Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1)I would like to point out that speed is the #1 contributing factor in all motor vehicle accidents. And why would driving while high be treated any differently than driving under the influence of alcohol?
driving and smoking pot don't mix. that's the bottom line. in a laboratory study at nida's addiction research center in baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, dr. heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent thc. twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. the test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. as the dose of thc increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger. the data from these laboratory studies show that marijuana impairs balance and coordination - functional components important to driving - in a dose-related way.

 

2)You say it is our duty to follow the governments laws? Should African-Americans have just shut-up and gotten in line with the segregation, the jim crowe laws, the legislated racism of the time? Was getting brutally attacked by Alabama police dogs the fault of their "own idiotic behavior"? What about women? When it was illegal for them to vote, should they have shut-up and gone back into the kitchen, or was it right for them to challenge the unjust, oppressive laws that they lived under.
how does this link to prohibition laws? this is a bad argument. let's keep civil rights movements out of pro-legalization discussions. they are two seperate things.

 

3)You continually say 'drugs,' we are not talking about legalizing all drugs, just marijuana.
actually, you were the first one to bring up drugs, and the drug war. but okay. i was talking about marijuana. anytime i said drugs, it was said it in the sense of marijuana, and that is how it should be argued.

 

4)Scapegoating... what about the million other destructive behaviors that people subject themselves to as a result of their circumstances. Some people deal with stress by eating alot, eating nothing, crawling inside of a bottle, self mutilation, abusing themselves or others, or using drugs. The individual's problems are not caused by marijuana, it is only a crutch, should we ban razorblades, alcohol, all-you-can-eat buffets, just because people an use them to hurt themselves?
okay, first off. suicide and abuse are both illegal. anorexia and obesity are mental disorders. if you want to categorize potheads with them, fine. this is just blatantly rousing around the fact that there is no positive benefit from marijuana. similar to the "there are things just as bad if not worse than marijuana" argument. give me a good acceptable reason to legalize it. i have given plenty of reasons why we shouldn't. what's one acceptable reason why we should?

 

5)Again with the effects-others-around-them argument, see #4 and understand that all of those activities can affect family and friends as well, as can seemingly admirable things like dedication to a job.
it's just saying, "well, that's legal! so pot should be too!" it's a childish argument. as mentioned above, there isn't one good reason to legalize pot. thc is already legal for medicinal purposes. there is no benefit from legalizing pot.
6)Also I disagree with your beliefs. I believe that the onus should be on the USFG when it tells us we are no longer free to do something.
okay, i might say marijuana was wrongfully made illegal in the 1930s, but what we have learned now about the drug. as i have said above. over 400 carcinogenic chemicals in it. 50-70% more cancer causing chemicals than tobacco. there's just no benefits. just negative impacts. pot might make you happy, but it's only a temporary remedy to escape reality.

 

Would you like to bite a little more pineapple?
okay, honestly... i'm not really anti-legalization, but i'm not really pro-legalization either. i smoke pot. i just hate it when kids skew the facts and don't know shit about what they're talking about. basically, i'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm willing to keep it going.
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you didn't really answer my pineapple question.

 

 

 

What No One Wants to Know About Marijuana

 

From The Natural Mind by Dr. Andrew Weil

(last half of chapter four pg. 86-97)

 

 

 

Because marijuana is such an unimpressive pharmacological agent, it is not a very interesting drug to study in a laboratory. Pharmacologists cannot get a handle on it with their methods, and because they cannot see the reality of the non-material state of consciousness that users experience, they are forced to design experimental situations very far removed from the real world in order to get measurable effects. There are three conditions under which marijuana can be shown to impair general psychological performance in laboratory subjects. They are:

  1. by giving it to people who have never had it before;
     
  2. by giving people very high doses that they are not used to
    (or giving it orally to people used to smoking it); and
     
  3. by giving people very hard things to do, especially things that they have never had a chance to practice while under the influence of the drug.

 

Under any of these three conditions, pharmacologists can demonstrate that marijuana impairs performance. And if we look at the work being done by NIMH-funded researchers, all of it fulfills one or more of these conditions. In addition, the tests being used by these scientists are designed to look for impairments of functions that have nothing to do with why marijuana users put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. People who get high on marijuana do not spontaneously try to do arithmetic problems or test their fine coordination.

 

 

 

What pharmacologists cannot make sense of is that people who are high on marijuana cannot be shown, in objective terms, to be different from people who are not high. That is, if a marijuana user is allowed to smoke his usual doses and then to do things he has had a chance to practice while high, he does not appear to perform any differently from someone who is not high. Now, this pattern of users performing better than nonusers is a general phenomenon associated with all psychoactive drugs. For example, an alcoholic will vastly outperform a nondrinker on any test if the two are equally intoxicated; he has learned to compensate for the effects of the drug on his nervous system. But compensation can proceed only so far until it runs up against a ceiling imposed by the pharmacological action of the drug on lower brain centers. Again, since marijuana has no clinically significant action on lower brain centers, compensation can reach 100 percent with practice.

 

These considerations mean that there are no answers to questions like, What does marijuana do to driving ability? The only possible answer is, It depends. It depends on the person - whether he is a marijuana user, whether he has practiced driving while under the influence of marijuana. In speaking to legislative and medical groups, I have stated a personal reaction to this question in the form of the decision I would make if I were given the choice of riding with one of the following four drivers:

  1. a person who had never smoked marijuana before and just had;
     
  2. a marijuana smoker who had never driven while high and was just about to;
     
  3. a high marijuana smoker who had practiced driving while high; and
     
  4. a person with any amount of alcohol in him.

 

I would unhesitatingly take driver number three as the best possible risk. One may wonder how many drivers of types one and two are on our highways. Probably many. But there is some consolation in the fact that persons learning to do things under the influence of marijuana almost always are anxious about their performance and therefore tend to err on the side of overcaution.

 

The tendency for novice users of marijuana to imagine that their psychological functioning is disrupted to a much greater degree than it actually is, is most noticeable in conection with subtle changes in speech. People who are high on marijuana seem to have to do slightly more work that usual to remember moment to moment the logical thread of what they are saying. This change manifests itself in two ways: as a tendency to forget what one started out to say, especially following an interruption, and a tendency to go off on irrelevant tangents. Zinberg, Nelson and I were able to pick up these changes in tape recordings of our Boston subjects, but I must emphasize the adjective subtle in describing them. Someone not specially trained to listen for these changes would not hear them. Interestingly enough, however, marijuana users themselves often imagine they are not making sense abd become anxious about other people guessing that they are high. Some users experience this subjective anxiety about speech most intensely when they are talking on the telephone. Here is a quote from such a user (a twenty-four-year-old male medical student), which Zinberg and I included in a paper published in Nature in 1969:

 

I've learned to do a lot of things when I'm stoned and seem to function well in all spheres of activity. I can also "turn off" a high when that seems necessary. The one problem I have, however, is talking to straight people when I don't want them to know I'm stoned. It's really scary because you constantly imagine you're talking nonsense and that the other person is going to realize you're high. That's never happened, though, so I conclude that I don't sound as crazy to others as I do to myself. It's worst on the telephone. Someone will call up and be talking to me, and when he stops I'll have no idea what he just said. Then I don't know what I'm supposed to answer and I have to stall until I get a clue as to what's expected of me. Again, even though this is very disconcerting, the other party never seems to notice that anything's wrong unless he's a heavy grass smoker, too, and then it doesn't matter.

 

Probably, the subtle difficulties in speech that high users pay great attention to are themselves manifestations of a change in a more general psychological function called immediate memory. It seems valid to distinguish three kinds of memory in man. The first has been termed immediate and seems to cover events of the past few seconds only. It is as if all information coming into the brain is held in some location for a very short time before a decision is made about where to store it. If it is to be filed in an accessible place, it passes to a second storage location called recent memory, where it may remain for days or, perhaps, weeks; otherwise it is salted away out of reach of ordinary consciousness. Eventually, if it is to be kept in an accessible place for a longer time, it moves to a third long-term storage location, which is the permanent memory file. Each of these locations has active connections to ordinary consciousness so that memories may be quickly retrieved from all of them in our normal waking state.

 

In senile dementia, the classic psychological change is loss of recent memory with sparing of immediate and long-term memory. A senile patient can remember a string of numbers read to him long enough to recite them back and can go into autobiographical detail about his childhood. He cannot remember the date or the events of the previous day. By contrast, in certain forms of post-traumatic amnesia, immediate and recent memory are spared, but information filed prior to the trauma cannot be retrieved from the long-term memory storage. A person high on marijuana seems to have difficulty remembering what happened in the past few seconds, and the subtle speech changes reflect this difficulty. Furthermore, it looks as if a significant disturbance of immediate memory retrieval has few noticable consequences in terms of behavior, although it may cause great anxiety in the mind of the person experiencing it.

 

 

 

This last observation raises an interesting question. Is the problem disturbance of immediate memory or anxiety about this change? Most people who have read the hypothesis Zinberg and I first presented in Nature have drawn the conclusion that marijuana interferes with immediate memory. In fact, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, in testimony before Congress in 1970, used our results to support the statement that "more recent studies . . . in which researchers have learned some troublesome facts . . . make it impossible to give marijuana a clean bill of health."2 I would once have gone along with this kind of reasoning, but the more I have thought about the matter, the more it has become clear to me that it is not useful to think of marijuana as interfering with one's awareness of the immediate past.

 

For one thing, disturbance of immediate memory seems to be a common feature of all altered states of consciousness in which attention is focused on the present. It can be noticed in hypnotic and other trances, meditation, mystic ecstasies, and highs associated with all drugs. Therefore, to call marijuana the cause of the phenomenon is probably unwise. In addition, the phrase disturbance of immediate memory bristles with negativity. Is it a negative description of a condition that might just as well be looked at positively? I believe so. In fact, the ability to live entirely in the present, without paying attention to the immediate past or future, is precisely the goal of meditation and the exact aim of many religious disciplines. The rationale behind living in the present is stated in ancient Hindu writing and forms a prominent theme of Buddhist and Christian philosophy as well: to the extent that consciousness is diverted into the past and future -- both of which are unreal -- to that extent is it unavailable for use in the real here and now. Consequently, monastic systems of all faiths have used devices like gongs and bells to focus the consciousness of the novice on the immediate reality of the present, and contemporary instructional materials on mental and spiritual development stress the same theme. Here are a few examples:

  1. From A Practical Guide to Yoga by James Hewitt
     
    When the mind is stilled by Raja Yoga, time--that is to say, psychological time--ceases to exist. For time is relative. It only exists when one thing is taken in relation to another. If I go on a train journey my leaving the train at my destination, taken in relation to my getting in, shows a passage of time. Similarly, if I think of "fruit," and in a split second follow with another thought "apples," time has passed, and I am aware of its passing. But if the mind takes one thought and holds it, one-pointed and still, time is erased; it ceases--psychologically--to exist.
     
    In the hurly-burly of civilized living we rarely find time, or even give a thought to living in the NOW. We spend our NOW thinking of the past or dreaming of the future. Raja Yoga enables us to be still and experience eternity, as defined by Boethius: "to hold and possess the whole fullness of life in one moment, here and now, past and present to come."3
     
  2. The following excerpt is from C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters--a witty and practical statement of orthodox Christian theology cast in the form of letters from a senior devil, Screwtape, to a junior devil, Wormwood, who is trying to capture the soul of an earthly "patient":
     
    MY DEAR WORMWOOD,
     
    I had noticed, of course, that the humans were having a lull in their European war [World War II]--what they naively call "The War!"--and am not surprised that there is a corresponding lull in the patient's anxieties. Do we want to encourage this or to keep him worried? Tortured fear and stupid confidence are both desirable states of mind. Our choice between them raised important questions.
     
    The humans live in time, but our Enemy destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself and to that point of time which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which our Enemy has of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered them. He would therefore have them continually concerned either with eternity (which means being concerned with Him) or with the Present--either meditating on their eternal union with, or separation from, Himself, or else obeying the present voice of conscience, bearing the present cross, receiving the present grace, giving thanks for the present pleasure. Our business is to get them away from the eternal and from the Present.4
     
  3. From Concentration and Meditation by Christmas Humphreys:
     
    As the sequence of day and night, so is the alternation of work and rest, and it is in the minutes of comparative repose that the difference appears between the trained and the untrained student of mind-development. The beginner allows his energy to drain away in idle conversation or mental rambling, in vague revision of past experiences or anxiety of events as yet unborn, or in a thousand other wasteful ways for which, were he spending gold instead of mental energy, he would be hailed as a reckless spend-thrift to be avoided by all prudent men.5
     
  4. The following summary of J. Krishnamurti's philosophy of time is from Metaphysical Approach to Reality by Ganga Sahai, Mr. Krishnamurti's recent books are widely available in the West.
     
    There is a state of being which Krishnamurti calls the timeless. It comes with the realization that the only real moment is the moment of the Now, the eternal present; the past and future taken as "no-more" and "not-yet" are illusions.
     
    The center, the observer, is memory. The center is always in the past. Therefore, the center is not a living thing. It is a memory of what has been. When there is complete attention, there us no observer....
     
    Life is broken up and this breaking of life, caused by the center "me," is time. If we look at the whole of existence without the center "me" there is no time. The new dimension is the silent mind. It is always in the present, always in the Now. It is the timeless mind that really exists.6
     

 

Thus the pharmacological way of thinking leads to the formulation of a hypothesis built upon an incorrect causal attribution and a negatively biased description of a phenomenon assigned great value in other ways of thinking. The pharmacologist says marijuana interferes with immediate memory, and by using tests in which one is penalized for not paying full attention to the past, the pharmacologist can produce evidence to document his hypothesis. The National Institute of Mental Health is supporting this kind of research with money appropriated by Congress. It is not funding research designed to look for the positive advantages of having one's full awareness focused on the present.

 

In a similar way, all other psychological effects of marijuana turn out to be common features of altered states of consciousness unassociated with drugs, and whenever pharmacologist describes them in negative ways, it is possible to look at them positively from the point of conscious experience. The perceptual changes reported by marijuana users are another example. Here again is an apparent paradox since all testing to date has failed to show any objective changes in sensory function during acute marijuana intoxication. If pharmacologists paid closer attention to what users say, they would find their way out of this paradox. There is no indication from persons high on marijuana that their sense organs are working differently from usual. Rather, the change seems to be in what they do with incoming sensory information. For instance, many users claim that listening to music is more interesting and pleasurable when they are high. They do not claim that they hear tones of lower volume or that they can better discriminate between pitches of tones. Yet all of the testing of auditory function under marijuana has been aimed at the ear--at auditory thresholds, pitch discrimination, and the like.

 

In 1969, when I still thought as a pharmacologist in my professional life, I wrote the following paragraph in an article, "Cannabis," published in England in Science Journal:

It would make more sense to look for effects not on the ear but rather on that part of the brain that processes auditory information. Cannabis seems to affect the secondary perception of sensory information, not the primary reception of it. Unfortunately, it is considerably harder to study secondary perception because the neural organization underlying it is less accessible to direct experimentation and much less well understood. A working hypothesis is that incoming sensory information (such as auditory signals representing music) normally follows conditioned pathways through the secondary perception network in order to get to consciousness. Under Cannabis, which might interfere with this normal processing, information may take novel routes to consciousness and thus be perceived in novel ways. Such a model would explain why users often say that under Cannabis they see things for the first time "as they really are," or why they dwell on aspects of complex visual or auditory stimuli they would ordinarily ignore.

 

 

I now realize that altered secondary perception of sensory information is intrinsic to all altered states of consciousness, whether triggered by drugs or not. Therefore, it no longer seems profitable to me to try to understand how marijuana "causes" the effect. In addition, I no longer subscribe to the negative hypothesis that marijuana interferes with normal processing of perceptual data. Rather, I observe that in altered states of consciousness, one frequently gains the ability to interpret his perceptions in new ways and that this ability seems to be the key to freedom from bondage to the senses. For example, hypnotic anesthesia is nothing more than another way of perceiving pain. The patient, fully aware but in a state of focused consciousness, learns the "trick" of separating the pain itself from his reaction to it. He is thus free to perceive the pain in a novel way - something going on "out there" but not hurting. (One hypnotist I know produces this state with the suggestion that "the hurt is going out of the pain.")

 

Furthermore, the ability to produce anesthesia at will (a power frequently demonstrated by adepts at yoga) may be no more than a trifling use of this freedom to experience sensations in other ways. Once one learns the process, he may become aware of many more useful things to do with it than ignore pain. For example, the conscious experience of unity behind the diversity of phenomena - said by sages and mystics of all centuries to be the most blissful and uplifting of human experiences - may require nothing more than a moment's freedom to stand back from the inrush of sensory information and look at it in a different way from usual. If all the so-called psychological effects of marijuana are really not attributable to marijuana, and if the physical effects that are attributable to it are so unimpressive, what, then, is marijuana? To my mind, the best term for marijuana is active placebo - that is, a substance whose apparent effects on the mind are actually placebo effects in response to minimal physiological action. Pharmacologists sometimes use active placebos (in contrast to inactive placebos like sugar pills) in drug testing; for example, nicotinic acid, which causes warmth and flushing, has been compared with hallucinogens in some laboratory experiments. But pharmacologists do not understand that all psychoactive drugs are really active placebos since the psychic effects arise from consciousness, elicited by set and setting, in response to physiological cues.

 

Thus, for most marijuana users, the occasion of smoking a joint becomes an opportunity or excuse for experiencing a mode of consciousness that is available to everyone all the time, even though many people do not know how to get high without using a drug. Not surprisingly, regular marijuana users often find themselves becoming high spontaneously. (The pharmacologist invokes "residual concentrations of Cannabis constituents in the body" to explain this observation.) The user who correctly interprets the significance of his spontaneous highs takes the first step away from dependence on the drug to achieve the desired state of consciousness and the first step toward freer use of his own nervous system. All drugs that seem to give highs behave this way; all are active placebos. But the less physiological noise, the easier it is for a user to understand the true nature of drugs and their highly indirect relationship to states of consciousness. Alcohol users are less likely to find themselves spontaneously high because they have come to think that "high" includes all the pharmacological noise of alcohol. At the same time, marijuana, while providing a better opportunity to make the jump to drugless highs, is more insidious as a creator of illusion, for it enables the user to pretend that he is not really dependent on it at the same time that it reinforces the notion that highs come in joints, an irony that recalls another unsettling comment of C. S. Lewis' Screwtape: "Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar."8

Dr. Andrew Weil, The Natural Mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a good one. i used it in my pro-legalization arguments i used to make. actually, the whole reason why i was arguing was to get some kind of intelligent debate going. i'll keep defending the anti-legalization stance if no one else can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, it is hard to find non biased ev on this topic, and no reliable (by my standards) scientific studies have been done by either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to point out the fact that all "evidence" on the topic of marijuana is bound to be innaccurate because of its legality.

 

studies conducted by the USFG are notoriously biased...because its such a controversial issue, we cannot really rely on the information the government gives us (look at the TRUTH website, read the BULL SHIT they try to tell you about drugs.... its obviously not true. so how can we trust ANYTHING they tell us?)

 

also, marijuana may contain over 400 chemicals. i would immagine that an apple has quite a few chemicals in it too, or a piece of meat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
driving and smoking pot don't mix. that's the bottom line. in a laboratory study at nida's addiction research center in baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, dr. heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent thc. twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. the test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. as the dose of thc increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger. the data from these laboratory studies show that marijuana impairs balance and coordination - functional components important to driving - in a dose-related way.

does the study specify if the test subjects were regular users? i would also dispute that claim based on personal evidence, but that doesnt really count for much.

 

how does this link to prohibition laws? this is a bad argument. let's keep civil rights movements out of pro-legalization discussions. they are two seperate things.

the point isnt that there is a literal link between the two. the point is that if a law is UNJUST, its not our duty to obey it, but rather our moral duty to put a stop to it. civil rights is a good example of this, which is why he used it.

 

 

okay, first off. suicide and abuse are both illegal. anorexia and obesity are mental disorders. if you want to categorize potheads with them, fine. this is just blatantly rousing around the fact that there is no positive benefit from marijuana. similar to the "there are things just as bad if not worse than marijuana" argument. give me a good acceptable reason to legalize it. i have given plenty of reasons why we shouldn't. what's one acceptable reason why we should?

every single one of your "reasons" for it being illegal is either based on invalid evidence or is health based. weve already established that alcohol is far worse for you than pot. my point is that health is no basis for legality.

 

it's just saying, "well, that's legal! so pot should be too!" it's a childish argument. as mentioned above, there isn't one good reason to legalize pot. thc is already legal for medicinal purposes. there is no benefit from legalizing pot.

yes, there is. people who are not criminals are being prosecuted, wasting our countries money, our police officers valuable time, and taking up space in prisons.

 

there is no legitimate reason for it to be ILLEGAL, not the other way around.

 

okay, i might say marijuana was wrongfully made illegal in the 1930s, but what we have learned now about the drug. as i have said above. over 400 carcinogenic chemicals in it. 50-70% more cancer causing chemicals than tobacco. there's just no benefits. just negative impacts. pot might make you happy, but it's only a temporary remedy to escape reality.

isnt a party a temporary escape from reality? also, isnt the ablity to regulate your own hapiness a benefit? and your evidence is, again, disputable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you thought i was being a prick, then you haven't seen shit.

 

 

Whatever, then I'm done this with this discussion. If you're gonna be a prick about it, I won't engage you on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does the study specify if the test subjects were regular users? i would also dispute that claim based on personal evidence, but that doesnt really count for much.
that's irrelevent. let me put it this way... if some people were compiling a study about driving under the influence of alcohol, would it really matter if the person was a drunk who does it all the time or one who has done it once or twice? your depth perception and coordination skills don't build up a tolerance.
the point isnt that there is a literal link between the two. the point is that if a law is UNJUST, its not our duty to obey it, but rather our moral duty to put a stop to it. civil rights is a good example of this, which is why he used it.
like i said before, it's a bad argument. there's a big difference between racist legislation and prohibition. potheads aren't being discriminated against in any way that would be comparable to the civil rights movements. how are marijuana laws SO UNJUST? what is SO inherently bad with the status quo that we have no option but to legalize it? if you're going to make a comparison to the civil rights movement, there has to be atleast some kind of major negative impact that adds any weight to it.
every single one of your "reasons" for it being illegal is either based on invalid evidence or is health based. weve already established that alcohol is far worse for you than pot. my point is that health is no basis for legality.
this is just the bias shit you come to expect in these arguments. anything that opposes your view is invalid. again, relying on this whole 'alcohol is worse!' charade. it's tired. boasting that marijuana is the "lesser of evils" in terms of public health consequences is not a convincing argument for legalizing its use. why legalize a drug that has no medicinal quality? why change the status quo? and really, i'm missing how you have pointed out that health is no basis for legality.
yes, there is. people who are not criminals are being prosecuted, wasting our countries money, our police officers valuable time, and taking up space in prisons.

 

there is no legitimate reason for it to be ILLEGAL, not the other way around.

define criminal. the money being 'wasted' on prosecuting and housing is such a marginal number in the grand scheme of the united states budget. using up police officers valuable time? are you joking? they are not going to miss some crook just because they pulled over someone who was high. and our prisons aren't overflowing with marijuana users. they won't say, "hey, sorry bob, we got no room here. we know you murdered that guy, but our prisons are just full of people who smoke weed. you're free to go." and furthermore, what is your stance on the states that don't arrest people for smoking pot, rather write them a ticket? basically, the only thing this argument is helping is decriminalizing, not legalizing.

 

there are plenty of reasons why marijuana should remain illegal. marijuana is not some harmless benign drug. marijuana use can lead to poor motivation syndrome and increased rates of schizophrenia and depression. and lung diseases like asthma, emphysema and even lung cancer. for children and adolescents, whose brains are still developing, the use of psychoactive drugs is especially bad. if we were to legalize another addictive substance, it will increase the supply of availible to kids. it also sends the message that pot smoking is condoned. and obviously, marijuana is a gateway drug. physicians treat thousands of patients for illnesses related to drug abuse. a majority say that it started with pot. and, obviously the aforementioned reasons. i mean, even a stoner would concede that traffic accidents would go up if pot was legalized. it's inevitable. go ahead, tell me i'm brainwashed, lying, bias, whatever. there just isn't a convincing case for legalization.

isnt a party a temporary escape from reality? also, isnt the ablity to regulate your own hapiness a benefit? and your evidence is, again, disputable.
no. you have no idea what you're talking about. i don't even know where to start. escaping reality is avoiding truth. escaping reality is escaping everything around you. usually, all the miserable things in your life. wording it "the ability to regulate your own happiness" is wrong. and not only that, but essentially, it's just an optimistic way to describe addiction. let me explain. you see, let's say your mom just died. you decide you're going to pack a bowl and burn one down so you don't have to think about it, to ease the tension. at the time, the problem might feel like it's solved. you're high. everything's groovy. but, as soon as you come down, the problem is still there. and the only way to escape is to smoke more dope. there is no true real escape from reality. marijuana (and drugs for that matter) is just a temporary remedy. and it's weak. it's weak that you need that dope to escape from a life you can't manage. sure, everybody has hard times, but not everybody goes out to find some momentary escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not really sure on that one. I mean, I know that what weed does is it releases a chemical in your brain that makes you happy and then after so long ... you won't be able to be happy again. I don't know ... that's what my parents always told me, but it might just be kinda rare for that to happen. But, the way I see it, it's illegal for a reason ... even if that reason isn't known to us. It's not up to us to decide whether or not a law is just. It's just up to us to follow it.
the chemical is called dopamine. using drugs does deplete your dopamine. but, it is pretty rare for even prolonged marijuana users, but almost common for tweekers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not really sure on that one. I mean, I know that what weed does is it releases a chemical in your brain that makes you happy and then after so long ... you won't be able to be happy again. I don't know ... that's what my parents always told me, but it might just be kinda rare for that to happen.

do some research before you formulate a WRONG opinion about something. this is pure falacy and has absolutly no value whatsoever. remember, it was the common opinion and argument of the time that blacks were physiologically inferior to whites, however we know that to be pure bullshit now.

 

But, the way I see it, it's illegal for a reason ... even if that reason isn't known to us. It's not up to us to decide whether or not a law is just. It's just up to us to follow it.

this opinion is weak. would you have assumed that it was OK for the nazis to take away the jews in germany because it was the law? what about segregation here in the US?

 

didnt think so.

 

not all laws are right just, and its our duty as americans to ensure that we are ruled FAIRLY. if a law is unjust, it is our duty NOT to follow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do some research before you formulate a WRONG opinion about something. this is pure falacy and has absolutly no value whatsoever. remember, it was the common opinion and argument of the time that blacks were physiologically inferior to whites, however we know that to be pure bullshit now.
the chemical is called dopamine. using drugs does deplete your dopamine. but, it is pretty rare for even prolonged marijuana users, but almost common for tweekers.
:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im going to preface this by saying you make me sick to my stomach with anger, i hope you dont believe this shit youre spewing.

 

 

 

that's irrelevent. let me put it this way... if some people were compiling a study about driving under the influence of alcohol, would it really matter if the person was a drunk who does it all the time or one who has done it once or twice? your depth perception and coordination skills don't build up a tolerance.

hmm lets read that huge-ass article up there shall we? seems to point out several times that depth perception and coordination skills under the influence of marijuana actually DO build up tolerance with time. someone who is driving under the influence of pot is likely to be a regular user and therefore experienced with its effects.

 

like i said before, it's a bad argument. there's a big difference between racist legislation and prohibition. potheads aren't being discriminated against in any way that would be comparable to the civil rights movements.

...so then doing hard time is just and fair? as i said earlier, and you chose to ignore, this point has nothing to do with civil rights OR marijuana laws, but rather choosing not to obey CLEARLY unjust and unfair laws.

 

how are marijuana laws SO UNJUST? what is SO inherently bad with the status quo that we have no option but to legalize it? if you're going to make a comparison to the civil rights movement, there has to be atleast some kind of major negative impact that adds any weight to it.

like i said, what about doing time, or paying OUTRAGEOUS fines for simply making a personal decision? that is inherently unjust and unfair. going to jail is a major negative impact of marijauna.

 

this is just the bias shit you come to expect in these arguments. anything that opposes your view is invalid. again, relying on this whole 'alcohol is worse!' charade. it's tired. boasting that marijuana is the "lesser of evils" in terms of public health consequences is not a convincing argument for legalizing its use.

once again, you missed my point. im not saying we should legalize it 'because alcohol is worse.' i am saying that we know alcohol is worse for us, but it remains legal: so why then are we keeping pot illegal on the basis of health? under that argument we should also illegalize McDonalds.

 

why legalize a drug that has no medicinal quality? why change the status quo? and really, i'm missing how you have pointed out that health is no basis for legality.

we need to change the status quo because people are being punished for commiting an act that should not be a crime.

 

what are you basing legality on? are you saying that things with no medical value should be illegal? what about sodas? sodas have no medical value either, so lets make pepsi illegal.

 

define criminal.

a criminal is one who has commited a crime. a crime is defined as:

 

'A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality' by dictionary.com

 

marijuana use is in no way immoral. it is illegal, however, unjustly so.

 

the money being 'wasted' on prosecuting and housing is such a marginal number in the grand scheme of the united states budget. using up police officers valuable time? are you joking? they are not going to miss some crook just because they pulled over someone who was high. and our prisons aren't overflowing with marijuana users. they won't say, "hey, sorry bob, we got no room here. we know you murdered that guy, but our prisons are just full of people who smoke weed. you're free to go." and furthermore, what is your stance on the states that don't arrest people for smoking pot, rather write them a ticket? basically, the only thing this argument is helping is decriminalizing, not legalizing.

so you concede that money is wasted. our government, ideally, shouldnt be wasting money at all.

 

and while the numbers might not be huge, they arent negligable either. it is a real problem.

 

i will concede that marijuana doesnt have much medicinal value, however, i do not believe that should have ANY basis on the legality of it. like i said, soda doesnt have any medical value either.

 

there are plenty of reasons why marijuana should remain illegal. marijuana is not some harmless benign drug.

thats still no reason for it to be a CRIME to use it.

 

marijuana use can lead to poor motivation syndrome and increased rates of schizophrenia and depression. and lung diseases like asthma, emphysema and even lung cancer. for children and adolescents, whose brains are still developing, the use of psychoactive drugs is especially bad.

hey buddy, lets see some evidence for this. you cant use the governments data either: their studies are NOTORIOUSLY biased.

 

 

if we were to legalize another addictive substance, it will increase the supply of availible to kids.

this is downright untrue. pot is easier for kids to obtain currently than cigarettes or alcohol. dealers dont care who they sell to. convinient stores do. if pot were legal, kids would have a harder time getting it.

 

note that it would still be as easy as getting cigarettes...which is pretty easy.

 

 

it also sends the message that pot smoking is condoned. and obviously, marijuana is a gateway drug.

im sure 85% (or whatever number you may have) of heroin addicts tried pizza before heroin too. i think thats even been stated before in this thread i believe. pizza isnt a gateway drug, sorry.

 

physicians treat thousands of patients for illnesses related to drug abuse. a majority say that it started with pot. and, obviously the aforementioned reasons. i mean, even a stoner would concede that traffic accidents would go up if pot was legalized.

hi, im a stoner, and i strongly disagree. those who smoke pot and drive stoned now will continue to do so, and those who refuse to for moral reasons will continue to do that as well. JUST LIKE WITH ALCOHOL.

 

i have to go, but ill finish arguing your last point when i get back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Wend and I had a debate about this (well, it was all drugs in general) a while ago.

 

I think while pot shouldn't be legalized because I don't want to buy my shit from philip morris, Floydian's characterization of pot as a tool solely used to escape reality is kinda stupid (even if he's playing devil's advocate). People could smoke pot for multiple different reasons, just like people could drink for multiple different reasons. Maybe a couple wants to get horny, maybe you're bored and have nothing to do, maybe a movie would be all that much funnier...who knows. The point is that smoking can't and shouldn't be solely pinned on one's wish to "escape reality". Thus I think it's a legitimate recreational drug which should definitely be decriminalized. I don't know about the rest of America, but in NY the Rockefeller Drug Laws have extremely adverse affects on anyone convicted of selling or possessing illegal substances (for more info, go to http://www.droptherock.org/). Because these laws are bad, it doesn't matter how idiotic the decision is to use drugs, there's no basis for those laws' existence in the first place. Chocolate is addictive and bad for your health in large quantaties, but it doesn't mean it should be made illegal, and if for some absurd reason it does, it doesn't mean you should have to go to jail for 15 years if you're caught with 2 or 4 ounces of it.

 

Oh, and a warning if you want to go to the thread I posted, back then (even though it was only a little less than a year ago) I was more stupid than I am now, so if you see things like "doing drugs is a discursive distraction", don't get your panties in a twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many economic incentives to legalize weed too. Just look at taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The government would tax the shit out of it, and right now they are losing so much money trying to fight it, find it and prosecute those who use it. Its ridiculous. They should just legalize it, profit it from it, and let those who smoke it get on their marry way.

 

By the way, have any of you heard The Irony of it all by the Streets?? Its about weed, but it actually makes a really good point. Plus, its just a kick ass song over all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think while pot shouldn't be legalized because I don't want to buy my shit from philip morris, Floydian's characterization of pot as a tool solely used to escape reality is kinda stupid (even if he's playing devil's advocate). People could smoke pot for multiple different reasons, just like people could drink for multiple different reasons. Maybe a couple wants to get horny, maybe you're bored and have nothing to do, maybe a movie would be all that much funnier...who knows. The point is that smoking can't and shouldn't be solely pinned on one's wish to "escape reality". Thus I think it's a legitimate recreational drug which should definitely be decriminalized.
see, many people don't start smoking pot just to escape reality, but this is the process that it becomes over time. when one starts smoking pot, they may use for various reasons (which are verified by plenty of questionaires and studies): curiosity, social, a way to relax and escape boredom, accessibility and how it appears harmless, the feeling of being a rebel: a rite of passage, it's a way to feel good. but, eventually, use becomes a frequent part of social get togethers. they are using for reasons totally different than before: relax/to decrease inhibitions, enhance good feelings/escape bad ones, cope with stress and family/personal problems. we are discussing the effects of prolonged pot use here. people who use pot (and drugs) for these reasons are people who can't deal with life's problems in a smart logical and coherent manner like the rest of the population. like i said, pot is only a temporary remedy for life's ills, and furthermore, in all aspects of use. decriminalization is a totally different discussion from legalizing, obviously. but, i definitely feel referring to it as a legitimate recreational drug is disputable.
There are so many economic incentives to legalize weed too. Just look at taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The government would tax the shit out of it, and right now they are losing so much money trying to fight it, find it and prosecute those who use it. Its ridiculous. They should just legalize it, profit it from it, and let those who smoke it get on their marry way.
you see, this is actually one of the reasons why weed probably will never be commercially legalized. in theory, it is a great concept. let's make the government money! but, it doesn't work that way. there is a big different between alcohol/tobacco and marijuana. alcohol/tobacco was so easily taxed because they were able to control the production of the drug. it would be impossible to do this with marijuana. because, if marijuana is legalized commercially, people will just grow their own pot, or buy pot from the government's competition. here's a situation. let's just assume the government would be able to commercially legalize it, and sell it in gas stations, or whatever. why would you buy pot from the government when you can call up your friend and get a sack without having to 1) probably pay half the money, and 2) pay asanine taxes? the government would make no profit from marijuana, in fact, they'd lose money. the drug just isn't profitable the same way tobacco and alcohol are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hang'in With Special Agent Dale Cooper

phish rules dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha. yeahhhhhhhh dude. and like um.... the grateful dead....... and um............... what were we talking about man?.......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we are discussing the effects of prolonged pot use here. people who use pot (and drugs) for these reasons are people who can't deal with life's problems in a smart logical and coherent manner like the rest of the population.
exactly. you couldnt have stated it better. that is the reason i (and most regular users i know) smoke pot.

 

like i said, pot is only a temporary remedy for life's ills, and furthermore, in all aspects of use.

and this is why were REGULAR users. the effect is only temporary, but it can be recreated over and over, enabling the user to as you said, " deal with lifes problems in a smart logical and coherent manner like the rest of the population"

 

i would still call this recreational use, because its also a very social activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most potheads dont smoke to "deal with lifes problems." most potheads smoke because they like being high. or at least thats my take on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...