Marijuana was not made illegal due to coughing or other minor - temporary health symptoms. For the record, only some people experience these anyways. The fact that you even raise that claim proves you have already been defeated in this debate.
It's obvious that you are heavily biased and either willfully ignorant or simply misinformed. Either way, I suggest you re-assess your arguments if you wish to be taken seriously.None of the above is a injurious to our society as marijuana......except for maybe the pet rocks.
You're kidding, right? How exactly does it limit anything? Tons of people smoke pot and the numbers certainly aren't decreasing. You can get it pretty much anywhere if you know the right people (which isn't hard at all). Plus, it really only gets expensive if you are doing tons of it. There are plenty of benefits to making it legal and taxing it because then we get the money instead of drug dealers. It would completely destroy their market, which I think is a good thing.
It's obvious that you are heavily biased and either willfully ignorant or simply misinformed. Either way, I suggest you re-assess your arguments if you wish to be taken seriously.
And it would be regulated and distributed to adults, people with the mental capacity to decide what is or is not good for their body. I'll assume you do not know that legalization does not lead to increased usage?Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what your are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you?
You are more than welcome to have your own opinion. Just as I am allowed to have an opinion of you.I am biased. I oppose the legalization of marijuana. I would have thought that was obvious. I am also quite well informed. If you choose to ignore the research in this area, fine. Why deny me my opinion? Am I not allowed an opinion if it doesn't agree with yours? Why are you so intolerant?
Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what your are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you?
Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what your are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you?
And it would be regulated and distributed to adults, people with the mental capacity to decide what is or is not good for their body. I'll assume you do not know that legalization does not lead to increased usage?
•Cancer is the second leading cause of death and was among the first diseases causally linked to smoking.
•Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes most cases.
•Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% in women.
•In 2003, an estimated 171,900 new cases of lung cancer occurred and approximately 157,200 people died from lung cancer.
•The 2004 Surgeon General's report adds more evidence to previous conclusions that smoking causes cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, lung and bladder.
•Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly.
•Cigarette smoking is a major cause of esophageal cancer in the United States. Reductions in smoking and smokeless tobacco use could prevent many of the approximately 12,300 new cases and 12,100 deaths from esophgeal cancer that occur annually.
•The combination of smoking and alcohol consumption causes most laryngeal cancer cases. In 2003, an estimated 3800 deaths occurred from laryngeal cancer.
•In 2003, an estimated 57,400 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and an estimated 12,500 died from the disease.
•For smoking-attributable cancers, the risk generally increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and the number of years of smoking, and generally decreases after quitting completely.
•Smoking cigarettes that have a lower yield of tar does not substantially reduce the risk for lung cancer.
•Cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing mouth cancers. This risk also increases among people who smoke pipes and cigars.
•Reductions in the number of people who smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products or use smokeless tobacco could prevent most of the estimated 30,200 new cases and 7,800 deaths from oral cavity and pharynx cancers annually in the United States.
What ever the price it will not affect my consumption.
Absolutely. I know a lot of people like to pigeonhole people who support legalization as pot smokers. I personally don't smoke pot and haven't done so since I was in high school. Even though people say it's not addictive, my late uncle (who had an addictive personality) was addicted to marijuana for years and years. It obviously affected him more because of he was more prone to addiction. Regardless of all of that, I still see no reason to not legalize it. The difference between you and I is that I actually like people to have a choice regardless of my personal opinion on marijuana. I don't blame marijuana abuse on marijuana, but the person abusing it. It's the same exact kind of argument on gun control. Often when there is a shooting, the issue gets brought up. Anti-gun people place the blame on a gun rather than placing the blame on the person pulling the trigger. It's stupid to place the blame on an inanimate object.
I don't doubt that. I have kids at my school coming to school today with flip flops, shorts, and t-shirts on in 55 deg. weather and I know damn well their parents have marijuana/dope. There is damn little you can tell me about dope in general or marijuana in particular that would surprise me.
Exactly. I am a smoker. I understand the danger. I am still free to make a choice,
and I have chosen to smoke. Let's also consider that Cannabis is much less dangerous than a cigarette ever will be.
What about those who prefer to eat Cannabis? Lung Disease for them, too?Used as directed a firearm won't hurt anyone. Use marijuana as diredted and you will experience lung disease. I believe that's the difference.
Used as directed a firearm won't hurt anyone. Use marijuana as diredted and you will experience lung disease. I believe that's the difference.
Yes, I understand it still damages my lungs. The point I am making is that it is the individual's choice. It is their body. Their body does not belong to the government, or you, or me.Doesn't that depend on the state you're in? :mrgreen:
.....and will still damage your lungs.
You know for sure these parents are stoned? Do you 24/7 Reefer Madness style.
BTW my kiddo wears a uniform to school
Yes, I understand it still damages my lungs. The point I am making is that it is the individual's choice. It is their body. Their body does not belong to the government, or you, or me.
Come on. Don't be obtuse. I'm not comparing guns to marijuana. I'm comparing the issue of gun control with legalization of marijuana, because the arguments from the opposition are similarly structured. In both cases people place blame on an inanimate object instead of blaming the person responsible. I also find it rather amusing that you've shifted your argument to lung disease. If that really was your concern, you would have come right out of the gate with that, but you didn't. You resorted to that because you've run out of arguments.
No, I was completely aware that the lungs were meant for breathing, not inhaling smoke, before I ventured into this thread. This is not news to me.At least you've learned something today. :mrgreen:
No, I was completely aware that the lungs were meant for breathing, not inhaling smoke, before I ventured into this thread. This is not news to me.
I'm not being obtuse. It's a lousy analogy. The tobacco/marijuana analogy is a much better one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?