Poll: Should Marijuana be Legal or Illegal?

[manaman]

At high levels of use the stuff affects the brain, and in youngings can impede brain development.

Where is your proof on this? Anything I have ever read, seen, or heard on the matter states that the "tests" used to come to these conclusions were performed by the U.S. government in an effort to maintain that marijuana is evil! Also whenever an independent college/lab/what have you would request permits in order to do the same exact tests the U.S. government would deny the permits. Further more, any studies done outside of the U.S. on the matter have been contradictory to the results of the U.S. governments results.


http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/28/marijuana%E2%80%99s-impact-on-brain-function-%E2%80%9Cminimal%E2%80%9D-new-study-says/

Sorry, but you complain of goverment bias with what smacks of a conspiracy theory, then link to pro-legalization groups blog as evidence to the contrary.

Oh man I don't even know where to start with how 'effed up that logic is. I don't really think it matters either when you will not even heed your own words, how can I expect you to listen to another?

 

[The Singularity]

You're over-thinking it. I can see a mother breathing smoke from a cigarette practically onto her child's face and watch a drunk man staggering out of a bar to his car in the same day. I can also see a stoner, strike up a conversation with him as he walks to a 7/11 to get some fritos and have him compliment me on my t-shirt. Also marijuana is not addicting and has anti-carcinogens in it. And if you're still paranoid about weed smoke, then use a vaporizer which doesn't use fire so you won't burn your house down either .

Again proof please? My sources clearly state that it is addictive. And cigerrete smokers could use vaporizers also, but they never do.
EDIT* Ugh I will reply on Tuesday, thats going to take awhile to read...

 

[Eggsnham]

You're over-thinking it. I can see a mother breathing smoke from a cigarette practically onto her child's face and watch a drunk man staggering out of a bar to his car in the same day. I can also see a stoner, strike up a conversation with him as he walks to a 7/11 to get some fritos and have him compliment me on my t-shirt. Also marijuana is not addicting and has anti-carcinogens in it. And if you're still paranoid about weed smoke, then use a vaporizer which doesn't use fire so you won't burn your house down either .

Again proof please? My sources clearly state that it is addictive. And cigerrete smokers could use vaporizers also, but they never do.

My sources? That's common knowledge! But if you need a source then here:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/53

This is an opposing viewpoints kind of place with many "facts" compiled both for and against Marijuana. I think you'll find the 'for' arguments not only more logical, but also in a greater ratio than the 'against' arguments. That is what it was like the last time I checked at least.

EDIT: Vaporizers. I know many stoner friends of mine who use them. I think you'll find stoners much more intelligent than the average tobacco smoker.

 

[whycantibelinus]

At high levels of use the stuff affects the brain, and in youngings can impede brain development.

Where is your proof on this? Anything I have ever read, seen, or heard on the matter states that the "tests" used to come to these conclusions were performed by the U.S. government in an effort to maintain that marijuana is evil! Also whenever an independent college/lab/what have you would request permits in order to do the same exact tests the U.S. government would deny the permits. Further more, any studies done outside of the U.S. on the matter have been contradictory to the results of the U.S. governments results.


http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/28/marijuana%E2%80%99s-impact-on-brain-function-%E2%80%9Cminimal%E2%80%9D-new-study-says/

Sorry, but you complain of goverment bias with what smacks of a conspiracy theory, then link to pro-legalization groups blog as evidence to the contrary.

Oh man I don't even know where to start with how 'effed up that logic is. I don't really think it matters either when you will not even heed your own words, how can I expect you to listen to another?

Just because the article is on NORML's website doesn't mean the research is flawed.

Does this help? It's the same fucking thing just on an "unbiased" website. This study is from Harvard Medical School.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/10/909



Oh and you still have yet to bring any proof to your statement, maybe remove your head from your ass before you just type something that shows you're ignorant of the subject.

EDIT: Here's another study from a non biased group. This study is from King's College London.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627647

 

[manaman]

Just because the article is on NORML's website doesn't mean the research is flawed.

Does this help? It's the same fucking thing just on an "unbiased" website.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/10/909



Oh and you still have yet to bring any proof to your statement, maybe remove your head from your ass before you just type something that shows you're ignorant of the subject.

Why would I bother? I expressed in my first post that aside from some minor research into the subject (mostly at the interest of others and not myself) I could care less. I exposed flaws in your thinking, and you unashamedly attacked my person, with vulgar and abusive language. Frankly if I wanted to debate anything with you I wouldn't have to try hard as you are pretty much coming up with all the arguments against yourself, by yourself.

 

[whycantibelinus]

Just because the article is on NORML's website doesn't mean the research is flawed.

Does this help? It's the same fucking thing just on an "unbiased" website.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/10/909



Oh and you still have yet to bring any proof to your statement, maybe remove your head from your ass before you just type something that shows you're ignorant of the subject.

Why would I bother? I expressed in my first post that aside from some minor research into the subject (mostly at the interest of others and not myself) I could care less. I exposed flaws in your thinking, and you unashamedly attacked my person, with vulgar and abusive language. Frankly if I wanted to debate anything with you I wouldn't have to try hard as you are pretty much coming up with all the arguments against yourself, by yourself.

I apologize for offending you, but why would you not want to enhance your knowledge of the subject? The plant is criminalized due to it's psychoactive traits, but the plant itself is far more useful than just a recreational drug. If it were legal the oil could be processed into gasoline and motor oil, renewable energy, thus ending our reliance on fossil fuels. If it were legal it could be used to make paper, and due to how quickly it grows we would not be reliant on lumber as the source for it, it would slow deforestation a great deal, not to mention the paper is much sturdier than wood paper.

I'm not saying it would save the world or anything but it does have the potential to stop some ridiculous practices. It is an incredibly useful plant and it is a damn shame, in my opinion, that humanity has chosen not to utilize it.

 

[manaman]

Just because the article is on NORML's website doesn't mean the research is flawed.

Does this help? It's the same fucking thing just on an "unbiased" website.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/10/909



Oh and you still have yet to bring any proof to your statement, maybe remove your head from your ass before you just type something that shows you're ignorant of the subject.

Why would I bother? I expressed in my first post that aside from some minor research into the subject (mostly at the interest of others and not myself) I could care less. I exposed flaws in your thinking, and you unashamedly attacked my person, with vulgar and abusive language. Frankly if I wanted to debate anything with you I wouldn't have to try hard as you are pretty much coming up with all the arguments against yourself, by yourself.

I apologize for offending you, but why would you not want to enhance your knowledge of the subject? The plant is criminalized due to it's psychoactive traits, but the plant itself is far more useful than just a recreational drug. If it were legal the oil could be processed into gasoline and motor oil, renewable energy, thus ending our reliance on fossil fuels. If it were legal it could be used to make paper, and due to how quickly it grows we would not be reliant on lumber as the source for it, it would slow deforestation a great deal, not to mention the paper is much sturdier than wood paper.

I'm not saying it would save the world or anything but it does have the potential to stop some ridiculous practices. It is an incredibly useful plant and it is a damn shame, in my opinion, that humanity has chosen not to utilize it.

Hemp is a legal. The US is the major importer of C. Sativa grown in parts of the world like china.

I don't see the paper being used, or the oil produced. Probably cause these are not actually cost effective ways of obtaining these materials. Hemp was never really a cash crop despite repeated attempts to make it so in the past. The parts of the plant are used almost exclusively as food ingredients. Besides that the oil oxidizes rabidly and would require careful storage something that other oils would not need, combined with its extremely low flash point it would require specialized engines to run, standard diesel engines can run (albeit not as effectively) on bio diesel form other sources like standard vegetable oil (mostly corn oil) and canola oil (rape seed oil).

Since hemp is legally available, and still not used for the reasons suggested they cannot be considered valid reason to legalize the crop. The only reason to legalize those plants with high THC content is to smoke them. There are as many studies showing the harmful effects to be negligible when used sparingly and I agree with them, but how many people calling for legalization only smoke one or two joints a week? Most smoke at least once a day, many smoke more often then that.

 

[The Singularity]

You're over-thinking it. I can see a mother breathing smoke from a cigarette practically onto her child's face and watch a drunk man staggering out of a bar to his car in the same day. I can also see a stoner, strike up a conversation with him as he walks to a 7/11 to get some fritos and have him compliment me on my t-shirt. Also marijuana is not addicting and has anti-carcinogens in it. And if you're still paranoid about weed smoke, then use a vaporizer which doesn't use fire so you won't burn your house down either .

Again proof please? My sources clearly state that it is addictive. And cigerrete smokers could use vaporizers also, but they never do.

My sources? That's common knowledge! But if you need a source then here:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/53

This is an opposing viewpoints kind of place with many "facts" compiled both for and against Marijuana. I think you'll find the 'for' arguments not only more logical, but also in a greater ratio than the 'against' arguments. That is what it was like the last time I checked at least.

EDIT: Vaporizers. I know many stoner friends of mine who use them. I think you'll find stoners much more intelligent than the average tobacco smoker.

Just to clarify I believe that medical marijuana should be legal but just because its used for medicine does not mean it should be completely legal.
http://www.mpp.org/states/maryland/news/doctor-legislator-eyes-new.html
Maryland
Doctor-Legislator Eyes New Medical Marijuana Measure


Alan Brody
December 18, 2009
The Gazette
When Del. Dan K. Morhaim is in the emergency room, he can administer cocaine to anesthetize a patient. But he cannot write a prescription for marijuana as a pain reliever or nausea remedy.

Alright now to change the topic a bit on this debate, Why should it be legal for the everyday person rather than just for medicine? Should we just give everyone painkillers?
(Your site is kind of biased as it wants ALL drugs legalized, for example heroin because if it was legal people would'nt OD? Also I would like to thank you for a very good debate without insults *cough*whycantibelinus*cough*)

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:

Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.

Whoah sorry to get off topic but I really am tempted to try this, although is throwing up a toxic response?)

Alright back to the topic, why should people have access to this unless their doctor decides they need it? If it relieves stress then it could replace antidepressants, but antidepressants should not be over the counter available. Also could you point out some positive medical effects with sources(or just tell me where to look in that evidence), I've given up on reading all of that evidence sorry.

 

[Eggsnham]

You're over-thinking it. I can see a mother breathing smoke from a cigarette practically onto her child's face and watch a drunk man staggering out of a bar to his car in the same day. I can also see a stoner, strike up a conversation with him as he walks to a 7/11 to get some fritos and have him compliment me on my t-shirt. Also marijuana is not addicting and has anti-carcinogens in it. And if you're still paranoid about weed smoke, then use a vaporizer which doesn't use fire so you won't burn your house down either .

Again proof please? My sources clearly state that it is addictive. And cigerrete smokers could use vaporizers also, but they never do.

My sources? That's common knowledge! But if you need a source then here:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/53

This is an opposing viewpoints kind of place with many "facts" compiled both for and against Marijuana. I think you'll find the 'for' arguments not only more logical, but also in a greater ratio than the 'against' arguments. That is what it was like the last time I checked at least.

EDIT: Vaporizers. I know many stoner friends of mine who use them. I think you'll find stoners much more intelligent than the average tobacco smoker.

Just to clarify I believe that medical marijuana should be legal but just because its used for medicine does not mean it should be completely legal.
http://www.mpp.org/states/maryland/news/doctor-legislator-eyes-new.html
Maryland
Doctor-Legislator Eyes New Medical Marijuana Measure


Alan Brody
December 18, 2009
The Gazette
When Del. Dan K. Morhaim is in the emergency room, he can administer cocaine to anesthetize a patient. But he cannot write a prescription for marijuana as a pain reliever or nausea remedy.

Alright now to change the topic a bit on this debate, Why should it be legal for the everyday person rather than just for medicine? Should we just give everyone painkillers?
(Your site is kind of biased as it wants ALL drugs legalized, for example heroin because if it was legal people would'nt OD? Also I would like to thank you for a very good debate without insults *cough*whycantibelinus*cough*)

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:

Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.

Whoah sorry to get off topic but I really am tempted to try this, although is throwing up a toxic response?)

Alright back to the topic, why should people have access to this unless their doctor decides they need it? If it relieves stress then it could replace antidepressants, but antidepressants should not be over the counter available. Also could you point out some positive medical effects with sources(or just tell me where to look in that evidence), I've given up on reading all of that evidence sorry.

Yes, throwing up is a toxic response, you can smoke enough weed to feel queezy or pass out, it's called 'greening out'. However, you can't overdose on Marijuana (I heard somewhere that you'd have to smoke/eat your body weight in weed within 15 minutes to kill yourself with it.)

Anyways, weed should be legalized because there is proof that it's not only harmless but even beneficial to the human machine. There's a movie call 'Super High Me', which is not only entertaining, but gives solid evidence that weed won't disrupt the human body's natural functions. Basically a comedian and well known stoner (Doug Benson) agrees to smoke no Marijuana and drink no alcohol for 31 days and then to drink no alcohol but smoke A LOT of weed for 31 days after the first 31 day period was over.

They made him take an SAT before and after the experiment and they tested his cardiovascular abilities before and after and they found that he performed the same if not better (he scored slightly higher on the second SAT). He suffered virtually no adverse side effects. That being said, if weed's harmless and a plant and people enjoy using it; why take it away from the general population and leave it only available to people who would want to use it for serious medical problems? After all, weed is basically nothing more than an awesome herb or garden plant, why should it be treated like a criminal.

 

[VicunaBlue]

I haven't ever tried it and think it should stay illegal to stop children from gaining access to it.

Sorry, but this won't work. When I was 14, I could very easily get weed. Hell, I could get crack if I pulled a few strings, but getting cigarettes was much harder.