NationStates Jolt Archive

Heres my source (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html)

This is the bit that interested me though, near the bottom:

Alcohol

Liver damage, birth defects, kills brain cells, intoxication, can induce violent behavior
Addiction: As addicting as cocaine!
Overdose: Possible.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 100,000 (Not counting drunk driving or crimes caused while intoxicated.)


Tobacco

Lung, throat, and mouth cancer, emphysema, heart damage, premature aging of skin, underdeveloped newborn babies.
Addiction: As addicting as heroin or cocaine!
Overdose: Possible, but extremely unlikely.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 400,000


Marijuana

Slight chance of bronchitis in some users.
Possible minor sperm count reduction, but unproven.
Lung cancer remotely possible with extremely heavy use, but unproven.
Short-term memory loss only while intoxicated--Not permanent!
Addiction: less addicting than coffee, soda, meat, or sugar!
Overdose: Impossible!
Deaths/year (U.S.): 0 (Zero!)


This, I think, shows that if Marijuana is illegal, why isnt alcohol or tobacco? They are more harmful it seems, and IT IS NOT SO ADDICTIVE! It just seems non-sensical.

Marijuana

Slight chance of bronchitis in some users.
Possible minor sperm count reduction, but unproven.
Lung cancer remotely possible with extremely heavy use, but unproven.
Short-term memory loss only while intoxicated--Not permanent!
Used enough if can become permanent
Addiction: less addicting than coffee, soda, meat, or sugar!
For mostpeople
Overdose: Impossible!
Technically it is possible, however, the amount of pot you would need to smoke would be so huge it nearly never happens. I've heard, that if hotboxing is your preferred method, you would suffocate due to lack of oxygen before youoverdosed.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 0 (Zero!)
Crap. It can kill indirectly.

Used enough if can become permanent

[addictive] For mostpeople

Technically it is possible, however, the amount of pot you would need to smoke would be so huge it nearly never happens. I've heard, that if hotboxing is your preferred method, you would suffocate due to lack of oxygen before youoverdosed.

Crap. It can kill indirectly.

It can kill indirectly, but so does tobacco.

Surely if you were hotboxing (and not a lot of people do) your basic instinct (that brain stem thing, not a biologist here) would be to go up for air.

This, I think, shows that if Marijuana is illegal, why isnt alcohol or tobacco? They are more harmful it seems, and IT IS NOT SO ADDICTIVE! It just seems non-sensical.
Alcohol and tobacco aren't illegal because of the massive tax revenue the government makes from their sale. Weed won't be legalised any time soon.

Alcohol and tobacco aren't illegal because of the massive tax revenue the government makes from their sale. Weed won't be legalised any time soon.
Depends where you are.

Marijuana

Overdose: Impossible!




I knew a few idiots at college who conducted an experiment to see if it was possible to overdose with Marijuana.

They all shit themselves after a few hours.

Depends where you are.
Well, the majority of people here live in the US or the UK, and it's not going to be legalised in either of those countries any time soon.

Alcohol and tobacco aren't illegal because of the massive tax revenue the government makes from their sale. Weed won't be legalised any time soon.

Ah, but therein lies the answer!

Only let the government sell pot legally...they can sell seeds to those who want to grow their own. Black-market sale of marijuana would still be illegal.

The government would then have a monopoly on production, and could set the price to get a nice profit percentage. When you consider that pot is relatively cheap and easy to grow, coupled with the money that would be saved on law enforcement and incarceration, you've got quite the economic incentive for legalization.

In order to get pot legalized, you've got to hit the politicians where it counts...in their collective pocketbook. :D

The problem with marijuana is that you cannot effectively run a state filled with pot-heads. Imagine an army filled with pot-heads and compare it to an army filled with ppl who drink or take amphetamins (i.e. most western armies).
But you don´t have to go as far as looking at military stuff, even 'normal' administrative actions would be quite mellow if carried out by pot-heads.
It´s a matter of raison d'etat, really.

If you lived in a country where alcohol and tobacco were illegal, you would be mad to legalise them (well, perhaps not alcohol, but certainly tobacco), because of aforementioned health problems.

Arguing that weed should be legalised because it isn't as bad as tobacco is like saying that Assault should not be a crime because it isn't as bad as murder.

Weed causes a large amount of health problems, not the least of which is the area of mental health. I live in Tasmania, Australia, were marijuana use is extremely heavy, and our psych wards are groining under the weight of paranoid sciszophrenics et al who have had their conditions triggered or exacerbated by marijuana use.

Weed is not harmless. Just because it may or may not be as immediately harmful as alcohol abuse is no argument for it's legalisation.

Its dangerous I tell you! at least 5 people have died from cannabis. they told us in a biology class. one suffocated after he smoked about 50 joints in a small room, a guy choked when he tried to swallow a piece of resin, another was hit on the head by a much bigger piece dropped from a building, a guy stabbed himself with some scissors and it was somehow pot related, and erm, someone probly fell asleep with a joint in their hand and started a fire.

Its a sad fact that cannabis is illegal despite being less dangerous than talcum powder (causes eczema etc, please never use it on your kids, thats from my doctor not me), toasters, novelty slippers, regular slippers, watermelons, golf, escalators, chickens...... al these things cause more deaths than pot, and the government does nothing. what kind of nanny state is this?

the sort of state that is also expected to care for idiots who choose to use marijuana and then suffer from mental problems.

The sort of state that takes has a duty of care to protect citizens who do not choose to use drugs from those that do.

The problem with marijuana is that you cannot effectively run a state filled with pot-heads. Imagine an army filled with pot-heads and compare it to an army filled with ppl who drink or take amphetamins (i.e. most western armies).
But you don´t have to go as far as looking at military stuff, even 'normal' administrative actions would be quite mellow if carried out by pot-heads.
It´s a matter of raison d'etat, really.

yes. but just as you are not allowed to be at work drunk, there would be laws and regulations against that sort of thing. you would be fired if you turned up at work stoned.

Heres my source (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html)

Marijuana

Slight chance of bronchitis in some users.
Possible minor sperm count reduction, but unproven.
Lung cancer remotely possible with extremely heavy use, but unproven.
Short-term memory loss only while intoxicated--Not permanent!
Addiction: less addicting than coffee, soda, meat, or sugar!
Overdose: Impossible!
Deaths/year (U.S.): 0 (Zero!)I was wondering why this reading like propaganda. Then I looked at the source and stopped wondering.

If you can overdose on water and oxygen you can overdose on anything. The reason . The addiction is slightly misleading, there is a difference between physical and mental addiction, and anything can be mentally addictive. Why? Because people like habit. There are also reports than find that some mental disorders are more prevalent amongst marijuana users. To say lung cancer links with smoking spliffs are unproven is just another attempt to put doubt in your mind. It's a plant... when it burns it gives off smoke and tar. However weed doesn't burn to easily and normally has to be smoked with tobacco.

Zero deaths? You know it's a doctor/coroners choice to put down the cause of death on a death certificate. And as humans they are influenced by certain things. There's something that's never listed of cause of death. I think it's AIDS, but I'm not sure. Instead of AIDS being listed, something like liver failure might be listed. This doesn't mean having AIDS wasn't a factor in their death. I think the same goes for marijuana use as well. Doctors are always told to find an alternative cause of death. Bleh, it's been some time since I read up on this.

Weed is banned for two poor reasons. 1) society doesn't like change and relies on semi-permanent societial norms. But where does the norm of weed being bad come from? 2) Talk to Xerox and the superior qualities of paper made from hemp as opposed to wood pulp. ;)

Crap. It can kill indirectly.So can alcohol and tobacco, it's not included in the stats though

the effects of alcohol and marijuana abuse go further than just the immediate effect. An alcoholic's productivity is reduced even when sober. A pothead likewise.

Alcohol is legal now. People abuse it. Is there any reason to believe that people would not abuse marijuana if it were legalised?

the effects of alcohol and marijuana abuse go further than just the immediate effect. An alcoholic's productivity is reduced even when sober. A pothead likewise.

Alcohol is legal now. People abuse it. Is there any reason to believe that people would not abuse marijuana if it were legalised?

Its about giving people a free choice. People abuse a number of things be it medicine or chocolate ;) but banning a product just because some people over use it is unfair to responcible citizens. The issue of the revenue has already been brought forth, that should easily accomidate for free classes to help over users and make up for any productivity loss. (which is down to the individual and the company anyway).

Medecine provides a considerable benefit to society. It's benefits certainly outweigh the negatives.

The same cannot be said for marijuana. It *might* help with pain relief. At the cost of higher rates of mental illness, etc etc.

I would liken it to the debate about speed limits. Whilst you could argue it is a matter of personal choice, the fact is that many people choose to drive too fast (or abuse marijuana), and consequently harm others (car accidents).

Heres my source (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html)

This is the bit that interested me though, near the bottom:

Alcohol

Liver damage, birth defects, kills brain cells, intoxication, can induce violent behavior
Addiction: As addicting as cocaine!
Overdose: Possible.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 100,000 (Not counting drunk driving or crimes caused while intoxicated.)


Tobacco

Lung, throat, and mouth cancer, emphysema, heart damage, premature aging of skin, underdeveloped newborn babies.
Addiction: As addicting as heroin or cocaine!
Overdose: Possible, but extremely unlikely.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 400,000


Marijuana

Slight chance of bronchitis in some users.
Possible minor sperm count reduction, but unproven.
Lung cancer remotely possible with extremely heavy use, but unproven.
Short-term memory loss only while intoxicated--Not permanent!
Addiction: less addicting than coffee, soda, meat, or sugar!
Overdose: Impossible!
Deaths/year (U.S.): 0 (Zero!)


This, I think, shows that if Marijuana is illegal, why isnt alcohol or tobacco? They are more harmful it seems, and IT IS NOT SO ADDICTIVE! It just seems non-sensical.
Those stats are complete and utter bull that some weirdo made up because he doesn't want to get arrested for getting high. I hope the government finds his IP address; that'd be very funny.

Medecine provides a considerable benefit to society. It's benefits certainly outweigh the negatives.

The same cannot be said for marijuana. It *might* help with pain relief. At the cost of higher rates of mental illness, etc etc.

I would liken it to the debate about speed limits. Whilst you could argue it is a matter of personal choice, the fact is that many people choose to drive too fast (or abuse marijuana), and consequently harm others (car accidents).

Speed limits (and insurence) are there to protect everyone. If I go driving I want to know I'm safe from another car driving past me at 150 mph (atleast legally) and if I get hit I want to know the other guy can pay for repairs. Alcohol arguably increases anger and violence, marijuana doesn't as is only a temporary substance effecting only yourself. You shouldn't be allowed to come to work high and I'm sure society would look down on pot heads just as we do alcoholics and people who come to work drunk. Taxed highly and with good education provided it will certainly do more good than bad. Especially when you consider drug dealers who sell this are often pushy for the buyer to try more expencive/addictive stuff.

Medecine provides a considerable benefit to society. It's benefits certainly outweigh the negatives.

The same cannot be said for marijuana. It *might* help with pain relief. At the cost of higher rates of mental illness, etc etc.


The same also cannot be said for alcohol, tobacco, chocolate, fast food, etc. The fact is that all of those have negative consequences that far outweigh the positive ones. If we're to keep marijuana illegal using the justification that it's harmful, then we should outlaw all those other things as well. There's no objective reason to keep alcohol legal but ban marijuana.

Those stats are complete and utter bull that some weirdo made up because he doesn't want to get arrested for getting high. I hope the government finds his IP address; that'd be very funny.

Finds his IP address and does what, exactly?

Finds his IP address and does what, exactly?

And take away his free speech!!

And take away his free speech!!
No, arrest him for admitted possesion of an illegal substance.

No, arrest him for admitted possesion of an illegal substance.
I'm suprised you know how to turn your computer on.

No, arrest him for admitted possesion of an illegal substance.

Good thing he was read his rights and charged with a crime. Otherwise such an admission might not hold up in court.

Yeah, tobacco should be illegal. Nobody was meant to breathe in any kind of smoke. It's dangerous no matter what. Alcohol is okay in moderation, but tobacco isn't.

I'm suprised you know how to turn your computer on.
Because I'm not always liberal and don't think that "It's all good, man! It don't hurt no one! Let me have it!"? That's just dumb.

The only official death related and attributed to the consumption of Marijuana was not a human one but a cow one. A cow ate a shit load of the stuff and died from an overdose.

Yes, animals are just that stupid. After all, my mother's cat ate a small marijuana plant...

For those of you who've never been high...

Honestly... you're really only a threat to yourself.

Heres my source (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html)

This is the bit that interested me though, near the bottom:

Alcohol

Liver damage, birth defects, kills brain cells, intoxication, can induce violent behavior
Addiction: As addicting as cocaine!
Overdose: Possible.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 100,000 (Not counting drunk driving or crimes caused while intoxicated.)


Tobacco

Lung, throat, and mouth cancer, emphysema, heart damage, premature aging of skin, underdeveloped newborn babies.
Addiction: As addicting as heroin or cocaine!
Overdose: Possible, but extremely unlikely.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 400,000


Marijuana

Slight chance of bronchitis in some users.
Possible minor sperm count reduction, but unproven.
Lung cancer remotely possible with extremely heavy use, but unproven.
Short-term memory loss only while intoxicated--Not permanent!
Addiction: less addicting than coffee, soda, meat, or sugar!
Overdose: Impossible!
Deaths/year (U.S.): 0 (Zero!)


This, I think, shows that if Marijuana is illegal, why isnt alcohol or tobacco? They are more harmful it seems, and IT IS NOT SO ADDICTIVE! It just seems non-sensical.


Tobacco should be illegal too. If they'd ban alchohol in Norway, the riot would be bigger than french revolution...

Because I'm not always liberal and don't think that "It's all good, man! It don't hurt no one! Let me have it!"? That's just dumb.

No, because you think that an admission over the internet is something that the police could do anything about. Watch this:

"I possess marijuana."

Now, go call the cops on me.

The damage that marijuana does is different to alcohol abuse. You can die of an alcohol overdose, and it is almost impossible to die from direct causes of marijuana abuse. That said, marijuana does far more damage mentally to a person.

They might be alive, but they will suffer from memory loss, paranoid scizophrenia etc al.

For the record, I support the banning of tobacco use, and more restrictions on alcohol use.

The damage that marijuana does is different to alcohol abuse. You can die of an alcohol overdose, and it is almost impossible to die from direct causes of marijuana abuse. That said, marijuana does far more damage mentally to a person.

They might be alive, but they will suffer from memory loss, paranoid scizophrenia etc al.

lol. Point me to one person that spontaneously got schizophrenia directly because of marijuana use.

The damage that marijuana does is different to alcohol abuse. You can die of an alcohol overdose, and it is almost impossible to die from direct causes of marijuana abuse. That said, marijuana does far more damage mentally to a person.

So, considering that alcohol is more harmful to a person physically, and taking your purported claim that marijuana is more harmful mentally, we should keep alcohol legal, with restrictions, and keep marijuana illegal? Why? Is a person's mental health more important than their physical health?

The thing is, tobacco's use as we know it today started almost 400 years ago, when John Rolfe (The guy who really married Pocahontas) grew tobacco for recreational use. Since then, it just got bigger and bigger, and it was only late in the 20th century that we started to realize that all those deaths over the centuries were most likely attributed to the tobacco. With modern technology, it probably wouldn't take too long after marijuana was legalized to find the real problems with it.

Tobacco was glamourized less than a century ago hundreds of times more than this one little "article" glamourizes marijuana, and look where we are now. I don't think we should do the same for marijuana as we did for tobacco, because I'm sure the same kind of thing would happen. The biggest, if not only, reason people think marijuana's great and harmless is because it's still illegal in so many places, and there are so few actual studies done on it because of that, IMHO.

The thing is, tobacco's use as we know it today started almost 400 years ago, when John Rolfe (The guy who really married Pocahontas) grew tobacco for recreational use. Since then, it just got bigger and bigger, and it was only late in the 20th century that we started to realize that all those deaths over the centuries were most likely attributed to the tobacco. With modern technology, it probably wouldn't take too long after marijuana was legalized to find the real problems with it.

Tobacco was glamourized less than a century ago hundreds of times more than this one little "article" glamourizes marijuana, and look where we are now. I don't think we should do the same for marijuana as we did for tobacco, because I'm sure the same kind of thing would happen. The biggest, if not only, reason people think marijuana's great and harmless is because it's still illegal in so many places, and there are so few actual studies done on it because of that, IMHO.
cannabis has been used recreationally and as a herbal medicine for around 4,000 years. nobody has ever died from its use. it is also one of the most studied, and yet controversial, "narcotics" around. it was criminalised in the US for reasons not even approximating fears over health or detrimental effects of the drug but for business and racist reasons. all fact.

however i would agree that, specifically, the potential mental health problems associated with heavy use of the drug are not yet researched fully (and are only just coming into the light)

The problem with marijuana is that you cannot effectively run a state filled with pot-heads. Imagine an army filled with pot-heads and compare it to an army filled with ppl who drink or take amphetamins (i.e. most western armies).
But you don´t have to go as far as looking at military stuff, even 'normal' administrative actions would be quite mellow if carried out by pot-heads.
It´s a matter of raison d'etat, really.

Who says that everybody is going to all smoke pot? I'm sure people in the Prohibitionist ages used the same excuse against alcohol, and look at the US today.

Sure, there are drunkards, and by legalizing pot, you will have the pothead equivalent of a drunkard, but i'm sure that the majority of marijuana users will be responsible.

cannabis has been used recreationally and as a herbal medicine for around 4,000 years. nobody has ever died from its use. it is also one of the most studied, and yet controversial, "narcotics" around. it was criminalised in the US for reasons not even approximating fears over health or detrimental effects of the drug but for business and racist reasons. all fact.

however i would agree that, specifically, the potential mental health problems associated with heavy use of the drug are not yet researched fully (and are only just coming into the light)
I doubt it was used as much as many use it now, even some of what's not considered 'heavy' use. Civilizations before ours (with the notable exceptions of the Greeks and the Romans) have mostly used/done things in moderation, AFAIK.

I doubt it was used as much as many use it now, even some of what's not considered 'heavy' use. Civilizations before ours (with the notable exceptions of the Greeks and the Romans) have mostly used/done things in moderation, AFAIK.
which explains why in biblical times they would take large mounds of cannabis and throw them on burning bushes (ooh biblical reference too... moses was high y'all :p)
which also explains why many regions of the world (nepal, morocco, afghanistan.... just off the top of my head) have well refined and centuries-old techniques of harvesting and purifying cannabis buds to form many different varieties of potent hashish bloc.

who can know for sure? greeks and romans perhaps, yes, but that doesn't stop the other "less civilised" ancient cultures who did use the herb recreationally from not recording marijuana as a narcotic problem such as how heroin*, for example, is for us today... (odd sentence, i know, but you get what i mean)


* or alcohol

Medecine provides a considerable benefit to society. It's benefits certainly outweigh the negatives.

The same cannot be said for marijuana. It *might* help with pain relief. At the cost of higher rates of mental illness, etc etc.

I would liken it to the debate about speed limits. Whilst you could argue it is a matter of personal choice, the fact is that many people choose to drive too fast (or abuse marijuana), and consequently harm others (car accidents).
Quite wrong. It helps drastically with eating food ('munchies'), which is why it's given to cancer patients, to help them supress the nausia that comes with chemo. Nothing works as well as pot does when it comes to that, not even purified THC extract (it's been mooted that maybe the smoke gets to the lungs instantaneously).

The medical benefits are clear and do exist.

lol. Point me to one person that spontaneously got schizophrenia directly because of marijuana use.

I know one no two people who have developed schizoprhenia directly because of marijuana use.

The truth of the matter is if you start taking it before your brain has fully matured, I.E. before you have stopped growing, or before you are an adult. There is a very high risk of mental illness in later life. This is only applicaple for the immature brain, so if you wait until you are in your 20's before starting this is not an issue.

The thing is, tobacco's use as we know it today started almost 400 years ago, when John Rolfe (The guy who really married Pocahontas) grew tobacco for recreational use. Since then, it just got bigger and bigger, and it was only late in the 20th century that we started to realize that all those deaths over the centuries were most likely attributed to the tobacco. With modern technology, it probably wouldn't take too long after marijuana was legalized to find the real problems with it.

Tobacco was glamourized less than a century ago hundreds of times more than this one little "article" glamourizes marijuana, and look where we are now. I don't think we should do the same for marijuana as we did for tobacco, because I'm sure the same kind of thing would happen. The biggest, if not only, reason people think marijuana's great and harmless is because it's still illegal in so many places, and there are so few actual studies done on it because of that, IMHO.


Also MJ has only been illeagel here in the UK since just before WWII.

Also MJ has only been illeagel here in the UK since just before WWII.
I don't think tobacco was ever really illegal per se, but it was overglamourized before we knew much, if anything, about how it worked beyond it making you feel good, just as marijuana is on its way to being, the way I see it.

If you lived in a country where alcohol and tobacco were illegal, you would be mad to legalise them (well, perhaps not alcohol, but certainly tobacco), because of aforementioned health problems.

Alcohol was illegal here. It was discovered that making it illegal was insane. Legalizing it was the only sane thing to do. It has been discovered by most sane people that banning pot is equally crazy. Unfortunatly, most sane people aren't in the government.

Arguing that weed should be legalised because it isn't as bad as tobacco is like saying that Assault should not be a crime because it isn't as bad as murder.

That analogy would only make sense if murder was legal. It isn't, so your analogy makes no sense.

Weed causes a large amount of health problems, not the least of which is the area of mental health. I live in Tasmania, Australia, were marijuana use is extremely heavy, and our psych wards are groining under the weight of paranoid sciszophrenics et al who have had their conditions triggered or exacerbated by marijuana use.

We used to have plenty of mentally disabled people in our psych wards. The solution was not to limit the pot consumption. It was to cut their funding. Now we have no mental health problem. Just a homeless problem.

Weed is not harmless. Just because it may or may not be as immediately harmful as alcohol abuse is no argument for it's legalisation.

It's a perfect argument for its legalization. There is not one harmful thing it can do than is worse than the damage caused by making it illegal. That was the finding our our experiment with alcohol prohibition and it's the finding of our experiment with pot prohibition. Only difference, with the alcohol we admitted it. But in a political climate where the president can claim with a straight face that "the jury is till out on global warming," there's no pressure to admit the truth of marijuana legalization. As you so aptly prove.

I know one no two people who have developed schizoprhenia directly because of marijuana use.

The truth of the matter is if you start taking it before your brain has fully matured, I.E. before you have stopped growing, or before you are an adult. There is a very high risk of mental illness in later life. This is only applicaple for the immature brain, so if you wait until you are in your 20's before starting this is not an issue.

I think you'll find that they probably ate white bread. Many of the harmful effects of removing wheat germ and bran from wheat flour have been known for over a century, but bakers have refused to acknowledge them. It wasn't until Atkins came along that they were willing to change their ways at all.

Statistics indicate that over 90% of all mental patients consumed bread regularly before developing their disorders, and virtually all of them had consumed at least some white flour product at some point in their lives.

Don't be fooled people. White flour is poison. It is linked to colon cancer, obiesity, and poverty. The baking conglomerates are trying to explain away its connection to mental illness, but the truth will come out before long.

Don't be fooled people. White flour is poison.
As poisonous as DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org).

Heres my source (http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Guests/Legalize.html)

This is the bit that interested me though, near the bottom:

Alcohol

Liver damage, birth defects, kills brain cells, intoxication, can induce violent behavior
Addiction: As addicting as cocaine!
Overdose: Possible.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 100,000 (Not counting drunk driving or crimes caused while intoxicated.)


Tobacco

Lung, throat, and mouth cancer, emphysema, heart damage, premature aging of skin, underdeveloped newborn babies.
Addiction: As addicting as heroin or cocaine!
Overdose: Possible, but extremely unlikely.
Deaths/year (U.S.): 400,000


Marijuana

Slight chance of bronchitis in some users.
Possible minor sperm count reduction, but unproven.
Lung cancer remotely possible with extremely heavy use, but unproven.
Short-term memory loss only while intoxicated--Not permanent!
Addiction: less addicting than coffee, soda, meat, or sugar!
Overdose: Impossible!
Deaths/year (U.S.): 0 (Zero!)


This, I think, shows that if Marijuana is illegal, why isnt alcohol or tobacco? They are more harmful it seems, and IT IS NOT SO ADDICTIVE! It just seems non-sensical.


It's hardly "an interesting point of view", but just the same old tired argument pro-legalisation people keep on coming out with. Hey, here's an idea! Why not argue from basics? "what people chose to do to themselves, with their own money, in their own time, is their fucking business, and nothing to do with the state" - stop pussyfooting round fighting on their ground - "medical reasons" and all that nonsense, pffft, rubbish.

It should be legal because everyone has the right to do what they want to themselves, end.

However, when all drugs are legalised, we should ban stoners, and stoner conversations in pubs about "how, like, gone they were the other night". Twats.

If you lived in a country where alcohol and tobacco were illegal, you would be mad to legalise them (well, perhaps not alcohol, but certainly tobacco), because of aforementioned health problems.
The point is if you live in a free-society then alcohol and tobacco probably wouldnt be ilegal, and neither should marajuana be. The fact that so many people these days seem to (like) take the 'default' position as 'things are illegal, is making them legal justified?' rather than 'is a law against X justified?' demonstrates one aspect of the damage these silly anti-marajuana laws do.

Arguing that weed should be legalised because it isn't as bad as tobacco is like saying that Assault should not be a crime because it isn't as bad as murder.
No it isnt. Your example argument involves arguing that X should not be illegal because it is not as bad as the illegal thing Y.
That is not at all the same as arguing X should not be illegal because it is not as bad as the legal thing Y.

Weed causes a large amount of health problems, not the least of which is the area of mental health. I live in Tasmania, Australia, were marijuana use is extremely heavy, and our psych wards are groining under the weight of paranoid sciszophrenics et al who have had their conditions triggered or exacerbated by marijuana use.
Those people should have taken better care of their health. I rather expect giving them mental health care is more help to them than arresting them in either case.
So far as I know no repeatable observations have shown that marijuana causes mental illness. There is some correlation between use (particularly abusive-use), but the nature of that relationship remains unclear.
However it seems unlikely that marajuana causes mental illness.
There is a positive correlation (so far as I recall from the last time I 'read up' on the literture) between drug abuse and mental illness, but the relationship is so unclear it could as much be a matter of people abusing drugs because they are mentally ill as it is people being 'made' mentally as a result of taking drugs.


Weed is not harmless. Just because it may or may not be as immediately harmful as alcohol abuse is no argument for it's legalisation.
Weed is probably not harmless, but neither is breathing.
If you have any pretentions to being a 'free-society' minded person, then you have things entirely backwards. In any society that is free, at any time the question can only be 'is a law against that justified?, never 'can it proven that we shouldnt criminalise X?
Any case for a law against marijuana must justify the law without circular appeals to its current illegal status. The fact is a free society would educate and warn its citizens about alcohol, tobbaco and marajuana, not collect taxes on one while perpetrating a witch hunt against those that use the other.

I know one no two people who have developed schizoprhenia directly because of marijuana use.
No, you know of two people whose schizophrenia you attribute to marijuana.

The truth of the matter is if you start taking it before your brain has fully matured, I.E. before you have stopped growing, or before you are an adult. There is a very high risk of mental illness in later life.
Certainly there is a correlation between drug abuse in teens and poor mental health.
However it is certainly true that physical damage to the brain and other vital organs can be caused by drugs and teens are at greater risk.

To me it's just another reason why we need to be far more sensible about marajuana.

Well we could slap on age restrictions and sell it through licensed premises where the retailer must show 'respectable character' before getting a license and then faced harsh fines and possible loss of 'sale-license' if they didnt 'card' all their marijuana customers to check for age,
or
we could just let people who are criminals run their independent marijuana sale networks, choosing who to sell to, and if we catch them they face the same charges whether they were selling to lil Ms Granny 75 year old or young Master Grandchild 6 year....

Somehow I dont believe renouncing all control of marijuana and letting criminals control the access of our kids to it is not a reasonable and pragmatic response to the need to restrict the access of people who's brains are still developing.

I dont believe people under a certain age should drink alcohol, smoke marajuana, drive a car or vote; I do think adults should make up their own minds about these things.

This is only applicaple for the immature brain, so if you wait until you are in your 20's before starting this is not an issue.
Your post is right to suggest drug use by under 20's is a concern.

The problem is who currently decides what age people may smoke marajuana at -drug dealers.

Now whatever else they may be, at best drug dealers are people who are willing to break the law. Are these really the best people to have in control of our children's access to marajuana?

Honestly, I believe we should educate children, and I think we should keep risks like drugs away from them. I dont believe that the current legislation achieves that, rather I understand that now (as it was in my day) marajuana is easier for a high-school kid to get hold of than alcohol - worst still, unlike in my day this is now also true for intermediate and primary (ie under 10 years) kids.

Certainly there is a correlation between drug abuse in teens and poor mental health.

See, i'm never sure of this - is there a correlation between drug abuse and poor mental health, or are those drawn to drug abuse more likely to suffer poor mental health anyway? It's one of those things you cannot - unlike, say, cancer/tobacco - adequately prove, in my humble opinion.

See, i'm never sure of this - is there a correlation between drug abuse and poor mental health, or are those drawn to drug abuse more likely to suffer poor mental health anyway?
It's not an 'or' question (kind of like asking if you should grow some kind of fruit tree or a lemon tree).
A correlation means their is a statistical link.
Example of correlation

For instance of all people;
only 10% have Y,
and only 10% do X,
yet 90% of people with Y do X
and 90% of all people who do X have Y.

So the statistics above show that there is a correlation between having Y and doing X. However that is the most we can deduce (a correlation) from this set of 'statistics'. It could be that having Y makes one do X or doing X might make one have Y or it could be that Z causes one to both have Y and do X.
We know there is a correlation, but without further information we cannot deduce or even indicate what the relationship between having Y and doing X is other than to say that there is 'a correlations'.

It's one of those things you cannot - unlike, say, cancer/tobacco - adequately prove, in my humble opinion.
I think you might be conflating 'correlation' with 'cause and effect relationship'.

I think you might be conflating 'correlation' with 'cause and effect relationship'.

You are quite correct, my brain not working, blame a hard day at the office.

Pot obviously isn't good for you. However, given that alcohol and tobacco are legal despite obviously being harmful, I think it's rather silly to keep marihuana illegal.

Pot obviously isn't good for you. However, given that alcohol and tobacco are legal despite obviously being harmful, I think it's rather silly to keep marihuana illegal.
That and suicide isn't illegal...