Discussion in 'Politics' started by Teh Pwned, Dec 15, 2005.
you're right, i apologize
Trying to say marijuana should be legalized because alchohol is has to be one of the worst arguments ever. Alchohol is legal because we can't make it illegal. It has been tried before and didn't work well.
Yea, it really isn't the best point. However, it tends to be effective because most ppl are against alcohol prohibition. Therefore that person would also logically be against marijuana prohibition.
Personally the most convincing arguements against it come from the libertarian perspective
Alcohol and tobacco basically grew up with America itself. Rum and Tobacco were major exports back in the day.
now that I think about it...
If marijuana IS legalized, who knows what the companies would stash in Mary J when they sell the stuff for profits? Most likely some nicotine with Mary J.
Wouldn't bother me any. If it were legal i'd just buy cases of blunts from reputable companies and have a very foggy life
Wouldn't bother me cause I would just eat it raw anyway. It just seems a little silly to me that a plant is illegal.
well im glad this thread was covered before i even got a chance to speak. Ghost man, plz stop being so ignorant. That's not a diss or disgrace toward you, i seriously mean it. If you really believe and mean everything you said then i feel sorry for you. Nothing else to say really, it's all been covered.
Not exactly the worst argument ever. Alcohol causes far more crime, strife and harm than weed has ever done. Cigarettes have the issue of passive smoking which, most scientists appear to argue, is very dangerous. Isn't it an infringement of civil liberties to allow someone to kill your brain cells by walking past you? But it's not illegal. So why should weed be illegal, especially if we're talking about legalisation only in the home and not in public places?
Also, way to go on the 'all stoners are losers' generalisation Gh0st. Hey, did you know? All drinkers are losers too! And so are all smokers!
NOTE: This is a 'sarcasm'.
LOL, i love how it's the people who smoke it that seem to be defending it
ok, first off, i've been through University, i know people who have and still smoke cannabis, frequently and infrequently, i don't mind occasionally being around people who smoke it but would never use it myself because of the following:
"Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969" published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) in 2002
Or see "Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis" by Louise Arseneault and others which followed 1037 individuals born in Dunedin, New Zealand, in 1972-73 to age 26. It obtained information on psychotic symptoms at age 11 and drug use at ages 15 and 18 from self reports and assessed psychiatric symptoms at age 26.
These two studies focus on the effect of smoking cannabis on the young, they both show patterns that the use of cannabis before the age of 18 are at a greater risk of developing schizophrenia, this relationship is even more pronounced if those who are smoking cannabis are below the age of 15...
Now excuse me for using sources like the BMJ and CHEST, i don't believe what anti-drug or pro-drug people say simply because they are biased for whatever reason. there is enough scientific medical evidence of the negatives of smoking cannabis (as well as drinking too much and smoking) to make me think the short term reward is certainly not worth the long term risk...
If someone want's to do it then that's fine, so long as they do it in the privacy of their home, and they give up their right to medical treatment because of it, much like people who refuse to stop smoking shouldn't get treatment for mouth/throat/lung cancer, those who are obese through their own laziness don't deserve treatment for their failing hearts, and people on the liver transplant list who go out and get wasted don't deserve the second chance either...
to counter the "oh noes but drinking is like a million times worse" argument i agree, ongoing studies are currently showing that alchohol damages the brain more than cannabis or tobacco, that's why i don't make a habit of getting bladdered on a frequent basis.
Well, I don't actually smoke pot, so I'm pretty unbiased in this matter....
what's wrong with that? you cause suffering to yourself, someone else sorts it out for you at someone else's expense, seems illogical to me
it seems right wing but i have remarkably little sympathy for people who choose to eat lots of fried chicken and cake and get so fat they can't move, it's a choice and it doesn't happen overnight, the same as years of heavy drinking will screw over your liver and years of smoking will screw over your respitory system, the only difference is the obese people should have to buy two airplane seats so they don't overhang mine
Right, but what if you're a kid with stupid parents that don't bring you up to eat properly? Isn't that a very common problem? What if you have some sort of problem, an eating addiction (as it were)? What if you're incredibly depressed and eat to get out of it and it's not really your fault (even though it is, to be honest)? What if? There are too many ifs and maybes to just say 'fat people don't deserve medical help' even without the fact that it's pretty unethical anyway. A government should provide completely equal help to all its citizens, and not make distinctions - because how far can you take that? You could argue that poor people don't deserve help because it's their own fault they're poor (that is, after all, the American Dream).
no, if you read what i said it's not "fat people don't deserve medical help" it's "people who choose to damage themselves by doing whatever, smoking/drinking/overeating, don't deserve to be supported by the state"
kids who are fed junk by their parents don't know what they're doing to themselves, the parents are to blame, but once you hit 20 i think a basic knowledge of what's good for you and what's not should be there if you've had reasonable contact with other people who's parents did tell them to eat the right stuff...
an eating addiction isn't the same as eating loads out of choice, you should be able to get help for any addiction...
if someone is depressed they ought to seek medical help, not nip out to KFC
as for poor people, well, as i said before it depends on whether the result is caused by their own choice, as wrong as it is some children will be born into families that are poor (perhaps if the parents had thought the process through a little better or hadn't got drunk/stoned and forgotten the condom it would be different), there's not a lot (besides redistributing the world's wealth) that we can do about it and children there will most likely end up like their parents, it's a shame and the ones that don't end up in gangs, on drugs or in jail deserve better and should get help to get out of situations like that, however if they're poor cause they spent all their money on fried chicken and cake then i have little sympathy:thumbs:
anyway, somewhere back there we were discussing cannabis
Who's going to say whether people deserve help or not? What, do you suggest an independant commision be set up to judge people? Everyone should get help.
Oh yeah, cannibis discussion.
Who else is going to defend cannabis use LoneWolf? It's those who use it who are most affected.
Marijuana is not addictive, at least not physically.
A recent study in Macleans Magazine stated that near 75% of canadians over 18 have tried marjuana in their life, and that compared to the amount of people who are schizophrenic are quite low. I'm not saying it doesn't contribute, but i don't think its unfair to say that at the very least the majority of people who have used MJ or even use it on a regualr basis are going to be diagnosed with schizophrenia.
i suggest you inform the people who do the studies and the BMJ, as they seem to be saying the opposite...
read the articles, you'll see (and as i said) the causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia is based on use before the age of 18, after the age of 18 the known risks would appear to be similar to smoking (although some papers are suggesting that cannabis smoking is more damaging than tobacco for several reasons i'll cover later when i get back)
as for the Macleans article, i'm sorry but i've never heard of that magazine here, "maclean" to me is a brand of toothpaste, i'd prefer to take my source of medical information from someone like the BMJ...
Sulkdodds: the people who dispense the medical help are probably in the best place to assess whether someone should contribute to their healthcare or be refused. much like the do currently with liver transplant patients.
Cannabis should be legal. Making substances illegal only promotes criminal activities. Besides, like someone else wrote: why make a plant illegal?
Cannabis is basically legal over here in the Netherlands and it works fine. It's not like we're a nation of dippy potheads. And we have the lowest figures of hard drug addicts in the whole of Europe.
That's because there aren't enough livers to go around. If you have five livers and 100 patients... do you give them to 97-year-old people that drank their entire lives? No. It's not an effective use of the limited resource. There are a lot of factors to consider. If there were enough livers there would be no need for a list. Everyone could get one. In the case of medicines, most can be produced in large enough capacities to serve everyone that needs them. So, the only limiting factor is profit.
The nice (and I use that term loosely) healthcare system we have in the USA is purely optional. What does that do? It kills the system. How? Let's break it down. First, a theoretical explanation of the system is necessary... because, in theory, it could work (possibly even with enough left over to cover poor people if the payments were right)... but it isn't... so, something is wrong. The idea is that everyone pays a monthly fee to get coverage whether or not they need it at the moment so that, at any given time, your money is helping other people and, when you need it, other people's money will help you. The total money fed into the program by the subscribers would be able to cover the relatively small percentage of people that are sick at any given time. The bad part is that's not how it really works... and it's not all the insurance company's fault. It only works if healthy people pay for insurance... but healthy people don't plan on getting sick. So, they think they can put it off until they get older. Without healthy people feeding money into the system to spread the load the insurance company can't give the patients as much coverage. Then, to help paying customers and minimize the number of freeloaders... they create a screening process to make sure you aren't sick before you get the insurance... or have a history of illness. Then, that isn't enough to scare people into getting insurance early... so, all it does is prevent people from joining even after they become healthy again... further cutting down on the number of people feeding the system. So, they're left with no choice but to raise the payments, cut the benefits, or both. Eventually, people or their employers can no longer afford healthcare and some people are forced to go without it. With a smaller percentage of the population covered, more sick people are forced to go to an ER (where they, by law, have to treat you if they are able to and have the room) instead of a doctor's office. Then, when the space is full people have to be turned away to other hospitals. With the influx of new patients in the ER... what would you expect them to do? Build larger facilities, right? Wrong. See, the new customers can't afford to pay... so, the profitability goes through the floor and the hospitals start bleeding money. Then, some hospitals are forced to close... and the new ones being built, because of the money sink that having an ER has become, decide either to not have an ER (to avoid the legal issue altogether) or to shrink it and minimize losses. That means, even though there is already an issue of overcrowding there are now less facilities than there used to be... the result being that, instead of just going to the ER to get care, uncovered sick people have nowhere to go... making the issue of not having insurance even more important... despite the decreasing number of insured people. It's spiraling downward to its inevitable destruction. The countermeasures are like putting a band-aid on a severed limb.
AFAIK, that whole thing is already happening, but it's all off the top of my head, so feel free to fact-check it and get back to me...
In short, human nature (not wanting to pay for insurance until you need it) is the cause of the failure. The only way to fix that part is to force people to use it. The best way to do that would be through a universal federal healthcare program paid for by taxes... which has the added benefit of higher efficiency (less administrative waste and other similar expenditures) than privatized insurance and, for the most part, the infrastructure is already there.
... but enough about healthcare. :angel: Let's get back to the issue at hand.
then i don't know what to say, I've known many people who were at one time long time users and quit no problem, while i myself havn't used for over a year and have had no problem doing so. So as far as personal experience goes, its like eating a bag of chips....."gee I'm full and don't like this brand anymore( puts down, never looks back).
Macleans is a political magazine, like the Canadian version of TIME and it was, very accuratly, stating how many people in Canada have tried various substances over the age of 18, marijuana was one of them. It wasn't giving any incite into the effects of the drugs. So, I'm pretty sure its credible.
Yeah...alchohol is very bad. It was legalized and has become too popular to make illegal again. Back when they legalized it(or allowed it at least) they all liked it and didn't think it was as bad as it is in any way. So to put alchohol and marijuana in the same argument kind of puts marijuana in a bad light. How do we know we won't regret making it legal? It would become too popular and common to make illegal again and would be far easier to bootleg than alchohol.
If Jesus was on drugs... who are we to argue?
it should be legal
I wouldn't doubt mary J is addictive. Why is that such a big factor? It's probably not HIGHLY addictive, but, it is. I mean, McDonalds and chocolate is addictive, I saw this on Supersize me. The guy started getting addicted for McDonalds for god's sake. People get addicted off of caffeine. I mean people are highly addicted to tobacco because of the nicotine. Why woudn't people get highly addicted off of mary J if they stuffed it with nictotine?
I say legalise it.
If it was legal it would be safe too, cause some times there like rat posion and all sort of stuff in with it.
Although kids are more likely to get hold of it. I think what we need is proper responcable drugs education, maybe give the kids some weed in school, in a safe enviroment of course, and explain it too them and remove the cool factor ect.
Just because it is legal does not in any way mean it is safe. Look at cigarettes and alchohol...IMO those should be illegal but since they have been legal there is no turning back.
But what is so unsafe about marijuana? Smoking it is unsafe just like smoking any substance is unsafe. However when it comes to other forms of consumption there really aren't any known safety concerns that are any worse than things like caffeine.
It really doesnt lead to anything. Id love if you could prove chemically that it makes people want to try other drugs. The only two reasons why this could happen are:
a) someone tries it and realises what a load of bollocks they had been taught about it from the government, school, media etc and think that chances are the stuff they heard about other drugs also is untrue, and therefore out of curiosity they decide to try other drugs.
b) the dealer convinces them to buy something else.
People 'start' with weed because they come across it first.
It depends. If the person has access to enough of the drug to keep withdrawals in check (eg, if it was legal and sold at a reasonable price or available on prescription), and long term use of said drug isnt harmful (eg, clean heroin), then its not much of a problem.
This is ridiculous.. Far more people need hospital visits when you make drugs illegal. And dont forget about this
It barely causes respitory harm to the user let alone you.
Less bad? Theyre not in the same universe.
Me either. I havnt smoked in a few months and as with every other time ive taken a break, no matter how heavily i smoked, i notice absolutely nothing.
Good idea, lets cause more crime, fund and make more criminals, put all the tobacco/alcohol addicts into the same position crack addicts are currently in, reduce productivity further, waste more billions etc
Who presumably wouldnt sell it to him at that age. A dealer would though.
Have you thought about how 'they' ruin lives? Someone gets addicted, and since the people who have control of the market are criminals who charge many times more than the drugs are actually worth for an impure, more dangerous version of the drug, they quickly end up skint, so they start stealing, burgling houses, prostituting or whatever else they can do to get the money. Meantime, the guys selling the stuff are raking in billion upon billion yearly, and billions in taxpayers money is wasted.
So why is drug use lower in countries where they are decriminalised, but continually increasing in prohibitionist countries? America and the uk have the biggest, and youngest, userbase in the world.
Not exactly, it can cause mild bronchitis (a cough)..
Chocolate too. And dont forget anti-depressants and half the other 'mood/mind altering' drugs used as medication.
http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm all losers?
Prohibition of anything doesnt work well, the complete opposite actually.
For people who are genetically predisposed to it. I dont think anyone here is saying kids with a family history of mental illness should toke.
Then they dont know what addictive means.
Its not. Tobacco is so dangerous because of how its grown, in radioactive soil. Thats why it causes cancer.
umm i dont think rat poison has ever been found in it..
Holy crap! Bob Marley smokes weed!?
Oh, and nice post
I have no problem with people smoking weed. I don't care nor want to do it, but you know, to each its own. What I don't like is how people brag that they smoke weed. Why are you so proud of smoking a substance? They act like they're hot shit. Its retarded.
This country will never make weed legal. Caffeine/Alcohol/Cigarettes are bad enough, we don't need anymore body pollutants. Sure, I like drinking Snapple and Soda from time to time, but drinking them doesn't make me act like a ****ing moron. If there was a required test for people to take to be eligible for buying weed, then I'd be fine with it. The other ****tards would have to keep buying it illegaly.
I don't really see anyone condeming marijuana use. I am pretty neutral on the subject but for debates sake I will pick the torch up and see where I can get with it.
Here are many negative effects...some of you may not know of. Read the link below as it has a whole lot of negative effects or marijuana. If it was legalized it would be pretty harmful to society. Especially the driving impairments that comes with marijuana...the effects can last up to 4 hours. That is far too long to legalize...there would be so many accidents from peoples delayed reactions.
Chemically it may not be posible to PROVE. However psychologically that is a different issue. A person may like the effect of being high and the altered state with it. He may like it so much that he does it a lot and the drug doesn't have nearly as much an effect anymore. The solution...move onto other drugs that will offer a high .
Driving is not a problem since the current law in most areas is about "impaired driving". It isn't just about alcohal, driving while being under the influence of anything that may have a negative effect on driving is illegal. I have heard of people being charged alongside drunk drivers for driving while under the influence of sleeping pills. So as long as someone is high they will already be charged for impaired driving whether the drug is legal or not.
The increased heart rate is only a problem for a few people, and these people really should not be using alcohal or any other legal drug that can affect heart rate anyway.
The risk to the lungs is not a problem caused by cannabis itself but rather in the way it is most often consumed. There are no negative effects associated with marijuana usage in the lungs if it is ingested instead.
The dangers to "young people" should not even be considered in any decision to legalize since no matter what it would have an age restriction applied anyway.
Just because it is legal or only affects a few people doesn't mean it won't be a problem. The impairment lasts for 4 hours after you smoke...4 hours! That is a long time to not be able to drive. With the effects lasting that long people will drive while under the influence all the time. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean people won't do it. Drunk driving is the biggest trafic issue right now...we don't need to add more dead bodies to the statistics.
The health issues are there...and people who have heart problems will get hurt by it because people are dumbasses. Same with the lung issues...people are dumb and don't care as long as they can get high.
Also kids can get their hands on alchohol already...it is illegal to minors and they have no problem whatso ever getting their hands on it.
They havnt got a clue.
It produces no long term tolerance (side note: thats why it cant be described as addictive). All they would have to do is use it less or stop for a short while.
Do you know how something becomes addictive? There are different versions(physically addictive and psychologically addictive)
Look it up...weed can be addicting.
the high doesn't last 4 hours... i dont know what kinda weed your smokin but damn, gimmie some. The most my high lasts for is 2 hours. I have driven high plenty of times and to this day i have not had an accident nor any kind of ticket. Huh weird, for a pothead i should be dead :X statistically speaking... now i'd be all for making weed illegal to use when driving but seeing as it's already illegal their isn't many places to do it besides the car.
Normally when I'm driving high I'm paranoid about being pulled over so i obey all the traffic laws; when I'm sober i obey very few. People are much safer with me driving high
Unfortunately if it did become legal, there would be a lot of people driving high. Nothing like a nice hotbox
I used to be for legalizing it but after seeing how many idiots there are, no way. Only for medicinal purposes.
/sigh, theirs idiots with or w/o marijuana :/
It slows your reaction times. Your just lucky you haven't had to react very quickly...like a car flying at you or else you would be dead. Or even slamming on your breaks late would cause you to hit the car in front of you. It is still a danger and just becuase you haven't gotten in an accident doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.
Separate names with a comma.