Why should marijuana be kept illegal?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Heronblade:
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.

I appologize, I thought it was extremely obvious that I am speaking of direct effects, not indirect. Just because it can impair judgement or make your mom cry because she thinks your a failure is not a valid reason to keep it illegal. Same goes for alcohol. If you make it illegal to do something to yourself because it means that means you will have to take away the right to drink, the right to vote, Freedom of Speech and that's just for starters, so your little 'it effects others too!' is pretty invalid.

Heronblade:
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.

S:(n) legal right: a right based in law (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

The term legal right is usually shortened to rights, and as such when talking about the legal right to smoke marijuana using the term 'rights' is fitting.

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

hap·pi·ness noun \ˈha-pē-nəs\

Definition of HAPPINESS

1
obsolete : good fortune : prosperity

2
a : a state of well-being and contentment : joy
b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience

If smoking marijuana makes someone feel content or joyous, or it is pleasurable or satisfying than it is happiness nomatter how you look at it. Not to mention you seemed to omit liberty, which is

ib·er·ty noun \ˈli-bər-tē\
plural lib·er·ties

Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

So if the government will not let us smoke marijuana if we please to than they are taking away our liberty. I can understand taking away a liberty that will cause definate harm to another human being (i.e. stabbing someone), but just because other people might not like the fact you smoke marijuana doesn't mean it should be made illegal.

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

At this point I am assuming you are on the wrong post because I don't think I ever said it was.

afroebob:
So if the government will not let us smoke marijuana if we please to than they are taking away our liberty.

Oh really? Where in your country's constitution does it say "So every citizen shall have the right to poison himself, subject himself to harm and cause problems and costs for society, by purchasing and using dangerous drugs"?

Because if you can't produce such a right to drugs, then you can't claim a sensible ban on drugs is something which reduces any form of liberty.

A right to use drugs, haha... What's next? A right to rape?

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

Got to love it when people are purposely obtuse.

Blablahb:

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

Got to love it when people are purposely obtuse.

Got to love it when people don't have any valid rebuttal. What does my grandfather take for his heart problems? Drugs! Since innocent and harmless drugs don't exist, I should prevent my grandfather from taking his medication. Reading comprehension is fun!

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!?

So because it has a 'huge' impact on others, it should be illegal? How about talking then? Should that be made illegal? After all, calling someone names may lead to them killing themselves. Wouldn't want that, do we? Illegalize talking now.

Blablahb:

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'm going to demand citations. A lot of your information knocks of Fox News bullshit.

I'm going to disagree with you when you say that our biggest freedoms being infringed upon is our ability to put whatever we want into our systems, but besides that, I agree. Making pot illegal doesn't make any damn sense, at least from a face value perspective. Once you realize that various companies maintain the rights to manufacture synthetic hemp and its various uses, as well as corporations and the FBI, CIA and whatever other alphabet agency backs and funds the drug trade, you begin to realize like many others things in life, it's about money and power.

It is mostly just being kept illegal until it is able to be monetized by the right people. Currently more money is flowing into the system through lobbyists that profit of the war on drugs so there's no point in trying to make it legal which is why these types of laws only have a chance if they go directly through the voters. It's pretty obvious but big pharmaceutical companies give a lot of money to politicians and as soon as they are able to monetize Marijuana for themselves it'll one way or another be legalized in a way that is recognized federally. I predict that the first federally recognized bill will have the drug be legal in pill form for over the counter use while simultaneously being illegal to smoke or grow for personal use in any other form.

Blablahb:

afroebob:
So if the government will not let us smoke marijuana if we please to than they are taking away our liberty.

Oh really? Where in your country's constitution does it say "So every citizen shall have the right to poison himself, subject himself to harm and cause problems and costs for society, by purchasing and using dangerous drugs"?

Because if you can't produce such a right to drugs, then you can't claim a sensible ban on drugs is something which reduces any form of liberty.

You have (in a sane society) just as much of a freedom to use marijuana as you do eating food that could be harmful if not ingested in moderation.

This is without even mentioning the fact that alcohol is many times more dangerous, deadly, and destructive to society than marijuana is.

chadachada123:
You have (in a sane society) just as much of a freedom to use marijuana as you do eating food that could be harmful if not ingested in moderation.

Food is necessary, drugs are not.
Food doesn't cause massive costs unless taken to extremes, drugs do. If you go schizofrenic because of pot, that's huge healthcare bills for your country for the rest of your life. Obviously you're not entitled to doing that kind of damage to your surroundings just because you want to get high.

That's why I ridiculed it. You'd need something like a right to use drugs in order to claim you can offset the heavily weighing interest of all the damage drugs do. No such right exist, so nobody's entitled to use drugs, because of their consequences.

And that some people who may want to get high can't, well, can't have everything in life. Who'd even want to complain about that after learning what pot actually does? That would be putting a minor selfish need in front of massive interests of society, and really really selfish.

chadachada123:
This is without even mentioning the fact that alcohol is many times more dangerous, deadly, and destructive to society than marijuana is.

Third time: That claim is based on bullshit statistics. Also, safe use of alcohol is possible. Safe use of drugs is not.

Marijuana for instance causes permanent brain damage in adolescents from the first use off, mainly to the amygdala and other brain centres which control emotions and regulation of such emotions.

Blablahb:
Third time: That claim is based on bullshit statistics. Also, safe use of alcohol is possible. Safe use of drugs is not.

But...you're...WRONG. Objectively, totally wrong. Safe use of THC is ABSOLUTELY possible. Not only that, alcohol poisoning is very real and very possible, with only 9-14 times the amount of alcohol needed to be "drunk" being enough to KILL you. Tens of thousands die in the US every year from long-term liver failure or short-term alcohol poisoning, while marijuana's deaths are, as far as recorded history goes, completely from lethal reactions from mixing drugs or from the slightly increased risk of a heart attack if marijuana is combined with strenuous exercise. Marijuana, however, can't be lethally overdosed in any practical way when ingested safely, and is only BARELY possible when smoked because of smoke inhalation.

Not to mention, alcoholics are far more likely to be a risk to those around them, what with a higher risk of drunk driving and domestic abuse, compared to a stoner that, at most, will harm themselves, barring the rare case of a person already predisposed to schizophrenic symptoms.

http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

But, really, feel free to provide any reliable source for your claims.

chadachada123:
But...you're...WRONG. Objectively, totally wrong. Safe use of THC is ABSOLUTELY possible.

I look forward to your proof that marijuana doesn't cause crippling mental disorders in some cases and brain damage in non-adults.

I do think you'll have a hard time though, because I've seen pot addicts myself, so proving those don't exist sounds like a mission impossible.

chadachada123:
Not only that, alcohol poisoning is very real and very possible, with only 9-14 times the amount of alcohol needed to be "drunk" being enough to KILL you.

And a fall of 9-14 times the height of a tread on a flight of stairs will also kill you, therefore stairs are unsafe and the use of these should be banned?

Alcohol has tens of millions of users, and becoming an alcoholic requires years of heavy drinking. You can't compare that to a smaller numbers of lighter users, like those harm statistics do. The only thing that counts is per-use, per-person compensated statistics, and those don't exist.

The closest thing to that we do have is toxicity reports, and those say THC is about 40.000 times more poisonous than alcohol.

Blablahb:

chadachada123:
But...you're...WRONG. Objectively, totally wrong. Safe use of THC is ABSOLUTELY possible.

I look forward to your proof that marijuana doesn't cause crippling mental disorders in some cases and brain damage in non-adults.

I do think you'll have a hard time though, because I've seen pot addicts myself, so proving those don't exist sounds like a mission impossible.

chadachada123:
Not only that, alcohol poisoning is very real and very possible, with only 9-14 times the amount of alcohol needed to be "drunk" being enough to KILL you.

And a fall of 9-14 times the height of a tread on a flight of stairs will also kill you, therefore stairs are unsafe and the use of these should be banned?

Alcohol has tens of millions of users, and becoming an alcoholic requires years of heavy drinking. You can't compare that to a smaller numbers of lighter users, like those harm statistics do. The only thing that counts is per-use, per-person compensated statistics, and those don't exist.

The closest thing to that we do have is toxicity reports, and those say THC is about 40.000 times more poisonous than alcohol.

[bolded for emphasis]

I'm done. I quit. I'm not arguing with someone that is so wrong and, in addition, so unwilling to learn the truth.

Pot has a significant fraction of the users that alcohol has, yet a far, far lower amount of addiction, an even smaller portion of those addicted having signs of schizophrenia. This is contrasted with the many health benefits it can have for those that AREN'T prone to schizophrenia, including mental health benefits.

At no point did I claim that pot use in kids can't be damaging: So can valium use or use of plenty other drugs, including alcohol. But I'm not talking about children. I'm talking about adults. And not only is marijuana less likely to cause death OR injury OR lasting damage in adults, it also slows/prevents cancer growth.

On top of this, the laws in the US making possession illegal do far more harm than good, evidenced by the fact that, just one year after decriminalizing weed possession for all ages in California, non-drug-related crime dropped some 20%.
http://www.alternet.org/marijuana-decriminalization-drops-youth-crime-rates-stunning-20-one-year

Study showing that marijuana doesn't affect driving nearly as much as alcohol, and doesn't affect accident rates significantly:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

"Pot Versus Alcohol: Experts Say Booze Is the Bigger Danger"
http://www.alternet.org/story/147392/pot_versus_alcohol%3A_experts_say_booze_is_the_bigger_danger

Plus, you're forgetting that pot also has tens of millions of users, yet not nearly as much abuse.

But, please, keep going on about how a one in a thousand chance of marijuana abuse enhancing schizophrenia is somehow more damaging to society than 79,000 deaths a year from alcohol poisoning/liver failure and an additional 18,000 deaths from drunk driving in the US alone, on top of the increased risk of suicide from alcoholics compared to stoners.

chadachada123:
At no point did I claim that pot use in kids can't be damaging

So safe marijuana use is impossible.

chadachada123:
I'm talking about adults.

Who, upon each use, in each person, run the risk of marijuana causing a crippling mental disorder like schizofrenia. Therefore, safe marijuana use is impossible. Unlike with alcohol, which can be used safely.

Well, then we're done aren't we? That's quite a risk we have going there, which causes great damage. Since unlike with beers and such there's no need or normality to use dangerous drugs, and there's no right to use drugs, the only relevant reasons point us to the conclusion of the prohibition of drugs being the only justified outcome.

Like I said, I'm not interested in faulty statistics that compare thousands of heavy drinkers to a dozen potheads who may have smoked once in their life. I've always been taught that if comparing two samples, they must actually be comparable first.

Otherwise we'd get crazy stuff. I could use the exact same argument of the marijuana lobby and say "There were 84 murders in the Netherlands last year. 661 people died in traffic last year. This is proof that murdering someone is less damaging than driving a car."

Exact same argument the pot lobby uses right there. ^_^

There is no good reason to keep it illegal. None.

Blablahb:

chadachada123:
At no point did I claim that pot use in kids can't be damaging

So safe marijuana use is impossible.

In the same way that safe use of salt and fat is impossible.

Blablahb:

chadachada123:
I'm talking about adults.

Who, upon each use, in each person, run the risk of marijuana causing a crippling mental disorder like schizofrenia. Therefore, safe marijuana use is impossible. Unlike with alcohol, which can be used safely.

You are scientifically ignorant. The same applies to alcohol, along with the fact alcohol damages the throat, stomach, liver, intestines and pretty much every other organ in the body, vital or not.
If you want to say both marijuana and alcohol should be illegal, fine. If you want to say neither should be illegal, fine. But picking one or the other is hypocrisy.

Blablahb:
Well, then we're done aren't we? That's quite a risk we have going there, which causes great damage. Since unlike with beers and such there's no need or normality to use dangerous drugs, and there's no right to use drugs, the only relevant reasons point us to the conclusion of the prohibition of drugs being the only justified outcome.

Like I said, I'm not interested in faulty statistics that compare thousands of heavy drinkers to a dozen potheads who may have smoked once in their life. I've always been taught that if comparing two samples, they must actually be comparable first.

Otherwise we'd get crazy stuff. I could use the exact same argument of the marijuana lobby and say "There were 84 murders in the Netherlands last year. 661 people died in traffic last year. This is proof that murdering someone is less damaging than driving a car."

Exact same argument the pot lobby uses right there. ^_^

It's obvious you have never even bothered looking at any of the abundant scientific literature on the subject. If you educate yourself you'll realise just how silly you're being.

Blablahb:

The closest thing to that we do have is toxicity reports, and those say THC is about 40.000 times more poisonous than alcohol.

The above statement is, as I have previously explained to you in another thread, meaningless in practical terms. To repeat:

Agema:

A drug being thousands of times more toxic than another is pretty irrelevant when the desired effects of using it occur at thousandths of the concentration. The analgesic paracetamol is far more lethal than alcohol. But so what? You'll get an effect off it at 1/1000th the amount of alcohol you need to get drunk. Take as much paracetamol by weight as there is ethanol in a pint of beer, say goodbye to your liver and write your last will and testament.

You'd measure this by what is generally called the "therapeutic ratio" for most drugs, which is the concentration that kills 50% of subjects divided by the dose that benefits 50%. In alcohol, you're probably looking at this being around 10: (350g of ethanol may kill a 70kg human, 35g they'll probably be tipsy). The aforementioned paracetamol has a therapeutic index also of about 10. Such a narrow range is considered to be rather dangerous in the world of drugs.

Cannabis (or rather THC) has a massive, massive therapeutic index, estimated to be over 10,000. I say estimated, because it's too damn high to effectively measure.

Consequently, Christ only knows how the average person would OD on cannabis. You can't say the same about alcohol.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.387339-Poll-Does-anyone-still-think-marijuana-should-remain-illegal?page=2

Blablahb:
Like I said, I'm not interested in faulty statistics...

This is only half the story. In fact, you aren't really interested in statistics, data analysis, or science at all. This is why the quality you assign to studies is primarily determined by whether they conform to your pre-existing beliefs or not. It is not uncommon: it's the same tactic used by Creationists and climate change deniers.

Smeatza:

You are scientifically ignorant. The same applies to alcohol, along with the fact alcohol damages the throat, stomach, liver, intestines and pretty much every other organ in the body, vital or not.

(Stop quoting this part and focus on the 'All arguments for Marijuana are based on whining' part)

OT: Government has laws against not wearing a helmet ('It's my body to do what I want with'), polygamy ('It doesn't hurt anyone'), the areas where you can legally smoke tobacco are being lowered every year to the point where it's practically illegal to smoke in general ('Why is tobacco allowed when it's worse?') etc.

It's already accepted that the government can tell you what you can and can't do with your life. It extends to marijuana as well.

Kopikatsu:

Only if you abuse it. In moderation, alcohol is actually good for you.

So it is sometimes claimed. They don't actually have good scientific justification to do so, however.

The evidence showing benefits from alcohol use are weak, frequently specific to people with certain risks, and even then many suspected positives are equalled by suspected negatives. And when we say "alcohol", this is also dubious: the ethanol might be of no benefit at all - it's the other chemicals in the drink (particularly in red wine) that are often thought to provide the benefit.

Kopikatsu:

Only if you abuse it. In moderation, alcohol is actually good for you. And by moderation, I mean a glass of wine 2-3 times a week and not 'CHUG CHUG CHUG'.

Alcohol, or wine? WHich is it?

Red wine has other properties in it. if alcohol was the substance that was beneficial, you'd see the same benefits in bathtub hooch as well, but...well, you don't.

Kopikatsu:

Smeatza:

You are scientifically ignorant. The same applies to alcohol, along with the fact alcohol damages the throat, stomach, liver, intestines and pretty much every other organ in the body, vital or not.

Only if you abuse it. In moderation, alcohol is actually good for you. And by moderation, I mean a glass of wine 2-3 times a week and not 'CHUG CHUG CHUG'.

Good for you? I'll accept not bad for you (as in the damage is negligible) but I've not seen any studies that suggest wine is good for you (and certainly not the alcohol within wine), do you have a link at all?

Kopikatsu:

Smeatza:

You are scientifically ignorant. The same applies to alcohol, along with the fact alcohol damages the throat, stomach, liver, intestines and pretty much every other organ in the body, vital or not.

Only if you abuse it. In moderation, alcohol is actually good for you. And by moderation, I mean a glass of wine 2-3 times a week and not 'CHUG CHUG CHUG'.

It's already accepted that the government can tell you what you can and can't do with your life. It extends to marijuana as well.

Look, even people who drink know that's it's not good for them. When people say "to your health" in a toast, they're not serious and are probably also slightly inebriated.

Government keeps it legal, because the prohibition failed and many people drink.

Maybe I'm being a snob here but in my vast interneting experience those claiming marijuana is incredibly dangerous in any capacity generally say things like "marijuana makes adolescents schizophrenic" because an online article that links to a real study says something like "a recent study suggests that adolescents that smoke marijuana are more likely to be schizophrenic," when the study itself was done on something like 4,000 kids and showed that current schizophrenic adults were more likely to have smoked as adolescents, which is about what a toker would expect anyway for people experiencing schizophrenia as adolescents but might not even occur to someone that's actively afraid of weed. Once you get to the second level of sensationalism, of course, there's not really much to be done for the debate itself.

Serge A. Storms:
Maybe I'm being a snob here but in my vast interneting experience those claiming marijuana is incredibly dangerous in any capacity generally say things like "marijuana makes adolescents schizophrenic" because an online article that links to a real study says something like "a recent study suggests that adolescents that smoke marijuana are more likely to be schizophrenic," when the study itself was done on something like 4,000 kids and showed that current schizophrenic adults were more likely to have smoked as adolescents, which is about what a toker would expect anyway for people experiencing schizophrenia as adolescents but might not even occur to someone that's actively afraid of weed. Once you get to the second level of sensationalism, of course, there's not really much to be done for the debate itself.

This again is under-known.

There is reasonable evidence of a link between cannabis use causing schizophrenia in multiple studies and some meta-analyses. However, it is by no means conclusive, many studies have methodological complications, and there is also contradictory evidence. There are also theories that cannabis is only dangerous to people already prone to schizophrenia, or that it advances onset rather than creates it from nothing.

Can people stop with the red wine nonsense? That myth is based on a study which isolated an enzyme found in red grapes and looked at its effect on cancer cells in a laboratory. Human trials clearly show that all alcohol consumed slightly increases the risk of cancer. There's no such thing as a healthy glass of alcohol any more than there is of a healthy cigarette.

On topic, I think that a lot of the pro-cannabis types understate the risks of marijuana, but I still think it should be legal. In fact, I think all drugs should be legal. If we are going to ban things that cause cancer and mental degeneration, then we should ban the consumption of processed and red meats. If I'm going to live in a nanny state a want a proper fucking nanny, not one that discriminates based on what is currently culturally acceptable and profitable.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked