thoughts on medical marijuana?
- Thread starter Wounded Melody
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It makes you slow, yes.reg42 said:
This effect tend to go away over time if you quit smoking marijuana.
I find the term drug psychosis to be a bit too general, would you mind being a bit more specific?
That is why it should be regulated.Aisaka said:
18 year (or whatever the local age limit on alcohol is) age limit on purchase, and designated shop's that must apply for a government permit to be able to sell.
The Netherlands, where you can buy cannabis legally (with 18 year age limit, regulated shops and limit on quantity purchased), actually has less cannabis users that the USA, per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
EDIT: added a link.
To counter that I know that in some cases cannabis have been used to treat bi polar disorder, though no proper research has been done on the subject.reg42 said:
http://biopsychiatry.com/canbi.htm
http://www.pendulum.org/bpnews/archive/001628.html
And the belief that cannabis causes bipoplar disorder remains controversial.
http://www.anxiety-and-depression-solutions.com/articles/news/marijuana_bpd_0707.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_bipolar_disorder
If you want to fuck yourself up, no-one else has any right to stop you. In my view, prohibition laws are inherently immoral and any discussion on the effects of drugs etc is irrelevant. (Effects of a substance that can affect others, such as violent behavior, are already handled by other laws).
I think a good way of telling whether a law is truly moral is too look at two conditions:
a) is there a clearly definable victim and
b) is that person NOT the criminal under the law.
Prohibition laws fail on both counts.
(of course, they also do not work for the purpose of reducing drug use, but that too is irrelevant.)
P.S: This post is rather strongly worded, but I am actually interested in what arguments you can make against this
I think a good way of telling whether a law is truly moral is too look at two conditions:
a) is there a clearly definable victim and
b) is that person NOT the criminal under the law.
Prohibition laws fail on both counts.
(of course, they also do not work for the purpose of reducing drug use, but that too is irrelevant.)
P.S: This post is rather strongly worded, but I am actually interested in what arguments you can make against this
The only concern that science has on the matter is "Does it work?". I've heard of cases where it did and I recall Penn & Teller demonstrating in an episode that people in the federal government still get medical marijuana from the US government, so I think that it should at the very least get some tests done so effects and side-effects can be clearly established for all to see, and on the scientific rather than moral basis, a sound decision could be made.
We could also go with the more moral way and label anyone who uses pot as a disobediant child, and the bible is quite clear in how you should approach those:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html
We could also go with the more moral way and label anyone who uses pot as a disobediant child, and the bible is quite clear in how you should approach those:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html
Personally I agree with what most people are saying. It really should be made legal, both for medical uses and recreational but just like alcohol it should be regulated. Also, to all the people giving negative points on it are giving good points, but people seem to forget the good parts of these things and focus on the negative parts. Like any other drug, if it wrecks your life, then you are the one to blame, not the drug.
I kinda second this. My brother has become a complete asshat because of the amount he smokes.Aisaka said:
On the other hand, medical marijuana has been proven to release people from pain. I think in these circumstances the experience of the patient should count for a lot more than it does.
don't disagreexI Kinshasa Ix said:
Gonna break it down here
There are two concerns.
1. Do these drugs have suitable medicinal purpose (i.e. do they do what they are supposed to do? Do they kill pain or are they retropsychoactive).
2. Will the damage they do (and all painkillers damage the body in some way) have more long term repercussions than the thing they treat? (Long term cerebral damage could be considered an suitable trade-off for extreme pain in the case of an elderly patient with arthritis, but not for a child with growth pain)
The concern is not and shouldn't be their relation to other illegal substances. Morphine's active ingredient is diacetylmorphine, the same as heroin, but morphine is still considered the most effective painkiller for post operation patients. The associations make scare people but for the most part it's media fear mongering on slow news days.
