DRUGS

[Myles]

That's due to science's form as proving hypotheses false, not true. Hypotheses are elevated to theory status if they manage to stand strong through rigorous attempts at proving them false, so as to make it most likely they are right. But science self-corrects, given enough time.

But that isn't what's going on here. The contradictions here are:

- A says X is true.
- B says X is false.

Science can't actually prove that something is both true and false. If it does, then that means the methodology must have been wrong. In the case of medicine what is usually happening is:

- X has the benefit of Y.
- (Then later, this is discovered) X has the disadvantage of Z, which far outways any benefit Y would have been.

Either that or evidence could be shown that the study that proved X has the benefit of Y was done improperly. Which is the point of peer-revision.

 

[Eruption]

I wouldn't consider smoking or doing an illegal drug but I think if people want to smoke (weed or tobacco) then they should be entitled.

A lot of inspiration has came out of it, I mean a lot of songwriters will use it to write masterpieces.

I would draw the line at the harder substances though. Obviously cocaine, meth etc. do more harm than good.

It makes sense for the government to legalise it too, people are going to do it anyway, so why not gain some money from taxing it?

 

[Mr. X]

Essentially, weed is like any other synthisized medicine. It helps with some symptoms, but has both proven and unproven negative effects. Well, I take that back. Weed is natural, most medicines aren't.

 

[Myles]

The FDA disagrees on the benefits part. In places where it has been legalised for medical purposes anyway, it's usually massively abused. And the, serious, proponents of it are only really suggesting that it helps with nausea and similar anyway. Which is a bit ridiculous considering we have much better drugs for such things that don't have all the side effects. There's just no way the FDA could justify approving marijuana with its massive list of symptoms, if it weren't for its wide public support.

 

[Mr. X]

There are other medicines with a even larger list of symptoms that have been approved. Anyway, just so you know, there are no documented cases of a person overdosing on natural cannibis... Unlike some of your 'safer' and synthetic medicines derived from cannibis.

That said, there are studies suguest that cannibis provides short-term relief for glaucoma (By reducing blood flow it reduces pressure on the IOP)

The main reason why there is a lack of proven medical knowledge on non-synthisized forms of cannibis is due to it being illegal. Cannibis should be moved down to Schedule II or III, at least temparorly, to allow for medical research on it to proceed unhidered.

 

[Dawn]

In that case, don't quote articles unless you are willing to link to them.

First of all, your dismissal is completely unwarranted. Kindly think of a non-fallacious reason for dismissing my quote before you work up the gall to start telling me what to do. I simply quoted an opinion I agreed with. That being said, I'm pretty sure no such non-fallacious reason exists, as the original reason you stated was shown to be a straw man fallacy.

There are other medicines with a even larger list of symptoms that have been approved. Anyway, just so you know, there are no documented cases of a person overdosing on natural cannibis... Unlike some of your 'safer' and synthetic medicines derived from cannibis.

This is one of those popular arguments the article I mentioned debunks. I'm just going to go ahead and do it myself.

You see, bringing up death tolls is a good argument for why both these drugs should be illegal, not the other way around. Y'know what else would /probably/ kill less people than alcohol? Passing a law that lets 12 year olds bring firearms to school.

They're both dangerous. Hence, this argument is moot.

That said, there are studies suguest that cannibis provides short-term relief for glaucoma (By reducing blood flow it reduces pressure on the IOP)

See, while the integrity of this argument is sound, the problem is that when we try legalizing marijuana for medical use we wind up having all the junkies lying out their ears trying to get ahold of it for abuse. It looks /really/, /really/ bad to the people we're trying to convince to legalize the stuff. What I'm saying is I honestly don't think it's strong enough to convince them.

 

[Mr. X]

Your second point is moot.

What I said was related. Unlike synthetic THC, all natural THC (Weed) has caused no documented deaths.

Can you, please, explain just how alchol and 12 year olds bring guns to school are related? I must not be looking at this correctly, or lack the correct (Or perhaps incorrect) mindset to see how these two examples are related.

As for junkies... How is a stoner lying through his teeth about medical conditions to get weed any worse then the druggie who breaks into pharmacy's to steal oxycotyn, codene, vicodin, or their pill of choice?

Also, my dismissal IS warrented. You posted a quote to a article. I asked for proof that this article existed. You didn't provide the link. Therefor, as you are unable to show what article you quoted then the article doesn't exist.

Also, what are your thoughts on my final point of my previous post? You know, about temparory rescheduling to allow for more medical research?

 

[-ty-]

I think marijuana should be legalized, but like alcohol, I think that there is a chance for abuse. The majority of medical associations say that marijuana can be addictive. I should be able to make any decision for yourself, but obviously you should not coerce anyone to take a substance.

With that being said, if anyone using a substance is causing public/private disruption, they should not be thrown into prison, they should be coerced into a rehabilitation center because they should not be in society if they are causing others problems, because the overreaching into someone else's liberty. Same with second-hand smoke; you put yourself at risk of cancer, not me!!! lol

 

[Dawn]

@Mr X: ...It's relevant because it points out the huge flaw in the logic of the argument. If we're basing what's legal on what's more or less dangerous than alcohol, we might as well start legalizing everything in sight because chances are it's less dangerous than alcohol. Obviously things do not work that way.

People keep making this sort of argument, but it's not going to get weed legalized. That's the problem with it. If people stopped making arguments like this and just stuck with a simple argument that /works/ and united to push that single argument (See: It's our right to harm our bodies), there would be a much better chance of weed ever getting legalized.

By beating around the bush with all these other arguments people think up, some of which get proven horribly wrong, we're basically making the movement easier to dismiss.

Also, my dismissal IS warrented. You posted a quote to a article. I asked for proof that this article existed. You didn't provide the link. Therefor, as you are unable to show what article you quoted then the article doesn't exist.

The supposed existence or non-existance of the original article holds no bearing on the integrity of the opinion the words convey. None at all. I could be making that entire quote up, and it will still be just as legit an opinion. I only quoted out of respect for the author from which the opinion originated, nothing more.

Also, what are your thoughts on my final point of my previous post? You know, about temparory rescheduling to allow for more medical research?

I've no problem with your conclusion. I think the simple fact that people want to hurt themselves by smoking something without fearing being arrested is good enough reason to legalize weed altogether, let alone for medical uses.

Just because I support the conclusion though does not mean I will not argue against arguments on the basis that they happen to support it, however.

 

[backpackomg]

op, i like to think there are two classes of drugs. those that are okay to take, and those that you should probably avoid. :) weed, alcohol, cigarettes, shrooms, lsd and mdma are things i would consider okay to use drugs, after taking into consideration all the out cons. i am a bit iffy about mdma, considering it does have a high risk of abuse and even toxicity in a small percent of people, but ultimately i think it's an enlightening experience that done with restraint can be life changing.

things like cocaine, meth and heroine are what i'd classify as not okay to take. none of them offer an experience you can carry on through the rest of your life in the way hallucinogens can, and they're all too detrimental to be classified as soft drugs like the others i mentioned in the above paragraph, weed, cigarettes and alcohol.

tl;dr i think drugs okay in moderation, as long as they aren't hard drugs!

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

op, i like to think there are two classes of drugs. those that are okay to take, and those that you should probably avoid. :) weed, alcohol, cigarettes, shrooms, lsd and mdma are things i would consider okay to use drugs, after taking into consideration all the out cons. i am a bit iffy about mdma, considering it does have a high risk of abuse and even toxicity in a small percent of people, but ultimately i think it's an enlightening experience that done with restraint can be life changing.

things like cocaine, meth and heroine are what i'd classify as not okay to take. none of them offer an experience you can carry on through the rest of your life in the way hallucinogens can, and they're all too detrimental to be classified as soft drugs like the others i mentioned in the above paragraph, weed, cigarettes and alcohol.

tl;dr i think drugs okay in moderation, as long as they aren't hard drugs!

Just to clarify... Hallucinogen, LSD, and Ecstasy are definitely NOT "soft drugs"... They are classified as Schedule I drugs, which means they have high potential for abuse, are deemed to be unsafe, and most likely illegal as well. And believe it or not, cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroine. I think you need to research more on drugs if you want to have your own opinion...

 

[backpackomg]

Just to clarify... Hallucinogen, LSD, and Ecstasy are definitely NOT "soft drugs"... They are classified as Schedule I drugs, which means they have high potential for abuse, are deemed to be unsafe, and most likely illegal as well. And believe it or not, cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroine. I think you need to research more on drugs if you want to have your own opinion...

well i don't mean to sound anti establishment or anything, but just so you know marijuana is in the schedule you just mentioned. :/ don't just say that i'm wrong because they are to. like i know you can't find me an article with proper references that says shrooms are addictive or dangerous, because they're like the exact opposite, speaking from firsthand experience and what i've read. speaking of what i've read, i remember a particular lab study that found them to be quite pleasant in regards to experience. most participants noted the experiences as one of the best in their lives, and had dramatic decreases in anger and depression after the fact.

as for lsd and ectasy, while i didn't note lsd, i mentioned both the fact that ecstasy can be both addictive and dangerous. it is solely my opinion that the pros of it outweigh the cons, and i was only answering the original poster's question. and lsd, well, i'll take your word for it for what it's worth. but if this turns into a 'who has the best link' and i'm persuaded into looking i somehow believe that on top of proving the rest of this post right, i will as well find out that lsd isn't as dangerous as you'd have me think.

long story short, please don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about. it hurts my feelings because i have researched. :'(

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

well i don't mean to sound anti establishment or anything, but just so you know marijuana is in the schedule you just mentioned. :/ don't just say that i'm wrong because they are to. like i know you can't find me an article with proper references that says shrooms are addictive or dangerous, because they're like the exact opposite, speaking from firsthand experience and what i've read. speaking of what i've read, i remember a particular lab study that found them to be quite pleasant in regards to experience. most participants noted the experiences as one of the best in their lives, and had dramatic decreases in anger and depression after the fact.

as for lsd and ectasy, while i didn't note lsd, i mentioned both the fact that ecstasy can be both addictive and dangerous. it is solely my opinion that the pros of it outweigh the cons, and i was only answering the original poster's question. and lsd, well, i'll take your word for it for what it's worth. but if this turns into a 'who has the best link' and i'm persuaded into looking i somehow believe that on top of proving the rest of this post right, i will as well find out that lsd isn't as dangerous as you'd have me think.

long story short, please don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about. it hurts my feelings because i have. :'(

I don't mean to be so matter-of-fact and stoic about this, but it is NOT okay to do illegal drugs. If the law says it's not okay, then it's not okay. Regardless of whatever experience it brings.

Also, what's your "pros and cons" of using those drugs? I'd like for you to be more specific about it.

As for Marijuana being on Schedule I, I find it to be really odd, because it's not as addictive or "severe" as other drugs on that schedule, and now it's available as a prescription drug. Though if you intended to use it to prove your point, then fair enough.

Actually, Scratch that. I'll just pull out the facts from this webpage.

(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Nothing in here mentions addiction. Maybe ecstasy or "shrooms" aren't as addictive as cocaine is. However, it has higher potential of abuse and it has no medical uses, therefore making it illegal. Before Marijuana was legalized in some states, Schedule I was probably where it belonged, if it had as same potential of abuse as ecstasy.

If you think addictiveness is the only deciding factor in whether a drug is more "powerful" or not, I think you should think twice, and think about what impacts it might have on your body.

But besides pointing out the facts, I can't directly force you to stop using drugs. If you think it'll make your life more fun, then go ahead and keep using it. I was just trying to have a discussion and this is what this thread's about. What I don't want though, is more tragic tale related to drugs. It's truly sad to see people ruin their lives (and others) because they've abused drugs.

And if I misjudged your understanding on all this, then I apologize.

 

[Myles]

What I said was related. Unlike synthetic THC, all natural THC (Weed) has caused no documented deaths.

Of course, it's notoriously hard to overdose on it. No one is suggesting that. It doesn't mean it's not really bad for you.

 

[backpackomg]

I don't mean to be so matter-of-fact and stoic about this, but it is NOT okay to do illegal drugs. If the law says it's not okay, then it's not okay. Regardless of whatever experience it brings.

well that's where our opinions differ. i recognize these drugs as illegal just as you do, but that doesn't make them inherently bad. if you want to be picky, jay walking is illegal, but as you can see it is recognized by most as an outdated and silly law, therefore it is widely ignored. would you consider a jay walker a bad person? likewise, is somebody bad for going to a college party and smoking a joint? it's simply illogical, alcohol was once illegal, explain how you apply your logic to it now. do you believe that when the government said it was bad it was, but now it's okay because they say it's alright to have? you can have your own opinion about it.

Also, what's your "pros and cons" of using those drugs? I'd like for you to be more specific about it.

i only mentioned pros and cons about mdma, while emphasizing that it can be addictive if abused and possibly lethal. however there are still studies questioning its lethality, and even more suggesting it can be very helpful in psychotherapy and creating empathetic feelings in otherwise void of emotion people. as i've said my considering of mdma as a less harmful substance than a lot of others comes from personal use and medical benefits. if you'd like me to expand on other substances i've listed let me know, but right now i'm a bit strapped for time. it's kind of 3 in the morning right now.

Nothing in here mentions addiction. Maybe ecstasy or "shrooms" aren't as addictive as cocaine is. However, it has higher potential of abuse and it has no medical uses, therefore making it illegal. Before Marijuana was legalized in some states, Schedule I was probably where it belonged, if it had as same potential of abuse as ecstasy.

i'm sorry but this almost makes me mad. you just told me ecstasy and shrooms have no potential medical benefit because they're listed as schedule 1, which in itself is ignorant, but on top of that you said it after you already admitted that marijuana shouldn't be there, therefore throwing its plausibility out the window. you then say before marijuana was legalized in some states it deserved to be schedule 1, which is hands down one of the most "silly" things i've ever heard. you need to stop basing everything you think on what the government says. you sound as "silly" as them, well actually sillier and i'll tell you why after, when you repeat their words as the word of god.

the government and united states as a whole used to spread false propaganda about marijuana and claimed it had no medical benefits, we know now that this was wrong, however they as a collective have come to this conclusion over a period of time longer than me and you combined. you made the assumption that it was bad before knowing now that they were mistaken when you knew they were mistaken? i can't even make sense of what you're trying to convey.

If you think addictiveness is the only deciding factor in whether a drug is more "powerful" or not, I think you should think twice, and think about what impacts it might have on your body.

i don't think that. i don't even know how you came to that conclusion, because in every instance i mentioned the word addictive in my previous post it was shortly followed by dangerous. but to play along, one could say a drug that is less addictive has less chance to effect your body negatively. almost every drugs negative effects can be ignored if it were assumed to be non addictive, because most long term negative effects come from the fact that they're addictive and have the chance to repeatedly intoxicate your body.

But besides pointing out the facts, I can't directly force you to stop using drugs. If you think it'll make your life more fun, then go ahead and keep using it. I was just trying to have a discussion and this is what this thread's about. What I don't want though, is more tragic tale related to drugs. It's truly sad to see people ruin their lives (and others) because they've abused drugs.

i wasn't trying to to stop you from having a discussion.... i was the person you responded to, and i've given you quite the handful if i do say so myself. :P

all i've got to say is the fault of one is not the fault of another, you can't tell me i'm going to be a drug addict because i've tried a drug. i understand your frustration in seeing drug addiction, but... most drug addiction is in what i've already classified as the don't do drugs, and the other two i didn't being alcohol and cigarettes, are legal, and under your logic okay.

also, if you'd like the links i had posted in this, you'll have to send me a message because i couldn't post them here. i need 15 posts.

 

[deoxys121]

My stance on drugs: Since it's been proven that marijuana does less damage than cigarettes and alcohol, I honestly believe it should be made legal. Where I live, Michigan, marijuana is already legal for medical purposes. People do abuse this system, but I think the whole dilemma would be ended if it were just made legal. Hell, the government could tax it and make more money than ever. For those of you who say "No, that means they should make cigarettes and alcohol illegal," my counter-argument is that, first of all, during prohibition, more alcohol was consumed than ever before. The same would occur today, in my opinion, with alcohol and cigarettes. Those who smoke would not simply drop the habit. It's not that easy. I know this because I've lived around smokers all my life, though I'm not one myself, and I've seen these same people try to quit because they know what they're doing to themselves. But, it's extremely difficult due to the withdrawal symptoms. An example of this is my mom, who is 38 and has been smoking since she was 14. It's not as simple as just stopping smoking. She needs to be weened off of smoking to gradually get off the addiction.

As far as other drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, these have been proven to have sometimes deadly consequences. Therefore, I believe they should remain illegal. Short, sweet, and to the point.

Well that's my opinion. What do you guys think? (Please don't be rude, as people have been to me in the past when I have expressed my full opinion.)

 

[Mr. X]

@Mr X: ...It's relevant because it points out the huge flaw in the logic of the argument. If we're basing what's legal on what's more or less dangerous than alcohol, we might as well start legalizing everything in sight because chances are it's less dangerous than alcohol. Obviously things do not work that way.

No, its not relevant. I've explained why my comparison is relevant. The two subjects are related. Im comparing a all natural substance to its synthetic counterpart.

Your comparing two entirely diffrent things and trying to pass off that comparison as valid as mine is.

So, i'll state it for every one. Children being allowed to carry guns in school and Alchol being legal are NOT RELATED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.

Now, if you wish to try this arguement again then ensure that the topics you are comparing are alike.

Anyway, Doctor Oz is having a show about legalizing medical marijuana. It might be interesting to watch. You might now have the channel its on, or it might be over (due to timezones) but as it is a somewhat controversial topic you'll proably be able to find it on youtube.

 

[G-Virus]

Drugs and the plant that they come from aren't necessarily bad, it's mankind that uses them for wrong purposes. MArijuana and the like all have medical purposes, but people use them for getting high and stuff.

 

[Deerling]

I've only ever agreed with medical drugs (or caffine). Anything else seems a waste of my money, time and health. Weither it is legal (alcohol, et cetera) or illegal, I'd rather just buy myself a new game or console. My life is hard enough without addiction, unneeded socialising (I was always a bit of a loner) or otherwise.

 

[Dawn]

No, its not relevant.

I'm sorry, I hear a conclusion but it's not based on anything. Refusing to acknowledge the point of the comparison does not make it irrelevant. You're also avoiding giving attention to other parts of the argument as if the entire argument depended on the validity of the comparison to begin with, which it didn't.

To demonstrate, I'm going to take away the comparison altogether and represent the argument to you.

Arguing that something should be legal because it's safer than alcohol is a terrible argument because not only is alcohol insanely unsafe (Meaning saying it's safer isn't saying much) but the argument actually works to say that alcohol should be illegal too, not the other way around. Y'know why? Alcohol is not legal because of how safe it is.