To everyone against legalizing marijuana...

An ounce of gold can be around 800$. An ounce of Weed can range from $300 to $1,400, Depending on the type of weed and your location.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/03/cannabis_caviar_1400-an-ounce.php

Your argument is proven wrong. Also, next time you post something where you don't actually know all the facts, possibly looking it up would help.

 

Your argument makes sense, but it doesn't really account for the fact that the government makes no sense. If they had it their way, they would make alcohol and maybe even tobacco illegal. They already tried prohibiting alcohol, but by the time they got around to it, it was already way too strongly ingrained in popular society. The government is hardly for uniformality and equality.

 

Thanks and yes I know the government is not in its best shape. The government is a democracy and if it would come up on a vote to Re-ban Alcohol and possibly tobacco, I doubt it wouldn't be close to passing (at least in this time period). If the Government banned it like before (just speaking about alcohol) people would get around it (like Marijuana currently) making the law pointless (at least in my opinion). Eventually, it would be unbanned again, since the government (Both Local and National) has no control over much of the society today. (EX. Controlling Drug Trade)

 

I'm saying that, for example, eating it will not harm your lungs. It will effect other parts of your body, this I know.

 

It should be legal, but it wont be because the government has spent millions and billions of dollars putting people away, creating propaganda, and its almost a tradition amongst presidents to use it to blame people, like nixon once said "its all those crazy jews smoking pot" or something of that nature. after you put so much effort into stopping something, your not just going to change your mind, the government is powerful because people fear it, mostly all people do atleast, and if they keep giving people what they actually want, we will get spoiled. also, think of countries like a highschool, you want to fit in, you wouldnt dare stoop down to 3rd world country status. the illegal aspects of marijuana is one way U.S can keep things in common with other countries, if we were to legalize it, other countries might lose faith in how powerful we are, because we are giving in. its not about how many people its killed, or how harmless it is its showing whos dominant. which is ridiculous I know, but hey, legal or illegal, im gonna smoke it anyway.

 

Weed doesn't really impair your judgement. It just amplifies everything, in a way. I drive all the time high and I know that I am not a safety threat (yeah I know I shouldn't drive high, I'm not saying that driving high should be legal). My reaction time isn't slower and I don't swerve or black out or anything. Some over-the-counter drugs can impair you more than weed. There are few reports of weed causing people to do stupid things and getting killed (or other harm) in the process. It doesn't alter your mind that way.

Your points are correct, but they don't go against my points. Just because the amount of brain cells ≠ intelligence level doesn't mean that it affects intelligence. I wasn't saying that accusations against weed say that it reduces intelligence, just that it reduces the health of the brain, which is not true.

No, I don't expect gangs to disappear or step aside, but it would cripple a chunk of the drug trade economy. You will never get rid of gangs, but crippling them and making them desperate is what brings them out into the open to be caught. You don't want to make it easy for them.

Regardless of the percentage, that's a lot of cash. I'll have to find the exact source of where I heard that. The economy could benefit from all that cash going straight into local businesses instead of drug trade.

#5 I've always thought marijuana's status above crack cocaine and those other Schedule IIs was absolutely absurd. However, I think that its status as a Schedule I drug is nearly as ridiculous as this statement from the average, self-interested, idiotic pothead who thinks he can change things with his clever Googling skills:

Any pleasurable sensation is desirable, and that's all a high is, desirable. Weed is about as addictive as chocolate. Yes it tastes delicious, and you want as much as you can have, but that doesn't mean it's addictive. People don't stop smoking because they like the feeling, and it has next to no negative side effects. A weed high is desirable, that's it. You can't abuse it to the point where it causes serious health problems (unlike chocolate, I might add)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_addiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction

Spending time with friends shouldn't really be part of a list as it is human nature to be social.

But guess what doesn't exist (not even the concept)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_addiction

It wasn't my point, it was just to educate the other users that not only is weed next to harmless, but is also listed as one of the most harmful and medically ineffective substance. The fact that alcohol has next to no benefits and isn't illegal ONLY because of the negative effects of prohibition (organized crime formed, economy dropped, respect for the law was lowered, etc) forced the US to legalize it. The same benefits would happen if weed was legalized, only on a smaller scale as there isn't as much demand for weed as there is alcohol.

 

Marijuana (perhaps I should say cannabis, since that's the actual scientific term) "doesn't really impair your judgment"? And "there are few reports of weed causing people to do stupid things and getting [harmed] in the process"?

Many studies have been established to strongly refute this claim. Here is one. Although it says that 54% did not exhibit impaired driving, 46% did have impaired driving when under the influence of THC. Additionally, those who did have impaired driving had more THC in their blood. THis study claims that THC was the #1 drug found in violent murder convicts' bloodstreams upon arrest. Here is a study that links cannabis use to sexual assault. Here is yet another one that attributes the effects of cannabis abuse to schizophrenia. On that note, let's more on to the next quote.

You must have misunderstood. My argument was to say that your point oversimplified one scientific fact and gave the impression of applying it to a general case that cannabis doesn't "reduc[e] the health of the brain." That being said, I'll add some more evidence:

Let's start by giving you the benefit of the doubt. Cannabis doesn't even change the brain. This study shows that cannabis users responded significantly differently in specific tests than non-cannabis users.Here's another saying that cannabis does change the brain chemistry, especially in medial-temporal regions. Recall from anatomy courses that the temporal lobe is involved in language, memory, speech, etc.

Okay, well change doesn't mean harm, right? So far, your point that cannabis doesn't harm the brain is still valid. Let's go back to the last link in the my first section. According to that link, cannabis abuse creates a schizophrenia-like psychosis in patients. Specific to brain function, this article asserts that prenatal THC exposure does harm infants' brains when born. Well, okay, but you're a dude and can't give THC to a fetus. This study shows a 6 year-old boy who developed transient global amnesia after ingesting a cannabis-spiked cookie. This study links the consumption of cannabus with significant decrease in ATPase activity. Recall from biology courses that ATPase is responsible for your brain cells' ability to utilize and access energy storage molecules. So, not only is marijuana harmful to prenatal brains, but it is harmful to developing and full-grown brains as well.

Sure, your point in gang activity is fine. To be perfectly honest, I'm no sociologist or criminologist, so I don't even know where to look for data to refute this or affirm this.

As for the local businesses benefiting from marijuana sales, that's perhaps much too hasty to say than is really true. Consider the effect of present "marijuana stores" on local economies and the way they effect the socioeconomic status of nearby neighborhoods. Also, consider the presence of "free sharps" clinics on local neighborhoods, economies, etc. I've read several editorials and articles complaining about the "crowd" that these places bring to the community.

The concept of cannabis addiction "doesn't even exist"? Are you serious in this? Even your beloved Wikipedia associates cannabis with addiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Gateway_drug_theory.

Furthermore, I would say that the psychological addiction of cannabis easily trumps that of chocolate, and possibly all of the other things. Although data is unfortunately hard to find on this subject, an argument is easy to conclude.

Marijuana is easily accessible to practically every high-school age child in America and many countries where it is illegal. Your beloved Wikipedia summaries the effects of THC consumption here. Scientific data does back this up, coincidentally. These effects are highly desirable and potent to kids in high school age, where the "need to escape" is a prevalent issue (see even somewhere as near as these PS&A forums for evidence). Surely chocolate doesn't give near these same effects, or else Halloween would be a much more popular holiday. Additionally, Marijuana also possesses a strong social stigma, whereas chocolate is much more lackluster. High schoolers tend to revere marijuana (likely because of the seemingly positive effects of the drug), while upper society abhors it. This is a double-win for high school users: if you toke it up, your peers think you're cool and you distance yourself from the upper society "which just doesn't seem to understand." Thus, the psychological/physiological effects of cannabis ingestion, paired with the social stigma of the drug, make it a highly desirable substance. Do you really think chocolate can have this kind of effect?

Okay, I drop my case on this.

 

Obviously marijuana is not a perfectly safe substance.. Neither is cheeseburgers. The attempted prohibition of marijuana is extremely wasteful, and Hippocratic. Both obesity and cigs DIRECTLY contribute to more deaths in america per year than weed. Should we then ban eating fatty foods and smoking? No, we can't because #1. America is based on democracy and not a Monarchy or parliament, and #2. Because a person who smokes a gram on the weekends has a really good time watching a movie or laughing with a friend has just taken part in a felony activity on a federal level. Decriminalization is good, but only halfway were it needs to go.

Marijuana however is not Illegal because of any previous stated fact.
It is Illegal because of money. The money backing the anti-legalization movement is primarily from Pharmacies. Because Marijuana in so many studies has been found to have extremely positive medicinal value on an even more extremely large list of ailments Pharmacies stand to lose billions over the legalization for both recreation and medicinal use.

The fact is that prohibition doesn't work. And when you group marijuana in with drugs that do do extreme DIRECT harm to your body it becomes a gateway drug. No there is nothing in marijuana that makes you want to go on to stronger substances but a dealer selling drugs doesn't care about you he cares about money and will sell a kid heroin if he has the money for it.

All of the things I have stated have been used for talking points in countless debates and all of the things that Kero has stated has been as well. Both are extremely opinionated and in most respects valid other than the fact that marijuana should be illegal, because if it should there are so many other things that everybody uses in daily life that should also be illegal.

 

Hippocratic? Seriously. L2English before coming to SFA.

Please read before contributing information that's already been used.

Please show me these studies. If you actually read the posts, you'll see I've quoted about a dozen studies saying the negative effects. While I was researching, in fact, I had a hard time finding evidence to refute myself.

Data? If you want, I can find some to refute this ignorant claim, also. In fact, I already have. You just don't read the posts.

You have given no implications whatsoever that you've actually even spent time reading this post. Please, tell me what I've said.

Opinionated? I've cited scientific fact and very reasonable arguments. I've actually been trying hard to omit my opinion from my arguments, because I figured kiddos like you would use it against them. If you read you'll actually see I slipped in my opinion. I think that it's ridiculous as a Schedule I substance; I think that it's ridiculous that it is illegal while other substances are legal; and I think that the government is just stubborn. However, I have yet to see a reasonable argument for it yet, so I'm still playing devil's advocate. Anything that's come though has been misconstrued and overgeneralized facts.

 

mary j is a starter of for other drugs such as exstacy and then you move on its not worth it and even if you say no thats not true it really is

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

The Gateway drug theory has been disproved, or at least so for cannabis.

 

Disproved? Did you even read the article that you just cited? For that matter, have you read anything that's actually academically sound?

 

There's absolutely nothing in marijuana that suggests others to move on to harder drugs. It depends on the person and the person he's buying marijuana from.

The Gateway Effect comes from the prohibition itself. The dealers are the ones peer pressuring people into buying/using other drugs. If marijuana was legalized and regulated by the government you're eliminating that shady figure out of the picture.

 

The article was not for the matter of statistics, it was to show that there was a theory which has been disproved, which is shown in the article. Perhaps we shouldn't skim through it and come on Sythe and mash our fingers on the keyboard? In my free time, I would be more than happy to find you that case study, but that free time is not now. I am not too eager to drudge up and sift through erroneous information and bore myself to death.

Who are you trying to impress?

 

You posed several questions and statements, so I'll answer or address them all.

The theory has been disproved? The article shows evidence for both sides of the case. Unless the evidence on one side is implausible or insignificant, then you can't prove anything. As far as your citation (Wikipedia? :huh is concerned, the situation with the gateway drug is up in the air.

As far as the mashing our fingers, I couldn't agree more. Considering I've just typed 75 coherent words (before this sentence), I don't really see how your statement is relevant though.

As for the erroneous information, are you saying that the peer-reviewed scientific method is erroneous? Yes, it is not concrete, but we just saw that in your expertly-researched Wikipedia article. Science is limited, yes, but you have to look at it from both sides. The article doesn't really conclude anything, not for my side or yours.

And as for you drudging up evidence, no need. You'll probably much rather enjoy just taking a hit or two and watching reruns of Ren and Stimpy. I don't wanna take that from you.

 

This, weed was my gateway, legaliazing nobody will know what it will do, i already know people with canabis fags ready for production, adverristin, adverts and companys and buildings ready to set up a huge company. Nobody will know what will happen.

 

Just making some points, strengthening your argument.

 

Sythe is bugged.

 

^ continued

Yes, it is still illegal as another Schedule, but it changes the opinion in the eyes of citizens, and unjustifiably at that.

 

Posting because of a PM "request"

I'm afraid your points are all commenting a post of mine that was more demonstrative than soundly researched. In that particular post, I was coming up with intentionally ridiculous examples in some cases because the OP's statements were just as ridiculous. Yes, the fatty foods example was ridiculous, but I've already stated that in a following post. As I said in that post, the point of the fatty foods was to give ONE example of where marijuana can harm brain cells in order to debunk the OP's statement. All it takes to debunk a statement such as his is one example.

I suggest you take a look at my most recent post in response to XSafire. In that post, I actually did some scientific research on the matter, and I found dozens of studies supporting my points. Cannabis does harm the brain even if it doesn't kill brain cells; cannabis does impede judgment; cannabis is, in short, a harmful substance.

I'm still willing to look at an argument that is as reasoned as my own. I keep seeing the claims for it, but I never get to see any evidence. I even looked on my own, but to little avail. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong databases? I'm particularly interested in the "countless tests" that showed cannabis consumption improved test scores. Maybe when I take the MCAT, I'll smoke a joint beforehand to improve my score a bit.... :laugh: