freedom.

It's fine to have a glass of wine with your meal at night. It's probably not fine to have a bottle.

I'll also point out that all of that applies to those who are overweight as well. You still haven't said whether you think unhealthy foods should be banned yet.

Unlike alcohol, and unhealthy foods for that matter, one does not have to overtly abuse marijuana to have it cause problems.

Let me put it this way. An individual could have a glass of wine every night for the rest of his or her life with zero appreciable affect on their life, at least assuming a normal level of alcohol tolerance. A person who regularly smokes a joint once a week however experiences a constant marked decrease in learning ability and response time, even when not actively high. This effect is not permanent, as some would claim, but it does take a good while to disappear, particularly for a habitual user. I shouldn't have to tell you how dangerous that kind of effect can be.

Between that, the medical issues with breathing in boatloads of tar and carcinogens, and the normal problems associated with psychological and chemical dependence, I am frankly having a tough time understanding how people still cling to the notion that the drug is completely harmless.

Again, you are clearly ignorant, as all experiences of happiness are derived from biochemical states within the brain, at least according to modern materialist scientific views. There is no "tangible"(again, you should consult a dictionary before going for the 0.50$ words)difference between happiness derived from dopamine produced from climbing a mountain, and dopamine produced by cocaine dumping the dopamine receptors. The happiness is derived in exactly the same way in either case. The fact that you want to differentiate between the two doesn't actually result in physical reality altering to fit your prejudices.

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Heronblade:
From both a philosophical and practical point of view, there absolutely must be a dividing line between experiences that have a tangible cause behind them, and those that do not.

There doesn't have to be any line. That's not some sort of universal philosophical truth. It's not even necessary from a practical point of view.

And now we're back to the definition of insanity once more...

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Two individuals, both are happy and content for the time being. One is that way because he just used the narcotic of his choice. The other is feeling that way because he is spending some time playing with his four year old daughter. Can you at least appreciate that there is a difference between the nature and origin of these feelings?

There is a difference of origin, but not of nature. You might as well argue that a heroin user is actually happy, while a cocaine user is not.

lowhat:

Heronblade:
snip

Again, you are clearly ignorant, as all experiences of happiness are derived from biochemical states within the brain, at least according to modern materialist scientific views. There is no "tangible"(again, you should consult a dictionary before going for the 0.50$ words)difference between happiness derived from dopamine produced from climbing a mountain, and dopamine produced by cocaine dumping the dopamine receptors. The happiness is derived in exactly the same way in either case. The fact that you want to differentiate between the two doesn't actually result in physical reality altering to fit your prejudices.

As I stated before, the specific medium the brain uses to experience events is irrelevant to the discussion. The only scenario in which the distinction I am making fails to matter is a purely nihilistic one. In which case it shouldn't matter whether or not a person is happy at all.

You go have fun with that philosophy, I'll stick with the viewpoint where an individual's actions and experiences actually have objective meaning. Not much point in living life otherwise.

Heronblade:

lowhat:

Heronblade:
snip

Again, you are clearly ignorant, as all experiences of happiness are derived from biochemical states within the brain, at least according to modern materialist scientific views. There is no "tangible"(again, you should consult a dictionary before going for the 0.50$ words)difference between happiness derived from dopamine produced from climbing a mountain, and dopamine produced by cocaine dumping the dopamine receptors. The happiness is derived in exactly the same way in either case. The fact that you want to differentiate between the two doesn't actually result in physical reality altering to fit your prejudices.

As I stated before, the specific medium the brain uses to experience events is irrelevant to the discussion. The only scenario in which the distinction I am making fails to matter is a purely nihilistic one. In which case it shouldn't matter whether or not a person is happy at all.

You go have fun with that philosophy, I'll stick with the viewpoint where an individual's actions and experiences actually have objective meaning. Not much point in living life otherwise.

The irony is that you are arguing for objective meaning, from a solipsistic perspective. Good luck with that, I'm sure the world at large is just dying to concede that your subjective reality=objective reality.

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Heronblade:
From both a philosophical and practical point of view, there absolutely must be a dividing line between experiences that have a tangible cause behind them, and those that do not.

There doesn't have to be any line. That's not some sort of universal philosophical truth. It's not even necessary from a practical point of view.

And now we're back to the definition of insanity once more...

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Two individuals, both are happy and content for the time being. One is that way because he just used the narcotic of his choice. The other is feeling that way because he is spending some time playing with his four year old daughter. Can you at least appreciate that there is a difference between the nature and origin of these feelings?

Different origin, same feeling. They're both happy.

lowhat:

Heronblade:

lowhat:

Again, you are clearly ignorant, as all experiences of happiness are derived from biochemical states within the brain, at least according to modern materialist scientific views. There is no "tangible"(again, you should consult a dictionary before going for the 0.50$ words)difference between happiness derived from dopamine produced from climbing a mountain, and dopamine produced by cocaine dumping the dopamine receptors. The happiness is derived in exactly the same way in either case. The fact that you want to differentiate between the two doesn't actually result in physical reality altering to fit your prejudices.

As I stated before, the specific medium the brain uses to experience events is irrelevant to the discussion. The only scenario in which the distinction I am making fails to matter is a purely nihilistic one. In which case it shouldn't matter whether or not a person is happy at all.

You go have fun with that philosophy, I'll stick with the viewpoint where an individual's actions and experiences actually have objective meaning. Not much point in living life otherwise.

The irony is that you are arguing for objective meaning, from a solipsistic perspective. Good luck with that, I'm sure the world at large is just dying to concede that your subjective reality=objective reality.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. My argument has been about as far from solipsism as it can get. I don't deny the experiences and viewpoints of others (refute and argue with perhaps, but not deny), and I do not claim that my perspective overwrites objective reality. If you speak specifically concerning the last comment, that has more to do with the way one reacts to the world than anything else. I am an engineer by training and mentality sir. I am somewhat obsessed with the practical side of life.

Reginald:

Heronblade:

Reginald:

There doesn't have to be any line. That's not some sort of universal philosophical truth. It's not even necessary from a practical point of view.

And now we're back to the definition of insanity once more...

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Two individuals, both are happy and content for the time being. One is that way because he just used the narcotic of his choice. The other is feeling that way because he is spending some time playing with his four year old daughter. Can you at least appreciate that there is a difference between the nature and origin of these feelings?

Different origin, same feeling. They're both happy.

Then I bid you farewell, may you be content in spite of what I suspect lies down the road for you. There's no further point to the discussion.

In my experience people that always smoke before going to class tend to see their grades die a quick and painful death unless they can take notes baked, while people that save it for when they have the time to kill a few hours do as well as they would otherwise and also have relatively normal social lives even if they're too screwed up to handle that sort of thing sober. All anecdotal evidence, of course, but I've seen more people better for it than worse for it because the shared social experience got them out of their shell and talking to different kinds of people they'd never get to know otherwise. As far as whether it's legal or not, that's all a matter of whether or not it's regulated and taxed, legalization might affect how many people consume acid but anyone can get a weed connection.

Marijuana is not candy, just to let you know. It's nothing like Heroin, but it's not exactly safe. Use it at your own risk.
Your IQ may be lowered. Then again, people can binge drink and smoke like chimneys, so do what you like.

Logically, if the reasons against weed are strong enough to make it illegal, then alcohol should be made illegal too.

We know the results of prohibition: organized crime became much more powerful in the US than ever before, as the criminals got another lucrative market handed to them on a silver plate. They never went away either because the war on drugs replaced prohibition.

What the modern european state does instead is tax alcohol heavily. Then you have less consumption AND there's the money to spend on educational material and combating the negative effects of addiction. That's partial control.

The ultimate state will regulate all harmful products and services and on anything more dangerous than that there will be a state monopoly, with captivity and death as the ultimate service in the hands of the police and the army.

Heronblade:
Then I bid you farewell, may you be content in spite of what I suspect lies down the road for you.

What, pray tell, is down the road for me? I don't appreciate what you're implying, it's both presumptuous and offensive.

Pyramid Head:

DevilWithaHalo:

Pyramid Head:
Right now it's treated as a schedule one narcotic even though it's impossible to consume a lethal dose of marijuana, so i think it should be given the same legal status as alcohol.

First, I hope you're aware that you can die from alcohol poisoning, which refers to the over consumption of the chemical.
Secondly, I take issue with your bolded statement...
http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738%2801%2900609-0/abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html
http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf
and
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWNMEAnnualReport2010/DAWN-ME-AnnualReport-2010.pdf
...I'm not sure how people have come to these baseless conclusions, but they seriously need to stop. All you do it perpetuate ignorance.

Oh sorry, i of course based that conclusion on tests showing what it took to cause a chemical overdose of the formula in marijuana and i checked the sources. Which you should have done because two of the citations you posted are biased, one won't give me access to the full report unless i pay and the other didn't definitively point to causation, only correlation. For as much as you scrutinized my post you should have done the same with yours. My claim still stands, the average lethal dose of marijuana per gram of weight in the average human is physically impossible to achieve, you haven't demonstrated that i was wrong, you haven't even demonstrated freak exceptions, only that some people were high when they had heart attacks.

I will happy defer to this if you can provide information supporting it. If it's merely a casual statement toward the unlikely event of overdose if the recommended amount of marijuana is used, then I would agree. But if we're talking about whether or not marijuana could ever be overdosed on, than I would disagree and like to see your support for the statement,

Pyramid Head:
Okay, the problem with trying to discuss this scientifically is that we don't have good information. Most of the research opposed to marijuana was either biased or half-assed, only vaguely establishing correlation but never showing proper causation. Most of the research in favor of marijuana was either biased or half-assed, a lot of the medicinal effects are questionable. We really don't have reliable data for or against, marijuana is still too much of a boogeyman for some and a mysterious item for others.

As for my two cents though, it should be made legal or have it's status changed. Right now it's treated as a schedule one narcotic even though it's impossible to consume a lethal dose of marijuana, so i think it should be given the same legal status as alcohol. It should be restricted to people too young to make smart decisions, there should be laws against driving while listening to Grateful Dead, and it should be heavily stressed that marijuana does affect the brain and therefore has radically different effects on person to person. Some people are immune to THC, some become extremely paranoid when smoking marijuana, some just get the munchies and watch Friendship is Murder. Marijuana should either be legalized or have all crimes tied to it reduced to misdemeanors, felony charges for possession are fucking absurd and it's legal status does keep some research from being done properly.

This person is speaking sense.

As for my two cents. Alcohol has caused far more damage to society than weed ever has or will. To anyone who doesn't think so, try both then tell me which is worse.

DevilWithaHalo:

Pyramid Head:

DevilWithaHalo:

First, I hope you're aware that you can die from alcohol poisoning, which refers to the over consumption of the chemical.
Secondly, I take issue with your bolded statement...
http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738%2801%2900609-0/abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html
http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf
and
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWNMEAnnualReport2010/DAWN-ME-AnnualReport-2010.pdf
...I'm not sure how people have come to these baseless conclusions, but they seriously need to stop. All you do it perpetuate ignorance.

Oh sorry, i of course based that conclusion on tests showing what it took to cause a chemical overdose of the formula in marijuana and i checked the sources. Which you should have done because two of the citations you posted are biased, one won't give me access to the full report unless i pay and the other didn't definitively point to causation, only correlation. For as much as you scrutinized my post you should have done the same with yours. My claim still stands, the average lethal dose of marijuana per gram of weight in the average human is physically impossible to achieve, you haven't demonstrated that i was wrong, you haven't even demonstrated freak exceptions, only that some people were high when they had heart attacks.

I will happy defer to this if you can provide information supporting it. If it's merely a casual statement toward the unlikely event of overdose if the recommended amount of marijuana is used, then I would agree. But if we're talking about whether or not marijuana could ever be overdosed on, than I would disagree and like to see your support for the statement,

Aside from general research agreeing that marijuana alone doesn't contain enough THC alone to cause a lethal dose (And even then there has only been one documented THC fatality, and that wasn't from marijuana) there have been zero documented accounts of a marijuana fatality. There have been instances where intoxication lead to a fatality, but outside of that?

This is a court case in which the FDA handed over drug fatalities and the statistics were compared to fatalities of marijuana users.

I'll spare you some reading and tell you that there were 279 cases of someone intoxicated on marijuana dying but zero instances of marijuana being the sole cause of death, and these statistics were compared to freak instances of prescription drugs causing fatalities. Since i can't access any clear information proven to the contrary, so far the only thing i can conclude based on statistics and autopsy reports is that marijuana alone isn't lethal, extreme circumstances where the effects it has were a contributing factor to a death are the only thing proven to me so far.

Pyramid Head:
felony charges for possession are fucking absurd

Actively going out of your way to obtain enough Marijuana for a felony charge despite knowing full well what the consequences were beforehand is even more absurd.

Pyramid Head:

I'll spare you some reading and tell you that there were 279 cases of someone intoxicated on marijuana dying but zero instances of marijuana being the sole cause of death,

Do you know how many instances there are of AIDS being the sole cause of death? Zero. Just pointing that out.

Kopikatsu:

Pyramid Head:
felony charges for possession are fucking absurd

Actively going out of your way to obtain enough Marijuana for a felony charge despite knowing full well what the consequences were beforehand is even more absurd.

Pyramid Head:

I'll spare you some reading and tell you that there were 279 cases of someone intoxicated on marijuana dying but zero instances of marijuana being the sole cause of death,

Do you know how many instances there are of AIDS being the sole cause of death? Zero. Just pointing that out.

You just compared marijuana with AIDS and completely dismissed the fact that it's a felony charge to be in possession of something less dangerous than over the counter substances.
Even for a troll that's just shit.

It seems like it should be emphasized more than it has been that, compared to other illegal drugs, weed's really easy to get even with the laws on the books now. Even if your stance is that prohibition not working was a result of alcohol's prevalence in American society and might actually work on other substances, it'll never work on weed and the laws in place don't even stop kids from getting weed in high school (although usually overpriced shit that might have been doused in hairspray).

Pyramid Head:

Kopikatsu:

Pyramid Head:
felony charges for possession are fucking absurd

Actively going out of your way to obtain enough Marijuana for a felony charge despite knowing full well what the consequences were beforehand is even more absurd.

Pyramid Head:

I'll spare you some reading and tell you that there were 279 cases of someone intoxicated on marijuana dying but zero instances of marijuana being the sole cause of death,

Do you know how many instances there are of AIDS being the sole cause of death? Zero. Just pointing that out.

You just compared marijuana with AIDS and completely dismissed the fact that it's a felony charge to be in possession of something less dangerous than over the counter substances.
Even for a troll that's just shit.

I would like to point out, looking at the argument from the sidelines, that's he's making fun of the assumption that things not being the sole cause of death, means they're safe. It just required a bit more critical reading.

People can do what they want, as I already said Marijuana isn't as safe as it's touted, but alcohol does way more damage and I like a drink now and again.

I'll just leave everyone else to bicker about it, since I'm not concerned with this issue.

Pyramid Head:
felony charges for possession are fucking absurd

No, those charges are completely justified and necessary. They ensure that people can't walk around with a ton of drugs that may destroy their lives or someone elses life, and not be subject to fixing that situation in any way.

What's absurd is slamming people in jail for years for felony possession, but that's only the case in a few conservative US states, and third world countries, meaning it's not really relevant to the discussion.

The Netherlands tried such a legalised possession approach, and it was a spectacular failure; we have pot addicts as young as 12, organised crime controls the legalised pot trade as well as the illegal growing of pot, and violence as a result of pot is on a very un-dutch scale, with excesses like people emptying automatic weapons on houses, killing a child. (to name an example of a recent case)

Also it has resulted in many drug-related problems, like for instance tourists jumping out of hotel windows because of pot use, injuring or killing whoever they happen to land on. Huh, what on earth, I hear you thinking, yes it does. Merely in Amsterdam it happens several times each year on an average year. Drug tourism is a huge problem, and marijuana prohibition would fix this problem.

Frission:
People can do what they want, as I already said Marijuana isn't as safe as it's touted, but alcohol does way more damage and I like a drink now and again.

Alcohol is much safer than marijuana. The supposed 'studies' that claimed otherwise didn't control for how a substance is used, or how many people are using it. That made their conclusions totally useless.

I'd say it has everything to do with pulling the rug out from under those growing and distributing it illegally.

Let's just stop pretending to have any morality here and look at it from a purely business standpoint:

1. People are going to smoke pot, whether we ban it or not. That is abundantly clear.

2. Pot, while a drug, is probably about on the level of alcohol and cigarettes for long term damage. A brain pickles in alcohol as well as it Swiss cheeses to pot over years and years of use; "But boat!" you will say "Glass of wine a night is fine!" Yes, it is, but you're also not consuming enough to get DRUNK. If we want to make possession a felony charge for pot, then anyone with enough alcohol within their system to be intoxicated should be treated with the same level of punishment, shouldn't they? After all, they are going to be doing as much damage to their own body either way.

Note that I am not saying to ban alocohol. I'm saying that all drugs that alter the state of consciousness to a degree should be treated the same, by the logic being thrown around here. Alcohol, pot, whatever. However, you will note that there are very few places in the world where alcohol is out and out banned on a national level, excepting in very strict religious areas, in spite of the fact that getting drunk on alcohol on a regular basis will probably nail you as quickly as smoking pot on a regular basis, and smoking on a regular basis.

3. The legalization of an illegal substance does more damage to illegal business dealings when any amount of enforcement can ever possibly do. America learned a very harsh lesson in the prohibition era; if you make something illegal that people still want, they will obtain it, but it will no longer be regulated and you will not earn any taxes on it. Besides being a golden era for criminal elements of the time, it was also an era where people were dying or going blind of rotgut and other non-regulated alcohol.

4. Hemp is really useful for rope. The United states has to import all it's non-synthetic rope because hemp growing is banned in the country.

I kept politics out of it, I kept morality out of it. This is pure business sense. Legalization of pot will help undermine drug cartels AND be useful as a tax farm.

I'd also like to point out that just because it's legal doesn't mean you can use it and show up to work without getting fired; that's the business places decision. So I'm not suggesting consequence free usage.

Heronblade:

afroebob:
The prohibition of marijuana has always baffled me. Like many people here I come from the US which was a country that was founded on the principles of freedom. However, so many goddamn times we have had our freedoms infringed on, even from the beginning of our country. Right now the biggest freedom being infringed on is the right to use substances on your own body that will only cause potential harm to oneself, the most notorious case being marijuana. So I was wondering, considering this is blatantly un-American how can any American want it to remain illegal? This is not meant to patronize or bash anyone who does want it to stall illegal, I am just trying to understand your reasoning for thinking the government should take away our freedoms.

Anyone that thinks recreational drugs only affect the user is at minimum blind. I am against such drugs, marijuana included, for exactly the same reasons I am against suicide (for healthy individuals at any rate). Because what a person chooses to do to themselves has a HUGE impact on others.

By the way, stop throwing the word "rights" around where it does not belong. People debate all the time about how far certain rights extend and in what situations, but the "right to use substances" has never been on the table.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of chemically induced (ie: fake) happiness!

Also, THIS is the greatest threat to personal freedoms in the modern age? THIS!?

Are you against Alcohol and Cigarettes to? Not to come off as rude but, if I work a hard long day I can't unwind with a joint maybe 5 times a month without being a criminal? I also have Marfans which results in chronic back pain. Should I take Oxycontin which eat your stomach lining and have withdraws? I seem confused.

Heronblade:

GunsmithKitten:

So what legal sanctions should be done against them, and in the case of suicide, how should we mutilate the corpse?

Strawman much? He asked for "my" opinion on the prohibition of marijuana, I gave it.

To be perfectly frank, I'm actually leaning towards carefully controlled legalization, but only because the current status quo gives power to drug smugglers, not because I find the practice any less disgusting than my post above implies.

You're coming off very arrogant and misinformed. If you dislike Marijuana and its effects, don't use it or be around people who use it. Don't label innocent taxpaying citizens criminals for enjoying a fully natural herb and not harming anyone. And don't say all pot users are lazy and stupid, thats like me saying everyone on the Escapist is an overweight brony who happens to be a 30 year old virgin. If you don't like stereotypes used against you and your group, don't use them against others. Also, heres a list of lazy stoners.

http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-potheads-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/celebrity-tokers/87813-200-celebrities-famous-people-who-smoke-pot.html

Pyramid Head:
[quote="DevilWithaHalo" post="528.395353.16074015"]Big snippage[quote]
Aside from general research agreeing that marijuana alone doesn't contain enough THC alone to cause a lethal dose (And even then there has only been one documented THC fatality, and that wasn't from marijuana) there have been zero documented accounts of a marijuana fatality. There have been instances where intoxication lead to a fatality, but outside of that?

This is a court case in which the FDA handed over drug fatalities and the statistics were compared to fatalities of marijuana users.

I'll spare you some reading and tell you that there were 279 cases of someone intoxicated on marijuana dying but zero instances of marijuana being the sole cause of death, and these statistics were compared to freak instances of prescription drugs causing fatalities. Since i can't access any clear information proven to the contrary, so far the only thing i can conclude based on statistics and autopsy reports is that marijuana alone isn't lethal, extreme circumstances where the effects it has were a contributing factor to a death are the only thing proven to me so far.

I'd like to start out by saying; "HOLY SHIT VIAGRA!" I appreciate the efforts the study went into regarding the drugs which are prescribed for the same symptoms that Marijuana seems to be for the most part. Although I think some of those probably took it a step to far (who uses Marijuana in replacement for Ant-Psychotics?).

It seems entirely realistic that Marijuana in a general sense would be exceedingly difficult (but not impossible) to OD on given the reasons people use it and the amounts they would have to consume for it to be deadly (which is currently unknown). But one can't ignore the contributions it's made in many cases leading to fatalities (similarly any drug and even alcohol).

Still seems like people are just wanting to drink cough medicine when they don't have a cough because it makes them feel better.

Fetus:
I also have Marfans which results in chronic back pain. Should I take Oxycontin which eat your stomach lining and have withdraws? I seem confused.

That's rubbish. Marfan's syndrome doesn't cause backpain to a degree where you need medication. It doesn't cause it at all unless you're slacking, not minding your pose all day and don't work out to keep your balancing muscles in shape. Keep a decent matras on your bed, sit straight in chair, walk up straight, lift heavy loads using your legs and not your back, and you'll be fine.

Neither do you need to purchase illegal dangerous drugs to counter the effects of it. Marfan's syndrome is uncurable. Merely the weakening of the aorta can be prevented using medication.

To claim you need to fund organised crime and endanger your own health by purchasing drugs because of that is a rather selfish line of reasoning. If you shoot into a bout of schizofrenia due to pot use tomorrow, you're not the one who's covering the costs of lifelong psychiatric support and medication. There's just no such thing as innocent or harmless drugs.

Fetus:
You're coming off very arrogant and misinformed. If you dislike Marijuana and its effects, don't use it or be around people who use it. Don't label innocent taxpaying citizens criminals for enjoying a fully natural herb and not harming anyone.

You must've missed the point that was being made earlier, about how stuff like the health damage and the money being paid to organised crime to purchase pot, are also to be factored in. You can't just purchase drugs and pretend it has no consequences. By doing that, a pot user is funding everything from gang wars in their own country to entire wars elsewhere.

Blablahb:
There's just no such thing as innocent or harmless drugs.

Be right back, telling my grandfather to stop taking his heart medication.

Fetus:
...money being paid to organised crime to purchase pot...

Well, shit, we better legalize it, pronto!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked