• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

Marijuana!

Khawill

<3
1,567
Posts
11
Years
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.
 

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
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.

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:

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-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill


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/add-cannabis-physical.htm



Web4Health said:
"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:

Howstuffworks said:
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.

SwiftSign said:
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.

SwiftSign said:
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.
http://norml.org/news/2009/10/01/cannabis-withdrawal-syndrome-short-lived-affects-few-study-says said:
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.


SwiftSign said:
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.

Khawill said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
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.

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.
 

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]
8,875
Posts
12
Years
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
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.
 

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]
8,875
Posts
12
Years
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.
 

Captain Gizmo

Monkey King
4,843
Posts
11
Years
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.
 

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
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.

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/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
 
Last edited:

PiemanFiddy

Dark-Type Gym Leader
194
Posts
11
Years
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/article/0,8599,1893946,00.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.
 

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
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.
 

PiemanFiddy

Dark-Type Gym Leader
194
Posts
11
Years
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.



1. I'm arguing that Marijuana should be Illegal. As I've mentioned in one of my last paragraphs/statements, It's going to be a substance that's engrossed in the same market as Alcohol and etc. I don't want this world to have another thing to worry about like DUI's and the such. It's just an unecessary risk.


2. You're telling me that legalizing Marijuana will DECREASE the number of users instead of Increasing it? That seems a little strange. But anyway, I kinda figured that there would be abusers of it since It's every man's dream to smoke pot. God knows why...


3. Right, but this isn't the same as those stupid "Drink Responsibly" bullcrap commercials. Weed can intoxicate the human mind MUCH faster than Alcohol can. (depending on the type/brand) ...and knowing that people will abuse it only makes the matters worse. What happens when people start driving under the influence of it? Marijuana is essentially just another excuse for Car Accidents for the people who abuse it.


4. Tobacco Companies and Breweries only say "You decide for yourself" to avoid responsibility of the people that buy their product. It is a blatant contradiction. Millions of people have died from the drugs themselves. Whether it be from Cancer or Liver Failure... or just from Car Accidents and such caused by the abuse of said drug.

Just because they think they can sign a paper to wish all their problems away, doesn't make them ANY less responsible for all those deaths. They willingly create a toxin, and sell it publicly, so they should have their own risks.

I don't want that to happen with Marijuana. You think Inspectors are going to make those information labels on the side of the product look any less threatening than It really is? Maybe not with Marijuana, but it's severely misleading with anything else.


5. The effects aren't adverse.. It's the actions the people take while they're under the influence of said drug. It's not safe, and as I mentioned before, It's just another car accident or misdemeanor waiting to happen. They might as well have recalled beer off the shelves when it went public, but of course, no one cared. You know.. millions of Domestic Violence calls, Black-outs leading to death, Car Accidents. I can't wait to 'laugh' at more of those stories.



6. If it becomes a legal drug among the entire country, then I'll really find myself to no longer belong in this country. I know America is 'land of the free', but that doesn't mean 'go around abusing Alcohol and Drugs and kill other people'. I just want everyone to live a healthy life instead of purchasing poison and making everyone around them feel more threatened.



So yeah. That was the point I'm trying to make. Marijuana should be Illegal. I don't care what the redditors, or the Potheads, or the Delinquents say, It's too risky, and we already have enough of that in this country.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
You do realize you can go buy a gun and shoot yourself in the head, right? Should it be the gun company's responsibility if they choose to do that, because they're selling a killing tool?

2 and 3: [citation needed]

Wanting everyone to "live a healthy life" is wanting everyone to adhere to your own moral code. Your moral code should not dictate the country's laws.
 

PiemanFiddy

Dark-Type Gym Leader
194
Posts
11
Years
You do realize you can go buy a gun and shoot yourself in the head, right? Should it be the gun company's responsibility if they choose to do that, because they're selling a killing tool?

2 and 3: [citation needed]

Wanting everyone to "live a healthy life" is wanting everyone to adhere to your own moral code. Your moral code should not dictate the country's laws.


Yeah. ...and you DO know there's a distinct difference between Suicide and Manslaughter right?

If this thread were about guns, I'd go on a completely different story, but as it stands, this is about Marijuana.

Living a Healthy life is a moral code I'm telling everyone to adhere to?

OH JESUS, God for bid I'm ever worried about the sanctity of other human beings and their lives and families. God for bid I'm worried that some random drunken stranger can completely ruin someones life... How dare I ever make such an offensive statement.

Please don't get me started. Whether it's a moral code or not, do you honestly think EVERYONE would disagree with that? Eat your vegetables, young man.
 

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
1. I'm arguing that Marijuana should be Illegal. As I've mentioned in one of my last paragraphs/statements, It's going to be a substance that's engrossed in the same market as Alcohol and etc. I don't want this world to have another thing to worry about like DUI's and the such. It's just an unecessary risk.
I still don't exactly get your point here. If you think smoking is too risky... then don't smoke??

2. You're telling me that legalizing Marijuana will DECREASE the number of users instead of Increasing it? That seems a little strange. But anyway, I kinda figured that there would be abusers of it since It's every man's dream to smoke pot. God knows why...

Yes I am. If Portugal is a model for anything... then yes, it makes perfect sense. Also.. it is NOT ever man's dream to smoke pot. I smoke... but it is certainly not my "dream." The abusers come in because everything has the potential to be abused.

3. Right, but this isn't the same as those stupid "Drink Responsibly" bullcrap commercials. Weed can intoxicate the human mind MUCH faster than Alcohol can. (depending on the type/brand) ...and knowing that people will abuse it only makes the matters worse. What happens when people start driving under the influence of it? Marijuana is essentially just another excuse for Car Accidents for the people who abuse it.
How is it not? Your claim is not only wrong... but also irrelevant. The rate at which the drug affects the body is different depending upon on how much you take at one time and your size. I could smoke three joints and take ten minute to smoke each of them. I'm not going to get very high. But if I poke a hole in the bottom of a beer can and "shotgun" a few of them... I'm going to get buzzed up very quickly. It also depends on what I'm smoking/drinking. Some marijuana has a higher THC concentration, some alcohol has a higher.. well.. alcohol concentration. All these factors would contribute to how fast and how "hard" the drug hits you. But like I said, it's irrelevant. It is illegal to drive drunk... it would be illegal to drive high. In neither case it is an "excuse" and the perpetrator would face legal punishment. And... People drive high now... that is already a problem... legalizing it would cause no change So... what point were you making here again?


4. Tobacco Companies and Breweries only say "You decide for yourself" to avoid responsibility of the people that buy their product. It is a blatant contradiction. Millions of people have died from the drugs themselves. Whether it be from Cancer or Liver Failure... or just from Car Accidents and such caused by the abuse of said drug.

Just because they think they can sign a paper to wish all their problems away, doesn't make them ANY less responsible for all those deaths. They willingly create a toxin, and sell it publicly, so they should have their own risks.

I don't want that to happen with Marijuana. You think Inspectors are going to make those information labels on the side of the product look any less threatening than It really is? Maybe not with Marijuana, but it's severely misleading with anything else.

But... the people do decide for themselves. No one is forcing you to drink beer or smoke cigarettes, are they? Certainly not the company. Furthermore... I don't see what the dangers of tobacco and alcohol have to do with the legalization of marijuana.

What paper are you talking about? I know of no such paper. PLEASE send it my way... I'd like to sign up. That is the thing, though, they are not responsible for those deaths. To blame them for the deaths is to blame people who make guns for every person that was killed as a result of that gun. And that is just asinine. You can't blame the gunmaker for what someone decided to do with their gun just as you can't blame the drug maker for what someone decided to do with their drug. Furthermore... you could always trace it back to be the fault of someone else. For instance... it isn't the gunmaker faults, but the person who provided him with the metal to make the gun. Or it isn't the drug makers fault... but the people who supplied them with the materials to make the drug. You could shift the blame around however you want... but in the end: it comes down to YOU deciding to use that product in the first place. Yes. They willingly create a 'toxin'\'. But they do not force the toxin on you. What risk.. would they be facing anyway? I don't see a corporate risk here.

Would the inspectors make the drugs look better than they are? No? That isn't their job. They just make sure that the factories are producing drugs that meet the health standards set.

5. The effects aren't adverse.. It's the actions the people take while they're under the influence of said drug. It's not safe, and as I mentioned before, It's just another car accident or misdemeanor waiting to happen. They might as well have recalled beer off the shelves when it went public, but of course, no one cared. You know.. millions of Domestic Violence calls, Black-outs leading to death, Car Accidents. I can't wait to 'laugh' at more of those stories.
As I said above... that would not happen. It would be illegal to drive while under the influence... OF ANYTHING. I don't exactly get what recalling beer has to do with anything. While it could be true of harder drugs... marijuana, tobacco etc. do not really affect our judgment skills. I could see the "domestic violence" issue only arising with alcohol and harder drugs. But guess what? It's already an issue. All these drugs that you seem to fear... are being taken... legal or not. The legality of such drugs would only go to ensure that people can get the proper help that they need. You know what happens when you arrest a drug addict? He goes to jail. You know what he does in jail to pass the time? More drugs! What a wonderful program that we have set up there.


6. If it becomes a legal drug among the entire country, then I'll really find myself to no longer belong in this country. I know America is 'land of the free', but that doesn't mean 'go around abusing Alcohol and Drugs and kill other people'. I just want everyone to live a healthy life instead of purchasing poison and making everyone around them feel more threatened.

How? We aren't forcing you to use it. We aren't changing YOU in any way. We aren't taking away any of your freedoms... we aren't doing ANYTHING to you. You have a very absurd notion in your head. And it is either that all people who use drugs are terrible, nasty people who abuse it, OR that when drugs are illegal no one does them. I don't know which one so I don't know how to further respond to you.

So yeah. That was the point I'm trying to make. Marijuana should be Illegal. I don't care what the redditors, or the Potheads, or the Delinquents say, It's too risky, and we already have enough of that in this country.

You are being EXTREMELY offensive again. Smoking weed does not make someone a "delinquent." I think it would be safe to assume that you have been fed your share of misinformation on marijuana--another a reason that it should be legalized, to prevent such travesties from occurring. You need to realize that taking a certain drug does not make someone bad.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
A person choosing to smoke themselves to death is committing suicide. Slow suicide, but suicide. Why is a person using a gun to kill themselves significantly different from a person using cigarettes to kill themselves, other than the time it takes to do it? What is your point here?

What does a random drunken stranger have to do with anything? Like you just said, this is about marijuana. Not alcohol.

I would appreciate it if you would actually try to use logic, as right now all you're doing is ranting and not making any real points. You also ignored my request for proof in two of your previous points. Are you just making things up in that case?

Edit: and I am a woman, as it says right next to my username. Please do not refer to me as a man. The gender is there for a reason.
 

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
Living a Healthy life is a moral code I'm telling everyone to adhere to?

OH JESUS, God for bid I'm ever worried about the sanctity of other human beings and their lives and families. God for bid I'm worried that some random drunken stranger can completely ruin someones life... How dare I ever make such an offensive statement.

Please don't get me started. Whether it's a moral code or not, do you honestly think EVERYONE would disagree with that? Eat your vegetables, young man.

From what you are posting in this thread, yes. It is good that you care about other people. But it is up to those human beings and families to decide what to do with their lives, not you. And as I've said many times before... this "drunken" stranger exists with or without the law. And furthermore... the fact that we DO allow such things as this to happen is all the more reason to allow the same for marijuana

A government has to make a stance. They have to be either be for, or against something. When they start picking and choosing... the entire system falls apart.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
We allow alcohol and tobacco, and alcohol sounds much worse, can ruin your liver and cause you to behave in ways you wouldnt ordinarily, even kill people. Tobacco harms people around you as well as yourself because of the smoke and we allow those to be legal. I dont know about marijuana, it seems silly to ban it when we allow those, but I dont know what effect it has on the body as Ive never smoked it. I figure there is a reason why it is illegal. I feel like allowing it is kindof a slippery slope. Will we then allow more dangerous drugs like Cocaine? Id be hesitant to allow another substance that can release smoke which other people can inhale if it's harmful in some way.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
Before I start my rant I'm gonna get this out the way. 1. Smoking marijuana is not committing suicide, just like drinking alcohol isn't considered commiting suicide. 2. Other narcotics like heroin, crack, oxy (any prescription pills for that matter), methamphetamine, etc is commiting suicide. Reason I say this is ONE shot of heroin can kill you, ONE line of blow can cause a heart attack, 1 prescription pill can kill you but it's not likely. Marijuana on the other hand WILL NOT kill you. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on marijuana. You can smoke a pound in an hour and still won't die. Actually you would of smoked yourself sober by then. Marijuana's the safest "drug" you can put in your body, and I myself don't classify marijuana as a drug.

Now to get on topic. I don't necessarily believe marijuana should be legalized because that gives drug dealers the power to sell. I think if they legalize it, they control it and sell them it packs like cigarettes. Marijuana isn't dangerous at all but buying by drug dealers can be very dangerous, especially in larger cities. How do you not know the grower the dealer is selling for didn't lace it? True fact here, gang's in cities lace they're products about 85% of the time. In big city's like Chicago where I live that's a lot of laced chronic.

The gangs up here usually lace they're products with a liquid known as PCP. Don't know what it is, research it, all I gotta say is that IT WILL **** YOU UP AND CAN CAUSE A COMA OR DEATH. People that buy from these gang's actually don't know they're buying from gangs nor do they know that it is laced. Gang's mask it so well that you don't know your smoking PCP until you wake up in the hospital or never wake up again. Gang's recruit people to sell they're products, but they're arent in the gang, they're just making a little cash. So before you know it you got thousands of dealers selling laced marijuana.

So for my debat, it's kind of hard to say because gang's are still gonna be in the picture. It might die down a little if you can get them in cartons. It would also be a lot safer cos you know it's not gonna be laced. Before you go and quote my stuff, believe it or not, every city has gangs and in every city gang's sell marijuana or any other drugs. Laced weed isn't an issue in urban areas but is in cities or suburbs. I know about this because I know people that know people in gangs and they have told me they lace they're marijuana with PCP. Research gang's in general you will see that they all lace they're marijuana with something. It's not a rare thing, it's really common.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
Lacing drugs happens when it's on the black market. If it was legalized it would be regulated by the FDA just like all other legal drugs. You never hear of cigarettes being laced with things that don't belong in them, because they're legal and regulated. Marijuana would be the same way. Why would gangs be in the picture once it's legalized? The reason it's sold on the streets from dealers now is because it's illegal to make a legit business around it. If it's legal, people make legit businesses, and people would frequent them because it would be safer than drug dealers. Your entire argument doesn't make sense. When was the last time you heard of the booming black market in cigarettes and alcohol, which are both legal to buy? There isn't one.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
I was actually saying WHY it should be legalized cos it's more dangerous now than it would be. If it was legalized you wouldn't have laced marijuana all over the streets. How doesn't my post make no sense? Is it because your against the drug? It makes perfect sense. Marijuana isn't harmful until you buy it laced. That's what my whole debate was about. Even if it was legalized there would still be laced marijuana around but it would no longer be an issue. I know drugs being sold as business would be approved by the FDA that's why I said you wouldn't know it's laced so it's safe. The way I say things is to make people use they're brain more instead of jumping to conclusions, I make you think outside the box more. Maybe if you read it over again and pay attention you will see that this post as well is correct.
 
Back
Top