NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure this topic has come up before, but, how do you feel about drugs and the laws surrounding them? In Australia, the possesion and purchase of alcohol is legal once you're 18, but possesion of 'drugs' - cannibis, heroin, ghb, MDMA, acid, and so on - is illegal.

I have mixed feelings on the subject. Personally, I don't think that the fact that drugs like ecstacy are illegal stop people popping a pill every weekend when they go clubbing. I am very aware and concerned about the detrimental health effects it can cause, however, I don't think everyone fully understands what they're putting into their body. I think campaigns to educate the youth about drugs - truthfully, not "drugs are evil" - would be more succesful than the simple fear of being caught and getting in troulble with the police.

I don't feel that marijuana is any different to alcohol. If a drug that can cause heart disease and cancer can be sold liberally to anyone over 18, why can't marijuana be legal? Who's more likely to start a fight: a drunk jock or a stoner? If the potential lung cancer that smoking pot can cause is truly a concern, why are cigarrettes still legal?

What would do you think should be legal?

Legalise it, don't critisize it.


Criminalise faulty grammar instead! ;)

Anyway, there is no big difference between the effects of alcohol and marijuana - except that alcohol abuse and dependance are taking an higher toll in terms of permanent psychophysical damage and deaths.

i think the recreational consumption of neurotropic substances is not the most intelligent thing people do, but banning mere posession, of ANYTHING, is even dumber, because of the opportunities it creates for politically and otherwise vindictively motivate abuses of even the best of legal systems, or any other.

so i do favor legalizing the possession of everything, but not the mass production, mass importation, or sale for valuable consideration, in larger then personal dossage quantities. more or less like the home brew laws are now for making your own wine and beer.

as i've mentioned elsewere, this is my feeling, not only about substances, but artifacts such as personal balistic side arms and more sophisticated armament as well.

everyone should be allowed to have one nuclear tipped cruze missle and means of launching it, but only if they can build it in their home workshop.

=^^=
.../\...

however, I don't think everyone fully understands what they're putting into their body. I think campaigns to educate the youth about drugs - truthfully, not "drugs are evil" - would be more succesful than the simple fear of being caught and getting in troulble with the police.


Ecstasy is a good case of how the illegality compounds the not knowing. Without any standardization E is often a mix of actual E and whatever the person who made it feels like, usually some sort of meth. And it's not like you're going to do a chemical test in the club/rave/whatever. So even if you're versed on what MDMA, that might not be all you're getting. Where it legal there would be a way to at least make sure that's what you were getting without 'extras.'

Though that is by no means a perfect solution, since there are plenty of legal products that we get with 'extras' we're not aware of...

Criminalise faulty grammar instead! ;)

*snip*

There's nothing wrong with my grammar. It's lyrics to a Bob Marley song. If you're trying to say my spelling is incorrect, I actually Googled the word "critisize" to see if it was supposed to be an "s" or a "z" and "z" had more results...so... yeah.

There's nothing wrong with my grammar. It's lyrics to a Bob Marley song. If you're trying to say my spelling is incorrect, I actually Googled the word "critisize" to see if it was supposed to be an "s" or a "z" and "z" had more results...so... yeah.

This (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/) is handy for words that you are unsure of the spelling of.

Speaking of grammar issues, nice preposition at the end of that sentence.


(I don't actually care, but if you're going to pick on someone for their spelling and call it grammar...)

I didn't, that was Risottia... I was trying to be helpful.
Also, yeah I do that a lot :(

Drugs that pose a direct threat to other people (e.g. PCP) should be kept illegal without question. The rest should be legalized, regulated and taxed proportionate to their potential negative effects. Law enforcement should be redirected towards suppressing the most dangerous drugs and containing attempts at tax evasion. Obviously, if we were to reroute all the money wasted on marijuana enforcement towards these other drugs, there would be a realistic chance of stopping serious drug abuse problems.

Truth be told, I don't legalization would affect drug usage all that much, since most drugs aren't used because they're illegal, they're used because people want to experience their effects. I've been able to buy cigarettes legally for a couple of years and it has in no way increased my disposition to smoke them; I don't plan to do other drugs, so even if they were legal I still wouldn't use them. That doesn't mean I would preclude others from doing so, just that the decision to do drugs almost never has anything to do with their legality.

There's nothing wrong with my grammar. It's lyrics to a Bob Marley song. If you're trying to say my spelling is incorrect, I actually Googled the word "critisize" to see if it was supposed to be an "s" or a "z" and "z" had more results...so... yeah.

wiki:
Grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a given natural language, and, as such, is a field of linguistics. Traditionally, grammar included morphology and syntax; ...

Morphology (or spelling), just as syntax, is a subset of grammar.
anyway, www.webster.com, not google.

By the way, prepositions that are part of a phrasal verbal construct do go at the end of a subordinate clause.

Fuck dude, I do it all the time. In fact, I had to look it up to make sure that was even the case.

I arrange it 'properly' when it doesn't sound cumbersome, otherwise I just go ahead and let my prepositions dangle away :D

Speaking of grammar issues, nice preposition at the end of that sentence.


(I don't actually care, but if you're going to pick on someone for their spelling and call it grammar...)

As Winston Churchill said "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with."

As Winston Churchill said "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with."

I'm not sure if the more important "I don't actually care" part is getting through...wasn't there something about drugs being discussed?

I don't think everyone fully understands what they're putting into their body.
In my experience, most people do know what they're putting in their bodies except for the additive bits of course and even then, most people know that other shit is mixed with it; it's just they don't know what. It's more a case that people for the most part don't care. The same goes for legal drugs:they know alcohol is poisoning their liver and tobacco smoking their lung; it's just they don't particularly want to live to any ripe old age and care more about getting high, drunk etc.
I don't feel that marijuana is any different to alcohol.
It is most certainly different; it's just that it's no harmful. If anything, weed is less harmful than alcohol.
If a drug that can cause heart disease and cancer can be sold liberally to anyone over 18, why can't marijuana be legal? Who's more likely to start a fight: a drunk jock or a stoner? If the potential lung cancer that smoking pot can cause is truly a concern, why are cigarrettes still legal?
All good points. Society is certainly hypocritical when it lets 2 recreational drugs be legal but not another popular recreational drug which is less damaging. Also, it makes people take more harmful drugs like largactyl, SSRI's and SNRI's.
What would do you think should be legal?
I think all drugs should be legal. You could perhaps make smoking illegal without banning any drugs if people are so concerned about second hand smoke cos snuff and hash brownies would still be legal.

I'm not sure if the more important "I don't actually care" part is getting through...wasn't there something about drugs being discussed?

I'm not sure... Was there?

Legalize them, and treat drug abuse as a public health issue, rather than as a criminal one.

Here's (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/) an interesting documentary I watched last night, witch is kind of related.

I'm not sure if the more important "I don't actually care" part is getting through...wasn't there something about drugs being discussed?

Was there...oh my short-term memory is shit.

Cannabis will always be sold.
Cannabis isn't as harmfull or dangerous as alcohol.
If I now want to buy cannabis, I have to go buy it illegal wich can result ugly.
Therefore cannabis should be regulated and sold at authorized selling points by authorized persons. Tax incomes, control, quality,...

wiki:
Grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a given natural language, and, as such, is a field of linguistics. Traditionally, grammar included morphology and syntax; ...

Morphology (or spelling), just as syntax, is a subset of grammar.
anyway, www.webster.com, not google.

By the way, prepositions that are part of a phrasal verbal construct do go at the end of a subordinate clause.

Does it really matter?

*snip*

It is most certainly different; it's just that it's no harmful. If anything, weed is less harmful than alcohol.

All good points. Society is certainly hypocritical when it lets 2 recreational drugs be legal but not another popular recreational drug which is less damaging. Also, it makes people take more harmful drugs like largactyl, SSRI's and SNRI's.

I tend to think alcohol is as "harmful" or even more harmful than weed, actually.

SSRIs aren't used for recreation. Well, I'm sure idiots use them, but they don't do anything.

Cannabis will always be sold.
Cannabis isn't as harmfull or dangerous as alcohol.
If I now want to buy cannabis, I have to go buy it illegal wich can result ugly.
Therefore cannabis should be regulated and sold at authorized selling points by authorized persons. Tax incomes, control, quality,...

Good point.

*snip*

I would like to see why people keep on sprouting that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. After all, less harmful is still harmful.

Good point, too.
Then again, caffiene is harmful.
Cheese is harmful.

Water can be harmful.

It's all about not consuming things to excess.

I'd just like to thank Newer Burmecia for posting a reference to the BBCi documentary I was about to post....stealing my thunder....:D

I'm quite taken with the policy of total legislation at present; Heroin, and the more destructive chemicals excluded. I believe that, with oil and arms, the illegal drug trade is the most prosperous on the planet; were it to be legalised, government tax revenues would increase greatly, allowing for investment in public services, and a needed reduction of income tax. Moreover, I see very little to fault in permitting consenting drug use. There is no immanent difference between drug use, and the consumption of alcohol and nicotene; only that the current system by which drugs are produced is sufficiently mired in criminal causes to render their consumption taboo.

IMHO, the argument that "X is less harmful than Y, and Y is legal, then X should also be legal" is full of, well, y'know what. Also, I keep seeing things like "People will keep on doing Z anyway, why don't we legalize Z?" Well, by that logic, everything humans are doing anyway, from murder to overeating to watching Hannah Montana, should be legal. Nothing, then, should be illegal...

I would like to see why people keep on sprouting that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. After all, less harmful is still harmful.

Yep legalise it all.

Well, by that logic, everything humans are doing anyway, from murder to overeating to watching Hannah Montana, should be legal.

OH GOD NO, anything but that!!!! :eek:


*runs*

I would like to see why people keep on sprouting that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol
Well, it's because it is less harmful than alcohol. The argument is well worn, I know, but people continue to use it because it exposes the hypocrisy that underlies keeping cannabis possession and use illegal whilst allowing or condoning (or, hell, encouraging) possession and use of alcohol.

The British idea - that you can classify all of the vast range of substances that people might decide to take into a nice, tidy system where they are classified as Class A, B or C and then specify punishments for their possession or use according to their class - is a classic example of trying to over-simplify things. It's infantile in its approach, and was - rightly - shown to be based on discredited or outdated information and to be unfit for purpose in a recent research report in the Lancet, some of the content of which was featured in the Horizon programme on BBC2 last night, which someone mentioned above.

Too many people in the general populace buy into the whole "drugs are bad" party line that various governments seem intent on shoving down our throats from an early age. They hear the dreaded buzzword, "drugs", and they leap up onto their moral high horse, despite having absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I'm not ever going to deny that there are substances that will, if abused, seriously mess you up - of course there are - but this idea that you can just lump them all into the same category and slap the "omg they're drugs they're bad" label on it is just plain stupidity. It's yet more dumbing down, and I'm sick of it.

Well, it's because it is less harmful than alcohol. The argument is well worn, I know, but people continue to use it because it exposes the hypocrisy that underlies keeping cannabis possession and use illegal whilst allowing or condoning (or, hell, encouraging) possession and use of alcohol.

The British idea - that you can classify all of the vast range of substances that people might decide to take into a nice, tidy system where they are classified as Class A, B or C and then specify punishments for their possession or use according to their class - is a classic example of trying to over-simplify things. It's infantile in its approach, and was - rightly - shown to be based on discredited or outdated information and to be unfit for purpose in a recent research report in the Lancet, some of the content of which was featured in the Horizon programme on BBC2 last night, which someone mentioned above.

Too many people in the general populace buy into the whole "drugs are bad" party line that various governments seem intent on shoving down our throats from an early age. They hear the dreaded buzzword, "drugs", and they leap up onto their moral high horse, despite having absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I'm not ever going to deny that there are substances that will, if abused, seriously mess you up - of course there are - but this idea that you can just lump them all into the same category and slap the "omg they're drugs they're bad" label on it is just plain stupidity. It's yet more dumbing down, and I'm sick of it.

But you do know that drugs are bad mmkay!

No I mean it they are both for social and medical reasons.

lol weed is so overrated but truthfully the buzz is great still.
it is relaxing and poses no threat to no-one, unless its got something else in it. imagine someone trying to fight while high...
they would fall on the floor and start laughing...
and its more healthy than tobacco cuz its not addictive.
anyway, crack, heroin, cocaine, E's, lsd, etc... should be illegal obviously.

lol weed is so overrated but truthfully the buzz is great still.
it is relaxing and poses no threat to no-one, unless its got something else in it. imagine someone trying to fight while high...
they would fall on the floor and start laughing...
and its more healthy than tobacco cuz its not addictive.
anyway, crack, heroin, cocaine, E's, lsd, etc... should be illegal obviously.

Cept it is addictive, and you smoke it with tabaco, and unfiltered.

Cept it is addictive, and you smoke it with tabaco, and unfiltered.
It's not, though. I'm sure that there're psychological dependencies that might manifest in some users, but I've yet to see any evidence that it causes physical dependence.

Also, not all people who use cannabis smoke it and, even amongst those who do, not all will mix it with tobacco.

I'd just like to thank Newer Burmecia for posting a reference to the BBCi documentary I was about to post....stealing my thunder....:D
I was clearly posting like greased lightning.;)

(Sorry, I really couldn't miss the opportunity for a cheap pun.)

anyway, crack, heroin, cocaine, E's, lsd, etc... should be illegal obviously.
Actully, most recent research suggests that LSD and Ecstacy are not as harmful to the body as Alcohol, Tobacco and Cannabis.

It's not, though. I'm sure that there're psychological dependencies that might manifest in some users, but I've yet to see any evidence that it causes physical dependence.

Also, not all people who use cannabis smoke it and, even amongst those who do, not all will mix it with tobacco.

Ahhhh pysichal dependence and addictiveness are two differant things though huh.

For example how many friends of yours that smoke pot, try to give it up after a while and how hard do they find that?

Declareing that pot is safe is just not true, there are social, physical health and mental health issues with it, saying there are not, well it's just not correct.

....so i do favor legalizing the possession of everything, but not the mass production, mass importation, or sale for valuable consideration, in larger then personal dossage quantities. more or less like the home brew laws are now for making your own wine and beer.

...

Would you support this for chemical drugs such as E or crystal meth? The biggest dangers of these drugs stem from the fact that small, unproffesional outfits are making them. To use the overworn alcohol analogy, this would be the same as laws criminalising alcohol distillation without a license, which has resulted in a lot less deaths from alcohol poisoning and random explosions. As CTOAN said:

Ecstasy is a good case of how the illegality compounds the not knowing. Without any standardization E is often a mix of actual E and whatever the person who made it feels like, usually some sort of meth. And it's not like you're going to do a chemical test in the club/rave/whatever. So even if you're versed on what MDMA, that might not be all you're getting. Where it legal there would be a way to at least make sure that's what you were getting without 'extras.'

Though that is by no means a perfect solution, since there are plenty of legal products that we get with 'extras' we're not aware of...

So I would support a home brew policy for marijuana, mycotoxic products, and perhaps other plant based drugs. These products are far safer to make in the privacy of your home. Chemical drugs such as PCP and LSD should be made by licensed and inspected chemists.

IMHO, the argument that "X is less harmful than Y, and Y is legal, then X should also be legal" is full of, well, y'know what. Also, I keep seeing things like "People will keep on doing Z anyway, why don't we legalize Z?" Well, by that logic, everything humans are doing anyway, from murder to overeating to watching Hannah Montana, should be legal. Nothing, then, should be illegal...

I would like to see why people keep on sprouting that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. After all, less harmful is still harmful.

You are making two arguments here.

First of all, you are saying that because something is harmful, it should be illegal. We cannot criminalise everything that is a bit harmful, or cars would be illegal. So we make choices as to what things we should allow and what we shouldn't. Because marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, the arguments for legalising alcohol consumption also work for marijuana consumption. Got it?

Secondly, your argument about legalising everything can be countered by the fact that smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. If I were to smoke a little doob before watching a kung fu movie with my friends, the only person harmed would be myself. This is why we can legalise marijuana consumption and not murder or rape. If I did those things, there would be victims. I would not be the only person harmed. This is an important difference. Got it?

It's not, though. I'm sure that there're psychological dependencies that might manifest in some users, but I've yet to see any evidence that it causes physical dependence.
Really? Can't dispute psychological dependence, because that can happen even in innocuous stuff.

Let me first introduce you to the effects:
In recent decades, substantial progress has been made in understanding the impact of cannabis use on neurobehavioral functioning. This has been fueled, in part, by characterization of an endocannabinoid signaling system in the brain through which cannabis exerts its psychoactive effects. Acute intoxication with cannabis causes marked changes in subjective mental status, brain functioning, and neuropsychological performance. ... Changes in brain functioning and neuropsychological performance are also reported after abstinence, but appear to be mild, circumscribed, and transient. ... Neuropsychological deficits and differences in brain functioning are most consistently observed only among frequent, heavy users, who are those most likely addicted to cannabis. The dire impact of drug addiction on a person's life and everyday functioning suggests that the large number of individuals addicted to cannabis experience substantial negative effects from its use.
Gonzalez R. Acute and non-acute effects of cannabis on brain functioning and neuropsychological performance. Neuropsychol Rev. 2007 Sep;17(3):347-61.

Then how about addiction? This forthcoming passage, says that the signaling of the endocannabinoid system is a promising target for drug development (note that I am not arguing against medical maijuana here, only against recreational cannabis)
The endogenous endocannabinoid system encompasses a family of natural signaling lipids ("endocannabinoids") functionally related to (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana (cannabis), along with proteins that modulate the endocannabinoids, including enzymes, transporters, and receptors. The endocannabinoid system's ubiquitous regulatory actions in health and disease underscore its importance to mammalian (patho)physiology and suggest discrete targets through which it may be modulated for therapeutic gain. Medications based on the endocannabinoid system are an important focus of contemporary translational research, particularly with respect to substance abuse and obesity, two prevalent disorders with a pathogenic component of endocannabinoid system hyperactivity. Pressing health care needs have made the rational design of targeted CB1 cannabinoid-receptor modulators a promising route to future medications with significant therapeutic impact against psychobehavioral and metabolic disturbances having a reward-supported appetitive component.
Janero DR, Makriyannis A. Targeted modulators of the endogenous cannabinoid system: future medications to treat addiction disorders and obesity. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2007 Oct;9(5):365-73.
Intact endogenous cannabinoid signaling is involved in several aspects of drug addiction. Most importantly, endocannabinoids exert pronounced influence on primary rewarding effects of abused drugs, including exogenous cannabis itself, through the regulation of drug-induced increase in bursting activity of dopaminergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA). ...These findings indicate that retrograde synaptic signaling mediated by 2-AG via CB(1) may influence the drug-reward circuitry at multiple types of synapses in the VTA.
Essentially, endocannabinoids and cannabis act on the ventral tegmental area of the brainstem. These result in the increased activity of the mesolimbic system, contributing to the increase in dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. Increase dopaminergic signals to the nucleus accumbens result in the pleasurable feelings resulting from the use of drugs (most drugs, actually). However, there is the phenomenon of tolerance, wherein the neurons respond to the increased dopamine or cannabinoids by increasing the receptors for this substances. Eventually, the same dose of the drug/dopamine signal/cannabinoids is not enough to induce the same amount of response, leading to the user increasing the dose to get the same "high". This becomes a vicious cycle and then the user is not addicted. Note, however, that not all users will become addicted, it depends on several factors.....

And still, I am not seeing evidence that says that cannabis or any drug X, is less harmful as your favorite index drug Y.

Ahhhh pysichal dependence and addictiveness are two differant things though huh.

For example how many friends of yours that smoke pot, try to give it up after a while and how hard do they find that?

Declareing that pot is safe is just not true, there are social, physical health and mental health issues with it, saying there are not, well it's just not correct.
How many of my friends? Three have given up completely, that I can think of off-hand. Two of them had no problem whatsoever, the other was a little out of sorts for a few months - but then he'd been the one who would have a spliff every day when he woke up, and another during his lunch break, etc.

I myself still use cannabis from time to time. I used it a lot in my late teens and throughout my 20s, but never experienced any withdrawal symptoms during those times (often months on end) when I chose not to partake. I'm not sure if I would accept or not if someone asked me if I wanted some today - I'd probably decline since I have a lot to do today and tomorrow, and getting anything done whilst stoned is an exercise in futility. I don't find myself twitching for it, ever, which is more than I can say in regards to my nicotine addiction.

At no point have I declared that it's "safe". It (THC) is a psychoactive chemical, whose effects are complex and can have different impacts depending on the individual in question. There have been well-documented reports of it hastening bipolar conditions, but more recent research seems to suggest that this only happens in people who were predisposed to such conditions anyway. Further, research seems to suggest that such damaging effects as it can have only occur when it is used by persons whose brains have not yet fully developed - e.g. teens - and that, in adults, even the much referenced short term memory loss that people like to harp on about is not a permanent effect.

What do you mean by 'social health issues'? If you are referring to the general apathy that is part of the classic "stoner" picture then I can see where you're coming from but I still can't see any real issue if you look at it in the light of the drinking culture that exists up and down the country. Yes yes, I know, "two wrongs don't make a right", and all that rubbish, but it's a matter of keeping things in perspective. The only real issue that I have with cannabis is that there is currently no corollary to alcohol breath tests that can be used to dissuade people from driving whilst under the influence. I remember the AA publishing findings a few years back that seemed to show that people who drove cars whilst under the influence of cannabis were less likely to have accidents, because they were aware of their limitations and drove defensively but, all things told, I'd rather people were free of intoxication whilst controlling a vehicle.

Lastly, I'd like you to cite your source for any supposed "physical health" issues that there are, because I've debated this topic pretty keenly for a lot of years, and I've yet to see any. My GP agrees.

Really? Can't dispute psychological dependence, because that can happen even in innocuous stuff.
I'm not convinced that you read my post correctly... I said that I was sure that there were psychological dependencies. No biggie.

Seriously, people. I'm not sitting here in some THC-induced haze trying to convince you all that it's a harmless hobby and that we should all be toking up for the duration of each and every day. My point is simply that it's blatant hypocrisy to demonise some substances the way that some people are inclined to and that, when placed in a direct comparison with the legal substances like tobacco and alcohol, some of the substances that are currently proscribed by law actually come out looking not so bad after all.

And yes, I accept that "not so bad" != "good".

First of all, you are saying that because something is harmful, it should be illegal. We cannot criminalise everything that is a bit harmful, or cars would be illegal. So we make choices as to what things we should allow and what we shouldn't. Because marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, the arguments for legalising alcohol consumption also work for marijuana consumption. Got it?
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Suppose there are two drugs, B and C. B is more harmful than the other, but had benefits. C is less harmful but has little or no benefits. Note that B and C do not necessarily refer to alcohol or cannabis in particular, I'm just trying to debunk the worn argument that "Hey, C is less harmful than the legal drug B, let's legalize C too!". Now that is just utter nonsense. Less harmful is still harmful, and IMHO the reason why we are legalizing/approving drugs is that their benefits outweigh the harms in certain conditions. Medical marijuana possibly; recreational marijuana, probably no.

Still, I have yet to see these evidence, which everyone seems to know, that cannabis is much less harmful than alcohol.

Secondly, your argument about legalising everything can be countered by the fact that smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. If I were to smoke a little doob before watching a kung fu movie with my friends, the only person harmed would be myself. This is why we can legalise marijuana consumption and not murder or rape. If I did those things, there would be victims. I would not be the only person harmed. This is an important difference. Got it?
Perhaps were are focusing a bit on those who use little and few. Note that it's not as simple as that. Many drug dependencies start out like that; but I'm not saying that everyone who smokes a bit will be addicted. Imagine the societal costs of drug dependency; if we are presently having difficulties and incurring large societal costs on one legal drug, alcohol, if you legalize more, imagine the costs will add up. Also, this addiction, and possibly, the direct effects of the drugs play a factor in many crimes. If we are able to take away this factor, we might be able to reduce crime, despite indirectly. ;)

How many of my friends? Three have given up completely, that I can think of off-hand. Two of them had no problem whatsoever, the other was a little out of sorts for a few months - but then he'd been the one who would have a spliff every day when he woke up, and another during his lunch break, etc.

I myself still use cannabis from time to time. I used it a lot in my late teens and throughout my 20s, but never experienced any withdrawal symptoms during those times (often months on end) when I chose not to partake. I'm not sure if I would accept or not if someone asked me if I wanted some today - I'd probably decline since I have a lot to do today and tomorrow, and getting anything done whilst stoned is an exercise in futility. I don't find myself twitching for it, ever, which is more than I can say in regards to my nicotine addiction.

So you can find at least one example of it's adictivness within your own circle.


At no point have I declared that it's "safe".

You are correct, sorry I was answering Zanki when I said that.


What do you mean by 'social health issues'? If you are referring to the general apathy that is part of the classic "stoner" picture then I can see where you're coming from but I still can't see any real issue if you look at it in the light of the drinking culture that exists up and down the country.

Well that is a good example, but really I was thinking of the social implications that all drug use has, the wider social health if you like.


Lastly, I'd like you to cite your source for any supposed "physical health" issues that there are, because I've debated this topic pretty keenly for a lot of years, and I've yet to see any. My GP agrees.

No sources needed, if you smoke it effects your health, if you drink it effects your health, shit anything that you ingest can effect your health.

Secondly, your argument about legalising everything can be countered by the fact that smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. If I were to smoke a little doob before watching a kung fu movie with my friends, the only person harmed would be myself. This is why we can legalise marijuana consumption and not murder or rape. If I did those things, there would be victims. I would not be the only person harmed. This is an important difference. Got it?

And if you crashed while high, or beat somebody up while high(don't look at me like that it can, does, and has happend)?

I'm not convinced that you read my post correctly... I said that I was sure that there were psychological dependencies. No biggie.

Seriously, people. I'm not sitting here in some THC-induced haze trying to convince you all that it's a harmless hobby and that we should all be toking up for the duration of each and every day. My point is simply that it's blatant hypocrisy to demonise some substances the way that some people are inclined to and that, when placed in a direct comparison with the legal substances like tobacco and alcohol, some of the substances that are currently proscribed by law actually come out looking not so bad after all.

And yes, I accept that "not so bad" != "good".

Well in effect that is my point also.

So you can find at least one example of it's adictivness within your own circle.
Yep, an example of the kind of psychological dependency that I previously said I was sure existed.
really I was thinking of the social implications that all drug use has, the wider social health if you like
Again, no arguments here. The point remains, however, that there is no consistency in the way that illegal substances are classified - whether you measure them by social impact or any other quantifier.
in effect that is my point also
Yeah, I realised that as I reviewed what I'd been posting. Must be that short term memory problem of mine.

Essentially, endocannabinoids and cannabis act on the ventral tegmental area of the brainstem. These result in the increased activity of the mesolimbic system, contributing to the increase in dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. Increase dopaminergic signals to the nucleus accumbens result in the pleasurable feelings resulting from the use of drugs (most drugs, actually). However, there is the phenomenon of tolerance, wherein the neurons respond to the increased dopamine or cannabinoids by increasing the receptors for this substances. Eventually, the same dose of the drug/dopamine signal/cannabinoids is not enough to induce the same amount of response, leading to the user increasing the dose to get the same "high". This becomes a vicious cycle and then the user is not addicted. Note, however, that not all users will become addicted, it depends on several factors.....

And still, I am not seeing evidence that says that cannabis or any drug X, is less harmful as your favorite index drug Y.

Your articles appear to describe the neurological mechanism by which someone may become addicted. It does not seem to say that marijuana addiction is inevitable or even harmful.

You want evidence that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana? Okay (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0620-e.htm#ahospitalizations).

According to data on the causes of deaths recorded in Canada in 2003, 666 people died as a result of mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol. The main cause of death was alcohol dependence syndrome (328 deaths); followed by deaths caused by the harmful use of alcohol (155 deaths) and deaths caused by acute intoxication (77 deaths).

That was deaths for one country for one year. Now, marijuana use doesn't seem to have any recorded association with increased mortality (http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/ch3.html).

Many people who spoke to the IOM study team in favor of the medical use of marijuana cited the absence of marijuana overdoses as evidence that it is safe. Indeed, epidemiological data indicate that in the general population marijuana use is not associated with increased mortality.

Does that count as evidence that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana?

...I'm just trying to debunk the worn argument that "Hey, C is less harmful than the legal drug B, let's legalize C too!". Now that is just utter nonsense.

If you want to debunk it, I suggest you start constructing logical arguments against it, or showing the holes in the argument, instead of just claiming it's nonsense.

Less harmful is still harmful, and IMHO the reason why we are legalizing/approving drugs is that their benefits outweigh the harms in certain conditions. Medical marijuana possibly; recreational marijuana, probably no.

Getting hit by a car is less harmful than getting hit by a nuclear bomb. But it still harmful. By your logic, cars should be illegal.



Still, I have yet to see these evidence, which everyone seems to know, that cannabis is much less harmful than alcohol.

See above.

Imagine the societal costs of drug dependency; if we are presently having difficulties and incurring large societal costs on one legal drug, alcohol, if you legalize more, imagine the costs will add up.

That's an interesting theory, but it doesn't agree with reality. The truth is that people are already using illicit drugs, so we are already paying the societal cost. There is no reason to assume that these costs are going to get higher.

Also, this addiction, and possibly, the direct effects of the drugs play a factor in many crimes. If we are able to take away this factor, we might be able to reduce crime, despite indirectly.

By legalising the drug trade, we would get rid of the vast majority of drug-related crime (i.e. trafficking, production, etc.). Also, those who are doing drugs and then commiting crimes would not have to worry so much about legal repercussions if they decide to clean themselves up and stop being criminals. It is likely the crime rate will actually decrease.

And if you crashed while high, or beat somebody up while high(don't look at me like that it can, does, and has happend)?

Then my crime would be assault and battery, or in the case of the car, vehicular manslaughter. These are all separate crimes from smoking pot. A person could just as easily commit these crimes without smoking pot.

And drunk driving laws would easily deal with the legal issues of driving while high.

Then my crime would be assault and battery, or in the case of the car, vehicular manslaughter. These are all separate crimes from smoking pot. A person could just as easily commit these crimes without smoking pot.

And drunk driving laws would easily deal with the legal issues of driving while high.

Okay so lets say that possesation of alchol was illegal but you decide to drink and drive anyway; you crash and kill somebody. Would you then say that your drinking was a victimless crime?

Now replace the booze with pot, and ask the same question, then go back to where you said that smoking pot is a victimless crime, then understand the post and the point at which I asked you the question.

Okay so lets say that possesation of alchol was illegal but you decide to drink and drive anyway; you crash and kill somebody. Would you then say that your drinking was a victimless crime?

Now replace the booze with pot, and ask the same question, then go back to where you said that smoking pot is a victimless crime, then understand the post and the point at which I asked you the question.

Yes. Drinking the alcohol would be the victimless crime. Driving a car while being in a state that I can not effectively focus would be the crime.

It doesn't matter why I have trouble driving. The fact that I got behind the wheel of car like that is what's important.

Yes. Drinking the alcohol would be the victimless crime. Driving a car while being in a state that I can not effectively focus would be the crime.

It doesn't matter why I have trouble driving. The fact that I got behind the wheel of car like that is what's important.

Meh forget it then, determined as you seem to miss the point.

Meh forget it then, determined as you seem to miss the point.

I thought I addressed your point quite clearly. If not, then what exactly is your point?

LOL - I see version 2348734876 of this debate went stupid early (the grammar/spelling question).

Yes, it's been done a billion times.

To sum things up, based on previous discussions, the prohibition of some recreational drugs (THC, heroin, etc.) and not others (ethanol, nicotine, caffine, etc.) is:

1) Racist
2) Arbitrary
3) Unjust
4) Unjustifiable

This is your thread.
This is your thread on drugs.
Any questions?

All that said, "Legalize It" is a Peter Tosh song, not Bob Marley!
http://www.amazon.com/Legalize-Peter-Tosh/dp/B00000JH21

Finally, as an asthma patient, cannabinoids have shown enough of a theraputic effect that I wish to see medical cannabis be legal and available.

Surely we can all agree that a few hits from a cannabis vaporiser which has benificial side effects would be better for all concerned than a couple of beers?

Cept it is addictive, and you smoke it with tabaco, and unfiltered.

It's not, though. I'm sure that there're psychological dependencies that might manifest in some users, but I've yet to see any evidence that it causes physical dependence.

Also, not all people who use cannabis smoke it and, even amongst those who do, not all will mix it with tobacco.
That's you crazy Europeans. Here in Northern California we don't mix it. And the use of vaporizers is fairly wide spread. That and cooking.
Okay so lets say that possesation of alchol was illegal but you decide to drink and drive anyway; you crash and kill somebody. Would you then say that your drinking was a victimless crime?

Now replace the booze with pot, and ask the same question, then go back to where you said that smoking pot is a victimless crime, then understand the post and the point at which I asked you the question.
Driving while intoxicated was the crime.
Meh forget it then, determined as you seem to miss the point.
He didn't miss the point. You created a secondary situation and then tried to paint all use with it. That's ridiculous. Booze is legal but driving while drunk is not. There is no reason to assume that any other intoxicant should be.

Okay so lets say that possesation of alchol was illegal but you decide to drink and drive anyway; you crash and kill somebody. Would you then say that your drinking was a victimless crime?

Now replace the booze with pot, and ask the same question, then go back to where you said that smoking pot is a victimless crime, then understand the post and the point at which I asked you the question.

You're lumping together several "crimes". Possession of an "intoxicant", use of a "intoxicant", and "DUI". 1 and 2 are utterly victemless while 3 is not. This logic calls for banning cars, not intoxicants!

Your articles appear to describe the neurological mechanism by which someone may become addicted. It does not seem to say that marijuana addiction is inevitable or even harmful.

You want evidence that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana? Okay (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0620-e.htm#ahospitalizations).
That just describes the mortality due to alcohol. How about marijuana? Can't compare numbers with nothing.

That was deaths for one country for one year. Now, marijuana use doesn't seem to have any recorded association with increased mortality (http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/ch3.html).
As said, "harm" does not necessarily mean death. It might be possible that alcohol kills more but marijuana maims more. Curiously, in your source:
Indeed, epidemiological data indicate that in the general population marijuana use is not associated with increased mortality. However, other serious health outcomes should be considered, and they are discussed below

Does that count as evidence that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana?
Actually, no. Overdose =/= use in addicted patients. Overdose is usually a one-time thing, and it is possible that interventions may had been done. For drug dependent, this overdose is chronic.

If you want to debunk it, I suggest you start constructing logical arguments against it, or showing the holes in the argument, instead of just claiming it's nonsense.
That argument implies that if Drug X is legal, then a less harmful Drug Y should be legalized too. As said earlier, the "harm" a drug may cause is not thing considered. Consider for example, drug X has benefits and drug Y has little or no benefits at all. Now if we were to weigh the "harms" and the benefits, legalizing drug X may be justifiable while drug Y may not. (note that I do not necessarily refer to alcohol or cannabis) As I said, "Less harmful is still harmful, and IMHO the reason why we are legalizing/approving drugs is that their benefits outweigh the harms in certain conditions."

Getting hit by a car is less harmful than getting hit by a nuclear bomb. But it still harmful. By your logic, cars should be illegal.
Sometimes, logic can be fun, ain't it? :) You see, the car per se, in itself, did not cause the collision. There has to be something/someone using the car as an instrument to cause harm, intentionally or not. We don't penalize/blame the car for the accident, we have someone/something responsible. That's why your cars remain legal. Though there is a possibility that the car might be used to induce harm, the benefits of cars may had far outweighed this possibility for it to be legalized. Nukes, on the other hand, seem to have all possibility to induce harm and little benefit... but that's another topic already.

Cannabis, may directly cause harm, on the user, though addiction, and other stuff. Cannabis can also increase the possibility of the user to induce harm. All of these I believe to be considerably sufficient to justify criminalization of marijuana for recreational use, as the "benefits" of recreational use are far too little for the costs incurred.

That's an interesting theory, but it doesn't agree with reality. The truth is that people are already using illicit drugs, so we are already paying the societal cost. There is no reason to assume that these costs are going to get higher.
True, there might be little evidence to support increased "use" with decriminalization. However, the term "use" here refers to the proportion of the population which used marijuana. They may not have probably taken into account for the amount that is taken in. Thus, while country K and country L may have the same rates of usage, consumption may be higher in country K with legalized marijuana because it is readily available (and cheaper? I dunno. Weed is illegal here.). And increased consumption may indicate a greater proportion of dependents; or maybe it will result to greater impairments, and the like.

By legalising the drug trade, we would get rid of the vast majority of drug-related crime (i.e. trafficking, production, etc.). Also, those who are doing drugs and then commiting crimes would not have to worry so much about legal repercussions if they decide to clean themselves up and stop being criminals. It is likely the crime rate will actually decrease.
Again, that is one argument I find rather amusing. Of course the crime rate will decrease because marijuana usage and possession is technically not a crime anymore and it will artificially lower the crime rates.

However, most of these criminals/syndicates do not sell pot because they believe that pot should be legal, but rather because of the money derived from it. If pot is legalized, they are temporarily deprived of income. (Though some may shift to selling legal pot.) But I assure you they are smart and will find alternative sources of income... which will still give you crime. They will just shift from one moneymaker to another, and legalizing pot will not likely solve the problem. IMHO the problem here is enforcement, not the law. Better police enforcement/surveillance will minimize the problem better then simply legalizing pot.

That just describes the mortality due to alcohol. How about marijuana? Can't compare numbers with nothing.

As said, "harm" does not necessarily mean death. It might be possible that alcohol kills more but marijuana maims more. Curiously, in your source:

Actually, no. Overdose =/= use in addicted patients. Overdose is usually a one-time thing, and it is possible that interventions may had been done. For drug dependent, this overdose is chronic.

Actually, my links do not focus solely on mortality rates, but here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-comparison.htm) is a good synopsis:

The major risks of acute cannabis use show some parallels with the acute risks of alcohol intoxication. First, both drugs produce psychomotor and cognitive impairment, especially of memory and planning. The impairment produced by alcohol increases risks of various kinds of accident. It may also increase the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviour such as dangerous driving, and unsafe sexual practices. While cannabis intoxication increases the risks of casualties in hazardous situations, it remains to be determined to what extent it increases the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviour.

Alcohol and cannabis intoxication appear to differ in their relation to intentional rather than accidental casualties. Alcohol intoxication is strongly associated with aggressive and violent behaviour. The relationship is complex, and the nature and extent of drinking's causal effect remains controversial at the level of the individual drinker (Pernanen, 1991; Martin, 1993; Pohorecky, Brick and Milgram, 1993). But there is good causal evidence that changes in the level of alcohol consumption affect the incidence of violent crime, at least in some populations (Room, 1983; Lenke, 1990; Cook and Moore, 1993). There is also increasing evidence to indicate that alcohol may play a role in suicide (Edwards et al., forthcoming). There is little to suggest that causal relationship of cannabis use to aggression or violence, at least in present-day developed societies.

Second, there is good evidence that substantial doses of alcohol taken during pregnancy can produce a foetal alcohol syndrome. There is suggestive but far from conclusive evidence that cannabis can also adversely affect the development of the foetus when used during pregnancy. A clear equivalent for cannabis of the foetal alcohol syndrome has not been established.

Third, there is a major health risk of acute alcohol use that is not shared with cannabis. In large doses alcohol can cause death by asphyxiation, alcohol poisoning, cardiomyopathy and cardiac infarct. There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users.

I think that shows quite clearly that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana.

That argument implies that if Drug X is legal, then a less harmful Drug Y should be legalized too. As said earlier, the "harm" a drug may cause is not thing considered. Consider for example, drug X has benefits and drug Y has little or no benefits at all. Now if we were to weigh the "harms" and the benefits, legalizing drug X may be justifiable while drug Y may not. (note that I do not necessarily refer to alcohol or cannabis) As I said, "Less harmful is still harmful, and IMHO the reason why we are legalizing/approving drugs is that their benefits outweigh the harms in certain conditions."

This is merely a repeat of what you have already posted. I have already replied to this.

Sometimes, logic can be fun, ain't it? :) You see, the car per se, in itself, did not cause the collision. There has to be something/someone using the car as an instrument to cause harm, intentionally or not. We don't penalize/blame the car for the accident, we have someone/something responsible. That's why your cars remain legal. Though there is a possibility that the car might be used to induce harm, the benefits of cars may had far outweighed this possibility for it to be legalized. Nukes, on the other hand, seem to have all possibility to induce harm and little benefit... but that's another topic already.

Cannabis, may directly cause harm, on the user, though addiction, and other stuff. Cannabis can also increase the possibility of the user to induce harm. All of these I believe to be considerably sufficient to justify criminalization of marijuana for recreational use, as the "benefits" of recreational use are far too little for the costs incurred.

Cannabis cannot do anything. It has no will or sentience. A user can cause harm to himself (or herself) with marijuana, but marijuana can not get up and force someone to hurt themselves with it.

Nor is there any indication that cannabis can also increase the possibility of the user to induce harm. None.

True, there might be little evidence to support increased "use" with decriminalization. However, the term "use" here refers to the proportion of the population which used marijuana. They may not have probably taken into account for the amount that is taken in. Thus, while country K and country L may have the same rates of usage, consumption may be higher in country K with legalized marijuana because it is readily available (and cheaper? I dunno. Weed is illegal here.). And increased consumption may indicate a greater proportion of dependents; or maybe it will result to greater impairments, and the like.

There is no reason to assume that people will consume more drugs simply because they are legalised.

However, most of these criminals/syndicates do not sell pot because they believe that pot should be legal, but rather because of the money derived from it. If pot is legalized, they are temporarily deprived of income. (Though some may shift to selling legal pot.) But I assure you they are smart and will find alternative sources of income... which will still give you crime. They will just shift from one moneymaker to another, and legalizing pot will not likely solve the problem. IMHO the problem here is enforcement, not the law. Better police enforcement/surveillance will minimize the problem better then simply legalizing pot.

Why do you assume that the rate of crime must stay the same? This is not necessary. Criminals could downsize their business, or move into legal trades.

And law enforcement hasn't worked yet to get rid of drug crime. Why would you assume that more of the same would change that?

Ahhhh pysichal dependence and addictiveness are two differant things though huh.

For example how many friends of yours that smoke pot, try to give it up after a while and how hard do they find that?

Do you think you and your friends would find it difficult to give up the Internet, TV, sugar, salt, or other such things?

Meh forget it then, determined as you seem to miss the point.

The fact that your point was nonsense does not mean that your point was missed. Yes his drinking WOULD have been a victimless crime. Driving while impaired would be the crime that had a victim.

As said, "harm" does not necessarily mean death. It might be possible that alcohol kills more but marijuana maims more. Curiously, in your source:

Can you show me ANYONE who has been "maimed" by marijuana? Accidents caused by DWI don't count, show me someone who was ACTUALLY maimed by their consumption of marijuana.

lol weed is so overrated but truthfully the buzz is great still.
it is relaxing and poses no threat to no-one, unless its got something else in it. imagine someone trying to fight while high...
they would fall on the floor and start laughing...
and its more healthy than tobacco cuz its not addictive.
anyway, crack, heroin, cocaine, E's, lsd, etc... should be illegal obviously.

Why, though?
Why should those ones be illegal but pot be made legal?

Cept it is addictive, and you smoke it with tabaco, and unfiltered.

Only some people do that, and it's not a good idea.
I smoke it green and filtered through water.
There is no known physical dependance to cannibis.

Actully, most recent research suggests that LSD and Ecstacy are not as harmful to the body as Alcohol, Tobacco and Cannabis.

The problem is the risk of overdose, not to mention all the other crap that's put in pills. If they were made legal, however, at least people would have a better chance at staying alive, because it would be government regulated.

Ahhhh pysichal dependence and addictiveness are two differant things though huh.

For example how many friends of yours that smoke pot, try to give it up after a while and how hard do they find that?

Declareing that pot is safe is just not true, there are social, physical health and mental health issues with it, saying there are not, well it's just not correct.

It's hard because it's psychologically addictive and it's a social drug for many people.

Pot isn't safe, and I don't think many people would be stupid enough to say that it is. It's well known that it can inhance already prevelant mental problems.

Would you support this for chemical drugs such as E or crystal meth? The biggest dangers of these drugs stem from the fact that small, unproffesional outfits are making them. To use the overworn alcohol analogy, this would be the same as laws criminalising alcohol distillation without a license, which has resulted in a lot less deaths from alcohol poisoning and random explosions. As CTOAN said:



So I would support a home brew policy for marijuana, mycotoxic products, and perhaps other plant based drugs. These products are far safer to make in the privacy of your home. Chemical drugs such as PCP and LSD should be made by licensed and inspected chemists.

I think it should all be government regulated if it were made legal.



So we make choices as to what things we should allow and what we shouldn't. Because marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, the arguments for legalising alcohol consumption also work for marijuana consumption. Got it?

Secondly, your argument about legalising everything can be countered by the fact that smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. If I were to smoke a little doob before watching a kung fu movie with my friends, the only person harmed would be myself. This is why we can legalise marijuana consumption and not murder or rape. If I did those things, there would be victims. I would not be the only person harmed. This is an important difference. Got it

I have to agree with you there. If you smoke pot, in your own home, and you don't do anything to anyone, you're only hurting yourself, and you should have the right to do that because it's your body. But, if you smoke pot and then abuse your kids, or get in a car and kill someone, that's a whole different story. Just like "drink driving" or "drunk + disorderly" are crimes, "high driving" or "high + disorderly" should be crimes too.

How many of my friends? Three have given up completely, that I can think of off-hand. Two of them had no problem whatsoever, the other was a little out of sorts for a few months - but then he'd been the one who would have a spliff every day when he woke up, and another during his lunch break, etc.

I myself still use cannabis from time to time. I used it a lot in my late teens and throughout my 20s, but never experienced any withdrawal symptoms during those times (often months on end) when I chose not to partake. I'm not sure if I would accept or not if someone asked me if I wanted some today - I'd probably decline since I have a lot to do today and tomorrow, and getting anything done whilst stoned is an exercise in futility. I don't find myself twitching for it, ever, which is more than I can say in regards to my nicotine addiction.

At no point have I declared that it's "safe". It (THC) is a psychoactive chemical, whose effects are complex and can have different impacts depending on the individual in question. There have been well-documented reports of it hastening bipolar conditions, but more recent research seems to suggest that this only happens in people who were predisposed to such conditions anyway. Further, research seems to suggest that such damaging effects as it can have only occur when it is used by persons whose brains have not yet fully developed - e.g. teens - and that, in adults, even the much referenced short term memory loss that people like to harp on about is not a permanent effect.

What do you mean by 'social health issues'? If you are referring to the general apathy that is part of the classic "stoner" picture then I can see where you're coming from but I still can't see any real issue if you look at it in the light of the drinking culture that exists up and down the country. Yes yes, I know, "two wrongs don't make a right", and all that rubbish, but it's a matter of keeping things in perspective. The only real issue that I have with cannabis is that there is currently no corollary to alcohol breath tests that can be used to dissuade people from driving whilst under the influence. I remember the AA publishing findings a few years back that seemed to show that people who drove cars whilst under the influence of cannabis were less likely to have accidents, because they were aware of their limitations and drove defensively but, all things told, I'd rather people were free of intoxication whilst controlling a vehicle.

Lastly, I'd like you to cite your source for any supposed "physical health" issues that there are, because I've debated this topic pretty keenly for a lot of years, and I've yet to see any. My GP agrees.

I know that smoking pot affects my lungs. If I smoke too often, I get coughs, colds and throat infections very easily. That's a physical health effect.

I also think there are mental health effects beyond worsening bipolar. My paranoia has a lot to do with pot.

I also think there are social issues. Even though the "typical" stoner is often just a false image, just like your "typical" alcoholic, smoking pot every single day would undoubtedly damage most people's social lives.

Okay so lets say that possesation of alchol was illegal but you decide to drink and drive anyway; you crash and kill somebody. Would you then say that your drinking was a victimless crime?

Now replace the booze with pot, and ask the same question, then go back to where you said that smoking pot is a victimless crime, then understand the post and the point at which I asked you the question.

But it's not the drinking that hurt anyone: It was drink driving that hurt someone. If you make the choice to drive drunk or high, you deserve to be punished.


Can you show me ANYONE who has been "maimed" by marijuana? Accidents caused by DWI don't count, show me someone who was ACTUALLY maimed by their consumption of marijuana.

My cousin Joey. While he was asleep one night, the leftovers in his chop bowl took his baseball bat and beat him to death, then took his wallet.

Do you think you and your friends would find it difficult to give up the Internet, TV, sugar, salt, or other such things?

I had a hell of a time giving up Diet Coke. It sucked ass and took several false steps.

Whenever I run low on money I drop weed like an after thought. It's never really a problem, except as a friend once pointed out so accurately, I remember what it's like to be bored.

I'll criticize it all I want. Grow a pair.

Then my crime would be assault and battery, or in the case of the car, vehicular manslaughter.

Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how someone crashes a car while watching a Kung-fu movie . . .

Even in those new cars with DVD players and stuff they put them where the driver won't be distracted by watching.

I'll criticize it all I want. Grow a pair.

1. It's the lyrics of a song.
2. Grow a pair of what, exactly? I'm assuming a conservative individual like yourself wouldn't like it if a female had BALLS.

1. It's the lyrics of a song.
2. Grow a pair of what, exactly? I'm assuming a conservative individual like yourself wouldn't like it if a female had BALLS.

GLaDOS had balls, and we all know how that turned out.

criticize it to your hearts content, but legalize it anyway, and free up the jail space for those who really need to be there.

=^^=
.../\...

I thought I addressed your point quite clearly. If not, then what exactly is your point?

That no drug consumption is as you say, victimless. If you smoke and have klids the chances of them growing up to be smokers is cast. If you drink and have kids the same, your children learn from you good and bad.

No choice you make even on a personal level is victimless. Even if you don't have children, and smoke or drink your self into an early grave, there will be people griveing for you.

Do you think you and your friends would find it difficult to give up the Internet, TV, sugar, salt, or other such things?

Heh me and my friends find it hard to give up all sorts of things. But whats your point in asking this question?

criticize it to your hearts content, but legalize it anyway, and free up the jail space for those who really need to be there.

=^^=
.../\...

I totaly agree with both parts of that.

Actually, my links do not focus solely on mortality rates, but here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-comparison.htm) is a good synopsis:

I think that shows quite clearly that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana.
Let's run over it:
Alcohol and cannabis intoxication appear to differ in their relation to intentional rather than accidental casualties. Alcohol intoxication is strongly associated with aggressive and violent behaviour. The relationship is complex, and the nature and extent of drinking's causal effect remains controversial at the level of the individual drinker (Pernanen, 1991; Martin, 1993; Pohorecky, Brick and Milgram, 1993). But there is good causal evidence that changes in the level of alcohol consumption affect the incidence of violent crime, at least in some populations (Room, 1983; Lenke, 1990; Cook and Moore, 1993). There is also increasing evidence to indicate that alcohol may play a role in suicide (Edwards et al., forthcoming). There is little to suggest that causal relationship of cannabis use to aggression or violence, at least in present-day developed societies.

Second, there is good evidence that substantial doses of alcohol taken during pregnancy can produce a foetal alcohol syndrome. There is suggestive but far from conclusive evidence that cannabis can also adversely affect the development of the foetus when used during pregnancy. A clear equivalent for cannabis of the foetal alcohol syndrome has not been established.

Third, there is a major health risk of acute alcohol use that is not shared with cannabis. In large doses alcohol can cause death by asphyxiation, alcohol poisoning, cardiomyopathy and cardiac infarct. There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users.
What I am seeing is that there is there is still no conclusive evidence to prove that marijuana has no, or has any, effect. That is if I would consider a pro-legalization website a reliable source.

Nevertheless, statistics on alcohol cannot be compared on unknowns. You cannot wave this as a sign the cannabis is much less toxic than marijuana.

Going over it, I don't think that you have to reach toxic concentrations in the body for morbidity to appear. The parameter in determining LD50 (lethal dose 50%), the toxic dose in animals, is death. Extrapolation of the LD50 to humans will only give you the dose in which half of the human users will die. Now, even if they used LD1 (the dose in which 1% of the subjects would die), again, your parameter here is death. There is absolutely no reason to think that below the LD dose the patient will just be fine. No. It is a progression, most probably dose-dependent, and that the patient may have deterioration very well below that lethal dose.

This is merely a repeat of what you have already posted. I have already replied to this.
Yes, I posted it again because TBH I found your reply to be unsatisfactory. But I will give you cookies. :D

Cannabis cannot do anything. It has no will or sentience. A user can cause harm to himself (or herself) with marijuana, but marijuana can not get up and force someone to hurt themselves with it.

Nor is there any indication that cannabis can also increase the possibility of the user to induce harm. None.
Now, the problem here is where is marijuana in the harm sequence?
marijuana ---> person ---> effect
note that marijuana can cause harm on both the person may increase the possibility of the person to induce harm. Aside from its toxic effects, marijuana may change the person so that s/he is now more prone to committing/inducing harm. Usually the person has no or less control under the influence, and so eliminating marijuana in the first place will make it less likely for harm to be committed.

There is no reason to assume that people will consume more drugs simply because they are legalised.
And there is also no reason to assume that that people will not consume more drugs simply because they are legalised. It is more logical to think that since it will become more readily available (and probably cheaper), demand/consumption would rise... Also, I would rather err on the side of caution. Your assumption is more dangerous than mine.

Why do you assume that the rate of crime must stay the same? This is not necessary. Criminals could downsize their business, or move into legal trades.
Again, why would you assume that the rate of crime will fall (on legalization)? They there for the money. Legalization would entail less profits for cannabis vendors (as it would become cheaper, and there will be taxes), etc, making it a less lucrative business. They will just shift to other moneymaking activities. Basically there are two assumptions here... and again, if I would err, I would err on the side of caution.

And law enforcement hasn't worked yet to get rid of drug crime. Why would you assume that more of the same would change that?
Because it is more logical to think of it that way. However, law enforcement isn't the only things that need to be done. It is a public health problem and a social problem, and we need to address all of them at the same time. It is useless to increase law enforcement without helping the addicts, without informing people of the consequences of their choices, etc.

Can you show me ANYONE who has been "maimed" by marijuana? Accidents caused by DWI don't count, show me someone who was ACTUALLY maimed by their consumption of marijuana.
Addiction, in itself, is pathological. Period.

Oh, and should you want more:
On driving:
CONCLUSION: Cannabis had a negative effect on driving, as would be predicted from human performance studies. This finding supports the need for interventions to decrease the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis, and indicates that further studies should be conducted to investigate the dose-response relationship between cannabis and safe driving.
Bédard M, Dubois S, Weaver B. The impact of cannabis on driving. Can J Public Health. 2007 Jan-Feb;98(1):6-11.
Driving under the influence of cannabis increases the risk of involvement in a crash.
Laumon B, Gadegbeku B, Martin JL, Biecheler MB; SAM Group. Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2005 Dec 10;331(7529):1371. Epub 2005 Dec 1.
This study demonstrates a higher prevalence of opiates, alcohol, cannabinoids and the combination of these last two compounds in blood samples from drivers involved in road accidents than in those from controls, which suggests a causal role for these compounds in road crashes.
Mura P, Kintz P, Ludes B, Gaulier JM, Marquet P, Martin-Dupont S, Vincent F, Kaddour A, Goullé JP, Nouveau J, Moulsma M, Tilhet-Coartet S, Pourrat O. Comparison of the prevalence of alcohol, cannabis and other drugs between 900 injured drivers and 900 control subjects: results of a French collaborative study. Forensic Sci Int. 2003 Apr 23;133(1-2):79-85.
The prevalence of drugs increased over the decade, particularly cannabis and opioids, while alcohol decreased. Cannabis had a larger prevalence in motorcyclists (22.2%), whereas stimulants had a much larger presence in truckers (23%).
Drummer OH, Gerostamoulos J, Batziris H, Chu M, Caplehorn JR, Robertson MD, Swann P. The incidence of drugs in drivers killed in Australian road traffic crashes. Forensic Sci Int. 2003 Jul 8;134(2-3):154-62.
On suicide:
RESULTS: When compared with natural causes of death, suicide deaths among white decedents were associated with use of mental health services, heavy drinking, marijuana use, depression symptoms, and firearm availability. Suicides by African American decedents were associated only with use of mental health services, marijuana, and firearm availability.
Kung HC, Pearson JL, Wei R. Substance use, firearm availability, depressive symptoms, and mental health service utilization among white and African American suicide decedents aged 15 to 64 years. Ann Epidemiol. 2005 Sep;15(8):614-21. Epub 2004 Dec 10.
The more prevailing suicidal idea occurrence was observed in cannabis abusers (50.0%) and alcohol abusers (36.6%).
Licanin I, Music E, Laslo E, Berg-Kelly K, Masic I, Redzic A, Vejzagic A, Krosnjar S. Suicidal thoughts related to psychoactive substance abuse among adolescents. Med Arh. 2003;57(4):237-40.

I tend to think alcohol is as "harmful" or even more harmful than weed, actually.
Too right.

SSRIs aren't used for recreation. Well, I'm sure idiots use them, but they don't do anything.
I know. But they're still drugs, even if they are legal, and more harmful than some illegal recreational drugs such as cannabis.

That no drug consumption is as you say, victimless. If you smoke and have klids the chances of them growing up to be smokers is cast. If you drink and have kids the same, your children learn from you good and bad.
Which is a problem with one's parenting, not one's drug consumption. If I failed to teach my children about responsible use of alcohol and they abuse it, then it doesn't matter whether I drink or not.

No choice you make even on a personal level is victimless. Even if you don't have children, and smoke or drink your self into an early grave, there will be people griveing for you.

Are you suggesting that people should be legally required to live their lives in such a way that their families will be happy?

That no drug consumption is as you say, victimless. If you smoke and have klids the chances of them growing up to be smokers is cast.

My parents smoked. This taught me that it smells awful and makes me cough. I really don't think the die is as cast as you assume.

Heh me and my friends find it hard to give up all sorts of things. But whats your point in asking this question?

Then would you say that you and your friends have a psychological addiction to those things and those things are thus "unsafe" just like marijuana?

Addiction, in itself, is pathological. Period.

That's nice. Now address how many people have been maimed.

Maimed:
# badly injured, perhaps with amputation; "the maimed right hand twisted and clutched"- P.B.Kyne; "mutilated victims of the rocket attack"
# having a part of the body crippled or disabled
# wounded: people who are wounded; "they had to leave the wounded where they fell"

Oh, and should you want more:
On driving:

Irrelevant. I never claimed you could toke and drive


On suicide:

Correlation does not equal causation. Can you prove that these were not people who were already depressed and suicidal who were using the pot to self medicate?

1. It's the lyrics of a song.

And you posted it, thus a challenge to me. If someone tells me not to criticize something, I'll tell them to fuck way the hell off. If you want to live in a little bubble free of criticism, live in the woods, where the only critics are the bears.

2. Grow a pair of what, exactly? I'm assuming a conservative individual like yourself wouldn't like it if a female had BALLS.

You and your ridiculous political stereotyping. I am hardly conservative, and am quite pro-legalization, but ridackulous instructions to not criticize irritate me.

That's nice. Now address how many people have been maimed.

Maimed:
# badly injured, perhaps with amputation; "the maimed right hand twisted and clutched"- P.B.Kyne; "mutilated victims of the rocket attack"
# having a part of the body crippled or disabled
# wounded: people who are wounded; "they had to leave the wounded where they fell"
Perhaps I am guilty of poor choice of words. The word I chose made you think only of physical effects/injuries, but I think the more hidden injury are the psychological effects, which, can lead to/predispose to physical injury. I don't see why people don't see that... :(

Irrelevant. I never claimed you could toke and drive
How nice of you to dismiss all of that stuff. YOU probably don't do that, but not everybody is like you, y'know. :)

Correlation does not equal causation.
Agreed on that. ;) Free cake for you for pointing that out. *hands over a slice of cake*

That no drug consumption is as you say, victimless. If you smoke and have klids the chances of them growing up to be smokers is cast. If you drink and have kids the same, your children learn from you good and bad.

No choice you make even on a personal level is victimless. Even if you don't have children, and smoke or drink your self into an early grave, there will be people griveing for you.

By your logic, fast food, cars, alcohol, television, smoking, caffeine, most sports, martial arts and a vast array of proffesions would be illegal. All of these have victims the same way marijuana has victims. Since banning all that would be incredibly impractical, we can not use your definition of 'victimless'.

Let's run over it:

What I am seeing is that there is there is still no conclusive evidence to prove that marijuana has no, or has any, effect. That is if I would consider a pro-legalization website a reliable source.

Nevertheless, statistics on alcohol cannot be compared on unknowns. You cannot wave this as a sign the cannabis is much less toxic than marijuana.

Tell you what. I put up studies by medical professionals that seem to support my hypothesis. Why don't you do the same? Find me a link showing that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol. Meanwhile, here are several sources from medical professionals clearly stating how alcohol is more harmful than marijuana:

Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University (http://cbs3.com/topstories/alcohol.tobacco.drugs.2.282305.html) agrees with me:

In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.

...

Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy.

This one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11784457?dopt=Abstract) is definitely not pro-legalisation:

FINDINGS: Alcohol showed a "J-shaped" relationship with DSM-IV affective and anxiety disorders: alcohol users had lower rates of these problems than non-users of alcohol, while those meeting criteria for alcohol dependence had the highest rates. Tobacco and cannabis use were both associated with increased rates of all mental health problems examined. However, after controlling for demographics, neuroticism and other drug use, cannabis was not associated with anxiety or affective disorders. Alcohol dependence and tobacco use remained associated with both of these indicators of mental health. All three types of drug use were associated with higher rates of other substance use problems, with cannabis having the strongest association.

It's definitely less addictive (http://www.basisonline.org/2007/01/stash_vol_31_th.html) than alcohol:

Among the 8,098 participants in the total sample, there were 7,485 alcohol users, 3,940 marijuana users, and 1,337 cocaine users. Of the persons who tried alcoholic beverages at least once, 15-16% eventually developed alcohol dependence. The rate was similar for cocaine users, 16%-17%, and lower, 9%, for marijuana users.

Going over it, I don't think that you have to reach toxic concentrations in the body for morbidity to appear. The parameter in determining LD50 (lethal dose 50%), the toxic dose in animals, is death. Extrapolation of the LD50 to humans will only give you the dose in which half of the human users will die. Now, even if they used LD1 (the dose in which 1% of the subjects would die), again, your parameter here is death. There is absolutely no reason to think that below the LD dose the patient will just be fine. No. It is a progression, most probably dose-dependent, and that the patient may have deterioration very well below that lethal dose.

This is all well and good, but what does this have to do with the legalisation of marijuana?

Yes, I posted it again because TBH I found your reply to be unsatisfactory. But I will give you cookies.

You said "Less harmful is still harmful, and IMHO the reason why we are legalizing/approving drugs is that their benefits outweigh the harms in certain conditions."

Now, alcohol and tobacco are legal. Please explain to me how their benefits outweigh their harms. Then show me how marijuana has more harms than benefits. Until you do that, it is just your opinion and holds no weight in this debate.

Now, the problem here is where is marijuana in the harm sequence?
marijuana ---> person ---> effect
note that marijuana can cause harm on both the person may increase the possibility of the person to induce harm. Aside from its toxic effects, marijuana may change the person so that s/he is now more prone to committing/inducing harm. Usually the person has no or less control under the influence, and so eliminating marijuana in the first place will make it less likely for harm to be committed.

Prove it. Show me that marijuana has ever made anyone prone to commiting harm. If you can't do that, then this argument is useless.

And there is also no reason to assume that that people will not consume more drugs simply because they are legalised. It is more logical to think that since it will become more readily available (and probably cheaper), demand/consumption would rise... Also, I would rather err on the side of caution. Your assumption is more dangerous than mine.

I have an idea. Why don't you show me some statistics that show a dramatic increase in consumption after prohibition was repealed. The USA made alcohol illegal in the 1920's and legalised it ten years later. If you can show me that alcohol consumption dramatically increased when they legalised it, then you might have an argument.

Again, why would you assume that the rate of crime will fall (on legalization)? They there for the money. Legalization would entail less profits for cannabis vendors (as it would become cheaper, and there will be taxes), etc, making it a less lucrative business. They will just shift to other moneymaking activities. Basically there are two assumptions here... and again, if I would err, I would err on the side of caution.

It is logical. Corporations (like organised crime) require profits in order to expand or diversify. They must get these profits from their existing ventures (selling illegal drugs). By completely closing the market on a substantial portion of their business ventures (by legalising the drugs), these businesses would have substantially reduced profits. Consequently, it would be more difficult for them to expand or diversify.

Because it is more logical to think of it that way. However, law enforcement isn't the only things that need to be done. It is a public health problem and a social problem, and we need to address all of them at the same time. It is useless to increase law enforcement without helping the addicts, without informing people of the consequences of their choices, etc.

No, it is not more logical. It is actually one of the definitions of insanity, i.e. doing the same thing over and over again and hoping to get different results.

i believe the main reason it is not legalized is because the government has no way of regulating it. unlike tobacco marijuana is used in an unprocessed state, by legalizing it how would johnny law and big brother benifit? people could grow it in their backyards and government wouldn't get their tax money, for a product that is in demand like pot is.

I think booze and tobacco should be made illegal. They kill. As do illegal drugs. Rather than lowering legal standards let's raise them.

I think booze and tobacco should be made illegal. They kill. As do illegal drugs. Rather than lowering legal standards let's raise them.

Because this worked so well during Prohibition...

Tell you what. I put up studies by medical professionals that seem to support my hypothesis. Why don't you do the same? Find me a link showing that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol. Meanwhile, here are several sources from medical professionals clearly stating how alcohol is more harmful than marijuana:
Where did I say that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol? (If I may had said so, sorry that wasn't my point.) Well anyway, I am asking where is this evidence that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. And you gave me somethings:

Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University (http://cbs3.com/topstories/alcohol.tobacco.drugs.2.282305.html) agrees with me:
Interesting. But the method was rather crude and subjective. I have no qualms changing classification, however, I would like it to be evidence-based. And right now we seem to lack just that.

However, that's not the point. The benefits must be weighed in with the harms. I don't want to rehash my point again.

This one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11784457?dopt=Abstract) is definitely not pro-legalisation:
However, after controlling for demographics, neuroticism and other drug use, cannabis was not associated with anxiety or affective disorders. Alcohol dependence and tobacco use remained associated with both of these indicators of mental health. All three types of drug use were associated with higher rates of other substance use problems, with cannabis having the strongest association.
While this study said that cannabis is not associated with anxiety or affective disorders, there seems to be no mention about psychotic disorders. I'll give you something about psychotic disorders:
The authors conclude that the risk of psychosis increased by roughly 40% in people who have used cannabis, and that there is a dose-response effect, leading to an increased risk of 50–200% in the most frequent users.
based on: Moore THM, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet 2007; 370: 319–28.
from here (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/07/27/cannabis_new.pdf)

It's definitely less addictive (http://www.basisonline.org/2007/01/stash_vol_31_th.html) than alcohol:
But, as you can see, it is still addictive... possibly significantly.

Also, I believe that substance abuse/addiction is a disorder. Now, I'm not saying that all addiction is harmful (addiction to NSG... what do you think? ;)) I think there are (or should) be criteria in which addiction can be pathologic.

This is all well and good, but what does this have to do with the legalisation of marijuana?
I think this is in response to this:
...and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users.

You said "Less harmful is still harmful, and IMHO the reason why we are legalizing/approving drugs is that their benefits outweigh the harms in certain conditions."

Now, alcohol and tobacco are legal. Please explain to me how their benefits outweigh their harms. Then show me how marijuana has more harms than benefits. Until you do that, it is just your opinion and holds no weight in this debate.
When did I say that alcohol and tobacco should be legal? We are talking about marijuana here and the oft-repeated assertion I'm rather tired of seeing. What I am saying is that the benefits must be weighed with the harms. If ever the result of this harm-benefit analyses would result in legalization of marijuana, criminalization of alcohol, or censoring of Britney Spears (*wink wink*), I don't care. I think that as of now, there is insufficient evidence for marijuana, that's my opinion, I admit that. I would rather err on the side of caution than legalize it outright. I, too, believe that pro-legalization arguments like that ignore the entire picture and jump into conclusions...

Prove it. Show me that marijuana has ever made anyone prone to commiting harm. If you can't do that, then this argument is useless.
As the long-term use of cannabis can lead to the development of psychosis, I will give you this:
CONCLUSIONS: Psychotic disorders comorbid with personality disorders and substance use disorders are associated with an increased risk of sex offending with and without physical aggression. Mental health policy and practice need to take account of these findings to improve functional outcome among persons with psychotic disorders.
Alden A, Brennan P, Hodgins S, Mednick S. Psychotic disorders and sex offending in a Danish birth cohort. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Nov;64(11):1251-8.
Plus this:
CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: Our findings are preliminary, calling for larger-scale studies, to confirm the present findings and to investigate whether brain responses to cannabis intoxication differentiate those who are predisposed to suffer adverse consequences of cannabis use from those who are not.
Howard RC, Menkes DB. Brief report: changes in brain function during acute cannabis intoxication: preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2007;17(2):113-7.
Law enforcement agencies, emergency rooms, and rape crisis centers across the U.S. were offered the opportunity to submit urine samples collected from victims of alleged sexual assault, where drug use was suspected, for analysis of alcohol and drugs which may be associated with sexual assault. ... Four-hundred sixty eight of the samples were found negative for all the substances tested; 451 were positive for ethanol, 218 for cannabinoids, 97 for benzoylecgonine, 97 for benzodiazepines, 51 for amphetamines, 48 for GHB, 25 for opiates, 17 for propoxyphene, and 12 for barbiturates.
ElSohly MA, Salamone SJ. Prevalence of drugs used in cases of alleged sexual assault. J Anal Toxicol. 1999 May-Jun;23(3):141-6.
CONCLUSION: These findings support prior data indicating that alcohol, marijuana and/or other drugs are important risk factors in sexual assault.
Slaughter L. Involvement of drugs in sexual assault. J Reprod Med. 2000 May;45(5):425-30.

I have an idea. Why don't you show me some statistics that show a dramatic increase in consumption after prohibition was repealed. The USA made alcohol illegal in the 1920's and legalised it ten years later. If you can show me that alcohol consumption dramatically increased when they legalised it, then you might have an argument.
Alcohol and marijuana are not comparable. If alcohol consumption increased or decreased, there are some other factors that may not make them comparable (cultural stuff about alcohol, etc.) we are talking of two different substances here. I think I have a better idea. Why don't you show me that marijuana consumption remained the same when marijuana was legalized?

It is logical. Corporations (like organised crime) require profits in order to expand or diversify. They must get these profits from their existing ventures (selling illegal drugs). By completely closing the market on a substantial portion of their business ventures (by legalising the drugs), these businesses would have substantially reduced profits. Consequently, it would be more difficult for them to expand or diversify.
Again, that is just temporary. They will find other sources if income/expand/diversify. Legalizing does not necessarily mean that crime related to the drug will not occur. Any lucrative venture, legal or illegal, will most likely spawn crime. Diamonds, drugs, etc. (but this is another topic altogether). That's why despite it being legal, if we do not tackle the public health problem, demand is still there, it will still be lucrative.

No, it is not more logical. It is actually one of the definitions of insanity, i.e. doing the same thing over and over again and hoping to get different results.
I don't think that's the definition of insanity, my dear. And it's not like you'll be doing the same thing over and over again. There are different strategies; and the efforts can be bolstered.

I think what needs to be improved one are programs dedicated to detoxification and treatment of the adverse effects of marijuana. Ir is a public health problem and should be tackled as such. Also, it can be a social problem, as there can be social implications (ie. ostracism of users, etc.), that, should also be addressed. An effective education program must also be implemented....

...sorry if I seem to be rambling. it's 1:30 am here, gtg...

Are you suggesting that people should be legally required to live their lives in such a way that their families will be happy?

No not at all, really I'm just saying to all the tokers that insist that pot is not harmfull, that it is. All drugs are, and on more than one level.

Truthfully, I toke, I drop pills, sniff powders, and drink. I teach my kids all about the dangers of drugs and hope that they will not be the same as me. Hopefully they wont'.

It's just that as a drug user you must be educated in what your substance abuse can do, what effects on your life it can have, both the good and the bad. If you insist that there are no bad effects you are really just fooling yourself.

My parents smoked. This taught me that it smells awful and makes me cough. I really don't think the die is as cast as you assume.

Chances, did you see that word I used there?

Then would you say that you and your friends have a psychological addiction to those things and those things are thus "unsafe" just like marijuana?

Certianly drugs are addictive, some physicaly, some psychologicaly. All things when taken in excess can be detrimental to your health, shit even carrots.

Myself, I have been trying to give up the weed for about 6 years now, it's getting better, but I aint there yet.

By your logic, fast food, cars, alcohol, television, smoking, caffeine, most sports, martial arts and a vast array of proffesions would be illegal. All of these have victims the same way marijuana has victims. Since banning all that would be incredibly impractical, we can not use your definition of 'victimless'.


No not illeagal, that is not the point. Hazzardus, yes, victimless no, no way at all.

If you spend all your time on the 'net to the detriment of your marriage, then there are certianly victims; wouldn't you say so?

I have never called for makeing any recreational substance illegeal, I think that it should all be leagel. However, people should not dismiss the dangers that go with them, and not claim that 'smokeing pot is a victimless crime' because it just isn't.

I think booze and tobacco should be made illegal. They kill. As do illegal drugs. Rather than lowering legal standards let's raise them.

The point has already been made about prohabition. Human kind have been using drugs for millienia, we will never stop. How about the goverment stop nannying, and telling us what we can and can't use, and let us 'recreate' however we see fit(golden rule applies)?

Chances, did you see that word I used there?

You said the chance was cast. Since the phrase doesn't quite parse I thought that maybe you were posting tired and were trying to say the die was cast.

Certianly drugs are addictive, some physicaly, some psychologicaly. All things when taken in excess can be detrimental to your health, shit even carrots.

I was referring to non-drug substances, or even activities, that would seem to fit your definition of addictive and therefore dangerous.

Myself, I have been trying to give up the weed for about 6 years now, it's getting better, but I aint there yet.

Which is relevant to my point how?

How nice of you to dismiss all of that stuff. YOU probably don't do that, but not everybody is like you, y'know. :)


It's irrelevant because while the pot is the cause of the intoxication it's being stupid enough to drive while intoxicated (whether on weed, alcohol, or even OTC medication that makes you drowsy) that is the cause of the accident. Let me repeat that - pot did not make them drive while under the influence. Their own stupidity did. Blame the stupid not the weed.

Cannabis will always be sold.
Cannabis isn't as harmfull or dangerous as alcohol.
If I now want to buy cannabis, I have to go buy it illegal wich can result ugly.
Therefore cannabis should be regulated and sold at authorized selling points by authorized persons. Tax incomes, control, quality,...

Or you know... you could not go and buy it?

Professor David Nutt.
Professor Nutt?

i believe the main reason it is not legalized is because the government has no way of regulating it. unlike tobacco marijuana is used in an unprocessed state, by legalizing it how would johnny law and big brother benifit? people could grow it in their backyards and government wouldn't get their tax money, for a product that is in demand like pot is.

Never mind that Phillip Morris has had marketing campaigns and package designs for Marijuana cigarettes for years... :rolleyes:

The MAN is clearly keeping you down.

Instead of comparing cannabis to alcohol or nicotine, compare it to caffeine.

Caffeine is a psycho-active drug that is extremely addictive, much much much much more so than pot.

Caffeine is relatively easy to overdose on whereas you can not o.d. on pot.

Caffeine effects children much more so than adults just as pot does.

Caffeine is easily available to children of any age unlike pot.

Caffeine is used in a huge variety of substances not just drinks. It is added because of the addictive nature of caffeine.

etc, etc, etc. Every justification to outlaw pot can be used to outlaw caffeine. Can you picture the outcry if they tried to ban caffeine? :upyours::sniper::mp5: wouldn't even begin to show how bad it would be. There would be massive world-wide riots.

Legalize and tax it is the only way to go. Currently it is making criminals extremely wealthy. You'd think we would have learned from prohibition which was a disaster for all except criminals.

Okay, I may be taking a rather naive view on the subject, but I find it rather odd that someone can control what I put inside my own body. I'm all for education about the effects, and I don't think "smoking marijuana is not bad for you, dude". However, being an adult in a free society means you get to make your own decisions about the kind of life you want to live. Choosing what to put in your body should be nobody's legal business. For me, this is just as absurd as telling someone what flavor of ice-cream they are not allowed to eat.

Clearly, there are important differences, but my point is that both issues should not be the concern of a government.

As for the argument, it's bad for you, so is eating too much salty food. Even if it were lethal, it can't be the concern of the govt. My girlfriend is currently studying medicine, and tells me stories of how often certain people have been told to reduce their caloric intake, so that they won't destroy their kidneys due to high blood pressure, so they wont get diabetes (Type I), to stop drinking (after getting a liver transplant), but all the doctors can do when their advice is ignored is shake their heads. Should the govt. force feed these people high-fiber foods, jail them for being so unbelievably stupid as to go on to wreck their second liver? No, and we don't forbid those things now, how is smoking marijuana any worse.

I don't do any kinds of drugs (anymore), smoke once a month at most, and drink socially. I still think that if someone chooses to take ecstasy, it should be his choice, just as being obese, eating fatty foods, lots of sugar and not exercising is a choice we give to people already.

Sorry for rambling:)

Where did I say that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol? (If I may had said so, sorry that wasn't my point.) Well anyway, I am asking where is this evidence that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. And you gave me somethings:

Interesting. But the method was rather crude and subjective. I have no qualms changing classification, however, I would like it to be evidence-based. And right now we seem to lack just that.

No. This is stupid. I have supplied medical studies made by experts in the field. If you want to make the claim that these studies were crude and subjective, prove it. Show me a critique of the study done by another expert in the field. Until then, I'm through arguing this point.

While this study said that cannabis is not associated with anxiety or affective disorders, there seems to be no mention about psychotic disorders. I'll give you something about psychotic disorders:

Alcohol (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3113.htm) can cause psychosis (http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic123.htm) too.

But, as you can see, it is still addictive... possibly significantly.

Also, I believe that substance abuse/addiction is a disorder. Now, I'm not saying that all addiction is harmful. I think there are (or should) be criteria in which addiction can be pathologic.

That's nice. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana.

I think this is in response to this:

Oh, I see. Yes, it does prove my point that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. Because alcohol has an easily attainable LD50 rating, while it was concluded that humans could not possibly consume enough marijuana to kill themselves.

When did I say that alcohol and tobacco should be legal? We are talking about marijuana here and the oft-repeated assertion I'm rather tired of seeing. What I am saying is that the benefits must be weighed with the harms. If ever the result of this harm-benefit analyses would result in legalization of marijuana, criminalization of alcohol, or censoring of Britney Spears (*wink wink*), I don't care. I think that as of now, there is insufficient evidence for marijuana, that's my opinion, I admit that. I would rather err on the side of caution than legalize it outright. I, too, believe that pro-legalization arguments like that ignore the entire picture and jump into conclusions...

So, you are admitting that you have no facts all at to determine what the harm-benefit analysis of marijuana would say. We have no data for cars and banana cream pies either. We should err on the side of caution and ban those too.

As the long-term use of cannabis can lead to the development of psychosis, I will give you this:

Wow. That study doesn't mention cannabis or marijuana at all. Try again.

Plus this:

So, the first guys found no indication to confirm that marijuana could lead to violence.

The second one showed the presence of cannabis in the bloodstream of sexual predators, but does not even attempt to show a causal link.

The third showed the same results as the second.

In other words, you have been unable to show a causal link between marijuana use and violent behaviour. All you have managed to do is provide some studies that suggest that drugs in general can contribute to sexual assault.

Alcohol and marijuana are not comparable. If alcohol consumption increased or decreased, there are some other factors that may not make them comparable (cultural stuff about alcohol, etc.) we are talking of two different substances here. I think I have a better idea. Why don't you show me that marijuana consumption remained the same when marijuana was legalized?

Because I'm tired of finding links for all my claims why you sit around and don't post anything that backs up your argument?

Again, that is just temporary. They will find other sources if income/expand/diversify. Legalizing does not necessarily mean that crime related to the drug will not occur. Any lucrative venture, legal or illegal, will most likely spawn crime. Diamonds, drugs, etc. (but this is another topic altogether). That's why despite it being legal, if we do not tackle the public health problem, demand is still there, it will still be lucrative.

Prove it. I'm tired of you making claims without any back-up. This whole paragraph is a buch of unsupported assumptions. Why would it be temporary? How will they find other sources? What would they be? Why would the crime continue? Why would the crime scene around legal marijuana be the same as it is now?

I don't think that's the definition of insanity, my dear. And it's not like you'll be doing the same thing over and over again. There are different strategies; and the efforts can be bolstered.

We are currently attempting to do just what you suggest. it is not working. It is insane to suggest that doing more of the same will work.

I think what needs to be improved one are programs dedicated to detoxification and treatment of the adverse effects of marijuana. Ir is a public health problem and should be tackled as such. Also, it can be a social problem, as there can be social implications (ie. ostracism of users, etc.), that, should also be addressed. An effective education program must also be implemented....

...sorry if I seem to be rambling. it's 1:30 am here, gtg...

This would be a lot easier to do if it wasn't illegal....

And you posted it, thus a challenge to me. If someone tells me not to criticize something, I'll tell them to fuck way the hell off. If you want to live in a little bubble free of criticism, live in the woods, where the only critics are the bears.



You and your ridiculous political stereotyping. I am hardly conservative, and am quite pro-legalization, but ridackulous instructions to not criticize irritate me.

You clearly have some sort of underlying anger issue. Perhaps you should have that deal with.

It's a subject line, which contains lyrics to a well-known song about marijuana, indicating this thread was about legalisation (or criminalisation, I suppose) of drugs. If you're going to take a god damn thread title so seriously, how about you hop over to the "rape of democracy in France" thread. and tell them that the use of the word "rape" "irritates" you, too. perhaps you would take that thread as instructions, but I'll tell you now, it's impossible to rape an amorphous country shape.

How am I ridiculous? You told a female, rather rudely, to "grow a pair"! Your nation state appears to be conservative. Yes, I checked my facts, unlike you. And if you were pro legalisation, you would have made a comment about that rather than an ad hominem attack.

Thank you, and good night.

*snip*
I know. But they're still drugs, even if they are legal, and more harmful than some illegal recreational drugs such as cannabis.

Still, SSRIs are medicine. I really don't think they should come into this discussion at all. A lot of people need SSRIs to get through daily life. I would hardly compare penicillin to marijuana in the same way I wouldn't compare SSRIs to marijuana. I do agree though, they can have harmful effects.

Do I need to pull out the video about the affects of psychoactive drugs on wood spiders?







Nice web mr crack spider.

I think booze and tobacco should be made illegal. They kill. As do illegal drugs. Rather than lowering legal standards let's raise them.

Well, I certainly think it's utter bullshit that cigarettes and alcohol are legal but illicit drugs are not, because I agree - they're all bad for you, but I believe that the government has no right to control what I put in my own body in my own home. Also, if booze and tobacco were made illegal, it would just push them underground with other drugs, because where there's demmand there's always supply, and non-government regulated alcohol and cigarettes would be much much more dangerous.


criticize it to your hearts content, but legalize it anyway, and free up the jail space for those who really need to be there.

=^^=
.../\...

I read a book called "Fast Food Nation", and the first essay was about the marijuana laws in America. I couldn't believe how many people were in jail for just knowing a guy who knew a guy!

That no drug consumption is as you say, victimless. If you smoke and have klids the chances of them growing up to be smokers is cast. If you drink and have kids the same, your children learn from you good and bad.

No choice you make even on a personal level is victimless. Even if you don't have children, and smoke or drink your self into an early grave, there will be people griveing for you.

But again, smoking isn't the bad thing. It's smoking in front of your KIDS that's a bad thing. Sex isn't illegal, but if you it in front of your kids, you're doing the wrong thing.

i believe the main reason it is not legalized is because the government has no way of regulating it. unlike tobacco marijuana is used in an unprocessed state, by legalizing it how would johnny law and big brother benifit? people could grow it in their backyards and government wouldn't get their tax money, for a product that is in demand like pot is.

I think if it was legalised, it would be regulated. That's part of why it should be legalised - it would be safer.

Instead of comparing cannabis to alcohol or nicotine, compare it to caffeine.

Caffeine is a psycho-active drug that is extremely addictive, much much much much more so than pot.

Caffeine is relatively easy to overdose on whereas you can o.d. on pot.

Caffeine effects children much more so than adults just as pot does.

Caffeine is easily available to children of any age unlike pot.

Caffeine is used in a huge variety of substances not just drinks. It is added because of the addictive nature of caffeine.

etc, etc, etc. Every justification to outlaw pot can be used to outlaw caffeine. Can you picture the outcry if they tried to ban caffeine? :upyours::sniper::mp5: wouldn't even begin to show how bad it would be. There would be massive world-wide riots.

Legalize and tax it is the only way to go. Currently it is making criminals extremely wealthy. You'd think we would have learned from prohibition which was a disaster for all except criminals.

True. :)

Okay, I may be taking a rather naive view on the subject, but I find it rather odd that someone can control what I put inside my own body. I'm all for education about the effects, and I don't think "smoking marijuana is not bad for you, dude". However, being an adult in a free society means you get to make your own decisions about the kind of life you want to live. Choosing what to put in your body should be nobody's legal business. For me, this is just as absurd as telling someone what flavor of ice-cream they are not allowed to eat.

Clearly, there are important differences, but my point is that both issues should not be the concern of a government.

As for the argument, it's bad for you, so is eating too much salty food. Even if it were lethal, it can't be the concern of the govt. My girlfriend is currently studying medicine, and tells me stories of how often certain people have been told to reduce their caloric intake, so that they won't destroy their kidneys due to high blood pressure, so they wont get diabetes (Type I), to stop drinking (after getting a liver transplant), but all the doctors can do when their advice is ignored is shake their heads. Should the govt. force feed these people high-fiber foods, jail them for being so unbelievably stupid as to go on to wreck their second liver? No, and we don't forbid those things now, how is smoking marijuana any worse.

I don't do any kinds of drugs (anymore), smoke once a month at most, and drink socially. I still think that if someone chooses to take ecstasy, it should be his choice, just as being obese, eating fatty foods, lots of sugar and not exercising is a choice we give to people already.

Sorry for rambling:)

I agree with pretty much everything you've said!

I agree with pretty much everything you've said!

Yipee! For a while there I thought I was invisible. :-) But then you acknowledged my post. And I saw my tired, bleary eyed self in the mirror. I need sleep. Good night.

Okay, I may be taking a rather naive view on the subject, but I find it rather odd that someone can control what I put inside my own body. I'm all for education about the effects, and I don't think "smoking marijuana is not bad for you, dude". However, being an adult in a free society means you get to make your own decisions about the kind of life you want to live. Choosing what to put in your body should be nobody's legal business. For me, this is just as absurd as telling someone what flavor of ice-cream they are not allowed to eat.

Clearly, there are important differences, but my point is that both issues should not be the concern of a government.

Social consequences.

The government is doing its job when they're limiting the use of dangerous substances in general populace.

Otherwise we'd still be using lead based paints, dumping toxic wastes into rivers, drinking Coca-cola (the original stuff), would be driving our cars as fast as possible and wouldn't mind seeing 5 year olds totally hammered in the gutter.

Social responsibility is the first and foremost function of the government: When the group of individuals can't naturally act in a way that sustains the society then it is the job of the government to supply internal stability in a form of control - law'n order - to advance the general well being of its residents.


I'm against full legalization of marijuana for the very simple reason that we DO NOT need another tobacco or alcohol - the health costs of tobacco&alcohol are already astronomical to any given nation. I'm FOR stricter control of aforementioned substances (especially cigarettes as the smoke hazards can often be involuntary) AND similar handling of less potent drugs but I would NOT want to see joints as widely spread as cigarettes are.

Still, SSRIs are medicine. I really don't think they should come into this discussion at all.
I think they should come into the discussion because medicines are still drugs and there is talk of using marijuana as medicine so they can be comparable.
A lot of people need SSRIs to get through daily life. I would hardly compare penicillin to marijuana in the same way I wouldn't compare SSRIs to marijuana. I do agree though, they can have harmful effects.
SSRI's are also used to treat premature ejaculation and has the side-effects of erectile dysfunction and loss of libido. I certainly think most people would prefer the former.

I would definitely say that in the majority of cases, the harm of SSRI's outweighs the benefits, if there are any benefits. Even for its treatment of depression, other methods can easily be found. For one thing, just doing exercise and getting your vitamins and minerals can help with depression, as can meditation. For another thing, cannabis use has shown decreased symptoms of clinical depression. This may cause memory loss when used frequently but at least it doesn't have a suicide rate twice that of the placebo like SSRI's do. If overdosed, SSRI's can cause a potentially life-threatening reaction called serotonin syndrome. If not, it can cause comas and seizures when OD'd.

No not at all, really I'm just saying to all the tokers that insist that pot is not harmfull, that it is. All drugs are, and on more than one level.
I tihnk the point that most people are trying to make is that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and thus the argument that it should be kept illegal because it is harmful is not a terribly good one.

Truthfully, I toke, I drop pills, sniff powders, and drink. I teach my kids all about the dangers of drugs and hope that they will not be the same as me. Hopefully they wont'.

It's just that as a drug user you must be educated in what your substance abuse can do, what effects on your life it can have, both the good and the bad. If you insist that there are no bad effects you are really just fooling yourself.
I agree. I think a comprehensive education on the effects of various drugs would be much more effective at reducing the number of people who abuse them than criminilisation.

Social consequences.

The government is doing its job when they're limiting the use of dangerous substances in general populace.

Otherwise we'd still be using lead based paints, dumping toxic wastes into rivers, drinking Coca-cola (the original stuff), would be driving our cars as fast as possible and wouldn't mind seeing 5 year olds totally hammered in the gutter.
And legalising and regulating(and taxing, of course) recreational drugs for recreational uses would change this how? Alcohol, tobacco and caffiene are legal now, but society isn't exactly collapsing in on itself.

I'm against full legalization of marijuana for the very simple reason that we DO NOT need another tobacco or alcohol - the health costs of tobacco&alcohol are already astronomical to any given nation.
As is the tax revenue from them
I'm FOR stricter control of aforementioned substances (especially cigarettes as the smoke hazards can often be involuntary) AND similar handling of less potent drugs but I would NOT want to see joints as widely spread as cigarettes are.

Well I don't want people to wear high heeled shoes, but I'm not going to throw them in jail for risking their own health.

Otherwise we'd still be using lead based paints, dumping toxic wastes into rivers, drinking Coca-cola (the original stuff), would be driving our cars as fast as possible and wouldn't mind seeing 5 year olds totally hammered in the gutter.


I don't think this is the same thing at all. Nobody chooses to put asbestos in their own home, or use lead paint to paint their homes, once they know of its effects. You are talking about corporate accountability. The act of using lead paint would be carried out by someone who had some monetary gain in using this paint. I'm not talking about it being okay for someone else to blow smoke in your face, i'm talking about it being okay for you yourself to put smoke in your own lungs. I'm sorry, but the comparison is utterly baseless.

Just as your comparison of 12 year olds being drunk in the gutter. The age would be restricted to the age of majority, where we allow people to make all their own decisions.

I'm against full legalization of marijuana for the very simple reason that we DO NOT need another tobacco or alcohol - the health costs of tobacco&alcohol are already astronomical to any given nation. I'm FOR stricter control of aforementioned substances (especially cigarettes as the smoke hazards can often be involuntary) AND similar handling of less potent drugs but I would NOT want to see joints as widely spread as cigarettes are.

Perhaps you read my original post. A huge issue these days is obesity(and its wide array of detrimental cardiovascular effects), and the diabetes caused by this obesity. Are you for outlawing fatty foods (beyond what is determined to be a healthy level of fat?) Are you for forcing people to exercise? Are you for outlawing sugar (the excess of it)? Because these represent huge costs for the healthcare system too. Besides, this just means there has to be a way for the healthcare system to take this into account, like higher insurance premiums (for those countries with private systems). The free will of people can often cause troubles for the smooth functioning of society. Does that mean the solution is simply to take free will away. The healthcare system argument, even if it were valid, (which it is not, as I argued above) does not change the fact that the government cannot take away my right as a human being, or a living being even, to put into my body whatever the hell I want!

I think they should come into the discussion because medicines are still drugs and there is talk of using marijuana as medicine so they can be comparable.

SSRI's are also used to treat premature ejaculation and has the side-effects of erectile dysfunction and loss of libido. I certainly think most people would prefer the former.

I would definitely say that in the majority of cases, the harm of SSRI's outweighs the benefits, if there are any benefits. Even for its treatment of depression, other methods can easily be found. For one thing, just doing exercise and getting your vitamins and minerals can help with depression, as can meditation. For another thing, cannabis use has shown decreased symptoms of clinical depression. This may cause memory loss when used frequently but at least it doesn't have a suicide rate twice that of the placebo like SSRI's do. If overdosed, SSRI's can cause a potentially life-threatening reaction called serotonin syndrome. If not, it can cause comas and seizures when OD'd.


Exercise and vitamins don't treat depression or other mental problems. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but they just don't.

Exercise and vitamins don't treat depression or other mental problems. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but they just don't.I didn't say they treated them; I said they helped them. But treating is the word wikipedia uses for them. It doesn't say exercise cures it but it definitely prevents it returning. A deficiency in the b-vitamin biotin causes severe depression and the symptoms go away when the person is no longer deficient in the vitamin. Also, zinc has an antidepressant effect in an experiment, omega 3 fatty acids are effective at combatting clinical depression and the ginkgo biloba plant is a natural antidepressant. Most of these statements are backed up by university academics who are in turn backed up by scientific research in the field.

I didn't say they treated them; I said they helped them. But treating is the word wikipedia uses for them. It doesn't say exercise cures it but it definitely prevents it returning. A deficiency in the b-vitamin biotin causes severe depression and the symptoms go away when the person is no longer deficient in the vitamin. Also, zinc has an antidepressant effect in an experiment, omega 3 fatty acids are effective at combatting clinical depression and the ginkgo biloba plant is a natural antidepressant. Most of these statements are backed up by university academics who are in turn backed up by scientific research in the field.

Helped is true; indeed there are many compounds that help offset the symptoms of mental illness, but that doesn't remove the need for actual drugs like SSRIs. These supplements can offset some of the effects of these disorders, but neither all of them nor enough of them to actually work as a treatment for clinical depression or other mental health problems. If they did, or even if they worked as well as antidepressants we'd be prescribing them instead of antidepressant drugs; nobody has an incentive to invest billions of dollars developing products that can be just as easily be supplied for a fraction of a cost naturally.

And, of course, many of these vitamin deficiencies are so rare or extreme that there are going to be far more obvious physical symptoms beyond the mental issues.

I didn't say they treated them; I said they helped them. But treating is the word wikipedia uses for them. It doesn't say exercise cures it but it definitely prevents it returning. A deficiency in the b-vitamin biotin causes severe depression and the symptoms go away when the person is no longer deficient in the vitamin. Also, zinc has an antidepressant effect in an experiment, omega 3 fatty acids are effective at combatting clinical depression and the ginkgo biloba plant is a natural antidepressant. Most of these statements are backed up by university academics who are in turn backed up by scientific research in the field.

Helped is true; indeed there are many compounds that help offset the symptoms of mental illness, but that doesn't remove the need for actual drugs like SSRIs. These supplements can offset some of the effects of these disorders, but neither all of them nor enough of them to actually work as a treatment for clinical depression or other mental health problems. If they did, or even if they worked as well as antidepressants we'd be prescribing them instead of antidepressant drugs; nobody has an incentive to invest billions of dollars developing products that can be just as easily be supplied for a fraction of a cost naturally.

And, of course, many of these vitamin deficiencies are so rare or extreme that there are going to be far more obvious physical symptoms beyond the mental issues.


Okay, okay, I definitely understand where both of you are coming from, but as someone who's suffered from mental disorders, I can personally say that exercising and taking zinc doesn't work for me.

Okay, okay, I definitely understand where both of you are coming from, but as someone who's suffered from mental disorders, I can personally say that exercising and taking zinc doesn't work for me.

I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is that these supplements by themselves simply aren't enough for most mental health problems; while they undoubtedly can help, they just aren't enough to treat these problems. That's where medications come in to play.

On the subject of antidepressants, there is a lot of research going on into the use of various opiates from our psychedelic-favourites to our pharmacy-friends as treatments for mental disorders.

*Rotovia returns to lurking*

I just don't see it as wise or safe to take a chemical to deliberately change your mind's functioning so that it functions worse than it should do.



Obviously this only applis to recreational drugs and not to medicational ones.

I just don't see it as wise or safe to take a chemical to deliberately change your mind's functioning so that it functions worse than it should do.



Obviously this only applis to recreational drugs and not to medicational ones.



The question is however, who are you to enforce what your views on whats "wise" onto everyone else? Even if they know its not "wise" but dont care, who are you to make them?

The question is however, who are you to enforce what your views on whats "wise" onto everyone else? Even if they know its not "wise" but dont care, who are you to make them?

We're not. However, we also shouldn't be responsible for covering any of the costs of their decision; if they suffer medical problems, legal problems, or anything else stemming from their use of drugs, they should be entirely on their own and have to pay for the consequences out of their own pockets.

If they're hurting others as a result of it then you've got a duty to the welfare of the people.

And to a point we try to illegalise harmful things, like, asbestos.

But you do have a point, in that if someone wanted to...say...drink themselves to death then that's their choice.

We're not. However, we also shouldn't be responsible for covering any of the costs of their decision; if they suffer medical problems, legal problems, or anything else stemming from their use of drugs, they should be entirely on their own and have to pay for the consequences out of their own pockets.

Well said.

But you do have a point, in that if someone wanted to...say...drink themselves to death then that's their choice.

Exactly. If you're only doing it to yourself, in your own home, with no one else around, why should the government be able to stop you? It just seems so strange that we're allowed to drink ourselves to death but not smoke-pot-ourselves-to-death.

It just seems so strange that we're allowed to drink ourselves to death but not smoke-pot-ourselves-to-death.

Because no one has been able to smoke themselves to death with cannabis.

Because no one has been able to smoke themselves to death with cannabis.

You know what I mean.

It seems ridiculous that somone is allowed to drink as much alcohol as they want, but not smoke pot.

i think the recreational consumption of neurotropic substances is not the most intelligent thing people do, but banning mere posession, of ANYTHING, is even dumber, because of the opportunities it creates for politically and otherwise vindictively motivate abuses of even the best of legal systems, or any other.

so i do favor legalizing the possession of everything, but not the mass production, mass importation, or sale for valuable consideration, in larger then personal dossage quantities. more or less like the home brew laws are now for making your own wine and beer.

as i've mentioned elsewere, this is my feeling, not only about substances, but artifacts such as personal balistic side arms and more sophisticated armament as well.

everyone should be allowed to have one nuclear tipped cruze missle and means of launching it, but only if they can build it in their home workshop.

=^^=
.../\...

i agree in concept up to the point of the nuclear weapon... nuclear weapons are too destructive for personal use, let alone trusting goverments to use them wisely. But in general, if you are smart enough to design and build something, hopefully you are wise enought to use it properly... we hope. :p

And legalising and regulating(and taxing, of course) recreational drugs for recreational uses would change this how? Alcohol, tobacco and caffiene are legal now, but society isn't exactly collapsing in on itself.

You missed my point, I wasn't addressing legality aspect in that quote but the rationality of government regulation.

A 9 year old kid buying alcohol, cigarettes and hard drugs from supermarket without anyone having any right to intervene is not what most think when they're bitching about government regulation.

Well I don't want people to wear high heeled shoes, but I'm not going to throw them in jail for risking their own health.

Actually high heeled shoes might be good for women's sex life (http://www.thecheers.org/news/Weird-news/news_11052_Wearing-high-heels-may-improve-womens-sex-life.html)...Erm..Getting back on topic.

The problem with legalization and lenient control are the side effects: When your behaviour affects other people, infringes their freedom of choice or endangers them directly, there should be government regulation involved because individiuals usually don't give a damn about what their actions might do to a third party - be it the kid next room, neighbour next door or the innocent bystander in the way of your DUI spree.

edit:
People today, in general, are simply too stupid and careless to be left without regulation.

If you spend all your time on the 'net to the detriment of your marriage, then there are certianly victims; wouldn't you say so?

I have never called for makeing any recreational substance illegeal, I think that it should all be leagel. However, people should not dismiss the dangers that go with them, and not claim that 'smokeing pot is a victimless crime' because it just isn't.
It is in itself. Even if you did cause people some sort of emotional trauma by smoking pot, it wouldn't be because of the pot itself but how much you smoked and if you neglected other parts of your life at the same time.
Helped is true; indeed there are many compounds that help offset the symptoms of mental illness, but that doesn't remove the need for actual drugs like SSRIs. These supplements can offset some of the effects of these disorders, but neither all of them nor enough of them to actually work as a treatment for clinical depression or other mental health problems. If they did, or even if they worked as well as antidepressants we'd be prescribing them instead of antidepressant drugs; nobody has an incentive to invest billions of dollars developing products that can be just as easily be supplied for a fraction of a cost naturally.

And, of course, many of these vitamin deficiencies are so rare or extreme that there are going to be far more obvious physical symptoms beyond the mental issues.I'm not that much of an expert so you are possibly right.
What did people do before they invented SSRI's though? Did every1 just go around being deporessed all the time, or at least that every1 that got depressed stayed that way?
Okay, okay, I definitely understand where both of you are coming from, but as someone who's suffered from mental disorders, I can personally say that exercising and taking zinc doesn't work for me.However, did you actually try to use such methods? You can't say it doesn't work if you haven't tried it.

It is in itself. Even if you did cause people some sort of emotional trauma by smoking pot, it wouldn't be because of the pot itself but how much you smoked and if you neglected other parts of your life at the same time.

Then you are one of the aformentioned people who are fooling themselves. The whole reason one smokes pot is exactly the same reason why it too, can be detrimental to your life.

Then you are one of the aformentioned people who are fooling themselves. The whole reason one smokes pot is exactly the same reason why it too, can be detrimental to your life.
I must be missing something:

What reason are you talking about?

What did people do before they invented SSRI's though? Did every1 just go around being deporessed all the time, or at least that every1 that got depressed stayed that way?

Before SSRIs, people mainly relied on MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors). These are more general drugs, which have a whole host more side effects than modern SSRIs and SARIs.

But if you mean, "What did people do before modern pharmaceutical psychiatry," well, the answer is mainly self-medication. Yes, people had depression before modern psychological diagnoses.

This is like how pain existed before modern anesthetics. People who needed surgery back before modern anesthesia would have to either 1) endure surgery while fully conscious, 2) use some intoxicant (like booze) to dull their senses during surgery, or 3) do without surgery and most likely die. People who suffered from serious depression back before treatment options were available would either struggle through on their own, dull their pain with another method, or kill themselves.

I must be missing something:

What reason are you talking about?

To numb the mind in that special way pot does, to get high so nowt else matters, to be come lethargic.

Take your pick.

It's just that as a drug user you must be educated in what your substance abuse can do, what effects on your life it can have, both the good and the bad. If you insist that there are no bad effects you are really just fooling yourself.
Substance abuse is quite different from drug use.

I use a variety of drugs, and I've noticed no ill effects resulting from my drug use. Please feel free to tell me what ill effects I'm missing.

To numb the mind in that special way pot does, to get high so nowt else matters, to be come lethargic.

Take your pick.
Maybe that's why you smoke pot, but that's not why I have smoked it. Indeed, I generally limit my use specifically to prevent a "numbed" state of the type you describe. Much like how I usually stop drinking before I've become really drunk, because I don't particularly want to be drunk these days.

Substance abuse is quite different from drug use.

I use a variety of drugs, and I've noticed no ill effects resulting from my drug use. Please feel free to tell me what ill effects I'm missing.

Bah pedant! You know what I mean.;)

Maybe that's why you smoke pot, but that's not why I have smoked it. Indeed, I generally limit my use specifically to prevent a "numbed" state of the type you describe. Much like how I usually stop drinking before I've become really drunk, because I don't particularly want to be drunk these days.

When we talk of recreational drug use, and I mean any that you care to use. In effect you are using it to escape the mundane; wether that is a little wine to make you feel happy, or a trip to experiance higher plains, or pot to get a little stoned, or whatever, it all boils down to the same thing really. To alter our view, to chemicaly alter what is going on in the brain so that we feel differant from how we normaly feel, would you disagree with this?

Bah pedant! You know what I mean.;)
I know, but I think it's a very important distinction.

When people talk about banning drugs they always focus on the harms of substance abuse. To me, that's like arguing that we should ban ice cream because of the harms from gorging on ice cream until you puke.

When we talk of recreational drug use, and I mean any that you care to use. In effect you are using it to escape the mundane; wether that is a little wine to make you feel happy, or a trip to experiance higher plains, or pot to get a little stoned, or whatever, it all boils down to the same thing really. To alter our view, to chemicaly alter what is going on in the brain so that we feel differant from how we normaly feel, would you disagree with this?
I suppose it could be considered an effort to augment "the mundane," but no more so than when I eat a well-prepared and interesting meal, or when I place art around my home, or when I spend a few hours playing a flashy new videogame. I tend to seek mental stimulation and pleasure. Sometimes drugs provide that in a way that I enjoy.

Maybe it's because I'm the child of a psychologist and a neuroscientist, but I've never had any illusions about drugs being "mind expanding" or taking me to any "higher plain." I know that my entire brain runs on chemicals. Eating provokes chemical reactions in my brain. Sex does, too. So does exercise, sleep, and giving a talk at work. Drugs are simply one way I can choose to induce a change in my brain.

Don't get me wrong, I have certainly done the post-break-up-pub-crawl thing. I understand the desire to drown one's sorrows. I can also understand the desire to self-medicate when one is in pain. But, for me, those feelings are a very rare exception, and drugs are not even my most common means of coping with such emotions. I don't use drugs to escape anything, because I'm not especially interested in escaping.

When we talk of recreational drug use, and I mean any that you care to use. In effect you are using it to escape the mundane; wether that is a little wine to make you feel happy, or a trip to experiance higher plains, or pot to get a little stoned, or whatever, it all boils down to the same thing really. To alter our view, to chemicaly alter what is going on in the brain so that we feel differant from how we normaly feel, would you disagree with this?

Watching a comedy chemically alters the brain. So does having sex, or the endorphin release that accompanies exercise.

Okay, okay, I definitely understand where both of you are coming from, but as someone who's suffered from mental disorders, I can personally say that exercising and taking zinc doesn't work for me.However, did you actually try to use such methods? You can't say it doesn't work if you haven't tried it.

She certainly gives that impression by her wording.

Watching a comedy chemically alters the brain. So does having sex, or the endorphin release that accompanies exercise.

Yes agreed.

I must be missing something:

What reason are you talking about?

To numb the mind in that special way pot does, to get high so nowt else matters, to be come lethargic.

Take your pick.

That's not always why people do drugs. Sometimes it's just fun.

When we talk of recreational drug use, and I mean any that you care to use. In effect you are using it to escape the mundane; wether that is a little wine to make you feel happy, or a trip to experiance higher plains, or pot to get a little stoned, or whatever, it all boils down to the same thing really. To alter our view, to chemicaly alter what is going on in the brain so that we feel differant from how we normaly feel, would you disagree with this?
Watching a comedy chemically alters the brain. So does having sex, or the endorphin release that accompanies exercise.

Exactly.

She certainly gives that impression by her wording.

I sure did. If anything, exercise made it worse sometimes...

That's not always why people do drugs. Sometimes it's just fun.



Heh and the reason we put such great stock in havng fun is.........?

Heh and the reason we put such great stock in havng fun is.........?

Because it's, well, you know, fun?

Sometimes drugs provide that in a way that I enjoy.

So basically you're advocating drug legalization because you like to use them and can control your behaviour?

You've also never exposed anyone else to dangerous side effects - like smell, passive smoking or traffic hazards - or harmed anyone by doing drugs. More kudos to you.

The problem is that you're not representative of an average - or fringe, depending on viewpoint and who you ask - user: Cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs have multpile adverse effects outside of the user, often the effects are there even if the user him or herself is in denial.

Also, the more exposure there is the more there will be users, even from groups that are not the intended target - like kids and teens.

I firmly belive that if drugs were legal, half of the crime problems that most nations have would be utterly resolved. If a person has an addiction, he/she will try to get drugs no matter what. Facilitate it to them, and your government won't have to deal with drug-related crimes.

So basically you're advocating drug legalization because you like to use them and can control your behaviour?

You've also never exposed anyone else to dangerous side effects - like smell, passive smoking or traffic hazards - or harmed anyone by doing drugs. More kudos to you.

"Smell" is a dangerous side effect?

"Smell" is a dangerous side effect?

LOL, I missed that :rolleyes:

"Smell" is a dangerous side effect?
It's an involuntary side effect.

A bystander or a person in same household can't choose not to inhale smell and smell can be dangerous - can cause continuous nausea, for example - if exposed to for long term.

For example, I tend to get a mild head ache and nausea if I have to be in precense of lingering pot smell :p

Watching a comedy chemically alters the brain. So does having sex, or the endorphin release that accompanies exercise.

Difference being, of course, those are internally derived chemicals, whereas pot induces chemicals from an external source.

For example, I tend to get a mild head ache and nausea if I have to be in presense of lingering pot smell :p

That's hardly "dangerous"

That's hardly "dangerous"

It can be.

Being nauseous or annoyed by constant external source of smell means I'm not capable of performing up to my level which can lead to lower performance in school, job or sport and can develop to general malbeing, drowsiness, increased stress levels and depression.

Smell can be a hazard in a similar way noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution) is.

edit:
Additionally, when inhaling smell you're also naturally exposed chemically to the source of smell.

It can be.

Being nauseous or annoyed by constant external source of smell means I'm not capable of performing up to my level which can lead to lower performance in school, job or sport and can develop to general malbeing, drowsiness, increased stress levels and depression.

Smell can be a hazard in a similar way noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution) is.

edit:
Additionally, when inhaling smell you're also naturally exposed chemically to the source of smell.
This seems more like an argument against Axe Body Spray...

Personally, I do not agree with drug use (and I am speaking as an ex user of 14 years). I have seen many people affected by different drugs, and it is sad to see so many friends spiralling downwards and not realising that their habit is the cause. Some died, others committed to mental institutions, whilst many more simply exist in a zombie state from day to day and drain resources off society.

The worst example was a friend who was pregnant but continued to use drugs. The unborn feotus died inside her and she had to be induced into giving birth to a dead baby. The worst part was, that while she was in hospital, her husband smuggled drugs in to her. I simply thought "If that has not taught you any lessons, nothing will."

However, I am a firm believer that people will continue to use drugs regardless of the laws. Therefore I think it would be wise for the governments to legalise it and control its production. The more dangerous drugs, which are mostly made more harmful by the unknown elements which are added, can be regulated and made 'clean'. The governments would also be able to know who was using drugs and who was not, simply by monitoring who was buying them.
Plus, if they undercut the prices then it would encourage people not to buy from illegal sources.
Also, it would help all that money which vanishes every year into drug dealers pockets, to instead go into businesses.
People who rely on drug money as income, and thus do not work for a living or pay tax on their wages, would have to find an alternative solution for their financial gain.

I see many reasons to legalise drugs.
This does not mean I agree with their use.

This seems more like an argument against Axe Body Spray...

I'm not arguing for keeping marijuana illegal, mind you.

I'm arguing for controlled and regulated legalization in a way that minimizes the external hazards, one of which is smell another is passsive exposure - Along with more commonly mentioned traffic hazards, increased use and child substance abuse.

Some type of coffee shop type legalization combined with licensed sales for individiuals and couples in households where there are no innocent bystanders (like kids or nextdoor neighbours). Throw in mandatory cannabis/alco-lock for cars and we're all set.


Your right though, involuntary exposure to any disturbing smell IS annoying and people who use too much AXE should be fined :p

Maybe by smell he meant that you can get high by standing near people smoking it. But secondhand cigarette smoke causes more harm and no one seems to care about that.

I think it's wishful thinking to ban drugs and if they where legal maybe people could buy them legally instead of from some guy who had to kill some other guy to get it.

I'm personally for legalization of all drugs. While I firmly believe that ingestion of substances is a terribly stupid thing to do, I also firmly believe that people have the right to do what they want to their bodies.

What if that person has a kid? Or what if that person is a kid him/herself?

Some drugs can harm others if your using while around them. We have drunk driving laws as well; why not a proper extension for drugs?

Just for argument, underage people do drink and occassionally sneak to mommy's bag to try out cigarettes.

What if there would be a dose of coke in the purse instead of cigarettes?

Maybe by smell he meant that you can get high by standing near people smoking it. But secondhand cigarette smoke causes more harm and no one seems to care about that.

Find a neutral study claiming that.

And also, second hand smoking is already being tackled around the globe: You're no longer allowed to smoke in pubs, bars or many public areas in many countries (including my own).

I'm personally for legalization of all drugs. While I firmly believe that ingestion of substances is a terribly stupid thing to do, I also firmly believe that people have the right to do what they want to their bodies.

Some drugs can harm others if your using while around them. We have drunk driving laws as well; why not a proper extension for drugs?

I also favour legalizing drugs because it lowers crime and actually lowers use. 95% of economists will verify this, various studies verify this, and if you need further proof, I refer you to the Prohibition. Crime rose, and alcohol comsumption rose while it was illegal, then went down afterword.

I think there are far better things you can do with yourself than take drugs for the hell of it, but that's just my personal opinion. To each his own is what I say, and I'm all for decriminalizing 'em. Not like alcohol and cigarettes are really all that better anyway.

I don't feel that marijuana is any different to alcohol. If a drug that can cause heart disease and cancer can be sold liberally to anyone over 18, why can't marijuana be legal? Who's more likely to start a fight: a drunk jock or a stoner? If the potential lung cancer that smoking pot can cause is truly a concern, why are cigarrettes still legal?

What would do you think should be legal?

It often takes most people several drinks (in quick succession) to get drunk, it may take someone only a toke or two to get high. Someone who has had one beer, is probably better of driving than someone who has had one joint (or, being in pihlic at all), that is my standpoint on the "But alcohol is legal!" argument.

Cigarettes are far less damaging, and mentally destabilizing as Marijuana. Marijuana contains far more carcinogens, and affects brain function more than alcohol or cigarettes. Also, because Marijuana is easier to gt addicted to than alcohol, legalizing it would just create a bad place for everyone... even those who do not use, much like alcoholism affects entire societies, so too would marijuana legalization, though Marijuana would doubtless affect the community, and state as a whole.

Think of it in economic terms; people who smoke marijuana are far less apt to be able to keep jobs, or do their jobs well, personally I don't want all the young people (and many old people) toking up, and ruining the economy due the lethargy that is another effect of marijuana use.

Find a neutral study claiming that.

And also, second hand smoking is already being tackled around the globe: You're no longer allowed to smoke in pubs, bars or many public areas in many countries (including my own).A study claiming standing near pot makes you high? I don't need a study, it has happened to me. Besides is it legal to study pot?

It doesn't matter if second hand smoke is banned. People smoke around me all the time. It may just be my college though.

Besides is it legal to study pot?

Yes

I'm personally for legalization of all drugs. While I firmly believe that ingestion of substances is a terribly stupid thing to do, I also firmly believe that people have the right to do what they want to their bodies.

Some drugs can harm others if your using while around them. We have drunk driving laws as well; why not a proper extension for drugs?

I also favour legalizing drugs because it lowers crime and actually lowers use. 95% of economists will verify this, various studies verify this, and if you need further proof, I refer you to the Prohibition. Crime rose, and alcohol comsumption rose while it was illegal, then went down afterword.

It lowers crime only because what is now a criminal activity would become legal. The same way that legalizing burglary would reduce crime.

Are you really suggestion that if we legalize drugs, less people will use them? What about all of the high school kids that don't want to get in trouble (and there are some), rates would go up, it may not seem like it because it is legal and 'nothing' is wrong with it, but usage would still all in all go up....

A study claiming standing near pot makes you high? I don't need a study, it has happened to me. Besides is it legal to study pot?
I meant a neutral study showing that inhaling second hand pot smoke would be healthier than inhaling second hand cigarette smoke.

And yes, it's legal to study pot - just not on humans.

It doesn't matter if second hand smoke is banned. People smoke around me all the time. It may just be my college though.
Not inside the college, I hope.

Second hand smoking isn't banned it's the smoking that is restricted and IMO should be even more restricted.

I actually think less people would use them if they became legal. A lot of people only do it because it's illegal. One of the ways high school is different than the real world is that breaking the law in high school can make you cool in the eyes of your peers.

I actually think less people would use them if they became legal. A lot of people only do it because it's illegal. One of the ways high school is different than the real world is that breaking the law in high school can make you cool in the eyes of your peers.

So you want marijuna completely legalized without age limit? Should we put babies on pot - that would surely make them more tranquil. :p

I meant a neutral study showing that inhaling second hand pot smoke would be healthier than inhaling second hand cigarette smoke.I'm not going to try to find a study, but I know that one causes cancer and one just screws up your appetite.

I just wish people would find a better social activity than smoking. Like pixie sticks. Those are cool.

I'm sure this topic has come up before, but, how do you feel about drugs and the laws surrounding them? In Australia, the possesion and purchase of alcohol is legal once you're 18, but possesion of 'drugs' - cannibis, heroin, ghb, MDMA, acid, and so on - is illegal.

I have mixed feelings on the subject. Personally, I don't think that the fact that drugs like ecstacy are illegal stop people popping a pill every weekend when they go clubbing. I am very aware and concerned about the detrimental health effects it can cause, however, I don't think everyone fully understands what they're putting into their body. I think campaigns to educate the youth about drugs - truthfully, not "drugs are evil" - would be more succesful than the simple fear of being caught and getting in troulble with the police.

I don't feel that marijuana is any different to alcohol. If a drug that can cause heart disease and cancer can be sold liberally to anyone over 18, why can't marijuana be legal? Who's more likely to start a fight: a drunk jock or a stoner? If the potential lung cancer that smoking pot can cause is truly a concern, why are cigarrettes still legal?

What would do you think should be legal?

Whilst I agree with most of your opinions put across I was agrieved with
your drunk Jock comment. Im not sure if by Jock you are using the Americanism of the meaning of the word Jock?

I hail from Scotland and the true meaning of Jock is a Scot. If thats what you meant I take it personally that you insinute we are drunks who like to get into fight. If you were using the Americanism I apologise for the mix up.
:confused:

Some drugs can harm others if your using while around them. We have drunk driving laws as well; why not a proper extension for drugs?

Right, because we have laws against driving drunk, no one does it. Similar to the way no one sppeds, because we post speed limits, or how no one commits vandalism, or fraud, or even murder... I'm glad that those things have been illegalized and no one ever does them.

Oh wait, even people who know drunk driving is bad still do it on occasion, why is that? Oh yeah, alcohol impairs judgement, so many people can't make the right decision.

Why would this be different? Just because you illegalize behaviour around drug use doesn't mean no one will do it, in fact, more people will do it because of the detrimental effects that drugs have on the mind, and one's ability to think clearly.

All of your arguments on the matter seem ineffectual, you have provided no real reason for legalization. "It's their bodies let them do what they want" So, you're saying if I pick up a large, blunt object, I should be able to swing it in your direction (hey, this is just me doing what I want with my body, swinging a two-by-four) and if I happen to hit you with it, and bludgeon you to death, well thats ok, because I happened to be doing what I wanted with my body, and you, regrettably, were a victim....

No of course that's not ok, nor is me speeding ok (though I do it on occasion, I realize I have every right to get pulled over). Drugs are illegal because people much more intelligent than you have thought it through, and realized the far-spanning dangers that drug use can cause our society.

I hail from Scotland and the true meaning of Jock is a Scot. If thats what you meant I take it personally that you insinuate we are drunks who like to get into fight.

No, no, no, that's the Irish ;)

I'm not going to try to find a study, but I know that one causes cancer and one just screws up your appetite.

Of course you know.

It's not like the carcinogens in cigarette smoke are caused by similar chemical reactions to what happens when smoking pot (namely burning).

Wikipedia - as biased source as I know - sez:
Whilst some studies and tests have proven inconclusive,[45]a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen) and five times more of hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and of nitrogen oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.

Sure there's only one study linked to back that up and it's probably from a biased source and not scientifically accurate.

Actually, all of G3N13's arguments are great ones for banning cars in the urban environment. I'm going to have to remember them.
I'm for banning private internal combustion cars in urban environment.

I have kids. Are you suggesting that I should not be allowed to purchase drugs or alcohol?

You shouldn't be allowed to use them at home, yes, when the kids are involutnarily exposed to your, in principle, selfish behaviour.

Alcohol and other internally ingested drugs could be used in *moderation* if stored in a safe location (like, say a safe :p) but anything that causes external hazards - liek smoke - or would lead to incapacitation or to increased likelyhood of irresponsible behaviour - ie. excessive consumption - should be banned.

This seems more like an argument against Axe Body Spray...

Actually, all of G3N13's arguments are great ones for banning cars in the urban environment. I'm going to have to remember them.

...Some type of coffee shop type legalization combined with licensed sales for individiuals and couples in households where there are no innocent bystanders (like kids or nextdoor neighbours). Throw in mandatory cannabis/alco-lock for cars and we're all set....

I have kids. Are you suggesting that I should not be allowed to purchase drugs or alcohol?

It often takes most people several drinks (in quick succession) to get drunk, it may take someone only a toke or two to get high. Someone who has had one beer, is probably better of driving than someone who has had one joint (or, being in pihlic at all), that is my standpoint on the "But alcohol is legal!" argument.

It is not the intensity of the intoxication that matters. It is the decision to get behind the wheel that matters. Unless you have some sort of study indicating that marijuana smokers are more likely to engage in DUI...

Cigarettes are far less damaging, and mentally destabilizing as Marijuana.

Prove it.

Marijuana contains far more carcinogens, and affects brain function more than alcohol or cigarettes.

Prove it.

Also, because Marijuana is easier to gt addicted to than alcohol,

Prove it.

Think of it in economic terms; people who smoke marijuana are far less apt to be able to keep jobs, or do their jobs well, personally I don't want all the young people (and many old people) toking up, and ruining the economy due the lethargy that is another effect of marijuana use.

Prove it.

Wow. That's a lot of unproven claims. I can't wait for your reply.

Prove it.

Umm, scientific studies and chemical breakdowns.

I won't prove it to you because I'm to lazy to search, indeed, prove to me the inverse, and I will concede.

So basically you're advocating drug legalization because you like to use them and can control your behaviour?

Nope.


You've also never exposed anyone else to dangerous side effects - like smell, passive smoking or traffic hazards - or harmed anyone by doing drugs. More kudos to you.

I expose others to dangerous side effects by exhaling, by eating and drinking, by simply living my life. I've harmed others through my actions while I was under the influence, and I've harmed others through my actions while I was sober.


The problem is that you're not representative of an average - or fringe, depending on viewpoint and who you ask - user: Cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs have multpile adverse effects outside of the user, often the effects are there even if the user him or herself is in denial.

The same is true of eating, sex, and exercise.


Also, the more exposure there is the more there will be users, even from groups that are not the intended target - like kids and teens.
So? I used when I was a young teen. In fact, I used to drop acid during chem class.

I meant a neutral study showing that inhaling second hand pot smoke would be healthier than inhaling second hand cigarette smoke.

And yes, it's legal to study pot - just not on humans.

Actually, it's legal to study pot using human subjects (at least in the USA it is), it's just very very very carefully regulated.

Umm, scientific studies and chemical breakdowns.

I won't prove it to you because I'm to lazy to search, indeed, prove to me the inverse, and I will concede.
It doesn't work that way. If you assert that--for instance--pot is more addictive than alcohol, the burden is on you to support your claim. If you refuse to do so then you have already conceded.

Of course you know.

It's not like the carcinogens in cigarette smoke are caused by similar chemical reactions to what happens when smoking pot (namely burning).

Wikipedia - as biased source as I know - sez:
Whilst some studies and tests have proven inconclusive,[45]a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen) and five times more of hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and of nitrogen oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.

Sure there's only one study linked to back that up and it's probably from a biased source and not scientifically accurate.I looked at that article, the study before the one you mentioned says that cannabis is less dangerous. It doesn't matter much to me because I don't smoke anything though.

Right, because we have laws against driving drunk, no one does it. Similar to the way no one sppeds, because we post speed limits, or how no one commits vandalism, or fraud, or even murder... I'm glad that those things have been illegalized and no one ever does them.

Yes. People break the law. Especially when the laws are difficult to enforce, like drug laws. Which is one of the reasons why prohibition of drugs is not practical.

Oh wait, even people who know drunk driving is bad still do it on occasion, why is that? Oh yeah, alcohol impairs judgement, so many people can't make the right decision. Why would this be different? Just because you illegalize behaviour around drug use doesn't mean no one will do it, in fact, more people will do it because of the detrimental effects that drugs have on the mind, and one's ability to think clearly.

Then ban alcohol.

All of your arguments on the matter seem ineffectual, you have provided no real reason for legalization. "It's their bodies let them do what they want" So, you're saying if I pick up a large, blunt object, I should be able to swing it in your direction (hey, this is just me doing what I want with my body, swinging a two-by-four) and if I happen to hit you with it, and bludgeon you to death, well thats ok, because I happened to be doing what I wanted with my body, and you, regrettably, were a victim....

In that example, you are affecting more than just yourself. If you were to go into your basement and swing a 2x4 around for a few minutes, then come upstairs and watch a kung-fu movie, it would be harmless.

No of course that's not ok, nor is me speeding ok (though I do it on occasion, I realize I have every right to get pulled over). Drugs are illegal because people much more intelligent than you have thought it through, and realized the far-spanning dangers that drug use can cause our society.

The difference being that speeding risks the lives and safety of others, while someone doing drugs in the privacy of their homes does not.

Of course you know.

It's not like the carcinogens in cigarette smoke are caused by similar chemical reactions to what happens when smoking pot (namely burning).

Wikipedia - as biased source as I know - sez:
Whilst some studies and tests have proven inconclusive,[45]a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen) and five times more of hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and of nitrogen oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.

Sure there's only one study linked to back that up and it's probably from a biased source and not scientifically accurate.

There are many reputable sources that show that marijuana smoke has more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. We should then see a higher rate of cancer in the marijuana smoking population, right?

Wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/pot.vs.cigarettes.html

Umm, scientific studies and chemical breakdowns.

I won't prove it to you because I'm to lazy to search, indeed, prove to me the inverse, and I will concede.

No. By refusing to back up your baseless claims, you are already conceding.

It lowers crime only because what is now a criminal activity would become legal. The same way that legalizing burglary would reduce crime.

Are you really suggestion that if we legalize drugs, less people will use them? What about all of the high school kids that don't want to get in trouble (and there are some), rates would go up, it may not seem like it because it is legal and 'nothing' is wrong with it, but usage would still all in all go up....

Actually, no thats incorrect. Crime is lowered even with accounting for the now legal activity. Let me explain:

Currently, smoking something such as pot is illegal to do. As such, people have to go through illegal processes to get the pot. People engage in other crimes as a byproduct of striving to use the illegal substance. When you legalize it, these byproduct crimes go down significantly.

And yes, I am ""suggestion" that use goes down when substances are legalized. I refer you back to the Prohibition era. When was alcohol consumtion higher: when it was legal, or when it was banned? Answer: When it was banned. Why is this? The illegal status has something to do with it, but rest assured, this is a proven argument.

Plus, both these arguments are supported by research. I basically took these examples straight out of my Econ textbook, "Brief Principles of Economics" by Mankiw.

Then ban alcohol.

Yeah, that's worked so well in the past :rolleyes:

Then ban alcohol.

I'm not entirely against such an idea. If it were to happen I would be not disappointed.

In that example, you are affecting more than just yourself. If you were to go into your basement and swing a 2x4 around for a few minutes, then come upstairs and watch a kung-fu movie, it would be harmless.

The difference being that speeding risks the lives and safety of others, while someone doing drugs in the privacy of their homes does not.

Well thats a relief! I'm glad to know that no one who consumes any mind altering chemical in their house can physically leave it! Thank you for clearing up the matter, now I will realzie that if I consume a mind bending chemical it won't affect me if I'm not at my house, and I won't be able to leave my house if I'm there, and no one consequently in my house would ever be harmed.

Oh wait, those things do not necessarily follow. You concede by making a bad argument. (See, I cna make desicions for you too! ;))

No. By refusing to back up your baseless claims, you are already conceding.

It may indeed seem like that, but I actually maintain my opposition. I do, in fact, not concede. Thanks for the sugestion though.

Actually, no thats incorrect. Crime is lowered even with accounting for the now legal activity. Let me explain:

Currently, smoking something such as pot is illegal to do. As such, people have to go through illegal processes to get the pot. People engage in other crimes as a byproduct of striving to use the illegal substance. When you legalize it, these byproduct crimes go down significantly.

And yes, I am ""suggestion" that use goes down when substances are legalized. I refer you back to the Prohibition era. When was alcohol consumtion higher: when it was legal, or when it was banned? Answer: When it was banned. Why is this? The illegal status has something to do with it, but rest assured, this is a proven argument.

Plus, both these arguments are supported by research. I basically took these examples straight out of my Econ textbook, "Brief Principles of Economics" by Mankiw.

I apologize for my apparently unforgivable grammar error of mistyping the word "suggesting".

If this is completely proven (that people will without doubt not use drugs that are legal) show me evidence. I'm glad no one smokes or drinks, because it is legal.

Yeah, that's worked so well in the past :rolleyes:

I think he was being unserious, for the aim of trying to get his point across.

You don't get it, do you? Anyone who decides to read this debate will read your post and my reply and realise that you are making baseless claims. In their head, you have conceded. Your opinion is irrelevant in this regard.

In response to pretty much everything. You said use of drugs, in the privacy of ones home is ok. So murder in the privacy of my own home should ok. Or I could invite guests over and rob them.... The idea that I am saying is that drug use is harmful, both to the individual, and to those around him/her. There is too much chance (IMO) that someone will leave their house and harm others while under the influence of drugs, and this situation seems less likely under the current, illegal state. This is the issue that I was addressing in my last response.

You are now, not only making up my mind for me (about my own concession), but now you are making up other peoples minds, that no doubt they would say I concede, you really need to stop your incredibly gross generalizations, it makes you sound very unintelligent.

EDIT: very unintelligent, to me.

I'm not entirely against such an idea. If it were to happen I would be not disappointed.

And I think you are being serious. Dyakovo's point obviously did not come across.

Well thats a relief! I'm glad to know that no one who consumes any mind altering chemical in their house can physically leave it!

I never said that. Try again.

now I will realzie that if I consume a mind bending chemical it won't affect me if I'm not at my house,

I didn't say that either.

and I won't be able to leave my house if I'm there,

Or that.

and no one consequently in my house would ever be harmed.

Or that.

Oh wait, those things do not necessarily follow. You concede by making a bad argument. (See, I cna make desicions for you too! ;))

I suggest you reply to what I actually wrote instead of making up my argument for me.

It may indeed seem like that, but I actually maintain my opposition. I do, in fact, not concede. Thanks for the sugestion though.

You don't get it, do you? Anyone who decides to read this debate will read your post and my reply and realise that you are making baseless claims. In their head, you have conceded. Your opinion is irrelevant in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gift-of-god
Then ban alcohol.

I'm not entirely against such an idea. If it were to happen I would be not disappointed.

So, did no one ever take American History and learn about the Prohibition? (Gift of God, I think yours was sarcastic. I hope)

I apologize for my apparently unforgivable grammar error of mistyping the word "suggesting".

If this is completely proven (that people will without doubt not use drugs that are legal) show me evidence. I'm glad no one smokes or drinks, because it is legal.

It was funny. I got what you meant. I simply found it humourous.

Did I say that no one will use drugs? No, at no point did I say that. I'll forgive you, however, for what I presume what a mistaken characterization. I did say the number of people who use drugs will go down, but it is deluded to think that use will cease.
I held an argument with someone once who believe that drugs were detrimental to society. I asked if his most immediate goal was to cut down on drug use, to which he answered 'yes.' When I told him the best way to do this is to legalize it, he couldn't grasp that concept.

I will, once again, bring up the Prohibition. Alcohol consumption increased when alcohol was illegal, and went down when it was legal. People have yet to respond to that statement.

You said use of drugs, in the privacy of ones home is ok. So murder in the privacy of my own home should ok. Or I could invite guests over and rob them....

No. Again, you are implying that I said something when I did not. Murder affects other people. A person ingesting drugs in the privacy of his or her home does not.

The idea that I am saying is that drug use is harmful, both to the individual, and to those around him/her. There is too much chance (IMO) that someone will leave their house and harm others while under the influence of drugs, and this situation seems less likely under the current, illegal state. This is the issue that I was addressing in my last response.

It is your opinion that drug use is harmful to both to the individual, and to those around him/her. It is your opinion that here is too much chance that someone will leave their house and harm others while under the influence of drugs, and it is your opinion that this situation seems less likely under the current, illegal state.

I hope you realise that people should not make laws based on opinions.

You are now, not only making up my mind for me (about my own concession), but now you are making up other peoples minds, that no doubt they would say I concede, you really need to stop your incredibly gross generalizations, it makes you sound very unintelligent.

EDIT: very unintelligent, to me.

I don't really care what others think of me. Now, do you have anything other than opinions and unsupported claims to bring to the debate?

I think he was being unserious, for the aim of trying to get his point across.

That's what I figured actually, I just couldn't resist responding to it.

I'm not entirely against such an idea. If it were to happen I would be not disappointed.

Now that I think about it, neither would I. I know how to brew so I could make a fortune if prohibition were restarted.

Whilst I agree with most of your opinions put across I was agrieved with
your drunk Jock comment. Im not sure if by Jock you are using the Americanism of the meaning of the word Jock?

I hail from Scotland and the true meaning of Jock is a Scot. If thats what you meant I take it personally that you insinute we are drunks who like to get into fight. If you were using the Americanism I apologise for the mix up.
:confused:

Oh my gosh, no! I would never say something like that. I had no idea! I was using the Australianism, I suppose. It's basically a private-school-guy who does rowing, treats girls like shit etc. They drink a lot when they go to pubs and clubs here and get into fights, basically. Sorry!