POLL- Should Marijuana Be Legalised?

ThisGuy · Member

Haha.

mrravenblade · Caped Crusader

I'm sorry I have not responded till now; I realized I was losing my cool, so I simply removed myself from the discussion until I had regained it. I hope you can all respect this, and forgive my human transgression.

The Crimson Fist:
It is true that I have some very personal points of view in regards to alcohol. I admit this freely, and while past tragic events can not be ignored by me when defining my thoughts on this subject, I can truthfully say that outside of these personal experiences I really do not see a possible need for humanity to have alcohol consumption at all outside of the exception of possible medicinal use. From a purely medical and scientific perspective, it really does not serve any direct benefit to humanity at this stage in our civilization to allow alcohol consumption in non medical cases, and in fact from a purely mathematical and statistical point of view, it does a lot more harm then good if the statistics involving accidental deaths involving drunk driving and a host of other actions taken on the part of the inebriated (Like births of children to drunk single mothers because a guy at a bar got lucky) are to be believed. My personal belief is that alcohol is a addictive narcotic that is bad for society and should be treated and regulated as a highly regulated toxic chemical. Of course I'm also a realist enough to know that historically, attempts to do that have been wildly unsuccessful, in part because of the same toxicity and addictiveness described above.

This Guy:
As for the relative seriousness of a "DUI of marijuana" verses "DUI of alcohol", what I am reading from you makes absolutely no sense at all to me, because the idea that a "DUI of marijuana" is considered less serious today then a "DUI of alcohol" is totally, absolutely untrue. Just look at the law. Marijuana is a federally condemned illegal narcotic , while booze is not. You are not making any sense at all. A "DUI of marijuana" is currently rightfully treated as worse then a "DUI of alcohol", and should be, already.

This Guy:
As for your other ludicris statments. you clearly do not have the ability to debate this as you are resorting to falacius arguments and insults. You are wrong, and you have been proven wrong, and I will further prove this by saying this: Just because a man is married to a woman does not mean he has carnal rights to her; Rape is defined as unwanted sexual intercourse of any type. If a woman - married to the attacker or not - defines an encounter as rape or is against the actions as they transpire, it is rape under the law. As for the gun with a gun, please see my previous arguments as you are simply repeating debate that has been disproved at this point. I'm trying my best to keep this civil, non personal, a sort of gentlemanly debate where free exchange of constructive criticize is possible, just like any technical debate I would have with a fellow scientist. Please do not insult me again, as I have taken great lengths to not insult you despite your actions doing so.

As for your comments on "weed" being a purely mental addition, once again you are wrong. The use of the drugs in "weed" create neural chemical reactions in the brain that mandate physical responses from the abuser of the drug that they are unable to control, based on the persons personal toxicity stress levels; To put it in more collegial terms you may understand better "Weed messes up your brain, and it can make you need it as much as air or food, and do things to get it". The next time you think "weed" is harmless, think about all the things in your brain that have to get "messed up" or otherwise changed and tweaked for you to get the munchies, a well known symptom of being intoxicated. This is a highly delicate aspect of the brain as it involves the brain centers for basic biological functions like food intake. It is not something you want to mess with, as you can die if these systems in your body get "messed up". Yet they are one of the most commonly known parts of the brain affected, as your very own post shows as even you have stated that somebody under the influence would be "too busy trying to get [the cops] bag of chips".

Oh, and this entire thread is a failthread Null, you know we have all this brotherly love for you and all, but no matter what California rules "weed" will still be illegal at the federal level, meaning no real rights would be granted by the state and the cops would still be just as free and willing to arrest, prosecute, and convict people who traffic, use, or hold possession of it since - and this is very important - it does not matter what the state thinks is legal if the federal government has decided that it is not legal. Its theater, nothing more, and no matter the outcome it will still be illegal and drug dealers will still be criminals.

**Zetaman** · Admin

Off topic... sorry I gotta pick on a point
A nurse would not go against her training to save a man. If the person was in a resturant, the first thing the nurse would check for would be a obstruction of the airway. So she would first have someone call 911 and then administer CPR. If a restuarant as a defilbilator, then there would be someone AED certified on duty to use it. The nurse would administer CPR for 5 cycles and check to see if she sees the obstruction. A sign would be if the chest is rising when the breaths are administered. The human lungs contain a pocket of air reserve. Good singers utitlize this pocket of air all the time. He or she would follow their training. until a paramedic releaves the nurse of their duty. But at no time will a nurse go straight to the AED without following the 3 C's and then CPR while checking to see if it is a Airway problem, a Breathing problem or a Circulatory problem or sometimes a Shock problem.

**Zetaman** · Admin

Also too any life-saving procedures done to someone unconscions is covered under the good samaritain laws as implied concent. You cannot exceed your training thought.

mrravenblade · Caped Crusader

ZETAMAN wrote:

Off topic... sorry I gotta pick on a point
A nurse would not go against her training to save a man. If the person was in a resturant, the first thing the nurse would check for would be a obstruction of the airway. So she would first have someone call 911 and then administer CPR. If a restuarant as a defilbilator, then there would be someone AED certified on duty to use it. The nurse would administer CPR for 5 cycles and check to see if she sees the obstruction. A sign would be if the chest is rising when the breaths are administered. The human lungs contain a pocket of air reserve. Good singers utitlize this pocket of air all the time. He or she would follow their training. until a paramedic releaves the nurse of their duty. But at no time will a nurse go straight to the AED without following the 3 C's and then CPR while checking to see if it is a Airway problem, a Breathing problem or a Circulatory problem or sometimes a Shock problem.

Exactly my point; If the nurse follows her training no matter what is available or not available in the theoretical restaurant, its not malpractice so that entire fallacious argument by ThisGuy is categorically incorrect.

And just to get even slightly more off topic, What people should learn from this thread and my friendly little debate with ThisGuy is that logic and education is a very important tool, and you only hurt yourself and others when you refuse to self educate. If you do not know something, at least be open to saying so, and then learning the facts. I don't say that somebody is wrong in order to single them out or pick on them in any way. I do it to educate not only the person with the false assumptions that I am correcting, but also to educate the people on this forum who are tempted to simply accept somebodies ignorant posts as factual or correct simply becouse the person wrote it in a manner that makes it seem authoritive when its really just pulled out of thier hat.

So back on topic:
Drugs are bad. They are illegal for a reason, and that reason is public safety. Highly addictive drugs make people do stupid, annoying, sometimes violent things to keep getting them or attempt to rationalize there use of them, so its better that they are highly illegal, and will continue to be so no matter what people in California think. The president of the united states of America - the guy a majority of people voted into the white house - agrees. That should tell you everything.

citizensmoke · Member

~
I don't think anyone has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, how I treat it or what I put into it. By the same token, I do not have the right to tell others those things either. If you attempt to dictate for me what I'm allowed to consume, you betray my rights and jeopardize your own.

I do not like marijuana, do not enjoy its effects. That said, I believe it is the criminalization of a viable market for no legitimate purposes. The product is "harmful"? So are hundreds of thousands of products sold legally every moment of every day across the globe. It is the individual's responsibility to utilize those products in a proper fashion (or not at all) in order to avoid harm. If someone wishes to use chemical solvents for a temporary "high", we do not criminalize the solvent, we try to help them understand the dangers and damages they cause by doing so. If someone is an alcoholic, they are responsible to get treatment or they will damage both their physical and emotional self. Consequences.

The criminalization of pot has made modern marijuana usage a contributing symptom the criminal behavior required to participate in large-scale drug trade. The only reason I object to people buying pot is the potential that somewhere along the line the source for it had to come from some very, very fucked up people. People who kill law enforcement officers or are prepared to. People who have over 50 guns in their homes to use if/when they are raided for running a grow-house, but who never bother to supply their children with a clean environment or even books. People who murder, people who use others, people who betray and swindle others, people who are simply villainous.

Remove the illegality, you remove an estimated 60% to 80% of the illegal trade of this drug. You also restore the rights of individuals to consume whatever products they wish and the rights of the legitimate dealers to generate economic revenue for both themselves and their government in a perfectly legal fashion. The drug can be licensed in many levels, taxes levied, regulation put in place to maintain standards of production and classification, oversight institutions generated to monitor and regulate the proper handling and selling of the product... this is a MASSIVE market right under our noses, and the people obviously are ready to see it become legitimate and viable.

Once legalized, illegal sources would become far less desirable for many reasons, not the least of which is quality of product and possibly price. The deaths caused by the enforcement of this prohibition would plummet. Cases of abuse would rise for a brief period until social programs came to properly understand and treat the personality flaws which cause such "addictive" behavior (just as with alcohol, prescriptions, etc.).

This is a drug which belongs in the same hands as alcohol and tobacco: at the ATF and under strict governmental control with individual states retaining the right to mitigate their own laws and regulations, as well as collect taxes on this huge potential revenue stream.

Mr. RavenBlade, I respect your devotion and passion greatly, and I respect your right to express your opinions, I simply don't respect your treatment of my rights and disagree strongly with your position.

Thank you for reading my verbose opinion.
~

_________________
~ Citizen Smoke ~
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction [that] you give it." ~ John Galt

citizensmoke · Member

mrravenblade wrote:

So back on topic:
Drugs are bad. They are illegal for a reason, and that reason is public safety. Highly addictive drugs make people do stupid, annoying, sometimes violent things to keep getting them or attempt to rationalize there use of them, so its better that they are highly illegal, and will continue to be so no matter what people in California think. The president of the united states of America - the guy a majority of people voted into the white house - agrees. That should tell you everything.

~
One more note: Marijuana is not actually addictive, although people often react with addictive behaviors when they are abusing it (or other non-addictive drugs).

More over-the-counter and prescription drugs are addictive than illegal ones. Sample of addictive drug definitions. Just, you know... regarding your "self-education" moment there.

My girlfriend takes Adderall, an addictive drug. It is regulated by the government and prescribed to her by a physician, even though it is potentially dangerous and addictive. It's precisely that danger that elicits the need for regulation. Why let something remain illegal, in the underground, causing so much harm, when it could be so much better controlled? I don't believe marijuana is actually illegal because it's "dangerous", but for more reasons than I'm willing to get into here. At this point, the biggest one is tradition/commonality of practice, logical fallacies.

And lastly, speaking of logical fallacies, appeal to popularity or authority isn't going to convince me either.

Just sayin'.
~

_________________
~ Citizen Smoke ~
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction [that] you give it." ~ John Galt

mrravenblade · Caped Crusader

citizensmoke wrote:

~
I don't think anyone has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, how I treat it or what I put into it. By the same token, I do not have the right to tell others those things either. If you attempt to dictate for me what I'm allowed to consume, you betray my rights and jeopardize your own.

I agree that I do not have the right to tell anybody what they can and can not consume; I also want to stress that nobody does. But I also have to follow the laws that say I can not approve of the use of illegal narcotics, and that I have to do my part in upholding the laws created to regulate or ban the use of them. I may not like some of the laws in existence today, but if I break them I become a criminal so I have no choice but to follow them.

citizensmoke wrote:

~
I do not like marijuana, do not enjoy its effects. That said, I believe it is the criminalization of a viable market for no legitimate purposes. The product is "harmful"? So are hundreds of thousands of products sold legally every moment of every day across the globe.

Its also addictive, and that is why it is considered harmful and thus illegal. Rose bushes are also harmful, the thorns can shred flesh and blind children, but they are not regulated or illegal because they do not harm your brain chemistry and make you act irrational. Marijuana does, and that is why its considered criminal and an illegal narcotic.

citizensmoke wrote:

~
It is the individual's responsibility to utilize those products in a proper fashion (or not at all) in order to avoid harm. If someone wishes to use chemical solvents for a temporary "high", we do not criminalize the solvent, we try to help them understand the dangers and damages they cause by doing so. If someone is an alcoholic, they are responsible to get treatment or they will damage both their physical and emotional self. Consequences.

Yes, but whose responsibility is it that the drugs are available? After all if the person is addicted to them it can be said they that no longer posses the free ill to control themselves or be able to think about the consequences, so that option/freedom really no longer applies at all. And if they can not protect themselves, is not a good and honorable thing to help protect them from themselves by helping them stay away from the toxin that created the bad brain chemistry that took away their ability to choose?? I think the laws making it illegal have helped a lot of people who otherwise would have never regained there fundamental right to freedom of choice, because the drugs simply took over.

citizensmoke wrote:

~
The criminalization of pot has made modern marijuana usage a contributing symptom the criminal behavior required to participate in large-scale drug trade. The only reason I object to people buying pot is the potential that somewhere along the line the source for it had to come from some very, very fucked up people. People who kill law enforcement officers or are prepared to. People who have over 50 guns in their homes to use if/when they are raided for running a grow-house, but who never bother to supply their children with a clean environment or even books. People who murder, people who use others, people who betray and swindle others, people who are simply villainous.

You are correct when you say that drugs finance criminal trade; In fact if you go up the food chain and get into the opiates markets, the Taliban are directly funded from Opium trade, and money from that and less drugs - like pot - where directly used to finance the groups that took part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In my mind, the drug trade supports terrorism.. and yes, I lost somebody that day too, so its deeply personal to me and I admit freely I may be biased on that. But if you do the research like I have, you will find a lot of data linking the two.

citizensmoke wrote:

Remove the illegality, you remove an estimated 60% to 80% of the illegal trade of this drug.

I respectfully disagree; The actions of people on drugs are far more criminal then you seem to believe. A large part of the thefts in this country are not because the person was starving and needed money for food, they are largely because the person had a drug habit and wants to either maintain or increase that habit and needs the money to do so. Drugs are directly linked to a large amount of crime in this country, and no I am not talking about the criminals who are criminals simply because they sell it, I'm talking about the users who do horrific things and hurt their loved ones to continue using.

I once dated a woman that I loved very much, who I did not know had a drug problem. Her addiction and the things she did to maintain it ruined everything in her life, and she was very good at hiding it until finally I found out and was forced to call it in and have the police pick her up. Turned out she was wanted on warrant anyway due to actions relating to her addiction that I never knew about, but it was still one of the hardest things I have ever had to do, because even though I knew it was better for her to get treatment then it was to allow her to continue a self destructive lifestyle, I cared for her deeply despite the fact that she had been so dishonest with me.

citizensmoke wrote:

~
You also restore the rights of individuals to consume whatever products they wish and the rights of the legitimate dealers to generate economic revenue for both themselves and their government in a perfectly legal fashion. The drug can be licensed in many levels, taxes levied, regulation put in place to maintain standards of production and classification, oversight institutions generated to monitor and regulate the proper handling and selling of the product... this is a MASSIVE market right under our noses, and the people obviously are ready to see it become legitimate and viable.

Once legalized, illegal sources would become far less desirable for many reasons, not the least of which is quality of product and possibly price. The deaths caused by the enforcement of this prohibition would plummet. Cases of abuse would rise for a brief period until social programs came to properly understand and treat the personality flaws which cause such "addictive" behavior (just as with alcohol, prescriptions, etc.).

How would all that make the fact that its harmfully addictive and changes your brain chemistry any different? It would still be just as harmful, only more so now because people would think it was safer then it really was "because its legal". I feel that is the wrong approach. I also think that if it happened, nobody who actually used it would be employed as testing for it would skyrocket. In my personal experience, its usually the people who make little or nothing of their lives or simply do not work to better themselves that use drugs anyway, but that is a different discussion.

citizensmoke wrote:

~
This is a drug which belongs in the same hands as alcohol and tobacco:

I agree. But I'm sure you would disagree with my opinion that I feel they should be treated as toxic, and regulated as such. I simply do not see any scientific reason for us to do otherwise, and nobody has even attempted to present any.

citizensmoke wrote:

~
Mr. RavenBlade, I respect your devotion and passion greatly, and I respect your right to express your opinions, I simply don't respect your treatment of my rights and disagree strongly with your position.

I am confused by this accusation that I have somehow in some way taken your rights away by voicing my own experiences and opinion here; What have I done outside of simply express my opinions and present the facts I have to support them, basically using the same rights you have? After all, Null asked our opinions, and I have done nothing but given them in the most civil tone I can muster given my personal experiences with each topic. I am very confused by your allegation that and I quote: "your treatment of my rights". Would you please elaborate?

citizensmoke wrote:

~
Thank you for reading my verbose opinion.
~

Your welcome. Thank you for reading mine.

mrravenblade · Caped Crusader

I missed this in my reply, hope you do not mind the double post as your reply did not exist when I was replying before:

citizensmoke wrote:

One more note: Marijuana is not actually addictive, although people often react with addictive behaviors when they are abusing it (or other non-addictive drugs).

Yes, it is. That is the definition of being adictive, that they react with adictive behaviors. You may not be aware of this, but I studied physcology in collage, and the study of addition os a part of the course work.

citizensmoke wrote:

More over-the-counter and prescription drugs are addictive than illegal ones. Sample of addictive drug definitions. Just, you know... regarding your "self-education" moment there.

Not true. And anybody who seeks actual medical knowledge should not be using Wikipedia as anybody who flunked 1st grade PE can edit the pages, and no university I know of that is accredited as an educational authority sees Wikipedia as a valid, stable reference due to exactly that fact. You get points for effort, of course Smile

citizensmoke wrote:

Why let something remain illegal, in the underground, causing so much harm, when it could be so much better controlled?

I would imagine its because its been found so addictive or uncontrollably toxic that the only real thing they can do is ban its use. I also think that if it had a good to it, if it could help people as I have heard so many claim, then the people who are for it would be better off financially and have more legal support and medical research backing them. But since that's not the case I can only postulate that based on the limited scientific data that I have that its negatives out weigh any possible positives. And really, I have personally seen it only do harm. Never good. So based on the empirical evidence, I have to agree with the law that makes it illegal.

citizensmoke wrote:

I don't believe marijuana is actually illegal because it's "dangerous", but for more reasons than I'm willing to get into here. At this point, the biggest one is tradition/commonality of practice, logical fallacies.

And lastly, speaking of logical fallacies, appeal to popularity or authority isn't going to convince me either.

You are the very first person to make my requests for true civil debate seriously, thank you! You have no idea how glad I am to see you link to that data. Yet you must have missed my point: I am saying based on the personal life experience that I have the data states that the laws are correct. I have seen the damage done by drugs, so to prove that it is not all bad you should be showing me the good they do right now, today, for example.

I look forward to your response.

ThisGuy · Member

Citizen Smoke...amen brother.

Despite everything MrRavenBlade says, I am informed on many things. I will claim ignorance on a few, considering he'd actually changed my perspective on one or two accounts, but basically, he is calling me a fool, which I am not fond of.

I've read my fair share of studies on the topic, and I am sorry MrRavenBlade, but Marijuana is not a physiological addiction. It is a mental addiction (if even that) because people want it and want it. But had they decided to quit, it's quite an easy task. The only problem is...most smokers simply don't want to because they don't see the harm in it.

Whilst trying to quit smoking marijuana, the body has no adverse effects. The person does not experience withdrawals, they do not develop fevers or become insanely cold. These people do not get jittery, no rapid pulse or heartbeat. Basically, they just get pissed off because there's nothing to relax them anymore.

I am sorry to say it, and continue this ridiculous argument, but you are wrong about it being a physical addiction like I initially claimed.

Also, have you ever smoked a rose bush? Much to your belief, YOU are wrong again, because smoking ANYTHING will mess with your brain chemistry. So, are you telling me now that Rose bushes SHOULD be considered illegal? No, they aren't. They are a plant...not manufactured...not laced with chemicals (aside from pesticides). They are a plant, just like marijuana...

You claim that money directly related to drugs (even the lower-level ones) were funding terrorist attacks, but how about the money directly related to drugs (even the lower-level ones) that fund the rest of the nation...or even the terrorist attacks we cause on other countries. Do you think the peons of our nation fund such events? No. And how about the drug money that some people actually DONATE to good organizations, like, Make a Wish. Money is money, and these charities don't care where it comes from. Sad to say, but some drug trade is actually helping. Do I think it needs to stop...HELL YES...but I think it's biased to say that America legalizing weed will cause more terrorist attacks. I'm not saying it won't, but it's pretty much funding EVERYTHING. That's like saying buying a cheeseburger from McDonald's is funding terrorism.

As for your claim that people are breaking into houses and robbing them relating to drug use instead of hunger or poverty...dude...I can point out hundreds of news articles proving that incorrect. Some people actually do steal for food...for money to feed or clothe or shelter their families. Am I saying it's the right approach, again, hell no...but your (again, biased) opinion is not entirely in agreement. That is, again, not saying some people don't break into houses to steal for an addiction, but how many stories can you point out where the accused states, "Man, I broke in there to get money for my weed habit, yo..."? Crack, yes, Heroin, Cocaine, yes...but I don't think I know of a single instance for pot. If you can actually point one in my direction, I will withdraw this entire paragraph.

And also, if you loved her very much, you would have stayed with her through it, trying to fix the problem. (Just my opinion from personal experience). Drugs don't get in the way of true love...it's just an obstacle. Sorry that I brought it to a personal level not relating to the thread, but that's just how I feel.

And I think I just found my Trump Card. You state that in your personal opinion, o"its usually the people who make little or nothing of their lives or simply do not work to better themselves that use drugs." Is that right? Because if I am not mistaken, in the same post, you claim, "The president of the united states of America - the guy a majority of people voted into the white house - agrees. That should tell you everything," but didn't George W. Bush smoke a little pot in his days? Or even the Governor of California himself....a Mr. Arnold Schwartzenneger. How about a few other high up there people? I can find a few if you wish to question it.

Also, just an immature and low-blow...your spelling is crap. Because is spelled Because, not becouse...physcology in collage....just a few examples. I was going to simply post an entire bunch dedicated to fixing your "Well-Educated" persona, but I figured it'd be ridiculous. By the way, don't worry about typing one back to insult mine. I'm sure I've also made plenty.

ThisGuy · Member

And actually...

ad⋅dict [n. ad-ikt; v. uh-dikt] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who is addicted to an activity, habit, or substance: a drug addict.
–verb (used with object)
2. to cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on an addictive substance, as alcohol or a narcotic.
3. to habituate or abandon (oneself) to something compulsively or obsessively: a writer addicted to the use of high-flown language; children addicted to video games.

I never claimed it wasn't addictive. I claimed it wasn't PHYSICALLY addictive.

ThisGuy · Member

Oh...and you want links, right? Proof?

http://boards.cannabis.com/activism/72501-famous-people-smoke-weed.html

Try that one. It's not a government website, but, do some further research (as I have). Nearly every name on there has been associated with marijuana usage.

And try googling "man breaks into house to steal money for weed". You won't find many. You will find a few "Man breaks into house to steal weed"...but not money, nor objects for weed.

And this one? A link stating to my "being pissed off---withdrawal" comment.
http://www.recoveryconnection.org/drug_index/marijuana.php

Marijuana Withdrawal
Individuals addicted to marijuana or those who have been abusing the drug for long periods of time may experience cravings and other marijuana withdrawal symptoms when trying to quit. Some of these marijuana withdrawal symptoms include irritability, difficulty sleeping, anxiety and an increase in any feelings of aggression. Addiction treatment is designed to assist those going through marijuana withdrawal and set them on a road to permanent recovery.

How about some benefits of Cannabis?
http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/cannabis.htm

Want more?

Read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" like I suggested in one of my first posts. There are MANY different benefits of marijuana. And hell...why not make marijuana legal? No one ORIGINALLY said it was to smoke anyway. How about removing the THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] (chemical that gets you high)? That would prove interesting, eh? Then there's a WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD opened as to why this plant should be legalized? And it's not even a big/difficult task to actually do. Removing the THC is as simple as boiling/filtering.

Here's a link to some stoner who found a way to remove most of the THC on his own...
http://www.truthtree.com/thc_extract.shtml

So, before you patronize me, how about doing a little research for yourself, and stop being so one-sided on it all. The world is full of people, billions of them, and your opinion is just like mine...just a tiny speck in a galaxy of stars.

ThisGuy · Member

And lastly, one of my favorite things to disagree with was right in your first post. You said,

"While this in the end also helps people in pain because with damaged brain cells the pain receptors that fire are not heard by the brain stem because of the impaired mental ability that follows use of the drug, that is not worth killing off peoples ability to think."

Is that right? Because I know many people personally who think better when stoned. They are straight A students (most in respectable schools). Some are doctors, lawyers. Many ADD or ADHD people smoke, because...guess what...it helps them focus on their studies or work. And you know what else...there's scientific studies that show that smoking marijuana can actually PROMOTE the growth of new brain cells [University of Saskatchewan].

http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41337

So, how about I stop typing up my future college paper here, say thank you to Citizen Smoke once more (even for the areas he might disagree with me on), and clarify my point that legalizing marijuana is a good idea.

nemo2000 · Hero

Hey Chaps,

I am not going to wade to far into this one, as I really am undecided about it as yet. However, I would just like to give you the science behind Marijuana. No, chemically, Marijuana is not addictive in anyway.

However it is proven that within certain groups of people there is a certain genetic propensity towards addiction to the additional chemicals that are produced in the brain when Marijuana is used. Also within those groups, pschological research has shown that IQ is a real defining factor of the level and speed of addiction.

So the findings now show that it would be OK for certain groups of people to use Marijuana recreationaly and not others, and since there is no way anyone will ever introduce a test and license for the use of Marijuana, it still simply comes down to legal or illegal once again.

I do not use marijuana personally, hell I can't even smoke normal cigarettes using the re-breathers I use since that could greatly endanger mine and other peoples safety.

However the only truly proven fact in the defense of legalizing marijuana I can put forward is that investigating, processing and prosecuting Marijuana related crime does waist an inordinantly large ammount of the police and courts resources and time that could be better used going after real hard core criminals.

Kindest Regards ~ NEMO

mrravenblade · Caped Crusader

ThisGuy wrote:

Citizen Smoke...amen brother.

I want to applaud Citizen Smoke for "getting it" in regards to the rules of a civil debate; He was the first one to do so outside of Zetaman.

ThisGuy wrote:

Despite everything MrRavenBlade says, I am informed on many things. I will claim ignorance on a few, considering he'd actually changed my perspective on one or two accounts, but basically, he is calling me a fool, which I am not fond of.

Despite what you may think ThisGuy, when I say you are wrong I am not insulting you in any way and I mean you no ill will. I am simply stating that you are wrong. Please, stop taking this debate personally as it is harming your case. We are discussing technical merits, not personal merits. And I never called you a fool, so please stop trying to distract the points just because you are losing in an argument.

ThisGuy wrote:

I've read my fair share of studies on the topic, and I am sorry MrRavenBlade, but Marijuana is not a physiological addiction. It is a mental addiction (if even that) because people want it and want it. But had they decided to quit, it's quite an easy task. The only problem is...most smokers simply don't want to because they don't see the harm in it.

This is not true. And you prove it your self in your next quote.

ThisGuy wrote:

Whilst trying to quit smoking marijuana, the body has no adverse effects. The person does not experience withdrawals, they do not develop fevers or become insanely cold. These people do not get jittery, no rapid pulse or heartbeat. Basically, they just get pissed off because there's nothing to relax them anymore.

Exactly, you just admitted that it is addictive, because it it was not additive they would not need marijuana to relax them. It would be easy to find other ways, but no it has to be "weed" because *that is what they are addicted to*. The physical addiction dictates the mental response. They are all from the same addiction, and the body makes them want it.

ThisGuy wrote:

I am sorry to say it, and continue this ridiculous argument, but you are wrong about it being a physical addiction like I initially claimed.

No I was not, please stop saying something is untrue if you are unable to find evidence that backs up your claim. Still don't trust me? Then trust the highly educated, highly respected, highly scientific Brown University staff: http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm

I quote:

Brown University Web Page wrote:

marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting.

So once again. I have to say it.. You are wrong.

ThisGuy wrote:

Also, have you ever smoked a rose bush?

No. I feel that would be stupid of me to do.

ThisGuy wrote:

Much to your belief, YOU are wrong again, because smoking ANYTHING will mess with your brain chemistry. So, are you telling me now that Rose bushes SHOULD be considered illegal? No, they aren't. They are a plant...not manufactured...not laced with chemicals (aside from pesticides). They are a plant, just like marijuana...

Nice try at a straw man argument, but really you are not making sense. We already settled this point a few posts back, roses are not illegal because they are not addictive or take away freedom of choice.

ThisGuy wrote:

You claim that money directly related to drugs (even the lower-level ones) were funding terrorist attacks, but how about the money directly related to drugs (even the lower-level ones) that fund the rest of the nation...or even the terrorist attacks we cause on other countries. Do you think the peons of our nation fund such events? No. And how about the drug money that some people actually DONATE to good organizations, like, Make a Wish. Money is money, and these charities don't care where it comes from. Sad to say, but some drug trade is actually helping. Do I think it needs to stop...HELL YES...but I think it's biased to say that America legalizing weed will cause more terrorist attacks. I'm not saying it won't, but it's pretty much funding EVERYTHING. That's like saying buying a cheeseburger from McDonald's is funding terrorism.

Again with the fallacious arguments and inability to back up claims with facts. If you think the government is funded with money made from illegal narcotics, you need mental help as you are clearly wrong and must be underage because if you where an adult you would know its tax dollars that make up most of the money the government operates on, although admittedly the USA also takes out loans from countries like China, invests like a bank would through treasury bonds, or simply deflates the USD by printing more money and creating debt to itself. Needless to say how the USA treasury works is a different topic. The fact is you are wrong yet again.

ThisGuy wrote:

As for your claim that people are breaking into houses and robbing them relating to drug use instead of hunger or poverty...dude...I can point out hundreds of news articles proving that incorrect. Some people actually do steal for food...for money to feed or clothe or shelter their families.

I never said that "people never steal from hunger". I said that a larger part of thefts are drug related. Get your facts straight, or at try to understand my posts before replying to them. If you do not understand them, say so and I can give you more details. I will gladly do so.

ThisGuy wrote:

Am I saying it's the right approach, again, hell no...but your (again, biased) opinion is not entirely in agreement. That is, again, not saying some people don't break into houses to steal for an addiction, but how many stories can you point out where the accused states, "Man, I broke in there to get money for my weed habit, yo..."? Crack, yes, Heroin, Cocaine, yes...but I don't think I know of a single instance for pot. If you can actually point one in my direction, I will withdraw this entire paragraph.

Then do so now and admit you are wrong yet again. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1502702,w-burglary-marijuana-elkhart033009.article

ThisGuy wrote:

And also, if you loved her very much, you would have stayed with her through it, trying to fix the problem. (Just my opinion from personal experience). Drugs don't get in the way of true love...it's just an obstacle. Sorry that I brought it to a personal level not relating to the thread, but that's just how I feel.

Its also about honesty and trust. Re-read that again, please.

ThisGuy wrote:

And I think I just found my Trump Card. You state that in your personal opinion, o"its usually the people who make little or nothing of their lives or simply do not work to better themselves that use drugs." Is that right?

Yes. In my personal experience drug users on average have lower incomes, pay less taxes that help fund education, have less education themselves, and have more legal trouble, then the average non drug user.

ThisGuy wrote:

Because if I am not mistaken, in the same post, you claim, "The president of the united states of America - the guy a majority of people voted into the white house - agrees. That should tell you everything," but didn't George W. Bush smoke a little pot in his days? Or even the Governor of California himself....a Mr. Arnold Schwartzenneger. How about a few other high up there people? I can find a few if you wish to question it.

Mr. Obama has publicly stated that he is against drugs and will not be supporting any platform or law that supports its legalization. Look it up.

If you actually look at the actual history on Mr, Bush, you will find that he never made anything of himself until he got treatment for his addiction and stopped using. Additionally, every time he lapsed, his life got worse. Think about that.

Same with the Governator.

-- Please see next post for continueation or arguments --

mrravenblade · Caped Crusader

ThisGuy wrote:

Also, just an immature and low-blow...your spelling is crap. Because is spelled Because, not becouse...physcology in collage....just a few examples. I was going to simply post an entire bunch dedicated to fixing your "Well-Educated" persona, but I figured it'd be ridiculous. By the way, don't worry about typing one back to insult mine. I'm sure I've also made plenty.

Its funny you should say that, given that I have used firefox for all of my posts and it has an integrated spelling checker. I'm not going to sink to your level and comment on your posts, however, as I understand that in the heat of the moment impassioned words often come out dyslexic.

ThisGuy wrote:

And actually...

ad⋅dict [n. ad-ikt; v. uh-dikt] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who is addicted to an activity, habit, or substance: a drug addict.
–verb (used with object)
2. to cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on an addictive substance, as alcohol or a narcotic.
3. to habituate or abandon (oneself) to something compulsively or obsessively: a writer addicted to the use of high-flown language; children addicted to video games.

I never claimed it wasn't addictive. I claimed it wasn't PHYSICALLY addictive.

Please see the above link, or one of the many others you selectively have chosen not to read. Links showing that its addictive are plentiful, your just choosing not to read or believe them.

ThisGuy wrote:

Oh...and you want links, right? Proof?

--- Link removed to respect forum rules against illegal activity ---

Try that one. It's not a government website, but, do some further research (as I have). Nearly every name on there has been associated with marijuana usage.

You want me to look at non-biased information on the subject from a site selling seeds to grow it illegally? And you think that because they list a few people who do it that makes its use OK? So if they jumped off a bridge to their deaths would you do it too? Are you kidding me?! Even linking to that site is also against the forum rules, that is why I took it out of my quote, and if any law enforcement officer - even in California - catches you growing you will land in jail fast because its illegal at the federal level.

ThisGuy wrote:

And try googling "man breaks into house to steal money for weed". You won't find many. You will find a few "Man breaks into house to steal weed"...but not money, nor objects for weed.

Same thing. Both forms of addiction; And of course when a theft happens, its not like the guy admits to extra things he can get punished for. And a fast search of google for this finds lots of drug related 'breaking and entering' offenses, so once again I question the validity of your statements.

ThisGuy wrote:

And this one? A link stating to my "being pissed off---withdrawal" comment.
http://www.recoveryconnection.org/drug_index/marijuana.php

Marijuana Withdrawal
Individuals addicted to marijuana or those who have been abusing the drug for long periods of time may experience cravings and other marijuana withdrawal symptoms when trying to quit. Some of these marijuana withdrawal symptoms include irritability, difficulty sleeping, anxiety and an increase in any feelings of aggression. Addiction treatment is designed to assist those going through marijuana withdrawal and set them on a road to permanent recovery.

Withdraw is a symptom of addiction. Once again you prove my case for me. Its addictive, and even you can not seem to help but prove that in your own arguments.

ThisGuy wrote:

How about some benefits of Cannabis?
http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/cannabis.htm

Read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" like I suggested in one of my first posts. There are MANY different benefits of marijuana. And hell...why not make marijuana legal? No one ORIGINALLY said it was to smoke anyway. How about removing the THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] (chemical that gets you high)? That would prove interesting, eh? Then there's a WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD opened as to why this plant should be legalized? And it's not even a big/difficult task to actually do. Removing the THC is as simple as boiling/filtering.

You finally do some research, good. A little secret: I knew about most of that already, and if you had actually paid attention I actually stated a while back that they should study its use more while at the same time keeping it illegal for public consumption or use in a manner that creates a hallucinogenic effect. Yet here you are fighting talking points I have already agreed to. My issue is with the psychotropic effects, not the fact you can make paper with it.

Show me one good use of the drugs in it, you cant.

ThisGuy wrote:

Here's a link to some stoner who found a way to remove most of the THC on his own...
http://www.truthtree.com/thc_extract.shtml

So, before you patronize me, how about doing a little research for yourself, and stop being so one-sided on it all. The world is full of people, billions of them, and your opinion is just like mine...just a tiny speck in a galaxy of stars.

I never patronized you, in fact you have been very insulting to me despite my good will attempts to have a civil, honest, debate. You have called me names, lied and said I called you a fool when I never did so, and other things. Yet I am still treating you with respect and taking great care to debate your points and not get involved in your insults by returning them. Think about that, please.

ThisGuy wrote:

And lastly, one of my favorite things to disagree with was right in your first post. You said,

"While this in the end also helps people in pain because with damaged brain cells the pain receptors that fire are not heard by the brain stem because of the impaired mental ability that follows use of the drug, that is not worth killing off peoples ability to think."

Is that right? Because I know many people personally who think better when stoned. They are straight A students (most in respectable schools). Some are doctors, lawyers. Many ADD or ADHD people smoke, because...guess what...it helps them focus on their studies or work.

Any doctor or lawyer who goes to work stoned and gets found out would rightfully get terminated for malpractice, and I highly doubt anybody who suffers through 8 years of high end expensive education would be as stupid as to give it all up because of drug use; And if they do they lack the good judgment reqired for the job. Oh, and only people who are stoned think they are thinking better, just ask somebody who is the sober or un-high one how stupid somebody who is stoned or drunk acts in that state, and you will get a better idea. I used to be the sober one in collage, and I have personal experience with drunks thinking they are better then they are while drunk.

ThisGuy wrote:

And you know what else...there's scientific studies that show that smoking marijuana can actually PROMOTE the growth of new brain cells [University of Saskatchewan].

http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4133

That link is not even valid, and the website says that that part of the forum is about movies and theater. That has no basis for your talking points, no actual relation to the debate at hand, and that entire website lacks any credibility as a source for non-biased data of the topic at hand. Please stop linking to data that has no actual relation to this debate, as distracting topics not involved in the discussion is just another way of you admitting that you do not know what you are talking about. You are *not* going to be able to overload me with bad data, so please stop trying.

ThisGuy wrote:

So, how about I stop typing up my future college paper here

...

ThisGuy wrote:

say thank you to Citizen Smoke once more (even for the areas he might disagree with me on), and clarify my point that legalizing marijuana is a good idea.

Please see all the points above where you helped me prove it is actually not a good idea.

**Zetaman** · Admin

I want to advise once again, let’s keep the conversation logical… passionate but respectful.
First, I want to address the difference between what is perceived as mental/physical addiction. The brain is as much as an organ as the rest of the body. I have bipolar disorder. What happens is that certain chemicals are not reaching certain relays inside my head. It is a physical disorder- a handicap. I have to take medication to ensure that the chemical imbalance in my head is restored. It is not a mental problem but a physical one. A mental disorder is something along the lines of a sex offender or someone with anorexia.
I believe Citizen Smoke is correct when he states that there are many different products out there that affect what chemicals are flowing inside your brain. Chocolate, for example, has a property that calms people down. Caffeine energizes. However, these items are not regulated. Look at energy drinks… there is a death toll, although very small compared to other items. Airplanes have air bags because an increase of Oxygen to the brain helps calm a person down. That is why it’s always good to take deep breaths when you are hurt or in shock. Basically anything you ingest or inhale will affect how your mind works.
The reasons I am not fond of the idea of Marijuana use is--
1. People not accepting that it is indeed a drug.
2. Certain advocates who promote the use of it.
3. The extreme popularity with kids.
4. The assumption that if you are into Pot, you automatically possess higher intelligence then people who do not.
I believe Marijuana is as much as a dangerous product as alcohol and cigarettes. It does affect the physical part of your brain. I think that the age restriction for pot should be 25 years old, the average age where a person’s brain stops growing. If Marijuana is to be legal, individual’s underage abusing this product needs to be consulted just like individuals who are drinking under the age of 21 or smokers under the age of 18.
I also believe that the culture that promotes the use of Marijuana should focus on the dangers of other drugs like cocaine, heroin or meth. The fact that I’ve yet to read about that 420 culture against other drugs is alarming.
I think what also alarms me is the fact that Marijuana use is accepted in poverty stricken areas, almost like it is purposely there to keep the people poor. I also notice the use of Marijuana glorified in different subcultures that surround different forms of music.
I have many relatives who have not succeeded in life and basically are abusers of other people and the common denominator has been the use of Marijuana in their lives.
I believe that my personal prejudices will not allow me totally accept the active use of Marijuana today. I believe that it was widely abused by the self indulgent Hippie counterculture. I also believe that, for the most part, the Baby Boomer generation could not see beyond their own selves to raise children correctly. Our culture now is extremely dependent on escapism. And perhaps that sense of fantasy has been a component in the RLSH subculture. But our modern-day culture promotes and thrives on addiction. Major business and the media thrive on people’s need to have things now. It has not help that a few generations ago (and yes it is a few generations, most baby boomers are approaching 60 years) our American society was promoting self and doing what feels right rather than what is right.
It also does not help or educate me in my prejudices that some young adults that I have helped or ran across on the streets talk about smoking pot and wear the paraphernalia that surrounds that culture, but yet refuse to make positive contributions to the community. I am talking about the kids that hang around all day long downtown panhandling when there are other people in true need being neglected because the city as a whole cannot distinguish between them and the truly homeless.
I guess overall I have no qualms now about the legalization of regulated Marijuana because there are many other things non-regulated products that feed addiction. I don’t like the culture and it’s not for me. But adding another addictive product will not improve our society nor will it hinder it. Taxes on the product should be used to improve other areas of our country, much like the lottery does. I believe Marijuana should be an American product, as to limit our dependency on other countries. I believe it should be sold in special shops that require identification for age. And I believe kids need to be taught the dangers of marijuana abuse as the same as alcohol or cigarettes.

the visitor · Member

O.K., This is for ravenblade and thisguy. First, just as a dsiclaimer, Im not taking sides on anything, Im just trying to add a little understanding. I think you both have vallid points and I think you are both not quite understanding what the other is saying. Ravenblade, you are not quite understanding what thisguy is saying in regaurds to being able to prove something. For example, when he gave th scenario of the wife being raped. His argument was, Im paraphrasing this, If a man and his wife have sex and later on he dumps her, she could call the police and, physicly, there would be no way to prove or disprove if she was raped or not. All the forensic evidence would be there because of the sex earlier, but she would be lying about the rape and there would be no way to prove it. At least that is what I understood it to mean. Furthermore, what I think he meant by being able to prove that a guy had a gun or not, If you are walking and hear a gunshot, and you keep walking in that direction and see a guy on the street and no one else is around, chances are he is the one with the gun but you cant prove it. Yes, a person could find the un on him or u can do forensic tests, or if you carried one you could use a metal detector. BUT, the average man wouldnt be able to prove it without breaking the law and acosting the indavidual. And for the record, not to be a dick, you are misspelling some stuff, so if you are using a spellchecker, its broken. LOL. Just wanted to tell you incase you didnt realize. Dont worry, we all do it. Im sure ive misspelled some stuff. NOW, thisguy, youve been misunderstanding ravenblade a bit as well. He isnt trying to be an arogent(see, I KNOW I misspelled that) jerk, He is simply, A: not fully understanding what you are getting at, and B: just stateing his opinion and mayby coming off a bit harsh, but only because he feels strongly about the issue. Im sure he isnt trying to be disrespectfull of you. And just for the record, the girlfreind thing was a bit personal to bring up. I will say that I side with you on the matter only because I went through the same thing with my girlfreind, the lying and the drugs, and I stayed with her and helped her through it. We are still together and that was over 3 yrs ago. If you love someone, you have to be there for them and give them some chances. HOWEVER, having said that, that is only my belief and everyones situation is different and Im sure that ravenblade made a suitable choice for his. Just trying to help you guys get along a little better. We are all on the same side here, even if we have different oppinions on how to do it we all want a better place to live and we should let that bring us together. Show some love guys.

Guest

Hrothgar · Hero

OK, just one quick point:

Yes, taxation of marijuana would create another source of income.

No, it would not cure the current financial situation.

There was an excellent discussion of this on NPR earlier this week. They asked experts from several field to project the likely course of events within two years of legalization, assuming a structure similar to that used for alcohol. I'll try to find a link. I think they posted it on their facebook site as well. The upshot of that portion of the discussion was that the savings from not prosecuting recreational users of marijuana would be at least as significant as the income from taxation, but the combined effect is still relatively small. The income figures sound large in absolute terms, but when normalized by state budget figures, federal budget, etc., it becomes clear that legalisation is not a financial panacea.