• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

radcen said:
7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization
Click to expand...
More like 7 Big fat misrepresentations of Marijuana.
Seriously people, it's less addictive then caffeine, less toxic than a ham sandwich, and prohibiting is proving more costly than any known benefit of the war on drugs. That anyone could still vilify this drug as a secret danger waiting in the bushes has really got a screw loose. Legalize it!
 
1. From the OP's linked article: "For some, using pot is not a dangerous issue. For others, marijuana use is a serious problem."

In other words pot should be banned because some people can not handle it. IMO that is a weak argument because the same can be said about many substances and activities that humans engage in, most of them completely legal.

2. I do not accept the belief that current laws prevent a significant proportion of adults from using marijuana. Those who want to use it can easilly do so. There will not be a big increase in users with legalization.
 
thought I'd jump in here as I am in the medical field and I have businesses in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use and states that do not.

In over 20 years of experience, I have NEVER treated an individual that has over dosed on marijuana.. however, I have treated patients that have overdosed on everything from paint thinners, to prescription in halers.

Marijuana from a medicinal aspect is effective. We get a lot of chronic pain people in my clinics. A LOT. And generally, you have that patient that has had three back surgeries, not working for years, in chronic pain... that's taking several different medications for pain Norco, Neurontin, and Effexor... with a little Cymbalta or lyrica to boot....When you see that patient, its very unlikely that they will improve to the point where they get off the medication and get back to work.

However, I have seen patients that were previously these patients, and after using medical marijuana and therapy, have managed to not only not take pain medications at all, but actually return to work. So I have gone from a skeptic to someone who thinks that there might be something in legalization.

Now.. for those that say that we can used a prescription THC instead (and I would have been one of them)... I think there is something to the control and dosing of medical marijuana that makes it more effective than prescription THC. I think that the fact that the patient has so much control of when and how much that they take,( rather than watching every pill, and hoarding them in case of need, or taking them routinely when not necessary just in case of break through pain) is one of the reasons that it seems to work better than some really strong pain medication.

And studies on personal controlled analgesics support that theory.


Another point.. legalization versus decriminalization. I think that legalization and regulation is the way to go, rather than continue the blackmarket sales and criminal activity associated with Marijuana. Yes, there is something to the fact that our country is a nanny state and if we make it legal, thousands may go out and try it because "the government thinks its safe".... However, I think that marijuana to some degree is a "gateway drug" because to get it, you are introduced to a criminal element, and it becomes easier to follow down that path. Once you figure out that lots of people use marijuana and don't freak out.. despite Nancy Reagans just say no.. then you begin to question whether whats said about meth, and crack etc is true.,
 
jaeger19 said:
.. However, I think that marijuana to some degree is a "gateway drug" because to get it, you are introduced to a criminal element, and it becomes easier to follow down that path. Once you figure out that lots of people use marijuana and don't freak out.. despite Nancy Reagans just say no.. then you begin to question whether whats said about meth, and crack etc is true.,
Click to expand...

That is a very fascinating counter to the gateway drug argument. I have often asked why alcohol, which has a much higher addiction factor with possibly less benefits than marijuana is not considered a 'gateway drug'. Your question is an elegant combination to my point.

I do not smoke marijuana but work in an industry (music) where it and alcohol are very common and I see far more problems related to the use of the latter. Its anecdotal, but it is pretty solid from my observation .
 
I have a brother who's an addict. When I say addict I mean, he is an addict to anything addictive. Be it marijuana, gambling, alcohol, smoking cigarettes, whatever, if it is addictive he will engage it because he's a socialite, weak yes man. It just is who he is. He isn't a bad person, he's just a weak person (and by the fact that he has no trust by anyone due to his weakness for addictions, he'd almost admit this. He can't even get money loaned to him by his own friends).


Marijuana users are just genetically addict prone people. They aren't evil. They aren't even bad usually. They were just given a bad genetic chemical combo and were likely coded for addiction to various things from the second they were birthed. In that sense, I think it is more beneficial to regulate these people and tax them for the greater society rather than to believe you are ever going to legislate out genetically prone addicts. You aren't. Fact is some people got a good combo of industrious, responsible genes and some people didn't. Genetics is a very 'It is what it is' thing. Best to deal with that reality in our policy.
 
Lutherf said:
A user of illegal drugs is, by definition, irresponsible.

If you chose not to buy your own weed perhaps you could find someone to had over their excess. Assuming that you wanted to smoke weed and your choices were to grow your own or get it from someone else (can't go to the store and buy it) your idea of picking it up at the local Terrible Herbst isn't an option so no sense in speculating about it.
Click to expand...
If I made a law prohibiting smoking tobacco, does a smoker suddenly become an irresponsible person? If so, then it's not the act of smoking but the breaking the law that creates the irresponsibility, which I think is your point. The problem is, simply because it's a law, doesn't make it a just one. Our founding fathers not only broke the law to create this nation, they endorsed future lawbreaking against unjust laws as patriotic and our duty as citizens. I'm not trying to act like every pothead is really a patriot, but it's certainly against the core principals of our foundation to say breaking a drug law is instantly irresponsible. The second we equate any law with justice and define every criminal as an irresponsible person, the government has absolute power and we have nothing.
specklebang said:
All drugs are as, or more useful, than guns. Opiates provide pain relief and make people more productive. To a lesser degree, the same applies to marijuana which provides a calming effect to alleviate stress and an appetite stimulant to those underweight. Speed is a fantastic work drug - you can do a line and work non-stop for the next 16 hours. Psychedelics (such as LSD and mushrooms) stimulate the imagination and result in books, music and films.

Indeed, except for cocaine which is already "out of fashion", I can justify any drug the same way you justify retaining your weapons. People using drugs need to make sure they are using them in a sensible way. People possessing firearms need to keep them secured as appropriate.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to add something, cocaine has helped people be more assertive, reducing shyness. Not to give a free pass to all those coke-head entertainers, but there could be a causal relationship between it's link with the entertainment industry.
 
douglas said:
If I made a law prohibiting smoking tobacco, does a smoker suddenly become an irresponsible person? If so, then it's not the act of smoking but the breaking the law that creates the irresponsibility, which I think is your point. The problem is, simply because it's a law, doesn't make it a just one. Our founding fathers not only broke the law to create this nation, they endorsed future lawbreaking against unjust laws as patriotic and our duty as citizens. I'm not trying to act like every pothead is really a patriot, but it's certainly against the core principals of our foundation to say breaking a drug law is instantly irresponsible. The second we equate any law with justice and define every criminal as an irresponsible person, the government has absolute power and we have nothing.

Just wanted to add something, cocaine has helped people be more assertive, reducing shyness. Not to give a free pass to all those coke-head entertainers, but there could be a causal relationship between it's link with the entertainment industry.
Click to expand...

If you are putting yourself, your livelihood and that of your family at risk just because "it feels good" then that's acting irresponsibly. For example, it's not irresponsible to have a cocktail after work. It's also not necessarily irresponsible to get ****faced while hanging around at home but if that behavior starts to cause problems then it's irresponsible to continue it. Even breaking a law isn't necessarily irresponsible but you'd better have a good reason for doing so.
 
Lutherf said:
If you are putting yourself, your livelihood and that of your family at risk just because "it feels good" then that's acting irresponsibly. For example, it's not irresponsible to have a cocktail after work. It's also not necessarily irresponsible to get ****faced while hanging around at home but if that behavior starts to cause problems then it's irresponsible to continue it. Even breaking a law isn't necessarily irresponsible but you'd better have a good reason for doing so.
Click to expand...
A good reason to smoke Marijuana. Let's see....
Marijuana treats/cures cancer, including pro-active protection from tumor growth.
34 Medical Studies Proving Cannabis Cures Cancer - Waking Times
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
Harvard Study says Marijuana Cures Cancer | EndAllDisease.comEndAllDisease.com
There Is No Mistaking The Evidence, Cannabis Cures Cancer | True Activist
Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers
"Miracle" Cannabis Oil: May Treat Cancer, But Money and the Law Stand in the Way of Finding Out - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly
20 Medical Studies That Prove Cannabis Can Cure Cancer | Collective-Evolution
34 Medical Studies Proving Cannabis Cures Cancer - Waking Times

Marijuana treats brain damage, and may even reverse/prevent Alzheimer's and dementia.
Study: Cannabis may prevent brain damage | Fox News
How Cannabinoids May Slow Brain Aging | TIME.com
Marijuana Compound Grows New Brain Cells and Reduces Inflammation | Cannabis Culture
Study: Marijuana May Protect Against Alcohol Brain Damage
Marijuana cannabinoids slow brain degradation and aging, reverse dementia: here's how
Active Ingredient Cannabidiol 'Cures' Alzheimer's Mice
Cannabis 'could stop dementia in its tracks' | Mail Online



The driving related deaths that can even remotely be linked to Marijuana (and I dispute them, but I'll accept it for today's math) is 400/year. What's New in Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety in the U.S. That plus the secondary medical deaths of less than 33/year (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000145), leave us with around 500 deaths/year due to Marijuana, more or less (probably less). Approximately 2,500 Americans die each year from choking on food, mostly hotdogs (http://listosaur.com/miscellaneous/top-5-causes-of-accidental-death-in-the-united-states.html). No matter how you play with the numbers, smoking Marijuana is harmless by any reasonable comparison. It's an all around antioxidant, neuroprotectant, and has countless other beneficial uses. It's essentially non-addictive (less than caffeine), and essentially non toxic (No overdoses, and secondary deaths smaller than even the safest FDA approved medicines, and safer than hotdogs).

So, a good reason to break the law? Yup, because the law is frikin' ridiculous and reduces out rights, it's unconstitutional and absolutely harmful to you. The chances of you dying as a non-user due to violence related to prohibition is significantly greater than your chances of dying due to using the drug itself. Again, I won't call them patriots, but any force against prohibition is a net force for your liberties, and quite possibly your life. Nobodies forcing you to use it, but nobody should be forced to abstain from it. Allowing any anti-liberty and unconstitutional laws to slide just helps them pass more laws to infringe your rights.
 
Last edited:
Ryan5 said:
Marijuana users are just genetically addict prone people. They aren't evil. They aren't even bad usually. They were just given a bad genetic chemical combo and were likely coded for addiction to various things from the second they were birthed.
Click to expand...

That is quite a ridiculous statement you have there. Marijuana is less addictive than caffeine and while it can be socially addictive and sometimes even psychologically addictive, the vast majority of marijuana users are not addicted to marijuana or to anything else.
Most people like to wind down a hard day at work with something. Be it a couple of beers, a joint, a painkiller, a soda, or a cup of coffee. Not everyone prefers beer. Some people prefer marijuana.
The number of marijuana users who are addicts, like your brother, make up an extremely small percentage of those who are marijuana smokers.
You make it sound as though anyone that prefers marijuana over beer is some type of an addict or weak person.
Personally, I'd reverse that. The drunk is nasty, obnoxious, and pisses all over the place, often on himself. He stinks of vomit, is loud, prone to fight, and likely to kill someone with his car. He can not possibly hold down a job for more than a day because he is an addict and it is only a matter of time before he is drunk again.
Or wait... is that everyone that drinks or just some drinkers?
 
jaeger19 said:
Another point.. legalization versus decriminalization. I think that legalization and regulation is the way to go, rather than continue the blackmarket sales and criminal activity associated with Marijuana. Yes, there is something to the fact that our country is a nanny state and if we make it legal, thousands may go out and try it because "the government thinks its safe".... However, I think that marijuana to some degree is a "gateway drug" because to get it, you are introduced to a criminal element, and it becomes easier to follow down that path. Once you figure out that lots of people use marijuana and don't freak out.. despite Nancy Reagans just say no.. then you begin to question whether whats said about meth, and crack etc is true.,
Click to expand...

I've argued this with people countless times. Kids aren't stupid. "Pots not really that bad, nothing like they said it was. I wonder what other drugs they lied about or misrepresented" and its suddenly cool to try new drugs and criticize the powers that be. If it's a gateway drug at all it's because it's illegal.

Decriminalization is a half-measure that just encourages the black market, even if it does temper the message that pot is just as bad as other drugs. Once its decriminalized there really is no reason not to legalize, almost all arguments against become irrelevant. A move from decriminalized to legal is almost nothing according to opponents arguments; it shows an acknowledgment that its not as bad as other drugs, increases availability, removes some of the stigma associated with pot use, and allows people to possess it with relative impunity. Why wouldn't you get all those sales on the taxable side of the market? What benefits are there to keep it decriminalized as opposed to legal and regulated?
 
Ryan5 said:
I have a brother who's an addict. When I say addict I mean, he is an addict to anything addictive. Be it marijuana, gambling, alcohol, smoking cigarettes, whatever, if it is addictive he will engage it because he's a socialite, weak yes man. It just is who he is. He isn't a bad person, he's just a weak person (and by the fact that he has no trust by anyone due to his weakness for addictions, he'd almost admit this. He can't even get money loaned to him by his own friends).


Marijuana users are just genetically addict prone people. They aren't evil. They aren't even bad usually. They were just given a bad genetic chemical combo and were likely coded for addiction to various things from the second they were birthed. In that sense, I think it is more beneficial to regulate these people and tax them for the greater society rather than to believe you are ever going to legislate out genetically prone addicts. You aren't. Fact is some people got a good combo of industrious, responsible genes and some people didn't. Genetics is a very 'It is what it is' thing. Best to deal with that reality in our policy.
Click to expand...

Just to point out.. you are mixing up addiction and dependency. Two very different things.

Dependency.. is when you need to have a drug.. either physically or psychologically.. and you suffer withdrawals or consequences if you don't have it. And example of a person dependent on drugs is someone who must take blood pressure medication. That person is dependent on medication otherwise he has a heart attack or stroke and dies (or worse).

Addiction is something different. Addiction is when your dependency on the drug is to the extent that you are making poor choices and hurting yourself or others. And example would be the person who takes Norco for pain.. that takes so much Norco that they cannot function during the day.. or they knowingly take so much that they are impaired yet decide to drive and risk their life and others.


the point being.. someone can be dependent and still be a responsible, productive member of society. Its addiction that is the problem.

Now when comparing marijuana with alcohol and cigarettes ?

Factually...

Marijuana is far less likely to cause dependency than either alcohol or nicotine
and for those dependent... Marijuana is far less likely to cause addiction.
 
shagg said:
I've argued this with people countless times. Kids aren't stupid. "Pots not really that bad, nothing like they said it was. I wonder what other drugs they lied about or misrepresented" and its suddenly cool to try new drugs and criticize the powers that be. If it's a gateway drug at all it's because it's illegal.

Decriminalization is a half-measure that just encourages the black market, even if it does temper the message that pot is just as bad as other drugs. Once its decriminalized there really is no reason not to legalize, almost all arguments against become irrelevant. A move from decriminalized to legal is almost nothing according to opponents arguments; it shows an acknowledgment that its not as bad as other drugs, increases availability, removes some of the stigma associated with pot use, and allows people to possess it with relative impunity. Why wouldn't you get all those sales on the taxable side of the market? What benefits are there to keep it decriminalized as opposed to legal and regulated?
Click to expand...

Well... Marijuana works well for chronic pain, it helps appetite, it reduces anxiety.. and has very few side effects.

Don't you think the makers of pain medication, anti anxiety drugs, etc.. and the physician groups that prescribe them (have to be prescribed remember) , and the giant companies that sell them might just not be too happy to have a new competitor on the market that cuts them out of the loop?
 
jaeger19 said:
Well... Marijuana works well for chronic pain, it helps appetite, it reduces anxiety.. and has very few side effects.

Don't you think the makers of pain medication, anti anxiety drugs, etc.. and the physician groups that prescribe them (have to be prescribed remember) , and the giant companies that sell them might just not be too happy to have a new competitor on the market that cuts them out of the loop?
Click to expand...

I certainly think its funny that society is starting to come around now that we use less paper.
 
Currently spending some time in Colorado.....walked out of the hotel last night past a smoking man.......lol....not cigarettes, either. Quite a culture shock for me but shops on every corner in the mountain towns. Love it, although I don't really partake. Legalize it already, US!
 
You people focus too much on the individual addiction item itself. Marijuana is merely a genetic weakling attraction such as other intoxicants are. If you use marijuana, yes, you have weaker genetics that allow you to seek out 'crutches' to deal with reality (be that marijuana, alcohol, smoking, whatever, they're all crutches for people who don't have strong 'ability to say no' genetics). Such people simply got a bad roll of the genetic dice.

In the future such people will have these negative genetics found out upon and or ideally before birth and replaced so it won't be an issue later in life. Addiction is actually a genetic bad roll.

Watch the movie Gattaca. It delves into this.


In the future there will be no gambling industry as it will be 'illegal' to birth a child with those addiction genetics.
 
Last edited:
Well, I for one, am just overwhelmed by the number of people who have died from an overdose of Weed over the history of humankind. Well, not sure overwhelmed is exactly the deal...but maybe I do when I'm being consumed by a temporary moment of Amotivational Syndrome caused from smoking too much pot during the 60s and 70s, which is sort of like an acid flashback.

I don't smoke pot now...haven't in a lot of years, but gezzzzzzzz, I certainly did my share. Evil pot...yeah...nothing like having one's life destroyed by having munchies. Or getting brain damaged while smoking some weed to make music and TV a little more palatable. Or spicing up a boring buzz from booze with a few hits on a bong. And of course my favorite...having a few tokes on a joint before night-night time...because it was better than most prescription sleeping meds.

GROW UP WORLD...the evil weed...is more like a very benign mind candy.
 
I agree it isn't a big deal. People can't control whether they have bad genes that cause them to rely on substances to cope with reality.
 
Why is it automatically assumed that one who uses substances such as alcohol or marijuana is unable to cope with reality? :shrug:
 
As a consumer of professionals, I wouldn't hire a doctor, lawyer or any other important agent if that person smoked pot. No need for the smug "You already do, you just don't know it!" here. If I found that someone I was paying for a life changing result smoked pot, I'd fire him and spend my money on someone more serious.

If you're a pot worshipper, you will find many like me that will never consider you to be a serious professional. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a decision you have to make about yourself and your life.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
As a consumer of professionals, I wouldn't hire a doctor, lawyer or any other important agent if that person smoked pot. No need for the smug "You already do, you just don't know it!" here. If I found that someone I was paying for a life changing result smoked pot, I'd fire him and spend my money on someone more serious.

If you're a pot worshipper, you will find many like me that will never consider you to be a serious professional. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a decision you have to make about yourself and your life.
Click to expand...
That's why we smoke in the privacy of our own homes, like responsible adults. You wouldn't hire someone who mixed alcohol and his work life either, would you?

My work has absolutely no idea what I do at night, nor is it any of their business.

I smoke a LOT, but if I found somebody high at work I'd fire them on the spot.
 
Ray410 said:
As a consumer of professionals, I wouldn't hire a doctor, lawyer or any other important agent if that person smoked pot. No need for the smug "You already do, you just don't know it!" here. If I found that someone I was paying for a life changing result smoked pot, I'd fire him and spend my money on someone more serious.

If you're a pot worshipper, you will find many like me that will never consider you to be a serious professional. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a decision you have to make about yourself and your life.
Click to expand...
As a consumer of professionals, I wouldn't hire a doctor, lawyer or any other important agent if that person drank alcohol. No need for the smug "You already do, you just don't know it!" here. If I found that someone I was paying for a life changing result drank alcohol, I'd fire him and spend my money on someone more serious.

If you're a alcohol worshipper, you will find many like me that will never consider you to be a serious professional. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a decision you have to make about yourself and your life.

Still though, I don't think it's worth our time and effort to keep alcohol illegal.
 
The OP is propaganist non-sense. It's called CANNABIS (indica, sativa, or ruderalis), not marijuana. There is NO PLANT whose scientific name is "marijuana". Get it right!

Marinol and other synthetic cannabinoids are far more addictive than the natural alternative. This is because synthetic cannabinoids are full CB-1/2 receptor agonists, whereas natural cannabinoids are only partial agonists. Full agonists always cause withdrawls due to downregulation of the receptors. Marinol is a dependence trap, as are all the legal synthetic cannabinoids flooding the market now.

It's true that some people experience discontinuation syndrome if they have been smoking cannabis heavily for long periods, but there is no evidence to suggest that there is lasting damage (unlike with opiates, methamphetamines, etc.). People can have minor withdrawls from cannabis dependence but it pales in comparison to other drugs. The partial agonism of the receptors means that cannabis will never fully induce true addiction.

Comparing cannabis to the most addictive substances is farcical, biased, and clearly doomed to fail.
 
I'm a huge fan of The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, which has the text of nearly every single significant scientific study ever conducted of marijuana use and it's effects, from a 2002 Canadian study going all the way back to a 1894 British military study of marijuana use by its troops in India.

None of them support the notion of harsh penalties for marijuana use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom