The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old November 19th, 2012, 01:19 PM
Mochi's Avatar
Mochi
Formerly AzaleaLightning
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Michigan
Age: 20
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy

Advertise here
I'm very judgmental on this subject. And I have no shame in it.

I grew up around heavy use of marijuana and alcohol, and I still frankly fail to see how alcohol is legal when marijuana is not. That doesn't mean I believe marijuana should be legalized without medicinal purposes, though. I'm very strongly against anything that impairs judgment as such.

But because I'm so strongly biased on this topic and don't particularly wish to debate on it, as it would more likely escalate to an argument than actual debate, I'm done here as I've left my opinion. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old November 19th, 2012, 01:30 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign View Post
von Weltschmerz

You replied to most of my references with 'find me proof'. That is proof, now you find otherwise - this is how things work. You can't just tell me that published scientists are incorrect because you don't believe it.

Also, you have said that Alcohol causes dependency - however, just like Marijuana, there is no chemical element to alcohol dependency, it's all psychological. So your point it moot.
What is your line between "physical" and "psychological"? Do you define psychological as something that physically affects your brain? Because there are definite physical parts to alcoholism.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/000764.htm

Withdrawal has many physical symptoms, they are far from all in someone's head.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old November 19th, 2012, 01:33 PM
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy
Spreader of the T-Virus
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
I think Marijuana should be banned EVERYWHERE. I mean seriously?

There are people who get high off of BATH SALTS, and they cannibalize other people. Even though it uses a different substance, it can still be really dangerous.

Oh yeah, and people always say that you can never be addicted to Marijuana. Well... if that's true, then why does the term 'Pothead' or 'Crackhead' exist? I'll let you decide.

Frankly, I don't care if people start abusing pot. They'll only use it just to make food taste amazing. Not much harm there XD.
__________________
"The entire world will be infected. A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator!"
Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old November 19th, 2012, 01:46 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign View Post
von Weltschmerz

You replied to most of my references with 'find me proof'. That is proof, now you find otherwise - this is how things work. You can't just tell me that published scientists are incorrect because you don't believe it.

Also, you have said that Alcohol causes dependency - however, just like Marijuana, there is no chemical element to alcohol dependency, it's all psychological. So your point it moot.
In my entire argument... I asked twice for proof of your claims. IF that is "most of your references" then you have indeed a faulty set of references. But seeing as you provided 5 references and I asked for proof on PARTS of those... that is FAR LESS THAN "most" of them. It isn't that I don't believe it... it is that I have no proof. Simply posting a quote by them(scientist) from their research does not prove it. You can be published, without being right. If I cited a published scientist that said "SwiftSign is the biggest idiot on this planet" would that make it true? No. And the notion that because some research led to that claim(your actions in this thread) does not make it true. It is very bad debating skills to simply cite "references" and be done with it.

If you didn't notice... I agreed with most of what your research provided for. The one thing that I disagreed with(dependency), if I could be bothered, has plenty of research in its favor. There is research supporting both claims, that is why we are having this debate in the first place. I didn't provide such references as it is not really my position to prove a negative. The statement that needs proof is "Weed creates dependency issues." NOT "Weed does not create dependency issues." The only way to prove the latter would to be list out every single incident... To prove the former... you would need to find the one instance where weed creates the dependency. Notice I said "where weed creates" not "where the mind creates."

As for alcohol.. I don't know how it works exactly... but my friend's dad who is a sufferer of alcoholism decided to quit one day. Cold turkey. He was in the hospital shortly and the doctors told him that if he did not continue to drink and supply his body with alcohol, then he would die. That is the basis upon my claim.

EDIT:

From Toujours post I've duduced this: Alcohol creates dependency by physically altering the brain so that alcohol is regarded as necessary to the function of the body. Marijuana, on the other hand, creates dependencies based upon one fact: people anticipate that smoking marijuana makes them feel better, less stressed etc. So they begin to think it is the only way to rationally deal with their problems. But they are wrong, and it isn't. That means that no matter how far gone they are, if you can convince them that there are other ways to go about it... then they can. With no adverse health affects. Unlike alcohol which, as I said, physically changes the brain, disallowing them to simply revert back to abstinence by choice; that part of their brain would have to be reshaped back into normality. Something I don't quite believe we have yet the capability of doing.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 19th, 2012 at 02:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old November 19th, 2012, 02:07 PM
Magic's Avatar
Magic
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
As for alcohol.. I don't know how it works exactly... but my friend's dad who is a sufferer of alcoholism decided to quit one day. Cold turkey. He was in the hospital shortly and the doctors told him that if he did not continue to drink and supply his body with alcohol, then he would die. That is the basis upon my claim.
And that is exactly what can happen with weed, as I showed in my references. You could easily search for those people yourself if you want more information - I'm not going to go buy the full article for you or spend hours fixing up links when you can't provide a single source yourself.

What is the point of debating if it's just your opinion the main evidence whilst not supplying any of your own other than 'I thinks'.

Considering you spent most of your post picking apart my use of 'most' it's fairly obvious you're bias. If my way of debating, as someone with a scientific degree, isn't good enough for you then I truly give up.


@Toujours We're talking about the route of dependency, not what the body does in withdrawal. Addiction can be psychological, causing the body to act with physical withdrawal symptoms - exactly right.



Edit @ Above: Lets throw some more opinion of your 'science' into it! That'll make it right! <cough>
__________________

Sunkern, the Seed Pokémon.

It may drop out of the sky suddenly. If attacked by a Spearow, it will violently shake its leaves.
Reply With Quote
  #31    
Old November 19th, 2012, 02:28 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign View Post
1And that is exactly what can happen with weed, as I showed in my references. You could easily search for those people yourself if you want more information - I'm not going to go buy the full article for you or spend hours fixing up links when you can't provide a single source yourself.

2What is the point of debating if it's just your opinion the main evidence whilst not supplying any of your own other than 'I thinks'.

3Considering you spent most of your post picking apart my use of 'most' it's fairly obvious you're bias. If my way of debating, as someone with a scientific degree, isn't good enough for you then I truly give up.


@Toujours We're talking about the route of dependency, not what the body does in withdrawal. Addiction can be psychological, causing the body to act with physical withdrawal symptoms - exactly right.



4Edit @ Above: Lets throw some more opinion of your 'science' into it! That'll make it right! <cough>
1 I don't see how that can happen. No one has died from smoking marijuana. And with the absence of its ability to create a physical dependencywithdrawals... it couldn't create the same state as alcohol did in that situation. Like I said... I don't have to prove that weed does not create physical dependencywithdrawal. That would be neigh on impossible. I would have to list out every single instance of withdrawal from marijuana. For you... you would have to list the ONE instance that causes such a dependency withdrawal. Something you have FAILED to do.

2 You want proof? Give me positive claims that I made and I will fetch it for you. Do not ask me to prove negative claims, I have not asked that of you for the reasons stated above.

3 How does my wish that you use logic relate to any bias I may or may not have? If you don't know the definition of simple words such as "most" how can anything you say be counted as credible? Plus... YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DEBATING. If we all just posted how you did.. then we would have no debate. Also... what is your obsession with scientific degrees? They don't make you certifiably correct.

4 Ok. I recant such a claim. I'll admit, I was "wrong" there in that I can find no solid proof to my claim.

I'll also give you the assertion that alcohol and marijuana are the same in that they do not have a physical substance that creates dependency.

But even with that... alcohol creates a physical withdrawal, and marijuana does not. I suppose that I was more arguing for that in the first place, anyway. Not counting the brain(as they both affect that), alcohol damages nearly all your organs. Marijuana affects your lungs... but not because of substances in it.. but because inhaling the burning fibers of anything would do that. In such a regard... alcohol is still more dangerous

Also... I provided an link and that would be thc-ministry.net. The guy who owns the page found an essay he agreed with. And he's an ordained minister... so he must know what he's talking about. Plus he also has posted observations by a Dr. Robert J Melamade... now THAT is snazzy. And you know... he's a doctor. Chairman doctor, actually. Of the Biology department. I'm pretty sure biologists would know the effects of cannabis on people.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 19th, 2012 at 11:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32    
Old November 19th, 2012, 02:33 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
But...what's the point of arguing whether or not you're psychologically addicted to it? Or whether it's addictive at all? At what point do we stop legislating what people put into their own bodies? No one's forcing you to smoke it. Should caffeine be illegal as well?
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #33    
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:52 AM
♣Gawain♣'s Avatar
♣Gawain♣
Onward to Music!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to ♣Gawain♣ Send a message via Yahoo to ♣Gawain♣
I think marijuana should and only be used in high-degree medical institutions. And in an appropriate and controlled manner like Livewire said. Although not industrially.
__________________

VM Δ PMPairsDeviantArtPlaying...ClubsTheme
Reply With Quote
  #34    
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:12 AM
shenanigans's Avatar
shenanigans
Staff Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Gender: Male
A lot of the arguments for marijuana legalisation I'm seeing here involve a "but". Stuff like agreeing that marijuana effects cognitive skill but only for a short time, that marijuana can alter brain structure but only if used excessively, an addition can form but it is only mental rather than physical. That's all well and good but it begs the question in my mind, why let any of these things happen? The fact that there are any "but"s present here show that there is indeed substance to these reasons against the use of marijuana. And if there are legitimate reasons not to use it while the only legitimate reason is medical, since I don't really consider "it gets you high" to be a legitimate reason when there are drawbacks involved, then I don't see any reason why it should be legal for recreational use.

I just see it as having the option to let people use something which has negative effects and having the option to let people not use something which has negative effects. I don't understand why you'd pick the first option there.
Reply With Quote
  #35    
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:20 AM
Lishy
Unhatched Egg
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Leaf View Post
A lot of the arguments for marijuana legalisation I'm seeing here involve a &quot;but&quot;. Stuff like agreeing that marijuana effects cognitive skill but only for a short time, that marijuana can alter brain structure but only if used excessively, an addition can form but it is only mental rather than physical. That's all well and good but it begs the question in my mind, why let any of these things happen? The fact that there are any &quot;but&quot;s present here show that there is indeed substance to these reasons against the use of marijuana. And if there are legitimate reasons not to use it while the only legitimate reason is medical, since I don't really consider &quot;it gets you high&quot; to be a legitimate reason when there are drawbacks involved, then I don't see any reason why it should be legal for recreational use.
I agree. KFC has too many buts and I don't see why it should be legal for recreational use. Let's make Kentucky Fried Chicken illegal!
Reply With Quote
  #36    
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:24 AM
shenanigans's Avatar
shenanigans
Staff Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lishy View Post
I agree. KFC has too many buts and I don't see why it should be legal for recreational use. Let's make Kentucky Fried Chicken illegal!
I definitely should have seen a response like this coming. Last I checked, food was a necessity to live. So KFC gives people another option of what to eat. That's a pretty positive side of KFC, I'd say. Now give me a reason why marijuana is a necessity like food is and I'll reconsider my position.
Reply With Quote
  #37    
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:29 AM
Magic's Avatar
Magic
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
1 I don't see how that can happen. No one has died from smoking marijuana. And with the absence of its ability to create a physical dependencywithdrawals... it couldn't create the same state as alcohol did in that situation. Like I said... I don't have to prove that weed does not create physical dependencywithdrawal. That would be neigh on impossible. I would have to list out every single instance of withdrawal from marijuana. For you... you would have to list the ONE instance that causes such a dependency withdrawal. Something you have FAILED to do.
Nobody you know has died of smoking weed. Thing is where do you draw the line at 'death by cannabis'? Surely death by dangerous actions, death by vomiting, death by smoking (and drinking at the same time) should be counted? You're fixating too much on the 'if I sit in a room and smoke one spliff I'm fine' kind of mentality.

Quote:
2 You want proof? Give me positive claims that I made and I will fetch it for you. Do not ask me to prove negative claims, I have not asked that of you for the reasons stated above.
Wait what? This is science. Just as I've shown studies which say Marijuana is dangerous surely you could find some that reported no dangers? Don't be lazy.

Quote:
3 Plus... YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DEBATING. If we all just posted how you did.. then we would have no debate. Also... what is your obsession with scientific degrees? They don't make you certifiably correct.
Hello there, I stated a point and then presented the evidence at hand. A debate is no opinion driven, it is supported by facts.

Obsession? I mentioned it once, whilst you disclaimed scientific evidence.

Quote:
But even with that... alcohol creates a physical withdrawal, and marijuana does not.
As I've said, some studies show that there is withdrawal symptoms. In fact anyone in the UK who watches Jeremy Kyle will have noticed that.

Quote:
Also... I provided an link and that would be thc-ministry.net.
You supplied a link to a bias source, ""We use cannabis religiously and you can, too.” It's not reliable in the slightest. Even with a so called Doctor supporting their claims he is against the vast majority of people - including those doing active research in to the topic.
__________________

Sunkern, the Seed Pokémon.

It may drop out of the sky suddenly. If attacked by a Spearow, it will violently shake its leaves.
Reply With Quote
  #38    
Old November 20th, 2012, 11:44 AM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Leaf View Post
I definitely should have seen a response like this coming. Last I checked, food was a necessity to live. So KFC gives people another option of what to eat. That's a pretty positive side of KFC, I'd say. Now give me a reason why marijuana is a necessity like food is and I'll reconsider my position.
Soda is literally empty calories. It has 0 nutritional value and is nothing but bad for you. It is not a necessity to live. Should people be banned from drinking it?

How about people riding motorcycles? Motorcycles are incredibly dangerous compared to cars. It's not a necessity to drive one, or even to drive anywhere. Should people be banned from drinking it?

How about women having children above the age of 35? It's very dangerous to the mother and the child to have children at that age. Giving birth is not a necessity to live. Should people be banned from giving birth at that age?

All of these are things that are dangerous, but people enjoy them for various reasons and no one thinks about banning them. The point of whether or not marijuana is dangerous should not be a part of this conversation, because everyone chooses a more dangerous option over a less dangerous option at times. Going out to party and drink is more dangerous than staying home. Eating an unhealthy meal is more dangerous than eating a salad. Hell, driving a brown car is more dangerous than driving a white car. Saying "it's dangerous so it should be banned" is a really naive way of looking at it. I would like to see a more extended argument, where you explain why dangerous things should be banned, how it meshes with the general idea of personal freedoms, and the narrow definition between "dangerous thing I don't like to do like pot that should be illegal", and "dangerous thing I do like to do like eating unhealthy that should be totally legal". Not claiming that you like eating unhealthy, but this is a line that pretty much everyone with the argument "it's dangerous keep it banned" hasn't defined.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #39    
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:11 PM
Aques Keus's Avatar
Aques Keus
Swaggins
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Cave of Hymns
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiemanFiddy View Post
I think Marijuana should be banned EVERYWHERE. I mean seriously?

There are people who get high off of BATH SALTS, and they cannibalize other people. Even though it uses a different substance, it can still be really dangerous.

Oh yeah, and people always say that you can never be addicted to Marijuana. Well... if that's true, then why does the term 'Pothead' or 'Crackhead' exist? I'll let you decide.

Frankly, I don't care if people start abusing pot. They'll only use it just to make food taste amazing. Not much harm there XD.
Uh dude, Crackhead refers to people who do crack... Also bath salts and crack are waayyyy worse than pot, like significantly worse. Also pot doesn't make you come close to going bat**** insane, at most you'll skip your day plans. Also pothead doesn't mean an addict, it is someone who does nothing but smoke pot all the time.

P.S. Crack is super addictive, but it isn't Marijuana, it is cocaine.

Edit: @Toujours Motorcycles are cheaper to buy than cars, they use way less gas, and are not as dangerous as you have exaggerated. Driving in this time and age is a necessity, it would take me hours to walks to my school and it would take my dad a day to walk to the city from where we live.

Otherwise, I like your side of the argument.
__________________
College Bound, Mentally Sound.

Frio & Elise || Jayce & Jayce 2
Reply With Quote
  #40    
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:28 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Driving is far from a necessity. Maybe in your particular area it is, but you will not die without it, which was the point that RL was making in his post that I was refuting. As far as motorcycle dangers:

Quote:
Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely experience a deadly accident on the road than those in passenger cars.
Source. Is 35 times an insignificant number?
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #41    
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:41 PM
Aques Keus's Avatar
Aques Keus
Swaggins
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Cave of Hymns
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Well I'm sixteen, riding two years no accident, neither has my 13 year old bro, or 8 year old sister (she rides a dirt bike, so that may be a bit safer). Also that source may bit a bit bias, considering there are links directly to lawyers who handle that kind of thing.

Motorcycles are dangerous to super idiots who think they can ride without any experience. Someone who is good is in about the same danger as a car driver.

Also what about fire trucks, police cars, and ambulances. There is no way a group of people would make it to an emergency without a vehicle, so yea people would die without them. Even a normal citizen needs a car in non-city areas, not everyone is able to walk to work or school, the world is now much bigger nowadays. Maybe inthe 60s or 70s cars were not needed, but today they are about as important as a house or shoes.
__________________
College Bound, Mentally Sound.

Frio & Elise || Jayce & Jayce 2
Reply With Quote
  #42    
Old November 20th, 2012, 01:30 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Leaf View Post
A lot of the arguments for marijuana legalisation I'm seeing here involve a "but". Stuff like agreeing that marijuana effects cognitive skill but only for a short time, that marijuana can alter brain structure but only if used excessively, an addition can form but it is only mental rather than physical. That's all well and good but it begs the question in my mind, why let any of these things happen? The fact that there are any "but"s present here show that there is indeed substance to these reasons against the use of marijuana. And if there are legitimate reasons not to use it while the only legitimate reason is medical, since I don't really consider "it gets you high" to be a legitimate reason when there are drawbacks involved, then I don't see any reason why it should be legal for recreational use.

I just see it as having the option to let people use something which has negative effects and having the option to let people not use something which has negative effects. I don't understand why you'd pick the first option there.
This might be a valid argument if not for one thing: It's my body. The risk for such things if VERY slim. Especially when compared to the risks posed by alcohol and tobacco. It is extremely hypocritical that they would allow such substances like those, yet still ban marijuana on the grounds that it is dangerous. How do they get to pick and choose what kind of "bad" I get to do to my body? Alcohol affects cognitive skill... but only when you're drunk. Should we then have that banned as well? And Alcohol can create the same mental addictions, with physical withdrawals. Devastating physical withdrawals that can lead to death/the need for liver transplant etc. Tobacco is physically addictive, and we allow it? Tobacco calms people down, BUT it also gives them cancer. Alcohol makes people feel better, BUT it also damages nextto every organ in body. Tobacco and Alcohol both are unable to present legitimate medical claims, yet they are legal for recreational use; whereas marijuana has significant medicinal purposes... yet isn't. There are some serious double standards being raised here.

Entirely disregarding the health issue... I'm not shoving a blunt a down your throat and forcing you to puff on it, am I? So then, pray tell, why would you intend to force the disuse of this substance upon me, when I have not even had the slightest intent of forcing its use upon you? I think I'm quite old enough to assess the benefits and drawbacks to something that affects purely me. I mean... if marijuana really did make me go crazy and murder my family with an ax... I could see where you are coming from. But it doesn't, and I can't. Since I would also be smoking in a private venue, the idea that my smoking is affecting anyone else in anyway is just plain wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign View Post
Nobody you know has died of smoking weed. Thing is where do you draw the line at 'death by cannabis'? Surely death by dangerous actions, death by vomiting, death by smoking (and drinking at the same time) should be counted? You're fixating too much on the 'if I sit in a room and smoke one spliff I'm fine' kind of mentality.
Overdosing on Marijuana. Dangerous actions? That's not the marijuana, that's you. Death by vomiting? I do not believe that the vomiting induced could cause this to happen. But even if it could... do you know how many other legal substances that this also true for? Hell, Ipecac is MADE for vomiting... so if someone can die by vomiting off that.. shouldn't it be illegal too? I mean.. it's dangerous after all. OH but they have proper dosages, right? So you don't get close to death by vomiting? Well weed does too. Let me tell you from personal experience... you will want to quit smoking LONG before you throw up.

So I guess you can say that like Ipecac, weed has a proper, "safe" dosage. And legalizing it would only go to ensure that people receive the proper dosage, or at least that they have the information at hand to make an educated choice, even they don't end up actually doing that. And in that regards.. even if the weed did cause their death... That was still because they decided to use it stupidly.

The idea that marijuana should be banned because people CAN, through abuse of it, become ill and/or die is not too strong of a selling point to me. The same could be argued for pretty much ANY substance on this entire Earth. And compared to most other substances... it takes a lot more time/a lot more marijuana to achieve that state.

Spoiler:
.
Data source is the March 24, 2007 article: Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse"

Also...how would someone die by drinking and smoking at the same time? I can see dehydration.. but that can be argued just as much as a result of the persons's own negligence to drink water.

source: http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessati...ng-doesnt-kill


Quote:
Wait what? This is science. Just as I've shown studies which say Marijuana is dangerous surely you could find some that reported no dangers? Don't be lazy.
The physical consequences of smoking weed are(as provided by:http://web4health.info/en/answers/ad...s-physical.htm



Quote:
Originally Posted by Web4Health
"Increased heartbeat. Generally, it slows down in about 20 minutes.
Drop of the pressure in your eyeball.
Change of blood pressure.
Sense of cold or hot hands and feet.
Discoloration of the white of the eye to somewhat pink because of dilation of the vessels in the conjunctiva of the eye.
Relaxation of the muscles.
A dry mouth."
And I'll add my own to this list that I am sure we can all attest to: Relative spaciness/slowed cognitive function, esp. a weaker short-term memory. (and looky here: http://web4health.info/en/answers/add-cannabis-mood.htm)

The page also goes onto to assert that the physical changes dissipate in a couple of hours.

science.howstuffworks.com suggests the dangers of alcohol to be:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howstuffworks
Euphoria (BAC = 0.03 to 0.12 percent)
They become more self-confident or daring.
Their attention span shortens.
They may look flushed.
Their judgement is not as good -- they may say the first thought that comes to mind, rather than an appropriate comment for the given situation.
They have trouble with fine movements, such as writing or signing their name.
Excitement (BAC = 0.09 to 0.25 percent)
They become sleepy.
They have trouble understanding or remembering things (even recent events).
They do not react to situations as quickly (if they spill a drink they may just stare at it).
Their body movements are uncoordinated.
They begin to lose their balance easily.
Their vision becomes blurry.
They may have trouble sensing things (hearing, tasting, feeling, etc.).
Confusion (BAC = 0.18 to 0.30 percent)
They are confused -- might not know where they are or what they are doing.
They are dizzy and may stagger.
They may be highly emotional -- aggressive, withdrawn or overly affectionate.
They cannot see clearly.
They are sleepy.
They have slurred speech.
They have uncoordinated movements (trouble catching an object thrown to them).
They may not feel pain as readily as a sober person.
Stupor (BAC = 0.25 to 0.4 percent)
Stupor (BAC = 0.25 to 0.4 percent)

They can barely move at all.

They can barely move at all.
They cannot respond to stimuli.
They cannot stand or walk.
They may vomit.
They may lapse in and out of consciousness.
Coma (BAC = 0.35 to 0.50 percent)
They are unconscious.
Their reflexes are depressed (i.e. their pupils do not respond appropriately to changes in light).
They feel cool (lower-than-normal body temperature).
Their breathing is slower and more shallow.
Their heart rate may slow.
They may die.
Death (BAC more than 0.50 percent) - The person usually stops breathing and dies.

Compare THOSE with that of marijuana and the lethality rates compared to the amount necessary to get "high" and it is very clear that Marijuana is FAR LESS DANGEROUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign
Hello there, I stated a point and then presented the evidence at hand. A debate is no opinion driven, it is supported by facts.

Obsession? I mentioned it once, whilst you disclaimed scientific evidence.
Moot point. That is not the topic of this discussion. I apologize for my contributions to this deterrent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign
As I've said, some studies show that there is withdrawal symptoms. In fact anyone in the UK who watches Jeremy Kyle will have noticed that.
Alright, here is what I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://norml.org/news/2009/10/01/cannabis-withdrawal-syndrome-short-lived-affects-few-study-says
The most frequently mentioned physical symptoms of strong or very strong intensity on the first day were sleeping problems (21 percent), sweating (28 percent), hot flashes (21 percent), and decreased appetite (15 percent). ... Other often highly rated psychological symptoms included restlessness (20 percent), nervousness (20 percent), and sadness (19 percent)."
The page also goes onto to describe the effects as "mild and subtle."

About.com says the effects are a craving for more cannabis, mood swings, and sleep disruption. This info falls in line with that other info. While such things might be unpleasant for some people... they aren't for me. I don't mind such withdrawal symptoms. *I* am the one who has to deal with them, am I not? And compared to alcohol... there is no organ damage or death listed among such withdrawal symptoms.

sources from About.com:
Levin, KH, et al. "Cannabis withdrawal symptoms in non-treatment-seeking adult cannabis smokers." Drug and Alcohol Dependence April 2010.

Marijuana Anonymous World Services. "Detoxing from Marijuana." Accessed June 2012.

Vandrey, R., et al. "Cannabis withdrawal in adolescent treatment seekers." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, January 2008

So I'll give you that there are some withdrawal symptoms... BUT:
-Craving for more: This could happen with any positive stimuli. If it provides effects that the user enjoys, they will naturally become more accustomed to using it. Especially if they fall into the habit of using as a way to treat their issues. The anticipation of relief will naturally cause them to crave more of it--but "it" can be any stimuli that gives them the desired results.
-Insomnia: This happens when marijuana is used as a sleep aid. And this, like the above, could happen with any sleep aid. I know plenty of people who DEPEND on opiates and narcotics just so that they can sleep. This can happen with nyquil, benadryl etc. It comes down to user responsibility
-Irritability: How would you feel if you just had to give up something that your body had grown so accustomed to? This irritability can again be attached to anything... or rather the absence of it. If the desired stimuli is removed...it is obviously going to distress the person. Like anytime you make some frustrated/annoyed... just give them time to cool off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftSign
You supplied a link to a bias source, ""We use cannabis religiously and you can, too.” It's not reliable in the slightest. Even with a so called Doctor supporting their claims he is against the vast majority of people - including those doing active research in to the topic.
Obviously I was attempting to understand your fixation with "authority" figures on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khawill
Well I'm sixteen, riding two years no accident, neither has my 13 year old bro, or 8 year old sister (she rides a dirt bike, so that may be a bit safer). Also that source may bit a bit bias, considering there are links directly to lawyers who handle that kind of thing.
Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. That is what they are arguing. They argue that because someone COULD get more hurt on the motorcycle compared to cars that we should take away you right to ride it. I've been smoking for three years, no accident. I know people who have been smoking for a decade... no accident.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 20th, 2012 at 01:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43    
Old November 20th, 2012, 01:51 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khawill View Post
Well I'm sixteen, riding two years no accident, neither has my 13 year old bro, or 8 year old sister (she rides a dirt bike, so that may be a bit safer). Also that source may bit a bit bias, considering there are links directly to lawyers who handle that kind of thing.

Motorcycles are dangerous to super idiots who think they can ride without any experience. Someone who is good is in about the same danger as a car driver.

Also what about fire trucks, police cars, and ambulances. There is no way a group of people would make it to an emergency without a vehicle, so yea people would die without them. Even a normal citizen needs a car in non-city areas, not everyone is able to walk to work or school, the world is now much bigger nowadays. Maybe inthe 60s or 70s cars were not needed, but today they are about as important as a house or shoes.
If you live in the country, and need to travel far distances, and there is no public transportation, and you are the only breadwinner in your family, you may need a car. There is a large difference between driving and eating as far as necessity though. There is no equating the two. The fact that millions of people live without driver's licenses is proof enough of that. No one lives without food. In addition, anecdotes do not refute data. Watch your fallacies.

Quote:
According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 13.10 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 72.34 per 100,000 registered motorcycles...Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists' risk of a fatal crash is 35 times greater than a passenger car.
Here's the actual government website where the information was gotten from originally. Are you implying that the US government is biased against motorcyclists and are therefore creating false data to make it seem more dangerous?

I am not comparing fire trucks and ambulances to food, I am comparing personal cars and personal motorcycles to food. There is zero comparison. I understand that you're having trouble letting go of your "I ride a motorcycle IT'S PERFECTLY SAFE OKAY" bias, but this is getting far off-topic so if you want to continue to take an opinion opposite to the facts feel free, I'm done discussing it with you lol.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #44    
Old November 20th, 2012, 04:44 PM
shenanigans's Avatar
shenanigans
Staff Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Soda is literally empty calories. It has 0 nutritional value and is nothing but bad for you. It is not a necessity to live. Should people be banned from drinking it?
Soda specifically isn't a necessity to live, but some form of drink is and, if someone chose to do so, they could use soda as their only liquid intake and it would be a necessity for them. Soda, like any drink that isn't water, is just an alternative form of something that is absolutely required - liquid intake. So no, it obviously shouldn't be banned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
How about people riding motorcycles? Motorcycles are incredibly dangerous compared to cars. It's not a necessity to drive one, or even to drive anywhere. Should people be banned from drinking it?
Honestly, if I could, I would since you're right here. They're more dangerous than cars and they're overall not totally necessary. Although others have covered the reasons why motorcycles could be considered better than card anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
How about women having children above the age of 35? It's very dangerous to the mother and the child to have children at that age. Giving birth is not a necessity to live. Should people be banned from giving birth at that age?
I'd say there are more benefits to having kids than there are to smoking marijuana. If the parents believe that the benefits outweigh the risks then that's fine. Where are the genuine, realistic benefits of marijuana other than it makes you feel good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Saying "it's dangerous so it should be banned" is a really naive way of looking at it. I would like to see a more extended argument, where you explain why dangerous things should be banned, how it meshes with the general idea of personal freedoms, and the narrow definition between "dangerous thing I don't like to do like pot that should be illegal", and "dangerous thing I do like to do like eating unhealthy that should be totally legal". Not claiming that you like eating unhealthy, but this is a line that pretty much everyone with the argument "it's dangerous keep it banned" hasn't defined.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's dangerous and without realistic gains or any degree of necessity, so it should be banned. There's much more to the argument than the very oversimplified "omg ban everything remotely dangerous". Of course I'm absolutely against that idea. I'm also uncertain of where you got the impression that I'm talking about a "dangerous thing I don't like to do like pot that should be illegal" when I've not said once that I don't do pot. I do. And I still think it should be illegal because I know it's not really helping me or anyone with pretty much anything. It's just something potentially harmful that people do for no real reason. And on those grounds, I'd want it banned.

You want me to provide a more extended argument here but you've still not given me a reason why something which does no good and potentially does do harm shouldn't be illegal. You've only compared it to other things which don't really apply. I'll give you one back: would you unban harder drugs? They're bad for you but they make you feel good so your argument should say yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
This might be a valid argument if not for one thing: It's my body. The risk for such things if VERY slim. Especially when compared to the risks posed by alcohol and tobacco. It is extremely hypocritical that they would allow such substances like those, yet still ban marijuana on the grounds that it is dangerous. How do they get to pick and choose what kind of "bad" I get to do to my body? Alcohol affects cognitive skill... but only when you're drunk. Should we then have that banned as well? And Alcohol can create the same mental addictions, with physical withdrawals. Devastating physical withdrawals that can lead to death/the need for liver transplant etc. Tobacco is physically addictive, and we allow it? Tobacco calms people down, BUT it also gives them cancer. Alcohol makes people feel better, BUT it also damages nextto every organ in body. Tobacco and Alcohol both are unable to present legitimate medical claims, yet they are legal for recreational use; whereas marijuana has significant medicinal purposes... yet isn't. There are some serious double standards being raised here.

Entirely disregarding the health issue... I'm not shoving a blunt a down your throat and forcing you to puff on it, am I? So then, pray tell, why would you intend to force the disuse of this substance upon me, when I have not even had the slightest intent of forcing its use upon you? I think I'm quite old enough to assess the benefits and drawbacks to something that affects purely me. I mean... if marijuana really did make me go crazy and murder my family with an ax... I could see where you are coming from. But it doesn't, and I can't. Since I would also be smoking in a private venue, the idea that my smoking is affecting anyone else in anyway is just plain wrong.
Just because the risks are slim compared to x and y, which I'll come to later, doesn't mean they don't exist and doesn't mean they shouldn't be dealt with. It's your body, true, but isn't it the job of those running a country to try to ensure the best for its residents by, in part, the prohibition of dangerous activities which have no real useful application? I don't see why a government should sit by and allow its people to potentially harm themselves at will. I'll ask you the same that I asked Toujours - why should harder drugs be banned?

Regarding alcohol and tobacco, I never said anything about not wanting any of those things banned. If I had it totally my way, they would be. But as we've seen in the past, banning those sorts of things just doesn't work and isn't at all feasible. The same argument I'm using here for marijuana applies in my mind for alcohol and tobacco.


On a note not directed at either of you, rather than arguments against marijuana being illegal, can someone give arguments for it being legal? If they outweigh the reasons for which I think it should be illegal than I'll probably change my viewpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #45    
Old November 20th, 2012, 04:57 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Oh, are you the kind of person that believes that things should be by default illegal unless they have a compelling reason to be legal? That changes my arguments quite a bit there, as I always work from the general "it should be legal unless there are compelling reasons to make it illegal" template. And I really can't see how someone possibly harming themselves is a compelling reason to make something illegal, no matter how dangerous it may be. It would be a compelling reason to educate people on the risks, but no more than that.

The fact that people enjoy doing it and the only person they harm while doing it is themselves should be enough.
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #46    
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:03 PM
shenanigans's Avatar
shenanigans
Staff Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Oh, are you the kind of person that believes that things should be by default illegal unless they have a compelling reason to be legal? That changes my arguments quite a bit there, as I always work from the general "it should be legal unless there are compelling reasons to make it illegal" template. And I really can't see how someone possibly harming themselves is a compelling reason to make something illegal, no matter how dangerous it may be. It would be a compelling reason to educate people on the risks, but no more than that.

The fact that people enjoy doing it and the only person they harm while doing it is themselves should be enough.
I... guess, in a way, I am haha. It's really kinda contradictory to my personality and my lifestyle (as you probably already know tbh!) but yeah I suppose I just feel like it's a safer and healthier world for people that way, even if it is a bit like living in a large padded room. I guess our difference in opinions is just due to our opposite views on the legalisation or illegalisation (is that even a word?) of stuff.

However, I really like your idea of education of the risks. I feel like a lot of people, honestly possibly including me, are a bit fuzzy on the risks of marijuana. We're all taught about what cigarettes can do to you, possibly what alcohol can do to you, but its legal status makes marijuana and other drugs a bit taboo in education, from what I've seen. Legal or not I'd totally like to see further, unbiased, education there.
Reply With Quote
  #47    
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:29 PM
LilJz's Avatar
LilJz
Zoeeyyyyy! ♥
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
I used to smoke when I was 15 cuz I was a damn rebel back then lol. But now I have a healthy lifestyle, I don't drink or smoke, and I limit my comsumption of junk food.
__________________
♥Plusle bro of Autumn Reverie♥ | ♥Pink Mommy, Autumn Reverie, Kanzler, Macarous & Apollo♥
|3DS FC|
Reply With Quote
  #48    
Old November 21st, 2012, 12:38 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Leaf View Post
On a note not directed at either of you, rather than arguments against marijuana being illegal, can someone give arguments for it being legal? If they outweigh the reasons for which I think it should be illegal than I'll probably change my viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Leaf View Post
However, I really like your idea of education of the risks. I feel like a lot of people, honestly possibly including me, are a bit fuzzy on the risks of marijuana. We're all taught about what cigarettes can do to you, possibly what alcohol can do to you, but its legal status makes marijuana and other drugs a bit taboo in education, from what I've seen. Legal or not I'd totally like to see further, unbiased, education there.
You're kinda answering your own question...

But anyway... this is why drugs, especially marijuana are to be legal:


The legalization of the drug(or any) would ensure that people are taught about it, properly. It would ensure that they got the facts, not the scare tactics. On both sides of the spectrum, people would no longer be able to propagate ludicrous claims about marijuana. Instead of lobbying for ways to get it banned... they would lobby for ways to make it safer. People would actively be seeking to ensure that when you smoke marijuana... you're doing it on the safest terms possible, rather than on the dangerous terms that the illegality forces upon many of us. I don't think I need to list out such situations... but here are some(especially for the harder drugs):

1.)Drugs laced with other drugs. Not common at all with marijuana or cheaper drugs. They would be losing profit. But it happens on the more expensive scale/harder drug scale.
2.)Hardcore drugs cut with materials unfit for human consumption that cause all sorts of tars and impurities. I mean... Cocaine is bad either way, but 99% pure cocaine will get you A LOT higher for A LOT less. It also doesn't have things like baking powder that you are either smoking or snorting.
3.)Dealing with dangerous dealers. Obviously, people who deal with drugs(I'm talking on a bit of an organized level) are going to do what the can to ensure that the get what they need/want. Obviously enough... there is a lot of gang and drug related violence that is interconnected. The "drug train."
4.)Unfit materials. Dirty needles, home-made aluminum pipes, unconventional ethanol(i.e. by burning hand sanitizer). All of those contribute only negatively to our health.

If drugs were legalized.. all of these would cease to problems; If drugs were legalized, that means that companies could actually work to produce to them. That means that safety standards would be put into effect. Federally recognized inspectors would make sure the facilities are operating in ways that have our health in their best interests. We would, instead of getting our fix from that skeevy down the street, be able to go to the store(maybe not the grocery store, but A store) and buy clean, safe(in comparison to what you would obtain) drugs. A lot of people want to quit... but don't know how to come forward. They don't want to be judged, hated, etc. jailed, even. If it were legal, a lot more people would come out of the woodwork for help.

So then.. to answer your question simply? As you noted, it was unfeasible to ban alcohol. That when it happened... people drank anyway. Marijuana is pretty much the same. It's illegal and people are STILL smoking. They are going to smoke it regardless of what the law says. At least by legalizing it, you can ensure that they are doing so safely.

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 21st, 2012 at 01:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49    
Old November 21st, 2012, 05:17 PM
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy
Spreader of the T-Virus
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
You're kinda answering your own question...

But anyway... this is why drugs, especially marijuana are to be legal:


The legalization of the drug(or any) would ensure that people are taught about it, properly. It would ensure that they got the facts, not the scare tactics. On both sides of the spectrum, people would no longer be able to propagate ludicrous claims about marijuana. Instead of lobbying for ways to get it banned... they would lobby for ways to make it safer. People would actively be seeking to ensure that when you smoke marijuana... you're doing it on the safest terms possible, rather than on the dangerous terms that the illegality forces upon many of us. I don't think I need to list out such situations... but here are some(especially for the harder drugs):

1.)Drugs laced with other drugs. Not common at all with marijuana or cheaper drugs. They would be losing profit. But it happens on the more expensive scale/harder drug scale.
2.)Hardcore drugs cut with materials unfit for human consumption that cause all sorts of tars and impurities. I mean... Cocaine is bad either way, but 99% pure cocaine will get you A LOT higher for A LOT less. It also doesn't have things like baking powder that you are either smoking or snorting.
3.)Dealing with dangerous dealers. Obviously, people who deal with drugs(I'm talking on a bit of an organized level) are going to do what the can to ensure that the get what they need/want. Obviously enough... there is a lot of gang and drug related violence that is interconnected. The "drug train."
4.)Unfit materials. Dirty needles, home-made aluminum pipes, unconventional ethanol(i.e. by burning hand sanitizer). All of those contribute only negatively to our health.

If drugs were legalized.. all of these would cease to problems; If drugs were legalized, that means that companies could actually work to produce to them. That means that safety standards would be put into effect. Federally recognized inspectors would make sure the facilities are operating in ways that have our health in their best interests. We would, instead of getting our fix from that skeevy down the street, be able to go to the store(maybe not the grocery store, but A store) and buy clean, safe(in comparison to what you would obtain) drugs. A lot of people want to quit... but don't know how to come forward. They don't want to be judged, hated, etc. jailed, even. If it were legal, a lot more people would come out of the woodwork for help.

So then.. to answer your question simply? As you noted, it was unfeasible to ban alcohol. That when it happened... people drank anyway. Marijuana is pretty much the same. It's illegal and people are STILL smoking. They are going to smoke it regardless of what the law says. At least by legalizing it, you can ensure that they are doing so safely.

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html

I agree with this, to a certain extent.

I mean first off... I suppose making Marijuana legal just to teach people about the effects of it, or help people who use it medicinally is a good idea.

On the other hand, there are such people which would abuse the substance for personal pleasure.

Let's put it this way. Is it legal for the state of Florida to pass around Marijuana without medicinal use? No. Does that stop the people from using it? No. Whether it's legal or not really has no effect on whether or not people will use it, just HOW MANY people use it. The demographic only enlargens because it's legal, and therefore a lesser probability of being caught.


Maybe one of the statements you have I don't agree with is the text I outlined in cyan. We don't need another outbreak of drugs/alcohol. There are already too many companies developing Cigars and Beers, which pass off commercials that like to pretend that their running an honest business instead of a factory which produces poison. I'm not implying that Weed is a poison, but it's going to become engrossed in the same market, and be passed off as such.

I don't want Weed to be the next best 'hit' of American customs, which is why I'm thankful it didn't get any farther than Colorado or Washington.
__________________
"The entire world will be infected. A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator!"
Reply With Quote
  #50    
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:51 AM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiemanFiddy View Post
I agree with this, to a certain extent.

I mean first off... I suppose making Marijuana legal just to teach people about the effects of it, or help people who use it medicinally is a good idea.

On the other hand, there are such people which would abuse the substance for personal pleasure.

Let's put it this way. Is it legal for the state of Florida to pass around Marijuana without medicinal use? No. Does that stop the people from using it? No. Whether it's legal or not really has no effect on whether or not people will use it, just HOW MANY people use it. The demographic only enlargens because it's legal, and therefore a lesser probability of being caught.


Maybe one of the statements you have I don't agree with is the text I outlined in cyan. We don't need another outbreak of drugs/alcohol. There are already too many companies developing Cigars and Beers, which pass off commercials that like to pretend that their running an honest business instead of a factory which produces poison. I'm not implying that Weed is a poison, but it's going to become engrossed in the same market, and be passed off as such.

I don't want Weed to be the next best 'hit' of American customs, which is why I'm thankful it didn't get any farther than Colorado or Washington.
I don't exactly see what you arguing here...

The evidence I provided for shows only that legalization would decrease frequent marijuana use/number of users. If you click the link that I provided, it shows how Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has led to a drop in their drug abuse rate. You hit the nail on the head... there is ALWAYS going to be people who abuse EVERYTHING. As it now, in its illegal state, the abuse rate of marijuana is a lot higher than it could be. Why? Because people are given scant information and shown only scare tactics. This leads them to search for a deeper truth, which also probably isn't true. Then they either form an opinion that denotes it as bad, or good, and it is most definitely something in between. As they don't have the proper info... they can't make an informed choice... and thus the abuse happens.

Legalizing it would ensure that those of who like following the law, that those of us who AREN'T criminals would be able to enjoy it safely. The small group that will still abuse it upon legalization is entirely irrelevant--that group exists with our without the legalization. The legalization provides only the way out for these people.

Companies producing the drugs would be the best way to ensure that they are safe. Regulations would, as they have with the alcohol and tobacco industries, make it illegal for the companies to give such misinformation about their products. They would have quality standards to meet etc. There would be all sorts of warnings as to what could happen with the use of the drug. The cold hard facts. Not the scare tactics... not someone playing it down... the fact. So that YOU could decide for YOURSELF.

Legalizing would only make the drug use safer. It would not lead to a "boom" in drug use, at least not on any reasonable grounds. And if it did... then they could pull the product of the shelf if the effects were too adverse. The federal government would also effectively disrupt the drug train if they were to do this... making it harder for the dealers on the street to make any money etc and they would slowly fade out of existence. I mean.. who would want to buy some risky drugs from the person down the street when you can go to the store and buy something clean and safe? I know I wouldn't.


Anyways... Colorado and Washington are just the beginning. Emancipation didn't happen over night, and neither will this.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.