The Sinister Design Forums

There is a lot of controversy among whether or not marijuana should be illegal. I think it should be legal.

Why?

1. It is a plant, it is nature. Not something concocted by human beings.

2. The reason it was illegalized was because [cannot remember name] spread a hate campaign about it to protect his interests in the wood industry. Hemp is a very cheap source for paper.

3. It is not as addicting, nor intoxicating as both smoking and alcohol. Yet both of those are legal.

4. If the government sold and taxed weed it would be a big source of money for the government.

5. More than half of America does it, infact.. more than half of the human race has done it, or does it frequently.


So I ask you, fellow debaters, do you disagree with me on this?



FACT: I do not smoke.

Why is it that I always find myself on the opposite side of the debate from you? Possibly because we're very different people.

Point 1: So is the coca plant, hallucinogenic mushrooms, opium, alcohol, and tobacco. What's your point?

Point 2: I have nothing against the use of the Cannabis sativa plant for hemp and hemp products.

Number three is malarkey. The marijuana drug is, while not physically addictive, heavily psychologically addictive and habit-forming. Workers are completely unproductive while on the drug, while with moderated use of alcohol, workers can still continues to function, albeit not with heavy machinery. Marijuana smoking is brain-damaging, behavior-altering, judgement-impairing, and carcinogenic.

4: The US government does not sell recreational drugs. Any sales tax revenues generated go to, individually, the states. The US federal government alone has the authority legalize marijuana. Therefore, it is not in their best interests to legalize marijuana. To do so would be a violation of a signed treaty.

5: Oh, so it should be legal by popular opinion? No one I know does it. Do people you know? If so, try to encourage them to stop. Really.

1: for weed, you simply burn it. For most others listed you must do some sort of refining.

2: Could not happen without legalizing the plant entirely

3: With that logic, Im addicted to Mountain Dew. The second sentence is 'malarkey.' If they are entirely nonproductive its because of their own accord. Marijuana does nothing but raise THC levels. Those 'studies' that proved it kills brain cells... Hmm let me describe the test.

They put masks on monkeys and fed nothing but weed through it. They got no oxygen and brain cells died.
Carcinogenic? Many many things are claimed carcinogenic. If I drank soda for 4 years and got cancer they would claim soda was carcinogenic. It is not judgement impairing, it heavily relaxes you and puts you in better spirits.

4: MARIJUANA IS NOT A DRUG! It is basically the some concept as tobacco, a plant that you burn. What treaty?

5: You cannot say for fact that no one you know does it. I know TEACHERS that do it. My BROTHERS do it. My PARENTS do it. My NEIGHBORS do it.

They just wont tell you since you are so heavily against it.

Point 1: For weed, you burn or eat. For tobacco, you burn. For coca, you boil and brink. For mushrooms, you eat. For opium, you dry the juice. For alcohol, you leave fruit out, and when it smells like alcohol, you drink / eat it. Yep, that's really refined.

Point 2: Actually, cultivation, possession, consumption, and distribution of marijuana are three separate crimes. Legalize cultivation and possession with a license and you have hemp production.

Point 3: Yes, quite possibly. Are you unable to stop drinking it? Would you go into withdrawal if you stopped?

About the test: now that's the biggest load of malarkey I've heard in a long time. Test procedure:

• Take FMRI scans of test subjects' brain functions and activity.
• Subjects injest marijuana drug.
• Take FMRI scans of test subjects' brain functions and activity after drug use.
• Compare

The findings included decreased frontal lobe activity, lower activity in areas of the brain handling judgement, and higher levels of activity in areas of the brain associated with creativity. Not surprising; it's a recreational drug.

Smoke inhalation is carcinogenic and unhealthful, leading to brochial irritation, lung cancer, and throat cancer. Marijuana smoking does just that. Marijuana, eaten, is simply harmful as a psychoactive drug.

Being relaxed at the wrong times can be judgement-impairing by itself, but actually, I'm going to have to say you're incorrect on this point. Marijuana is judgement-impairing, like alcohol.

Point 4:

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PMMARIJUANA

TOBACCO

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PMIS NOT A DRUG!

Drug: a non-nutritious chemical that alters the normal functioning of bodily systems, including brain, heart, glandular and other functions. This means that tobacco, marijuana drug, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, opium and opium derivatives, and all the bad ones you hear about not listed, and all the ones your doctor might perscribe are drugs. Recreational drugs are the above, but for fun. That excludes the doctor-perscribed ones, usually, but painkillers sometimes make the list.

Yes, I can say it for a fact. I live in an area where no one does it. All I have to say about your parents doing it is no wonder you're okay with it, and they aren't being particularly good role models right there, and I'm sorry you have to live surrounded by drug-abusers.

It saddens me that such areas where marijuana use is so rampant exist, and I hope you don't end up following their example in that respect, for the good of the country, the world, society, and yourself.

Good lord you are so full of it.

1. You proved my point, then used sarcasm to call me wrong  :D

2. Believe me when I say those 'licenses' aren't going into effect anytime soon.

3. Yes, I ACTUALLY go into withdrawal. I use the caffeine as a counter to my ADHD

4. With that definition weed is not a drug. The THC that it gives you is a drug, it is not a chemical.

Don't you dare say I am influenced by my parents. I had this concept long before I knew that they did it. I came to this by my own accord and I used to be very very strongly set against it. I did a lot of research on it and as far as I am concerned if Tobacco is legal Pot should be legal.

I don't see a strong reason for forbidding the sell of the so-called "light" drugs. However, I can't agree with all that Deagonx said.

So, regarding the 1st post by Deagonx:

1. There are in the world a few poisonous plants. Should they be allowed to be sold? I don't think so.

2. I never heard anything about it. I went to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29) and I found a reference about it, but not exactly as you stated it.

3. I heard that too. Here is an illustration from the wikipedia:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg)

4. That is true. Taxes from legalized weed would be a source of income. But that can be applied to any other substance, so it can't be used as a (strong) argument in favour of legalization.

5. I would like to know if that number is accurate. Having tried a few times is different from regular consumption. Furthermore, where I live, I know (because I see it) that lots of under-aged kids drink alcoholic beverages and smoke. Should this be used as an argument to legalize alcohol and tobacco to people of any age? Again, I don't think so.

And the final line of your post don't have to be on a large sized font.



Duckling, a few things aren't true in your point #3 of your 1st post, at least according to what is written on the wikipedia. The figure above contradicts what you said. And the carcinogenic allegations aren't proved.

And about point 4, Treaties can be changed. The 2 main reasons to change a treaty are: monetary profit and getting more votes.


My parents don't smoke marijuana (and they told me they never did it). And still I'm in favour of legalizing. I'll state my points below.



So, here are my points:

1. Prohibiting a substance don't stop it's consumption.
2. Legal substances can be taxed and in return, a country controls the quality of the substance (and have some revenue).
3. Fluctuations in the quality and the addition of other products just to increase the weight increase the risk of health problems.
4. Drug traffic is a very profitable activity for a limited number of people at the expense of drug addicts. Furthermore, it increases criminality: fight for control of a zone (by the dealers) and robbery to get money (by the addicts).

So, thinking in terms of public health and crime rates, legalization is the reasonable option to make.

@deagonx

Tobacco? Mushrooms? Alcohol? (About the fruit; you can just go looking for fermented fruit, and immediately eat) Coffee beans (they can be ingested directly)? Cocao? Opium? (You just have to drink the latex of the fruit if you don't want to go to the trouble of drying it out).
If you count making tea as "some sort of refining", (which, technically, it is) then yes, coca must be refined. For weed, you burn or eat.

I tell you that few to no drugs actually require refinement, and you say I've proved your point.

Second: True. But they could.

Third: If you use it as a medical treatement, it's not an addiction. But I must remark that soda is not a treatment for ADHD and would only make distraction and attention deficit worse.

Fourth:

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 06:34:57 PM
Good lord you are so full of it.

...
4. With that definition weed is not a drug. The THC that it gives you is a drug, it is not a chemical.

Any substance containing a drug is a drug.

And finally, there is not a single person on the Earth that is not influenced by their parents. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you when you insist that you were not influenced by them in this regard. One question: did you form your new opinion after, or before you found out? Research is just that; it is what you search. If you search for an answer, the answer you seek you will find.

With that I may cease arguing a pointless debate. Your mind will not be changed. My mind will not be changed. But if you say some things that are simply not true, I may have to kindly correct you.

@ert: I haven't gotten around to making my points about what you've said yet. Hold on.

Other than the third one you generally just called me wrong/stated opinions.


Third: The caffeine counteracts my ADHD. Don't try to tell me otherwise. I drank a BFC and I was like a turtle on heroine.

@ert: May I double-post? I'd like to respond to your post, but I can't effectively get a point across when the text fills up my box by too much, because of a glitch with the post box.

1: Which figure? I can't figure out what you're referring to.

Carcinogenic? Not quite proven, but smoke inhalation in general is linked to cancer.

2: Yes, but these are the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, both of which are UN based, and items are put on or taken off the list of controlled substances at the WHO's discretion; it's not very negotiable. The United States does have the sovereign right to withdraw from the treaty, but it wouldn't look very good, and Reid v. Covert would jump on the federal government in a second if we tried to withdraw from the entire treaty, but made some of the drugs illegal again.

And to address your points:

1: Yes, but it can slow it down. If many are smoking now, think of how many will be smoking if we legalize. (And yes, I'm sure you have a very good response to this; I vaguely remember it being a trap argument when I last debated it. All I can hope for is that you either don't have that in mind, or that it's not undefeatable as an argument)

2: If we officially condone the use of marijuana, we look bad, and we will have legalized a harmful drug for money. There are better ways to generate revenue. Like raising taxes.

3: I don't understand that last bit. Smoking has been linked to obesity; is that what you mean when you say "to increase the weight increase the risk of health problems."?

4: The reason that marijuana usage is so common is that despite its illegality, the rist compared to the high one recieves isn't significant enough. It is my belief that marijuana-related sentences should be lengthed, fines increased, and misdemeanor offenses related to marijuana should be upgraded to felonies. Sure, we can't get rid of smoking or drinking yet, but those are incredibly well-ingrained in our culture. We should try to stamp out marijuana when we still can.

2: Except.. its not harmful  :D

3: I don't know any fat people, even slightly overweight people who smoke. Most of them are very very skinny.

4: You will never, and I mean never, stop people from smoking. According to some people I know the feeling of being high is practically therapeutic.

If we increase the punishments the drug market will get that much more violent. That is the last thing we want.

Except... it is harmful. LOL! PEOPLE DYING! Hahaha!

3: That was to Ert.

4: It's not meant to stop all. It's meant to stop some. Some people aren't constant abusers, but are trying the drug once. If we stop them, that's half the prospective market.

Also, if we can't stop people, we can try to keep them from starting. Being jailed for ten years on your first try of a drug is rather discouraging, eh?

Yes, a fictional statement saying people are dying is quite funny isn't it?

4: Jails will be overflowing.

I'm not going to get into a big whole debate here. Just my opinions. I personally feel that anything of that nature that's used simply to be used is to be avoided. In other words, for reasons of my own, I don't think that Marijuana should be legalized. Just my opinion.

Aw, Buggy and I agree on something. How awesome! *gives Bug a hug and doesn't care if Bug doesn't want a hug*

Now, I'm wondering if that opinion is at all influenced by your religion. Not that it matters either way, but the way you phrased it... well, anyway, that's one less marijuana drug-abuser out there!

155,000,000 or more people to go!

You can't abuse marijuana LOL!


Anyways, in terms of religion....


God made the cannabis plant. Therefore, isn't it alright?

Ducks: Slightly. But not much. I've just seen people at school whom I'm sure use it regularly. And I really don't want to end up like them.

DeagonX: *sigh and disappointed head shake*

Well its true :P


I bet the Garden of Eve is made of marijuana.

Duckling, you ended up not double posting! (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=889.msg35710#msg35710) But if you did it wouldn't be a problem since you were giving 2 lengthy replies to 2 different people.

Going point by point.

1. I meant the figure physical arm vs dependence. According to that figure, cannabis causes both less physical harm and less dependency than tobacco and alcohol.
And remember that smoking marijuana isn't the only way of consuming it. So, the cancer comes from smoking something (be it tobacco or marijuana).

2. A treaty is an agreement between countries. In this case, based on medical facts and politics (as any treaty). So, the substances included on that treaty can be changed by the WHO (again based on medical facts and politics). Any country can lobby for one substance to be included or removed.

And regarding my points. It's true that the overall consumption is reduced when prohibition is in place. However, high consumptions exist with or without prohibition.
See the wikipedia on the US Prohinition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States). And the thing is: the dependency is what causes the most health problems, and prohibiting will not avoid it. Furthermore, prohibition brings a new problem: increased crime. And you can't avoid this one: if it's forbidden, the price is high; and if the price is high, it's more worthy to take the risk.

2. If your point was about recreational drugs, then both alcohol and tobacco should have the same treatment. Anyway, the taxes can be justified by the costs associated to guaranteeing the quality of the substance and to the treatment of the health problems associated with consumption. I mentioned the revenue as a less significant benefit.

Furthermore, by taxing marijuana, the ones who pay are the ones who can be a burden in the future to the state. Unlike now, that all of us pay taxes and a part of it is spent in the fight against drug dealers.

3. I didn't explain myself very well (I wasn't talking about obesity at all). I meant that drug sold on the streets has a large fluctuations in the quality. And the dealers add other products to the drug just to increase the weight of the package sold. The fluctuations in the quality and the products added increase the risk of health problems.

4. I disagree. If the sentences aren't proportional to the offence (or the risk to the society) then the laws will transmit the wrong impression. Uninformed people may think that substances with similar sentences are more or less the same thing and try any of those.
And forget getting rid of marijuana or any other drug, by the way. "Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found in the 3rd millennium B.C" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29) It's around for 5000 years, so I do think it's ingrained in the human culture.

So, I still think that consumers will be able to have a better health if marijuana is legalized. It doesn't mean that it could be sold in any store. One way of doing it was selling (or even offering in some specific cases) marijuana in specific places. The quality would be controlled and the side effects too. And the crime related to the illegal commerce of marijuana would drop.

Quote from: meNumber three is malarkey. The marijuana drug is, while not physically addictive, heavily psychologically addictive and habit-forming. Workers are completely unproductive while on the drug, while with moderated use of alcohol, workers can still continues to function, albeit not with heavy machinery. Marijuana smoking is brain-damaging, behavior-altering, judgement-impairing, and carcinogenic.

Oh. I don't quite see the chart as contradicting what I said.

In my comparison of marijuana to alcohol, I was speaking of the immediate behavioral effects. The chart, as I see it, doesn't compare bahavioral effects. Also, the chart's only a rough guide, seeing as there're different types of effects, and the effects might be judged to be harmful differently. For an absurd example, suppose there's a drug that causes people to go on a murdering rampage. It isn't directly harmful to the durg user as such, but causes people to hurt the drug user in self-defense, causes emotional harm later, and may cause the drug user to commit suicide after they realize what they've done. Depending on how you gauge harm to the user, this drug might rank at zero or at through-the-roof.

Acknowledged, the US can lobby, but it might be hard to change the WHO's mind on this decision.

About recreational drugs, I think they should all be stamped out, possibly including alcohol (moderate use, I'm not sure about), and especially tobacco. Even if they can't.

And now, I give up. If we can't get rid of drug use, what's the point? The only thing I can think of that might solve the problem of drug use is to try to tell people what it does to them, and that didn't work with tobacco. Everything I can think of has already been tried, and discredited by the drug industry as mere propaganda, or just ignored. "Your Brain On Drugs", lung cancer pictures, first hand accounts from people that have to have the vibrating devices to make sound in their throats and vocalize... none of it works.

Last thing, as a hypothetical: What if we could create a vaccine that destroyed certain drug chemicals before they reached the brain? That way, people could prevent their children from getting addicted to drugs at an early age, and as adults, they could choose to continue taking the drug-destroyer. Hm...

I agree that the degree of damage (and addiction) is subjective. Nevertheless, the picture I posted is from a paper in the Lancet, one of the best scientific journals. I didn't read the original paper, so I can't really tell how they estimated the values.

I also think that it's not likely that marijuana is removed by the WHO from the list of substances.

I agree that there is no need for the use of recreational drugs by anyone.

Education certainly plays a role in reducing the number of people that tries drugs. But that alone isn't a solution to the problem. In fact, I don't see any good solution to the drug problem. In my opinion, some attitudes (on the individual level and on the government level) can reduce the problem but not eliminate it. And the actions that reduce crime (for instance, drug legalization) would increase the number of small consumers. So, this would be a really hard balance to attain.

The problem with a vaccine is the following: drugs contain either molecules that our brain produce or molecules similar to the ones produced by our brain. So, a vaccine would be very hard to make in either case.

About Lancet and your point thereabout: acknowledged, understood, and agreed.

Your fourth point: Quite so. I think we agree that it is a problem, but just not on how to deal with the problem. On second thought, excessive jail terms isn't actually a rational solution to the problem, but the idea stands that if there were a very serious deterrent (but if the deterrent didn't apply to a greater extent to drugs that were more damaging and addictive, the public might get the wrong impression) to doing drugs, perhaps less people would abuse / use drugs.

True. Which is why it remains so sadly a hypothetical.

Oh, I already stated a simple resolution: Legalize it, its not harmful, not intoxication, it doesnt cause cancer, it doesnt make you lazy, it doesnt kill brain cells THC actually increases production of which.


So why not?

Oh wait... people are ignorant and think its this horrible horrible thing because the media portrays it that way.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 04:14:16 PM1. It is a plant, it is nature. Not something concocted by human beings.

My aunt was hospitalized due to her using "natural" remedies.  Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it is healthy.  I perfer the thinks "concocted by human beings", because they are approved by the FDA.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 04:14:16 PM2. The reason it was illegalized was because [cannot remember name] spread a hate campaign about it to protect his interests in the wood industry. Hemp is a very cheap source for paper.

Every pot head is quick to point out that early 20th century businessmen in the paper industry were against pot.  unfortunately, every pothead that knew that part of history didn't know anything else about history.  If they had any understanding of history, then they would realize there hardly every just one cause for anything.  Can you honestly tell me that the only reason that society continues to pass new anti-drug laws is to protect the timber industry?

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 04:14:16 PM3. It is not as addicting, nor intoxicating as both smoking and alcohol. Yet both of those are legal.

People always point out that pot isn't physically addictive.  Well alcohol isn't physically addictive either, so why are there so many alcoholics?  That is because drugs can also be mentally addictive.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 04:14:16 PM4. If the government sold and taxed weed it would be a big source of money for the government.

We should also make cigarettes legal for minors, so we bring in more government taxes.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 04:14:16 PM5. More than half of America does it, infact.. more than half of the human race has done it, or does it frequently.

I bet almost everyone has stolen something once and has hit someone once.  Should theft and violence be legal too?

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PM4: MARIJUANA IS NOT A DRUG! It is basically the some concept as tobacco, a plant that you burn.

Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs because they effect your nervous system.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PMThose 'studies' that proved it kills brain cells... Hmm let me describe the test.

They put masks on monkeys and fed nothing but weed through it. They got no oxygen and brain cells died.
Carcinogenic? Many many things are claimed carcinogenic. If I drank soda for 4 years and got cancer they would claim soda was carcinogenic. It is not judgement impairing, it heavily relaxes you and puts you in better spirits.

Where you high when you were making up this crap?  You can't make baseless accusations, because you don't like the results.  Yes, diet soda will cause you cancer if you drink about two liters of it every day.  If you actually look at the studies that Duckling is refering to, then you will notice they weren't giving extreme amounts of THC to the monkeys like they were to the mice in the diet soda experiment.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PM5: You cannot say for fact that no one you know does it. I know TEACHERS that do it. My BROTHERS do it. My PARENTS do it. My NEIGHBORS do it.

We now know who is funding the Mexican Drug War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War).  I hope your teachers, brothers, parents, and neighbors need to get high is worth the death of thousands of people.  People think that buying marijuana is a victimless crime, but the money they spend on drugs does into the hands of murders who will use that money to buy weapons.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 08:57:44 PMGod made the cannabis plant. Therefore, isn't it alright?

God also made poison oak, but I wouldn't smoke that either.

im2smart4u, hate to contradict you, especially on one of the few issues on which we agree, but alcohol is physically addictive; that is, it causes physical dependence, where one builds up a tolerance and there are withdrawal symptoms. Other than that, I agree with all that you've said thus far.

EDIT: This just in!

Quote from: deagonx, in a personal message trying to shut me up about the carcinogenic effects of smoke inhalationJust wanna get this straight with you, and I sincerely hope that I dont come off as hostile or rude.

Marijuana is not carcinogenic. Infact, they give patients with pancreatic cancer weed to smoke to help the cancer. Marijuana is also proven to improve asthma. Its more of a medical drug than anything.
So please, refrain from that in your arguments.

Just wanna get this straight with you, and I sincerely hope that I don't come off as (too) hostile or rude.

Marijuana is very possibly carcinogenic, as is most smoke inhalation. The only combustion reaction in which you can safely imbibe the by-products is the burning of hydrogen. In fact (two words), I'd like to know who gives patients weed, because possession of, and distribution of, and possibly perscription as a medicine of (I'm not sure about that one) Schedule I restricted substances is illegal. If you can give me a name, I'll be sure to report this incident of malpractice to the State Board of Medicine.

You could be confusing the marijuana drug with tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the only cannabinide approved of by the FDA for medical use. It's sold as Marinol, and can be useful as a painkiller. Doctors give this to patients who are dying of pancreatic cancer so they aren't in as much pain. All other cannabinides are Schedule I restricted substances, while Marinol is Schedule III.

Marijuana is also proven to get people that have asthma, but attempt to smoke the marijuana plant anyway, rushed to the hospital, severly injured, oxygen-deprived, dying, or dead, because the smoke is an irritant and only serves to inflame the throat and chest, as well as closing off the airways and bronchial tubes.

It's more of a recreational, long-term killer drug than anything.

So please, refrain from preaching the value of medicinal marijuana in the Marijuana thread, and I won't refute your claims.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 08:57:44 PM
You can't abuse marijuana LOL!

I know kids who have died from the smoke... not the weed, but the smoke itself can kill. Although its worth pointing out that they were not smoking safetly, but still. Its dangerous.

Honestly, I know tons of people who smoke, and from my experience- not one of them is anybody. They all have no ambition in anything, and some of the ones I knew before they did pot were different. Its not a direct, instant change... you don't smoke and loose 30 points of your IQ. However, its long term effects are notable, and with every case I have seen, they are bad. People smoke due to the age-old human problem of putting short-term happiness as a top priority.

Also, there's almost no use in comparing drugs severity though, the thing is, they are all still bad.

But I think we can all agree that heroin is worse for you than marijuana drug... right?

Right along with alcohol and tobacco, yet they are both legal.

Yes, but they shouldn't be. On the other hand, no, because heroin is much more addicting and harmful than either of the two.

I was speaking about Marijuana O_o

im2smart4u: would you like to address my points?

@deagonx:

And then you mentioned how alcohol and tobacco were also both more harmful and addictive (which I'm still not convinced about) than marijuana in response to my comment about how heroin was, at which point I compared the two sets of drugs compared with marijuana, one including tobacco and alcohol, and one including heroin. I said that heroin was more damaging and addictive than either of those, so it's not fair to so closely indirectly compare them as you did.

Are we clear?

No I have no idea what you are rambling about.

No. I'm not actually rambling, nor was I at any point. Y'see, I was explaining in simple terms exactly what had happened in the discussion, because you had wondered what I was talking about, and at the second occurrence of this (i.e., last post), I decided I was just going to assume you had had two heart attacks, a bout of short term memory loss, and an anuerism, because the subject matter of my monologue was, in fact, entirely understandable, and for clarification, you could have checked previous posts.

Y'see, I said,

Quote from: Demon Duck on April 21, 2011, 03:48:43 PM
But I think we can all agree that heroin is worse for you than marijuana drug... right?

But you said,

Quote from: Deagonx on April 21, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
Right along with alcohol and tobacco, yet they are both legal.

and I responded,

Quote from: Demon Duck on April 21, 2011, 07:55:26 PM
Yes, but they shouldn't be. On the other hand, no, because heroin is much more addicting and harmful than either of the two.

and that's where you got confused. So basically what was said, in simpler terms, was,

"Tobacco, alcohol, and heroin are all more addictive and more harmful than marijuana, but heroin is even more harmful and addicting than all of them."

Understand now?

What I was saying, was that Alcohol and Tobacco are both worse than marijuana, so is heroin. But alcohol and tobacco is legal.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 21, 2011, 09:57:51 PM
But alcohol and tobacco is legal.

So then why shouldn't marijuana be legal (Note: I don't support it as I do believe it is dangerous to a certain extent, but still, alcohol and tobacco are deadly)?

That is what I am saying.

Marijuana is not a gateway drug, beer is a gateway drug.

You hear about drunk drivers killing people, not about high drivers killing people.


Obviously, no one is ever going to stand for the banning of beer. Why not let people use a more minor 'drug' especially since it really isn't hurting anyone. And if it IS hurting themselves is it not their right to do it?


Can I no longer eat McDonalds because of how greasy it is?
Should I not use my computer as it hurts my eyes?

Maybe its 'unhealthy' but I still enjoy those things. Why not let people enjoy weed?

You don't hear about high drivers killing people because marijuana is illegal, and monitoring is strict, whereas consumption of alcohol cannot be monitored. However, marijuana-high drivers have a higher fatal-accident rate.

And about gateway drug; most people who are drunkards are fine staying drunkards, but when marijuana's quality starts fluctuating on the streets, people start switching to other drugs.

OI! I stand for the banning of beer! That's one!

About your last set of questions, the answer is this: the examples you provided don't hurt other people. They only hurt you.

Alcohol has a long history of moderation and control. Tobacco has few behavioral effects. Marijuana users, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to smoke pot responsibly, if such a thing is possible. Even if they are, their consumption of the drug funds the Mexican Drug War. Alcohol funds vineyards in Italy, and tobacco funds farmers in the country. Nice, that marijuana drug is.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 21, 2011, 10:04:17 PM
You hear about drunk drivers killing people, not about high drivers killing people.

Probably because people generally get high somewhere safe, where they cannot be found, and, usually, cannot harm themselves or others there, places like their homes, for example.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 21, 2011, 10:04:17 PM
Obviously, no one is ever going to stand for the banning of beer. Why not let people use a more minor 'drug' especially since it really isn't hurting anyone. And if it IS hurting themselves is it not their right to do it?

I don't stand for banning it, but restricting it is a good idea. Now, not many people will stand for this because it is easier to get high than drunk, meaning it will take a few beers to get you drunk, but a few minutes with weed could get you high, sometimes giving hallucinations, I've heard.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 21, 2011, 10:04:17 PM
Can I no longer eat McDonalds because of how greasy it is?
Should I not use my computer as it hurts my eyes?

Maybe its 'unhealthy' but I still enjoy those things. Why not let people enjoy weed?

Faulty comparison alert! Yes, McDonalds is unhealthy, but it is open to... pretty much the entire world (With the exceptions of poor countries and some others), and marijuana isn't just "unhealthy," it can prove dangerous.

However, McDonalds could be dangerous as well, and should be enjoyed in moderation, just like tobacco and alcohol, which is up to the consumers, and the same may apply to marijuana, being less dangerous than hardcore drugs, such as cocaine and LSD.

Conclusion: While I see no real reason that marijuana should be banned, I will say that I agree with the ban simply because I have no good reason to say that there shouldn't be.

Ehmm... no, Kids can get marijuana much easier than they can get beer. If I asked my brother, he wouldnt know where to get beer. He drinks it when he gets it though.

Should I ask him about weed? Well he has a phone full of contacts for that.


Most people who smoke weed have not done other drugs. Because the effect never changes. It raises your THC and you dont just get a resistance to a natural drug.


Yes, but should it be legal it could contribute to America.
Your argument only applies because of its illegality. Yet, should it be legal, since that is what I am here to argue, that isn't quite as valid a point.

Its a drug war because its illegal, and I sincerely think it shouldnt be.

Duskling, I think marijuana should be banned because its consumption can be dangerous in any quantity, as is any smoke inhalation, and just as people should not be allowed to do harm to themselves.

Somebody using drugs might:

•lose interest in school
•change friends (to hang out with kids who use drugs)
•become moody, negative, cranky, or worried all the time
•ask to be left alone a lot
•have trouble concentrating
•sleep a lot (maybe even in class)
•get in fights
•have red or puffy eyes
•lose or gain weight
•cough a lot
•have a runny nose all of the time

I don't honestly like these symptoms much.

Well the last 4 are confusing but...


The rest of those sounds like being a teenager.

I guess weed induces teenager-ism?

Quote from: Deagonx on April 21, 2011, 10:40:07 PM
I guess weed induces teenager-ism?

That's because the stereotypical teenager uses/consumes drugs.

Other than that, though, real teenagers are pretty much like normal kids, but, I have to give Deagonx credit, a lot of them are like your description, Demon Duck.

True, but the point is that drugs can induce these if they weren't already present, and cause more if there already were some.

So, what you just said... well honestly you could have worded that much better.


You think smoking increases all those things? If anything it reduces it! My brother is in much better of a mood when he is smoking.


My mom doesnt yell at me when she smokes.

They arent distant addicts, they just do it casually.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on April 21, 2011, 10:49:26 PM
So, what you just said... well honestly you could have worded that much better.


You think smoking increases all those things? If anything it reduces it! My brother is in much better of a mood when he is smoking.


My mom doesnt yell at me when she smokes.

They arent distant addicts, they just do it casually.

Thats called dependance. Also, those are temporary effects. After having smoked often, thats what they need to be happy.

Precisely. When they are smoking, these things may not be the case. But when not at a high, these things tend to happen.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on April 21, 2011, 10:49:26 PMYou think smoking increases all those things? If anything it reduces it! My brother is in much better of a mood when he is smoking.


My mom doesnt yell at me when she smokes.

They arent distant addicts, they just do it casually.

Quote from: im2smart4u on April 20, 2011, 11:50:41 PMWe now know who is funding the Mexican Drug War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War).  I hope your teachers, brothers, parents, and neighbors need to get high is worth the death of thousands of people.  People think that buying marijuana is a victimless crime, but the money they spend on drugs does into the hands of murders who will use that money to buy weapons.

Its legal in california im2smart4u. Is it still funding this "Mexican Drug War?"

But it's not legal in California, because California is within the United States, which has made the drug illegal.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 02, 2011, 05:46:36 PMIts legal in california im2smart4u. Is it still funding this "Mexican Drug War?"

A) Pot is still illegal in California.  Marijuana possession has been decriminalized at a state level, while growing it and selling it is still illegal.  Plus, it is still illegal at a federal level which supersedes state laws.
B)Most marijuana is not grown in the US legally.  Most marijuana purchases put money into the hands of violent criminals in the US and Mexico.
C)Marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to more purchases of methamphetamine and cocaine from Mexico.
D)You and your parents are horrible people who find their need to get high to be more important then the lives of innocent civilians.

Wait -- does he or doesn't he smoke? I think he's stated that he doesn't. But he also could have said that he did at some point.

I don't.

Im2smart4u: And if, say, the pot that my friends have obtained they grew themselves. Or were grown in the US. Are they still harming other innocent civilians?


And no, pot is not a gateway drug. Alcohol is a gateway drug.

Pot doesn't harm innocent civilians. It corrupts innocent civilians, and causes them to be guilty civilians, and then hurts them.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 02, 2011, 11:47:16 PM
And no, pot is not a gateway drug. Alcohol is a gateway drug.

I'd like to see a source on that.
[spoiler]Thats the polite way of saying I think thats a totally false BS fact[/spoiler]

Quote from: MikeW781 on July 03, 2011, 09:45:36 AM

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 02, 2011, 11:47:16 PM
And no, pot is not a gateway drug. Alcohol is a gateway drug.

I'd like to see a source on that.

Experience is the best teacher.

I'd rather not get led into crack addiction by marijuana smoke or imbibing alcohol. Instead, I can point out that nearly all upper-class adults drink occasionally, and nearly no upper class adults end up with crack addiction.

Just about all middle class adults drink, and crack addiction remains a problem largely focused on the lower class.
Thus, I insist that hard drugs are prevalent in the lower class because of poor public education standards and low property taxes, and all the pressures and influences that come with those, and not alcohol. However, the lower (and middle) class is most likely to consume strong alcohol regularly, resulting in an apparent correlation. However, the two are both caused by the same things: poverty.

According to National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, "Among 12-to 17-year-olds with no other problem behaviors, those who used marijuana in the past month are almost 17 times likelier to use another drug like cocaine, heroin, or LSD. These correlations are stronger for boys than girls: for boys, 29 times likelier; for girls, 11 times likelier."

Of cource we should believe GameCrazyKid's experience in not ;) smoking pot that people who tried marijuana won't be more likely to try a more dangerous substance in an attempt to reach a greater high, then one who has never experienced a drug induced high.

What does that statistic mean?

Are you saying that 12- to 17-year-olds who used marijuana drug within the time frame of June 4, 2011 to July 4, 2011 are almost 17 times more likely to use another, stronger, drug like cocaine, heroin, or LSD at some point later in their lives than those who did not?

Are you saying that 12- to 17-year-olds who use marijuana drug more than once a month are 17 times more likely [...] within a year from now?

Are you suggesting that 12-year-olds are 17 times more likely to use a strong drug like cocaine, heroin, or LSD if they use marijuana drug at least once a month than are 17-year-olds, each having no other problematic behaviors?

Precise wording in your statistic would help immensely; I cannot support your point with my own information if I don't understand yours.

Quote from: SmartyPants on July 04, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
According to National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, "Among 12-to 17-year-olds with no other problem behaviors, those who used marijuana in the past month are almost 17 times likelier to use another drug like cocaine, heroin, or LSD. These correlations are stronger for boys than girls: for boys, 29 times likelier; for girls, 11 times likelier."

Of cource we should believe GameCrazyKid's experience in not ;) smoking pot that people who tried marijuana won't be more likely to try a more dangerous substance in an attempt to reach a greater high, then one who has never experienced a drug induced high.

I find myself questioning how they go about obtaining this information.


Regardless, citations?

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 04, 2011, 04:40:22 PMI find myself questioning how they go about obtaining this information.

Documented surveys and studies that are judged by their peers in the scientific community.

I see you missed the second sentence....

He probably ignored it.

Let's try the opposite proposition for a moment: using a psychologically addictive drug makes one less likely to use other addictive drugs? Once the brain is wired to crave a high, the type of high doesn't matter, as long as it's intense.

Quote from: Duckling' on July 04, 2011, 10:47:40 PM
He probably ignored it.

Let's try the opposite proposition for a moment: using a psychologically addictive drug makes one less likely to use other addictive drugs? Once the brain is wired to crave a high, the type of high doesn't matter, as long as it's intense.

Don't speak from experience, if you have none.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 05, 2011, 01:12:36 AM

Quote from: Duckling' on July 04, 2011, 10:47:40 PMLet's try the opposite proposition for a moment: using a psychologically addictive drug makes one less likely to use other addictive drugs? Once the brain is wired to crave a high, the type of high doesn't matter, as long as it's intense.

Don't speak from experience, if you have none.

I never experienced a severe burn, but I know not to put my arm into a fire.  Plus, does the last statement mean you finally admit that you have "experience" with marijuana?

I speak from experience, but not with marijuana, or any other controlled subtance, or anything illegal. Happy? Don't get too curious.

I speak from knowledge of marijuana drug, and having read many papers on the effects thereof;

I insist that you don't put commas where they don't belong;

and I speak with reason, my preceding post only outlining a basic, logical summation of the viewpoint you express, worded to emphasize its underlying absurdity, as recieved by me. Perhaps you had better write more eloquently, more correctly, and with more factual data or scientifically accepted common knowledge to support your point.

Quote from: Duckling' on July 05, 2011, 10:59:54 PM
I speak from experience, but not with marijuana, or any other controlled subtance, or anything illegal. Happy? Don't get too curious.

I speak from knowledge of marijuana drug, and having read many papers on the effects thereof;

I insist that you don't put commas where they don't belong;

and I speak with reason, my preceding post only outlining a basic, logical summation of the viewpoint you express, worded to emphasize its underlying absurdity, as recieved by me. Perhaps you had better write more eloquently, more correctly, and with more factual data or scientifically accepted common knowledge to support your point.

Marijuana IS a proven gateway drug. While taking marijuana itself may have a gateway effect, this is hotly debated and neither side has produced conclusive evidence. From personally observed data and common sense, I personally think marijuana does make you more likely do harder drugs from just the act of smoking it, as it does make people enjoy and appreciate the high, which can lead to harder drugs.

More importantly, the environment and life choices of somebody already taking illegal drugs increases their likelihood to abuse stronger drugs in the future. This has been proven by many studies, and is essentially undeniable.

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2003/218/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Gateway_drug_theory
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00280.x/abstract
http://web.archive.org/web/20080622204803/http://www.mpp.org/about/faq.html

These sources back up my points, i.e., that pot itself may be a gateway drug, and that the legal status and environment in acquiring pot make it definitely a gateway drug.


There you have it. Pot is a gateway drug, one way or another. It leads to harder drug use.

I hope this post will return the thread to a discussion on the facts, rather than small details and incorrect grammar from several users. While these issues are present, they should be ignored and the greater issue should be the focus of discussion.

Kudos to Mike, for actually bringing in citations, but these studies are just as valid as ones I could fine saying the exact opposite. Such as....

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/ - From the university of pittsburgh medical center
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/may/28/research_proves_marijuana_not_ga
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html


Now, honestly what I suspect "SmartyPants" to do is call my sources out on unreliable. And, until he can give me any information that is in favor of that, I just plain don't want to hear it.

Not only is it very rare for one to want to move on from marijuana to something stronger (because, quite frankly, you dont build up a resistance to the effect). It is even more unheard of for one to actually OBTAIN said things.

The strongest my brother has ever done is shrooms, and he had to contact someone 3 cities away to get that.


In conclusion: Marijuana very rarely ever leads to stronger drugs.

I checked at the UPMC site, and I found no such article. However, I did find many articles about a range of topics, including schizophrenia being activated by marijuana use, marijuana causing infertility in men, marijuana harming babies in womb and once born, and an article on drug withdrawal, listing loss of appetite, chills, weight loss, insomnia, sleeping too much, irritability, and nervous tension as some of marijuana's withdrawal symptoms.

Your second and third sites are grossly biased as a source.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 06, 2011, 11:02:23 PMhttp://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/ - From the university of pittsburgh medical center
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/may/28/research_proves_marijuana_not_ga
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html

Now, honestly what I suspect "SmartyPants" to do is call my sources out on unreliable.

You would be right.  The first website is a ".com", so it can't be trusted.  The next two websites are clearly biased, so they can't be trusted either.  It is like you citing the McDonalds website to prove fast food is healthy.

Well, actually, the .com site is generally reliable, as it has no bias in the matter. It just happens to have cited an article that didn't come from UPMC. The article itself is bull.

Quote from: Duckling' on July 07, 2011, 12:41:52 AM
Well, actually, the .com site is generally reliable, as it has no bias in the matter. It just happens to have cited an article that didn't come from UPMC. The article itself is bull.

The article was not written by UPMC. If you actually took the time to read it you might have understood that the article was based on a STUDY that was performed by the UPMC.


Im2Smart4U

Of the 4 links presenting marijuana is a gateway drug, one is a .com leading to a book about addiction, one is wikipedia, one didn't even identify marijuana as a gateway drug, rather it just stated that it MIGHT be a gateway drug. and the fourth one supported my case.

Here is what the fourth one said

"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs … There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect … Instead, the legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug."

The legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug. Legalize it, and that no longer applies.

Thank you Mike, for presenting more reason to legalize pot.

I found no trace of the study either. I merely assumed, based on the fact that the article was somewhat well-written, that it a medical article.

As I said, .coms can be reliable, if they're authoritative and factually based. Wikipedia cites many sources, and is contantly combed over by moderators in search of uncited information.

Regarding the main case of whether to legalize marijuana drug or not, I insist that the health detrements alone are reason enough to keep it criminal.

Quote from: Duckling′ on July 07, 2011, 03:21:42 PM
Regarding the main case of whether to legalize marijuana drug or not, I insist that the health detrements alone are reason enough to keep it criminal.

WHAT health detriments.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 06, 2011, 11:02:23 PM
Kudos to Mike, for actually bringing in citations, but these studies are just as valid as ones I could fine saying the exact opposite. Such as....

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/ - From the university of pittsburgh medical center
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/may/28/research_proves_marijuana_not_ga
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html


Now, honestly what I suspect "SmartyPants" to do is call my sources out on unreliable. And, until he can give me any information that is in favor of that, I just plain don't want to hear it.

Not only is it very rare for one to want to move on from marijuana to something stronger (because, quite frankly, you dont build up a resistance to the effect). It is even more unheard of for one to actually OBTAIN said things.

The strongest my brother has ever done is shrooms, and he had to contact someone 3 cities away to get that.


In conclusion: Marijuana very rarely ever leads to stronger drugs.

Thanks for appreciating my use of real sources......but um, you missed a lot of the point. I did say that marijuana inhalation itself is debated as being a gateway drug, but its environment and life choices of its users lead to more drugs. All you did was supply information supporting that the actual use leading to heavier drugs may or may not be valid.

Quote from: MikeW781 on July 07, 2011, 09:27:52 PM
All you did was supply information supporting that the actual use leading to heavier drugs may or may not be valid.

It is not valid. The only part of the marijuana plant that makes it a "gateway drug" is that it is illegal. Obtaining illegal substances introduces teens to the underground market. Make it legal, this just wont happen.

The results are inconclusive, not negative. You mustn't misinterpret the lack of data as confirmation of your claim.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 07, 2011, 04:40:07 PM
WHAT ["]health detriments["!?]

These health detriments:

aggravation of preëxisting and manifestation of inactive schizophrenia (http://www.upmc.com/mediarelations/newsreleases/2008/pages/lewis-schizophrenia-archives.aspx),

causing infertility in men (http://www.upmc.com/healthatoz/pages/healthlibrary.aspx?chunkiid=11688),

damage to unborn babies (http://www.upmc.com/healthatoz/patienteducation/w/pages/smoking,alcohol,anddrugscanharmyourbaby.aspx%5B/url), not to mention the

confirmed withdrawal symptoms (http://www.upmc.com/healthatoz/pages/healthlibrary.aspx?chunkiid=535597), signifying that the body gains some physical dependency on the drug, and that it impedes the normal functioning of the body.

And what of the more clear, and entirely agreeable health detriments of tobacco and alcohol?



Unless it puts OTHERS at risk, the government shouldnt control what we put in our body.

Schizophrenics can be dangerous, hurting babies is immoral and illegal, and marijuana use leads to violent crime in efforts to corner the market on marijuana drug by turf battles. In our capital.

The Washington Post on marijuana violence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/drugs/mjtrafic.htm)

Tobacco should be outlawed. Alcohol has no long-term effects, and red wine has some good ones.

Now, I see your fun link to weed causing schizophrenia?


Thats nice, but if you took the time to read through the entire thing, they described cannabis as worsening schizophrenia. Not causing it. So, if it were legalized, it would be advised for schizophrenics not to use it. This kind of thing happens quite often with medicine, does it not? "Do not take this drug if you are prior to.... or if you have...."

Causing infertility? It said long term use MAY be a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.

The third link is fake.

The fourth did not describe it as a physical dependency.

Washington post? That kind of incident is caused by its illegality. We are causing this death.

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 07, 2011, 10:37:23 PM

Quote from: MikeW781 on July 07, 2011, 09:27:52 PM
All you did was supply information supporting that the actual use leading to heavier drugs may or may not be valid.

It is not valid. The only part of the marijuana plant that makes it a "gateway drug" is that it is illegal. Obtaining illegal substances introduces teens to the underground market. Make it legal, this just wont happen.

That's not just because its illegal. You have to realize that no matter what you say, it has negative effects just like smoking cigarettes. I personally think both should be illegal if you ask me, but no matter. People who chose to ingest harmful chemicals like that both crave a high, and don't worry overmuch about their health. This makes them at a risk to take other drugs.

Quote from: Game Crazy KidNow, I see your fun link to weed causing schizophrenia?

Thats nice, but if you took the time to read through the entire thing, they described cannabis as worsening schizophrenia. Not causing it. So, if it were legalized, it would be advised for schizophrenics not to use it. This kind of thing happens quite often with medicine, does it not? "Do not take this drug if you are prior to.... or if you have...."

Now I know that you don't read my posts. I always sit through paragraphs of your lame factoids. I go back and do your homework.

QuoteCausing infertility? It said long term use MAY be a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.

Yeah. When they say "may," it's because they don't have solid evidence, but they see a correlation. You're right; it could be that marijuana users tend to use other drugs that might reduce sperm count. Like some of the hard stuff.

The third isn't fake; the link is broken.

QuoteThe fourth did not describe it as a physical dependency.

Again, do your homework. Read my last three posts; then we'll talk.

QuoteWashington post? That kind of incident is caused by its illegality. We are causing this death.

No, marijuana drug abusers that find themselves unable to stop using marijuana depsite the inherent danger of getting shot whilst buying it are causing this death. Not "us," whoever "we" are. I know that I'm not killing potheads and drug dealers on the street.

Quote from: Duckling′ on July 08, 2011, 11:42:31 AM
No, marijuana drug abusers that find themselves unable to stop using marijuana depsite the inherent danger of getting shot whilst buying it are causing this death. Not "us," whoever "we" are. I know that I'm not killing potheads and drug dealers on the street.

Is illegality is what makes it dangerous. You ARE killing them

Ummm... whoops. Let's try that again.

Try to use proper grammar, end sentences with full stops, capitalize only when appropriate, don't make up words, separate independent clauses from dependent ones with commas, but independent clauses from each other with semicolons. And don't just make up words.

Try to develop a valid point. Come back when you're done pointing out that I'm a murderer; let's have a valid discussion.

Sorry. I really shouldn't have, and you're right. Post edited. Thank you so much for alerting me to my irresponsible posting. Tak.

Typo. I mean to put 'its'

Its illegality is what makes it dangerous.

Proof? Citations? Anything that supports the idea that the very illegality of Marijuana is what makes it dangerous?

Buying marijuana opens up teens to the black market. If marijuana was legal they would not need to get in touch with those shady people.

If they were already using marijuana, wouldn't they already be in touch with shady people?

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 09, 2011, 02:27:47 AMBuying marijuana opens up teens to the black market. If marijuana was legal they would not need to get in touch with those shady people.

I have a simpler solution.  Teens could just stop buying marijuana and obey the law.
Also, it is naive to think that teens would avoid shady characters if marijuana was legal.  In college, prescription drugs are illegally sold and traded more then alcohol and weed.
Plus, if you legalize a gateway drug, then it would increase the consumption meth, crack, cocaine, and heroin.

Okay, I'm no longer sure on the gateway point. I've never really liked the argument, and haven't found too much concrete evidence for it. I'm checking the wikipedia page Mike posted now...

Oh, and I'd like to point out that if there are physical withdrawal symptoms, the addiction is physical.

Quote from: SmartyPants on July 09, 2011, 10:35:03 AM
Plus, if you legalize a gateway drug, then it would increase the consumption meth, crack, cocaine, and heroin.

'Cept it's not a gateway drug.

'Cept people that use it tend to end up using harder drug.

'Cept I don't think that "gateway drug" is the right name for it.

'Cept the cause and effect relationship isn't adequately described with that name.

'Cept I still know that marijuana has detrimental effects that people smoking it shouldn't impart on others without their consent, in the same way that outdoor smoking and outdoor hydrogen sulfide release (or large quantities, at least, of the latter) ought be banned.

Quote from: Osirus on July 10, 2011, 04:25:50 PM
'Cept people that use it tend to end up using harder drug.

This is only caused by its illegality.

This is also caused by pressures in the environments in which people live, and
conflict between public information and experience, and by
hyberbolic distortion of gain and loss, and by
mistrust of authority, and by
forced association with other figures that use both marijuana and hard drugs, inducing a desire to "try" the other drug, and by
disillusionment with the high of marijuana, along with
dissatisfaction in that the high does not produce effects as claimed by other trusted users...

The list goes on. Illegality isn't the only reason.

If Marijuana makes people happy, why not let them do it?

Even if YOU say they are throwing their lives away, its their life to throw away, no?

Very many marijuana users have lived very successful lives. Obama has openly admitted to using more than once.

I thought as much. As soon as I get a good argument on any point, you default on the basic freedoms arguement until you can think of something better.

Fine. Destroy your own body. Destroy your own life. Quash your own ambitions, don't get a promotion, and don't succeed. Get a job at WalMart until you're seventy, don't give a rat's furry arse, and toxify your own house.

But don't pollute my atmosphere with that nasty shit, don't tell my kids that it's a good idea, don't tell me that it's good for me, and don't you come, wheezing, hacking, and coughing, to a hospital looking for a place to put your sorry corpse when you have multiple cancers of the lungs, a severe psychological addiction to marijuana drug and god knows what else that it would take months to get you off of, bronchitis from prolonged smoke inhalation, tumorous growths all along your upper chest area, and convulsions from withdrawal that shake you so hard you'll wish you were dead. The worst bit is -- you just might be.

So go forth, and be nothing but a statistic. I'm saying goodbye to this conversation. Even if you don't listen to me, and even if not all of these happen to the letter, I can only hope you listen now, so years down the road, you don't just wish you had.

But if you don't care enough about the future to do anything about it now, then you've just become more evidence of animalistic hyperbolic gratification.

Ahh, so you ignore my last sentence?

People who smoke marijuana have led very normal, successful lives.

People who smoke marijuana do NOT go through withdrawal

But, its all ok right? In your second to last sentence you said not all of them happen to the letter. None of them happen to the letter.


So goodbye, and continue scrutinizing people for doing what they like to do. With no harmful side effects to their lives.

Quote from: SmartyPants on July 09, 2011, 10:35:03 AM

Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 09, 2011, 02:27:47 AMBuying marijuana opens up teens to the black market. If marijuana was legal they would not need to get in touch with those shady people.

It is naive to think that teens would avoid shady characters if marijuana was legal.  In college, prescription drugs are illegally sold and traded more then alcohol and weed.

Since you clearly avoided addressing my comment, I feel compelled to talk about it even more.  You claim that we should make marijuana legal, because so many people feel compelled to use it and they have to get it by shady means.  The percentage of people who illegally use perscription drugs is increasing much faster then the percentage of people who use marijuana.  With your logic, we should make all perscription drugs legally available to everyone, so people don't have to get them by shady means.  While we are at it, lets get rid of a bunch of other commonly broken laws.  From now on, there will be no speed limits, alcohol will be available to anyone who can reach over the counter to pay the cashier, and shoplifting is acceptable in stores nationwide. 

Quote from: Deagonx on July 10, 2011, 04:48:11 PMVery many marijuana users have lived very successful lives. Obama has openly admitted to using more than once.

1) Obama is a shitty president, so I wouldn't want to emulate him.
2)I bet money that if Obama continued to smoke pot like he did as a kid, then he wouldn't have gotten into Harvard law school, the US Senate, or the White House.  Even President SuperLiberal figured out that he couldn't succeed in accomplishing his goals if he wasted his time smoking pot.  Instead of gaining happiness by working towards accomplishing something meaningful, some people would rather stay home and smoke weed to gain an artificial happiness.  If you legalize marujuana, then widespread use of marujuana will create a more apathetic society.

Smarty, why would we legalize damaging drugs, such as cocaine and meth when they are prone to cause psychotic breaks? They can get other people killed. This does not happen on Marijuana.



Yes, Obama is a shitty president. But you seemed so god damn left wing to me that you must like the guy.

Apathy: Lack of interest


It doesn't get much more apathetic than this. So many people do it now, all we are doing is causing unneeded harm to the people who do it now. They aren't going to stop, it is a waste of our jail space, and a waste of time.

(If they aren't ever going to stop, it's called addiction)

Mostly, I'd like to retain Observer status on this discussion, giving thoughtful comments whenever neccessary, but not engaging too much into the argument.

im2smart4u is most certainly not left-wing. That's why I disagree with him so much. I'm the left-wing person around here; I just think freedom in moderation comes after order in moderation. However, you both would appear to be religious, most likely Christian, and that skews the politics a bit. I'm not, so I only have my personally developed ethical and moral code, which I make no claim of being superior to any other code of conduct, personally developed or given by religion.

Might I ask, hating to get off topic, at what point have I claimed to be superior?

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 01:14:31 AMYes, Obama is a shitty president. But you seemed so god damn left wing to me that you must like the guy.

A)Doesn't the "god damn left wing" defend marijuana legalization.
B)I once been called a conservative redneck because I said all the global warming stuff is exaggerated, yet I have never been called a liberal before, so I'm curious where you got that idea.

Quote from: Osirus on July 11, 2011, 08:43:37 AMim2smart4u is most certainly not left-wing. That's why I disagree with him so much. I'm the left-wing person around here; I just think freedom in moderation comes after order in moderation. However, you both would appear to be religious, most likely Christian, and that skews the politics a bit. I'm not, so I only have my personally developed ethical and moral code, which I make no claim of being superior to any other code of conduct, personally developed or given by religion.

Politically, I consider myself a center-right independent with libertarian views.  I wouldn't consider myself religious.  At a young age, I completed sunday Catholic school and then attended church every sunday.  After turning 13, my family only went to church on Easter and Christmas.  The reason I defend religion so vigorously is not because I am a strong believer, but because I deeply respect my friends who use religion to try to become better people.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 01:14:31 AMSmarty, why would we legalize damaging drugs, such as cocaine and meth when they are prone to cause psychotic breaks? They can get other people killed. This does not happen on Marijuana.

A)I was clearly mocking you.
B)I didn't mentioned cocaine or meth, so that was an out-of-blue, false accusation.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 01:14:31 AMApathy: Lack of interest

Really?  Did you have to look up the definition?

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 01:14:31 AMIt doesn't get much more apathetic than this. So many people do it now, all we are doing is causing unneeded harm to the people who do it now. They aren't going to stop, it is a waste of our jail space, and a waste of time.

It sounds like you agree that marijuana makes people apathetic, yet you also want to make it cheaper and more available.  It almost sounds like you are encouraging widespread lazyness.  This is one of the reasons we struggle to compete with China's work force.

You said you didn't mention cocaine or meth. But you did, you said all illegal drugs.


Yes, I did.


I sincerely hope you dont want us to be more like China. You act as if legalizing marijuana is going to make everyone lazy? Majority of people in America already do it, we are just wasting jail space.

Actually, he said "perscription drugs."

And you may or may not want to check your statistics on the marijuana use. Do you mean past-month users, or do you mean within-the-last-year users, or do you mean people that have ever used the drug?

There is, of course, a difference between those who have used the drug and those who use the drug, and I hope you appreciate that difference.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 06:19:47 PMYou said you didn't mention cocaine or meth. But you did, you said all illegal drugs.

I said "all perscription drugs".  I don't know if this is a fact, but I think doctors write cocaine and meth perscriptions.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 06:19:47 PMYou act as if legalizing marijuana is going to make everyone lazy? Majority of people in America already do it, we are just wasting jail space.

And a majority of people in America are lazy.  Do you see the correlation?

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 06:19:47 PM

Quote from: SmartyPants on July 11, 2011, 12:12:17 PM

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 01:14:31 AMApathy: Lack of interest

Really?  Did you have to look up the definition?

Yes, I did.

Maybe if you put the bong down every once in awhile, then you feel more motivated to read a book and learn simple vocabulary.

You assume that majority of people in America are lazy, because of using? Thats just an ignorant assumption on your part. Adding to the list I see.



I could name more than 30 words off the top of my head that you don't know the definition to. If we are going to argue about people's skills in vocabulary, I participated in the state spelling bee and placed 4th. Guess it was just luck.

Quote from: Deagonx on December 24, 2010, 11:00:00 PM
If we are going to argue about people's skills in vocabulary,

which we aren't, please.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 07:29:17 PMYou assume that majority of people in America are lazy, because of using? Thats just an ignorant assumption on your part. Adding to the list I see.

No, I think people use because they are lazy.

If people use because they are lazy, how will legalizing it make them any more lazy?

I do not agree with legalization of Marijuana. I personally believe the validity of current experiments, but even if you do not, try to remember that cocaine was originally marketed as a 'Harmless pick-me-up', a veritable gramme of Soma, and tobacco was considered an aid to health. We often discover things about drugs long after we discover the drugs themselves - and look at the effects; an entire generation hooked on cocaine and tobacco, respectively. The day you can conclusively prove to me that Marijuana is completely harmless I will agree with the legalization of the drug.

I also must draw to your attention that the arguments in this post are becoming increasingly puerile and offensive at a personal level. I have several points I feel I must point out the flaws in.

Quote from: SmartyPants on July 11, 2011, 07:24:43 PM
Maybe if you put the bong down every once in awhile, then you feel more motivated to read a book and learn simple vocabulary.

Offensive, and does not contribute anything to the argument. I expected better.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 11, 2011, 07:29:17 PM
Thats just an ignorant assumption on your part. Adding to the list I see.

I could name more than 30 words off the top of my head that you don't know the definition to. If we are going to argue about people's skills in vocabulary, I participated in the state spelling bee and placed 4th. Guess it was just luck.

No. 1. The first part is a personal criticism, and as such, does not have any place in a debate.
No. 2. The second part is neither any indication of intelligence (Not to imply you lack intelligence), nor any relevance to the argument - when somebody makes a personal comment, merely point out that the comment is unsuitable for the topic; do not rise to the jibe.
No. 3. You cannot possible know that your vocabulary extends past his; few people utilize their full vocabulary on an internet forum.

I appreciate that I am not a moderator, and am disappointed that Ert has not already intervened. Nonetheless, if this continues, I will be notifying Ert. 

Steelfist, he insulted my Vocabulary. I did not say I was smarter than him, or had a larger vocabulary than him. And he did not call me stupid.