Legalize Marijuana

[Steamboat Ricky]

I generally dislike the way that suspected marijuana users smell. As a responsible and concerned citizen, I do not think that I would like to legalize something that makes my air space less pleasant to inhabit.

 

[Slyfox696]

That is not true. Have you asked a marijuana user if they have a desire to try cocaine or heroine? If they do have a desire, is that desire fueled by the high that they get from smoking marijuana?

Hell, I've had family members who have told me they never would have tried cocaine or got hooked on prescription drugs if they had never smoked weed in the first place.

So, yes. As for your assertion before that marijuana hasn't been proven to be a gateway drug, that assertion is completely false. I showed you the studies to prove it.

Stuff shouldn't be illegal unless it's beneficial. It should be legal unless it's detrimental. I agree looking at it from a purely economical standpoint is redundant, but just because something isn't "beneficial" doesn't mean it should be illegal.

And marijuna has many detrimental side effects, both on the user and other parties.

And if cannabis being legal would mean more people doing hard drugs, Slyfox, how do you explain these stats from the Netherlands (where marijuana is readily available to buy in coffee shops)

There are many things that can explain it, such as income level, societal values, culture, strength, price, etc.

Your belief that because it's legalized means that it is lower is completely preposterous.

The relevance of these stats is obvious - I shouldn't need to spoon feed you. Please come up with a coherent argument for this, and don't ignroe it as you did before. It clearly shows a liberal, open minded attitude to drugs that values education and information over paternalistic patronisation produces more desirable results.

It doesn't show that at all. As I've said, there are MANY reasons for why something is true. Allow me an example:

The school I work at, and another school close to us are the examples. At the school I work at, we have a strict no cell phone policy. The other school does not have a cell phone policy. We have more problems with discipline related to cell phones than the other school. According your theory, the reason for this is because we ban cell phones.

However, if you look deeper into it, you'd see that there are two major differences. 1) Our school has three times as many students, and thus, more discipline problems with cell phones. 2) The other school gets ZERO cell phone reception, which makes having a phone pointless at the other school.



Like I said, just because you can prove a loose association, that doesn't begin to tell you the whole story. I can't explain those findings, but I would be willing to bet a whole year's paycheck that if the United States legalized marijuana, use of it (and other drugs) would go up, not down. Do you want to bet me on this?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

My turn.

Marijuana should be illegal. So should Manajuana, while we're at it, just because I don't like JBL.

But as for the topic on hand.

Sure, studies show that pot can be used for certain beneficial health effects. Things like glaucoma and certain cancers can be treated with the chemical in Marijuana, as XFear pointed out. Becky and I watched a special on that recently, and learned about the new ways people are harnessing this checmical without the "smoking a joint" side of things. They are making baked goods with just the chemical in it to treat health problems.

The issue with the health argument is that the negaitve effects FAR outweight the positive. People who can use pot for medicinal purposes are a very small percentage of users - an infinitesimal sample of a much larger population.

With the United States clearly testing out very foolish socialized medicine and the question of "universal healthcare" looming, I have to ask everyone - do you want your taxes to go up to treat a pot heads' side effects?

Despite it's more herbal, additive-free composition, regular pot-smokers (1 joint per day) have the same problems as cigarette smokers. Athsma. Lung infections. Cough. Cancer.

Also, it's known fact that marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens (cancer causers) than tobacco smoke. Add to that the fact that marijuana smokers tend to inhale deeper and hold longer than cigarette smokers. It's a recipe for cancerous disaster.

Studies have also clearly shown that exposure to marijuana smoke by pregnant women can cause birth defects in babies. Like we need the next generation to be even more ******ed than the current one.

This whole 1960's "it's a victimless crime" bullshit in today's society is just people's way of trying to escape responsibility.

The legalization of marijuana can save the country 7.7 billion dollars a year in law enforcement costs. It can also generate approximately 5 billion dollars in tax revenue. This does not take into the account the extra income that would be generated from liscencing, jobs created, an agricultural boom, etc. Legalization of marijuana would in many ways be a social revolution in this country and a turning point in our history. It was legal up until 1938. There have been multiple studies that show casual use is not harmful to the user, and there is no proof that it is a gateway drug.

Okay, that's great. Then, a few years after that savings can be enjoyed by society, health costs will spike three times worse than they are now. Insurance premiums will double because of people driving impaired due to exposure to the smoke. The number of people who actually contribute to society will decrease due to an increase in birth defects.

And to, in the same post, extoll the savings on law enforcement and also discuss the jobs the licensing would create is irresponsible. What do you think would happen to all of the DEA workers and cops who have jobs BECAUSE of drugs? It's a trade-off, my friend.

No, no, in fact marijuana laws should be enforced even more strictly. I am fairly liberal, but enough is enough.

 

[Raw Power]

Why do marijuana supporters act as if death is the only possible negative consequence to an addiction.
"But marijuana has never killed anyone!!"
So? It has ruined lives. If you believe it has never ruined any lives you're either incredibly ignorant or just blinded by wee fanboy-ism. I know people have lost friends and family because they became so lazy and unmotivated drugs and because all they wanted to do was sit around and get stoned. Losing everyone you love is probably a worse fate than death.

Comparing weed to cigarettes is stupid because a) you need tobacco to make joints which is generally the popular form of taking marijuana and b) no one has ever messed up their life because of their nicotine addiction.

And people say "Alcohol costs lives and it's legal. So why shouldn't marijuana be legal?"
If you understand marijuana messes up lives, then that is such an ignorant statement. It's roughly saying "Alcohol costs lives and it's legal. So what's a few more lives?"

1. This is so weak. So something should be illegal because it makes people lazy/unmotivated. Where's the rule that says every member of society has to do something. Stop telling people how to live their lives, if I want to sit around doing jackshit, I should have the liberty to do so. As long as you don't literally smoke pot all day, you won't become like that. If you do, then expect bad consequences. Moderation and all that.

2. Lung cancer.

3. Alcohol doesn't mess up lives. Marijuana doesn't mess up lives. They have the potential to mess up lives. Just like pro wrestling does. Should pro-wrestling be outlawed, so that people are healthy? Skateboarding without a helmet has serious potential to cause serious brain damage/death - should police force people to wear helmets when they go skateboarding? No - the government lets people take these risks because they have the information, as an adult, to make their own decisions.

There are many things that can explain it, such as income level, societal values, culture, strength, price, etc.

Your belief that because it's legalized means that it is lower is completely preposterous.

Yes, I agree that it is one out of several factors. But what it does show, and what you have practically admitted, is that if there is a problem with soft drugs leading to harder drugs, it does not hinge on the legality of soft drugs, but rather those other issues you mentioned. Legalising it automatically brings the vast amount of the drug under control in terms of price (and therefore income levels) and strength.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, I agree that it is one out of several factors. But what it does show, and what you have practically admitted, is that if there is a problem with soft drugs leading to harder drugs, it does not hinge on the legality of soft drugs, but rather those other issues you mentioned. Legalising it automatically brings the vast amount of the drug under control in terms of price (and therefore income levels) and strength.

But, as far as I was aware, we weren't talking about legalizing it in the Netherlands, we were discussing about legalizing it in America. And thus, all the studies that have shown it to be a gateway drug to Americans now hold water.

Why would we legalize a drug that is harmful to people, and can lead to Americans using even more harmful drugs? That's beyond ridiculous. And no one said the legality is what leads to increased usage, but rather the accessibility of it.

 

[Raw Power]

Why does increased accessibility matter if people don't use it more as a result? If anything it just means people who already do use it, and people who are going to use it, will be able to use it knowing it's been regulated a meets safety conditions - and out of the reach of drug users who are the ones selling harder drugs in the first place.

 

[Ty Burna]

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but there some major reasons why it won't be legalized, any time soon anyway.

Reason #1: Marijuana is a plant that can be easily grown in your backyard, in your house, or in the basement. Hell I've seen huge growing set ups right in the basement of someone's house, and we're talking hydroponics, breeding, the whole nine yards. But at the same time, with the proper care you could grow a plant or two right in your backyard. The government would have a difficult time enforcing marijuana growing unlike tobacco farmers because tobacco requires far more care and tools than marijuana does in order to thrive.

Reason #2: Many of the politicians that are on capitol hill are still from the generation of people that saw the bullshit movies like "Reefer Madness" or read the studies from over 30 or 40 years ago that states Marijuana is worse than tobacco smoke. Do you want to know how that study was conducted? They put a monkey into a box, with no ventilation and two tubes going into it. They constantly pushed marijuana smoke into the box, and the monkey eventually died. Now tell me, was it the chemical in the smoke, or the smoke itself? Well if you are in a room with no ventilation, and you pump tons of smoke into it, you're going to die, straight the fuck up. You have no oxygen to use and the smoke eats up any oxygen you have available. Now this study has been used as the "de facto" study for the government when it comes to the dangers of marijuana for quite some time. These politicians nowadays don't give a damn about studying the issues and rather just vote based on what their uneducated opinion is.

Reason #3: I don't know if it was noted elsewhere, but busting a weed dealer often leads to the harder stuff. I've seen it, weed dealers are small time compared to the crack, cocaine, and heroin dealers out there. You catch the little fish to get to the big fish if you will. They take weed from that, they'll have a harder time catching the bigger sellers.

Reason #4: Think of all the court cases they get because of marijuana possession charges. They get a ton of money from these people especially repeat offenders. They pay this huge fine, pay for drug and alcohol classes, and if they fuck up during probation, it's rinse and repeat. Why risk a cash cow like that by legalizing it on the hopes that people will rather buy it from a store then grow it themselves?

Now those are a couple reasons why it won't be. I'll post a few reasons later on why it should be legalized, and someways to curtail abuse.

 

[salomon1080s]

i feel marijuana should be legalized because it is truely less harmful then alcohol no deaths have ever been attributed to smoking pot. i forget the source but over 50% of americans feel pot should be legalized but here is my real reason for wanting to legalize pot

over 1 million people have been arrested with the drug

it has wasted over 10 million dollars in tax payers

provided 90 billion dollars to criminal enterprises and this was all last year

thats from the Daregeneration.com

 

[X]

So, you agree that we should ban marijuana? Why are we even still discussing this then?

I never once stated that, or even suggested it. Where are you getting this from?

Being funded and running the study is completely different, and you know that. Furthermore, there have been studies does independent of government involvement that have proven the same things.

So let me get this straight, independent studies that agree with your position are legit, but ones that don't are biased? How? They're independent. I don't want to get into a discussion where we each just cite study after study, because like I said before, both of us could find 12 billion studies, each supporting our own case and saying the other side was wrong. You'll say mine are biased, and I'll say yours are biased, and it'll just turn into one big pissing contest. The fact of the matter is that even the most exteme studies done by your side of the issue have come to the conclusion that marijuana is not lethal, it is not physically addictive, and the health issues it may cause are completely miniscule and completely treatable at best.

There's a HUGE difference between weed and cocaine and fast food/desserts.

Why's that? And I am in no way lumping cocaine into the same category as marijuana, cocaine is a dangerous drug, marijuana isn't.

Marijuana related deaths in all of history: 0
Fast Food related deaths: In the millions and climbing.

If you're so righteous about wanting to spare the public from themselves, shouldn't we ban ALL things that are unhealthy? I don't get it Sly, if weed is so bad, why are these other things acceptable?

Weed and cocaine are mind-altering drugs, which impact the brain and it's ability to think and reason. Fast food and desserts just make you fat, and there is no addictive quality to it.

A) Fast food is among the major contributing factors to heart disease and other serious health issues, and you know that.

B) Fast food most certainly is addictive, not physically, but just like marijuana and can be very addictive mentally. If one is fine, why isn't the other? Marijuana has never been the contributing factor to a death, while I'm willing to bet a few people have died from years of unhealthy eating habits (like fast food) in the time it took me to write that sentence out.

Trying to compare the two is ludicrous, and you know that.

How is it ludicrous? Because you don't agree with it?

Fast food is a gateway to heart disease and death, and since you're so opposed to anything that could possibly lead to something unhealthy, shouldn't you be against all unhealthy things such as fast food? If not, sounds like you're a bit of a hypocrite.

When people hopped up on cocaine get a gun and kills someone.

We aren't talking about legalizing cocaine though Sly, we're talking about marijuana.

When people who drink and drive cause accidents.

Which has what to do with marijuana?

When people with a drug addiction costs millions of taxpayer dollars.

As opposed to the billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars we pay to incarcerate those addicts and for the FBI/DEA to arrest senior citizens for attempting to medicate their pain?

And you know damn well that marijuana becoming legalized and regulated would earn the federal government billions and billions of dollars. So please, for your sake, don't bring taxpayers money or the economy into the conversation, because it's only going to hurt your cause.

It's not the decision for the individual that causes these things to be wrong and regulated, it's the impact it has on other people.

But we're not talking about a drug like cocaine or PCP that's going to get you hopped up and want to fight someone. We're talking about marijuana, a drug that when used by people has little to no effect on the people around them (atleast in a physical/safety sense).

As of this time, we can't prevent child abuse, we can't prevent poverty, we can't prevent depression, etc...but we CAN decide whether or not drugs should be legalized.

The fact that you compare marijuana use to child abuse and poverty is pretty disheartening Sly. You're far more intelligent than that.

Marijuana is of little to no danger to the general public.

So, then, you're in favor legalizing something that can be harmful to an individual and others, because it MIGHT not be bad?

Marijuana is not harmful to others around you Sly, what are you talking about? You want to spend billions of dollars combating an incredibly MINOR problem in our country when we could be using that money to, I don't know, save our fucking economy?

Don't you think if we're going to err, it should be on the side of caution? Because remember, one person's decision to drive drunk doesn't just affect them, it also affects the family that was planning to be married three days before they were sent to the hospital.

Again with the drunk driving comparison. Did I ever once state that people should be allowed to drive under the influence of marijuana? No, I didn't. So what you're saying is irrelevent.

Once again, it's not just the individual that needs to be taken into account. And given the fact that MANY respected medical studies have shown marijuana to, at the very least, have potential to be a gateway drug, then why should we legalize it?

Because responsible adults should be allowed to sit down and relax at the end of a long day at work with a drug with little negative side effects and enjoy themselves responsibly. No different from having a drink at the end of the day. I understand you personally feel that alcohol should be illegal, but the government does not. The reason we bring up the alcohol comparison is because it's CLEARLY a contradiction to say alcohol is acceptable to use but marijuana isn't. And I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.

Just because an incredibly small minority of people who use a drug hurt themselves or others does not mean we should punish the majority for it. I for one don't believe we should rule on topics by looking at the minority of problems.

 

[Blade]

1. This is so weak. So something should be illegal because it makes people lazy/unmotivated. Where's the rule that says every member of society has to do something. Stop telling people how to live their lives, if I want to sit around doing jackshit, I should have the liberty to do so.

Fine, lose a job....
Just don't complain when you run out of money for weed.

I find it ironic that you say to me "Stop telling people how to live their lives, " yet I'm considered a loser by my stoner friends for not smoking weed to "see things I couldn't before." Just sayin'.

As long as you don't literally smoke pot all day, you won't become like that. If you do, then expect bad consequences. Moderation and all that.

If humans could do stuff in moderation, there wouldn't be obese people. Very few people have the self discipline to not get addicted to something that is addictive.

2. Lung cancer.

Stop taking what I said out of context. You are well aware I was talking about how there's consequences other than death.

3. Alcohol doesn't mess up lives. Marijuana doesn't mess up lives. They have the potential to mess up lives. Just like pro wrestling does. Should pro-wrestling be outlawed, so that people are healthy?

Well, no. You don't need training to drink alcohol. =/

Skateboarding without a helmet has serious potential to cause serious brain damage/death - should police force people to wear helmets when they go skateboarding? No - the government lets people take these risks because they have the information, as an adult, to make their own decisions.

In the end the "informed decisions" are all bullshit.
People will believe almost any statistics and facts thrown them. Marijuana users will believe nothing bad can come from it if they don't know anyone who's messed up their life from marijuana. But there are, in fact, people who have messed up their lives from it whether marijuana users admit it or not.

 

[Raw Power]

People have messed up their lives from pro wrestling too. People have messed up their lives by playing World of Warcraft too much etc., why punish the majority because some people are idiots? And how are "informed decisions" bullshit? Are you some kind of facist or something? I know the risks of drinking to stupid excess, of smoking etc, that's why I chose not do them. I bet you make informed decisions all the time.

 

[Blade]

And how are "informed decisions" bullshit? Are you some kind of facist or something? I know the risks of drinking to stupid excess, of smoking etc, that's why I chose not do them. I bet you make informed decisions all the time.

Because, in this case, people will believe pretty much any statistics they're given. Or rather, any statistics they want to believe.
People who want legalise marijuana will throw out their statistics and studies about how marijuana doesn't harm you. People who don't want it legalised will throw out statistics and studies which say the exact opposite. We've seen that even in this thread. It gets us absolutely nowhere in determining whether or not it should be legalised or not because new studies and studies that contradict other studies pop up every few months. There's even some idiots who try to use myths as an arguement because they read it on a website.
If we debate like that, it will go around in circles forever and it'll get nowhere. The only credible source we can base our decision around is first hand experience.

And what is it with marijuana users and calling people facists?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

People mess up their lives because people are humans. It just happens. I don't find that relevant to this topic in the least.


I have still not heard anything that would suggest that smoking marijuana is going to enhance my life and/or the general well-being of society. I stand by my earlier stance regarding the general odor of chronic smokers.

 

[Raw Power]

Why does something have to enhance the general well being of society to be legal? How does McDonalds enhance the well being of society? It's not about what's going to enhance society - it's about the government keeping regulation of everything to a minimum, and allowing people the freedom to chose how they live their lives, so long as they're not harming other people. Pot smoking IS a victimless crime - if it's so harmful, how come the vast majority of the hippies in the 60's aren't now heroin addicts sponging of the state?

 

[X]

Because, in this case, people will believe pretty much any statistics they're given. Or rather, any statistics they want to believe.

Right now Blade, go find me a study even from NIDA that says that marijuana is a serious health issue. I'll wait.

People who want legalise marijuana will throw out their statistics and studies about how marijuana doesn't harm you.

You are aware that the people who perform these studies are responsible non-pot smoking DOCTORS who have absolutely no reason to try and help out marijuna, right?

But no, go ahead and agree with the US drug policy, which states that marijuana should be classified under the same schedule/category as heroin. 'Cause that makes logical sense after all.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Pot smoking IS a victimless crime - if it's so harmful, how come the vast majority of the hippies in the 60's aren't now heroin addicts sponging of the state?

Dunno. How come the people who grew up in the 60's are now a part of the biggest boom in cancer cases in history, sponging off the state for chemo?

Maybe it's the pot.

Right now Blade, go find me a study even from NIDA that says that marijuana is a serious health issue. I'll wait.

Okay, don't want you waiting too long...

Studies Show Harmful Impacts of Smoking Marijuana


A few days ago, the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment declared that marijuana smoke causes cancer. This was after an extensive review of over 30 scientific papers and a hearing. The state agency found marijuana smoke contains 33 of the same harmful chemicals as tobacco smoke.


Smoking marijuana is not medicine. It will make sick people sicker and healthy people sick. It may cause Kaposi's sarcoma in people with AIDS (see below link to a study from Harvard Medical School). This is a fatal form of cancer. This is not compassionate.

No FDA approved medicines are smoked. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Furthermore, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. [FN1]

Internet links to studies are below.

The respiratory difficulties associated with marijuana use preclude the inhaled route of administration as a medicine. Smoked marijuana is associated with higher concentrations of tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens than even cigarette smoke.[FN2]

Marijuana adversely impairs some aspects of lung function, causes abnormalities in the cells lining the airways of the upper and lower respiratory tract and in the airspaces deep within the lung, and it causes cancer.[FN3].

In addition to these cellular abnormalities and consequences, contaminants of marijuana smoke are known to include certain forms of bacteria and fungi. Those at particular risk for the development of disease and infection when these substances are inhaled, are those users with impaired immunity such as those with AIDS. [FN4]

Smoking marijuana can cause intoxication, precipitation of anxiety or acute psychotic reactions, orthostatic hypotension and bronchial inflammation. For a drug to be acceptable, its beneficial results must outweigh the adverse effects, especially when the claim is that it can be used repeatedly for symptomatic relief of chronic disorders.[FN5]

In recent years there has been a great public effort to curtail tobacco because of its effects on health yet the advocates of legalization promote smoking marijuana. Yet, a recent study shows that marijuana smoke has ammonia levels 20 times higher than tobacco smoke. Marijuana has hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide, and aromatic amines at 3-5 times higher than tobacco smoke. [FN6]

Another study shows that that marijuana smokers face rapid lung destruction - as much as 20 years ahead of tobacco smokers. [FN7]

A just released study shows that marijuana damages DNA and that it is toxic to the body.

Here's another...

Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke


Marijuana smoke contains higher levels of several toxic compounds, including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, than tobacco smoke. (Credit: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration)ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2007) — Here's another reason to "keep off the grass." Researchers in Canada report that marijuana smoke contains significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds -- including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide -- than tobacco smoke and may therefore pose similar health risks.

David Moir and colleagues note that researchers have conducted extensive studies on the chemical composition of tobacco smoke, which contains a host of toxic substances, including about 50 that can cause cancer. However, there has been relatively little research on the chemical composition of marijuana smoke.

In this new study, researchers compared marijuana smoke to tobacco smoke, using smoking machines to simulate the smoking habits of users. The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke, they say. The finding is "important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials," say the researchers.

The study, "A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced under Two Machine Smoking Conditions," is scheduled for the Dec. 17 issue of ACS' Chemical Research in Toxicology.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Why does something have to enhance the general well being of society to be legal? How does McDonalds enhance the well being of society? It's not about what's going to enhance society - it's about the government keeping regulation of everything to a minimum, and allowing people the freedom to chose how they live their lives, so long as they're not harming other people. Pot smoking IS a victimless crime - if it's so harmful, how come the vast majority of the hippies in the 60's aren't now heroin addicts sponging of the state?

Because it's already illegal. Unless it was of benefit to society or posed no threat to it, it wouldn't make much sense in legalizing it.

I'm all for making McDonald's illegal. But mostly soda needs to be illegal.

 

[Raw Power]

If you're serious, then you clearly don't value individual liberty and it just looks like you want the ogvernment to hold your hand and guide you through life. I'm confused :S

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

No way. I'm all for liberty. You have the freedom to have your opinion on this...just the same as I have mine. I'm all for being open and discussing things (hence the participation in this thread), but at the end of the day, it comes down to individual ideology. I feel that government's main function is to enable the well-being of its citizens. Keeping marijuana illegal is, in my opinion, upholding that.

 

[Raw Power]

I meant liberty in the sense that I can eat mcdonalds/have a soda/smoke a spliff without the government telling me that it knows what's best for me, and calling me a criminal.

 

[X]

IC I sure hope that if you agree with those two articles that you're firmly against tobacco being legal as well. Because if not, you're being a hypocrite.

First of all IC...both of the articles you cited is WOEFULLY misinformed on the topic of medical marijuana. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of medical marijuana patients, clinics and doctors who prescribe it do NOT recommend smoking marijuana. The overwhelming majority of medical marijuana is administered through ingesting it orally (in different foods), or using a Vaporizer. So already that article is laughable, and clearly understands little of the medical marijuana community.

NO ONE is saying that marijuana SMOKE doesn't harm your lungs, no one. Smoke of any kind is going to harm your lungs, that is an obvious fact that no one is disputing.

Now, since we're in a study-citing mood, I've got one for you. Donald Tashkin, who was responsible previously for studies in OPPOSITION to marijuana (studies that the government has utilized in their policies and positions for years now ) conducted the LARGEST study on the link between marijuana and cancer EVER done in 2006, and came to the following conclusion:

"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."

They started this study with the full expectation of finding a link between cancer and marijuana, and instead found absolutely none. This is coming from a man who had previously for years been in line with the US federal government's policy on marijuana. You want an un-biased source of reliable information? This is it. Here's a link to an article about the study in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Another great little tidbit about this study: it was funded by the National Institute of Health, a GOVERNMENT AGENCY!

So, who's a more reliable source of information...the largest study EVER performed on the topic, done by the NIH, THE major government agency on health, or the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Oh and Blade, read this post. It answers your post pretty much as well.

Because it's already illegal. Unless it was of benefit to society or posed no threat to it, it wouldn't make much sense in legalizing it.

I'm all for making McDonald's illegal. But mostly soda needs to be illegal.

Are you serious? You want McDonalds and soda to be illegal?

Probably among the most ridiculious statements I've ever read on this forum.

 

[Blade]

Right now Blade, go find me a study even from NIDA that says that marijuana is a serious health issue. I'll wait.

IC25 has already done that for me. The studies clearly state the reasons they've found for why marijuana is harmful.
Good think he didn't keep you waiting too long.

You are aware that the people who perform these studies are responsible non-pot smoking DOCTORS who have absolutely no reason to try and help out marijuna, right?

But no, go ahead and agree with the US drug policy, which states that marijuana should be classified under the same schedule/category as heroin. 'Cause that makes logical sense after all.

X, I was trying to be unbiased in that post (well, except towards statistics, anyway...). Reread my post, I said that statistics from both sides of the arguements cannot be taken seriously because there's all sorts of studies that contract other studies and so on. Don't feel the need to make me out as someone who only thinks the pro-marijuana studies are bullshit just because I don't think it should be legalized. I think studies from both sides are bullshit.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I meant liberty in the sense that I can eat mcdonalds/have a soda/smoke a spliff without the government telling me that it knows what's best for me, and calling me a criminal.

And that's why I said it's not a matter of "liberty"...it's a matter of individual governmental ideology.


And yes, xfear. I wouldn't mind one bit if they were made illegal.

 

[Raw Power]

Oh fair enough. I personally think the government should be responsible for helping to develop a population that can think for themselves and look after themselves, so that they can pursue their lives with relative ease - not baby them through life.

 

[ipswichicon80]

I'm not going to pick out points to argue I'll just give my views.

And I'm a pot smoker so that may influnence my point of view.

For me the arguement is about being adults and having freedom of choice.
A study about a year ago by the medical asscotion here in the UK listed drugs in order of how harmful they were. Alcohol and tobacco(two legal drugs) were near the very top of the list, in fact aspiran was higher than pot! Hmmm?
The harmful effects from weed that studies have proved is not that it CUASES physcois or siczapherina (sorry not sure how to spell it) but, if used over a number of years heavily then it can exagarate pre existing symptoms of said behavouiral disases.

How many people have you seen flip out when drunk who otherwise seem sane and decent people?And it doesn't take years of heavy use it could be just a one off occasion. How many people die every year, not from long term alcohol effects but just due to them or someone else drinking all night? Again alcohol is legal. HMMM? How much sense does this make.

I also smoke ciggerates and drink. I know the risks. I'm 28 years old and believe I have the right to chose what to do so long as I don't hurt anyone else.Why can't I deciede on my own by looking at the facts the drugs i want to take into my body? Yes some people are stupid and will hurt themslevs and take silly risks by taking 20 E in one night along with 2 grams of coke. So the rest of us have to made into criminals to "protect" them because they're not smart enough to make the right choices? So why is there not an IQ test on the voting form? If these people can't be trusted to decide what goes into thier own bodies how can they be trusted to decide who runs the country? That's the point of a demorcarcy. You have (or are supposed to have) the freedom of choice to decide how to live your life so long as it does not harm others. Yet this is not the case. THe goverment feels it needs to protect me from myself and I have no choice in the matter. Sorry but that feels wrong to me.

Oh and I noticed 1 poster kept dismissing the arguement that alcohol is legal and is more harmful than pot by saying there view was alcohol should be illegal. First go on the net read up on what a complete failure that was in the 20's and remeber a wise man once said "he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it". Secondly where does it end? Do you ban fatty foods? Hey heart disasese is a big killer, better ban fatty foods. Lots of people die crossing the road. Do we ban that? Why not just give people no choices at all to protect them, so long as it's for their own good surely it can be justified? That's the path your going down when you make statements like that.

PS. I will argree weed badly affects your ability to spell words correctly! LOL