- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,299
- Reaction score
- 413
- Location
- Northern Arkansas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Nice, personal attacks without addressing any of the issues raised. Is that what you consider.....intelligence?
That, is truly frightening.
I expect teachers to have some modicum of intelligence.
Basically, anything that is dangerous should be illegal.
I didn't say that. I did say both tobacco and marijuana should be illegal due to the fact they cause lung disease.
When I was a minor the hardest substance for me to acquire was alcohol. Marijuana, on the other hand, was readily available to me from the day I learned how to ask for it.
Prohibition puts drugs into the hands of children. I find it disturbing that a teacher would be in favor of such a thing...
What about alcohol? That causes liver cancer.
What about fatty foods? They cause heart disease.
What about tanning beds? Those cause skin cancer.
I thought this thread was about the legalization of marijuana. If you want one about alcohol, fatty foods, or tanning beds.....be my guest. Start a thread. I'll debate the merits of that too. :mrgreen:
I don't think the increase of lung disease would be that significant. You act as if marijuana being legalized will somehow dramatically increase the amount that people smoke weed. Guess what? People a lot of weed right now. The law doesn't really stand in the way of people doing it. I fail to see how there would be that much of a difference if it were legal. But please, keep trying the lung disease angle. It's very easy to dismiss.
Where Legalization Has Flourished, Drug Use Has IncreasedDr. Kevin SabetDrug Policy Consultant
Expert Verified | See Profile Recommend (4) Comments (5) “Do as the Dutch Do” -- this phrase has become a clarion call for legalization advocates, who fondly imagine a day when the world, or at least the U.S., treats marijuana the way the Dutch do. Almost every drug legalization discussion leads both sides of the debate focusing on drug policy in the Netherlands. It is fascinating that this tiny country of 16 million people is so often referenced in comparison to countries (like the U.S. or U.K.) with much larger populations. The reason, of course, for this often-used comparison is due to the fact that the Netherlands is one of the only places in the world where you can buy marijuana legally.
In 1976, as the counter-culture swept through much of the western world proclaiming free love and drugs (and as drug use was reaching historic levels in the United States), the Dutch approved a formal policy to allow the possession and sale of up to about ninety marijuana cigarettes (thirty grams). The government allowed “coffee-shops” selling marijuana to appear around the country and approved in 1980 guidelines allowing more local control discretion of commercial marijuana practices. As the Dutch got used to the idea of legal marijuana, coffee-shops popped up in nicer parts of town and the number of them grew eleven-fold in eight years (nine in 1980 and 102 by 1988) (Jansen 1991). Currently, a lower-end estimate numbers coffee-shops at about 1,500.
But not everyone has been pleased with the proliferation of coffee-shops in the Netherlands. Pressures from residents to reduce the noise associated with marijuana-vendors and patrons, and international bodies (like the International Narcotics Control Board, an arm of the United Nations) calling for less drug tourism and drug trafficking led the country in 1996 to tighten their regulations. Now coffee-shops are licensed and it is only legal to possess fifteen joints (five grams) at one time.
MacCoun and Reuter, two advocates of softer marijuana policies, point out that between 1976 and 1984, marijuana use rates remained about the same for adults and youth. Thus the effect of legalization (or, “depenalization” as they put it) was minimal. From the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, though, they observe that “surveys reveal that the lifetime prevalence of marijuana in Holland increased consistently and sharply.” They report 15 percent of 18-20 year olds used marijuana in their lifetime in 1984 turned into 44 percent by 1996 -- a 300 percent increase. Indeed, they also find cite past-month prevalence of 8.5 percent in 1984 to 18.5 percent in 1996. Why would marijuana use suddenly increase in the mid-1980s, after remaining relatively flat for nearly the first ten years of lenient marijuana laws? MacCoun and Reuter point to “commercialization” as the culprit. That is, they contend that during this period between 1984 and 1996, the greater glamorization and more visible promotion of marijuana lead to an increase in use. They claim that depenalization without commercialization does not increase use, as noted in steady use rates between 1976 and 1984 (MacCoun and Reuter 2001).......
Okay fine, one more time what are the benefits of keeping marijuana illegal vs. making it legal?
......MacCoun and Reuter, two advocates of softer marijuana policies, point out that between 1976 and 1984, marijuana use rates remained about the same for adults and youth. Thus the effect of legalization (or, “depenalization” as they put it) was minimal. From the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, though, they observe that “surveys reveal that the lifetime prevalence of marijuana in Holland increased consistently and sharply.” They report 15 percent of 18-20 year olds used marijuana in their lifetime in 1984 turned into 44 percent by 1996 -- a 300 percent increase. Indeed, they also find cite past-month prevalence of 8.5 percent in 1984 to 18.5 percent in 1996. Why would marijuana use suddenly increase in the mid-1980s, after remaining relatively flat for nearly the first ten years of lenient marijuana laws? MacCoun and Reuter point to “commercialization” as the culprit.....
When I was a child it was alcohol that was readily available. All we had to do was go down to the local 7/11 and ask adults to buy it for us. Most turned use down, some would take our money and buy us the alcohol. Marijuana was much harder to get. It would seem our childhoods were somewhat different.
In regards to your quip about my favoring putting drugs into the hands of children, I'll not bother addressing that.
Do you have any idea how much law enforcement operations, the legal process, and incarceration costs America? People already smoke pot, you've offered no evidence that legalization will increase the instances of Obstructive Lung Disease beyond their current numbers. What we do know is that less money will be spent pursuing and arresting marijuana offenders, less money will be spent trying them, and less money will be spent incarcerating them.
And it will be much easier for some sick people to get the relief that marijuana offers for their ailments.
"Medical" Marijuana - The Facts
Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol.
A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.
Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market.
There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette
I thought this thread was about the legalization of marijuana.
If you want one about alcohol, fatty foods, or tanning beds.....be my guest. Start a thread. I'll debate the merits of that too. :mrgreen:
I suggest marinol.
Times change. Perhaps you should adapt.
Well, it's true. Prohibition creates an unregulated black market for drugs. Consequently, it empowers drug dealers who have no qualms about selling drugs to children. That's your fault.
...Drug-Specific Prevalence
The most abused substance is alcohol in adolescents, followed by cigarettes and marijuana (Johnson, O'Malley and Bachman, 1994). Crome (1997) found that at least 30% of secondary school students drink alcohol regularly, with 10% drinking more than moderately. 10 - 20% of the students smoke cigarettes regularly, 70% have tried at least one illicit drug, with 2.5% using an illicit drug at least weekly. When only a single month is looked at, 33% of 12th graders and 9% of 8th graders reported being drunk at least one time in the past month in the study conducted by Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman (1999). They also found that 23% of high-school seniors and 10% of 8th graders reported using marijuana in the last month. This is an increase of 9% and 7% over the last 8 years. Cigarette usage in the last month also increased, to 35% of seniors and 18% of 8th graders. This is an increase of 7 and 4% respectively over the last 8 years.....
You would? Are you a physician?
I'm aware. You're against it and I'm for it, which is why I'm trying to undermine your credibility by exposing your inconsistency.
Surely, if you favor criminalizing marijuana on the basis that it causes lung disease you would also favor criminalizing fatty foods, since they cause heart disease. Unless, of course, your sole concern is people's lungs, in which case I would simply write you off as being a strange individual as opposed to an inconsistent one...
The question cuts right to the heart of your credibility, which means it is relevant to our debate concerning the legalization of marijuana. I understand if you're afraid to answer the questions, since the outcome would most likely be unfavorable to your position, but I'm less than sympathetic.
I can run off the effects of a big mac. If I smoke enough marijuana.....I can no longer run.
Okay, so Big Macs stay legal but with mandated running proceeding consumption?
What about alcohol? Does that stay legal, too? Not sure how someone can run off the effects of a bottle of tequila...:lol:
Tanning beds? Legal? I wonder how a person reverses an hour of exposure to UV radiation? More running perhaps?
No, just a teacher.
Okay, then why would you attempt to restrict a physician's options in treating their patient when you readily admit you have no formal medical training?
{sigh} As I indicated earlier I'm more than willing to debate any topic you want. I suggest you start a thread and we can debate these topics individually. :coffeepap
It's entirely relevant since a person's credibility is a valid point of contention in any debate. Sorry if you don't like having holes poked in your argument.
Is this a serious post? no, really. :laughat:
No, I made it in jest....
Of course it's a serious post. Many physicians - and patients - prefer to use marijuana instead of marinol for a number of reasons you are probably unfamiliar with.
But wait! You're a teacher, which means you must be more qualified to make that determination than a medical doctor who spent a decade of their life learning how to treat illnesses. How silly of me!
Get back to me when you have 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?