No, there is not 'no evidence'.
You just don't like/agree with it.
Yale study: Marijuana may really be gateway drug
Yale study: Marijuana may really be gateway drug - Connecticut Post
Personally, I believe it can be a gateway drug for some people.
How many? No idea. Probably not the majority that start meth/crack/heroin.
For me it was booze/arrogance/being semi-tricked into it.
Note: again, I quit in '02.
I strongly agree with legalizing drugs though.
That study does nothing to indicate causation, but merely verifies correlation. As such, it does nothing at all toward evidence showing that Mj is a gateway.
And this is very typical of the way such sloppiness is presented. It does not indicate what they say it indicates, and people swallow it uncritically. Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post, so perfectly.
Really, that is the main reason why I started.
Nevertheless...it IS evidence.
Just because you (and others) don't like it does not disprove it's existence.
So your statement that there is none for the other side is wrong.
I will not debate this as a) common sense should have told you this before you even typed your initial reply to me; and b) I just don't care much.
Have a nice day.
I will reply to this because you are mistaken, and it should be pointed out. It is evidence, but it isn't evidence for marijuana being a gateway drug. So, this evidence does not support your point that "there is evidence". Showing correlation in no way supports the notion of causation. It is only evidence for the fact that people who like marijuana also like other drugs in a greater proportion than the general population, which is entirely unsurprising. It is your preconceived notions that are causing you to think that it is evidence for anything more than evidence for just that.
there is a reason it is illegal an should stay that way
The problem you two are having is more fundamental than a discussion of the merits of marijuana is going to solve. Some people just believe in the authoritarian philosophy that certain bad things should be illegal. Yes, this is often hypocritical since such people will not think this should apply to, say, alcohol. But the authoritarian philosophy tends to attract people who are filled with prejudice. It is not for people who are rational like libertarians.What does NOT work is trying to meet this people on their own turf, trying argue that Marijuana is harmless. Because this is false. Marijuana is entire bad for you, we must face up to the fact that it is a stupid thing to do and a social ill. But people have a RIGHT to participate in social ills that cause no direct harm to others. That is the libertarian view, we need to stay on message here.But you're not going to tell us what that magical reason is? I don't mean to sound harsh, but you already said he was a compulsive person with an addictive personality, it doesn't sound like weed had anything to do with it, even from your own version of it. And even if it did, it's still nothing compared to the damage other, perfectly legal drugs cause.
But you're not going to tell us what that magical reason is? I don't mean to sound harsh, but you already said he was a compulsive person with an addictive personality, it doesn't sound like weed had anything to do with it, even from your own version of it. And even if it did, it's still nothing compared to the damage other, perfectly legal drugs cause.
You do realize that marijuana is also loaded with chemicals, right?Definitely, people with an addictive personality are going to do substances. Does it really matter which ones? And if it really does matter, then marijuana is MUCH more mild than a lot of the prescription drugs we have on the market that are loaded with chemicals.
People have been using marijuana in various ways since ancient times. It's a plant for goodness sakes!
As long as they aren't harming someone else, I think an adult should be able to smoke marijuana if they so choose.
UThe problem you two are having is more fundamental than a discussion of the merits of marijuana is going to solve. Some people just believe in the authoritarian philosophy that certain bad things should be illegal. Yes, this is often hypocritical since such people will not think this should apply to, say, alcohol. But the authoritarian philosophy tends to attract people who are filled with prejudice. It is not for people who are rational like libertarians.What does NOT work is trying to meet this people on their own turf, trying argue that Marijuana is harmless. Because this is false. Marijuana is entire bad for you, we must face up to the fact that it is a stupid thing to do and a social ill. But people have a RIGHT to participate in social ills that cause no direct harm to others. That is the libertarian view, we need to stay on message here.
I wouldnt have to explain the libertarian view it so many self proclaimed libertarians weren't clueless about what libertarianism is.I don't mean to be rude, but it's obvious you don't know anything about marijuana or what it does to people. You should try to find out a bit more before continuing a debate about that very subject. There are plenty of people who claim it helps them, even in a recreational sense. No one here is trying to argue that its completely harmless, almost nothing is. And stop telling people what "the libertarian view" is when banging on about a political party that has nothing to do with libertarianism other than molesting its name.
I wouldnt have to explain the libertarian view it so many self proclaimed libertarians weren't clueless about what libertarianism is.
Libertarianism does not mean libertine. Libertarianism means drugs should be legal; it emphatically does not mean that drugs are good.
And I don't mean to be rude, but your defense of marijuana makes you sound like a rationalizing pothead, not somebody who is knowledgeable.
Libertarianism means abstaining from modern electoral politics altogether, as it completely and utterly contradicts the core values of traditional libertarianism. Your "libertarian party" is a walking contradiction. It seeks to hold the very powers that it claims no one has a right to.
Defense in what sense? I haven't claimed it's harmless, merely that as far as recreational drugs for relaxation go, it's about as harmless as it gets, and contrary to your ill informed opinion, it isn't always an entirely bad thing. It can have positive effects on people, and that's something that is rarely argued against even by those opposed to legalization.
You do realize that marijuana is also loaded with chemicals, right?
Even your water is loaded with the chemical dihydrogen monoxide!
Why? What's wrong about it? It's a simple fact, backed up by dictionary definitions. Go look at what traditional libertarianism actually is.This is completely and utterly wrong.
No. All recreational drug use is bad. It is entirely foolish to suggest otherwise.
Are you going to start with this again? :roll: Stick to the topic will you? Marijuana is a plant. There is no evidence that it causes any more harm than alcohol or cigarettes.
W
Yeah, I know. Alcohol and cigarettes contain chemicals too. Your entire body is composed of chemicals!!
Why? What's wrong about it? It's a simple fact, backed up by dictionary definitions. Go look at what traditional libertarianism actually is.
Also bull****.The point of life is happiness.
There thread is about the marijuana plant though. Alcohol and cigarettes contain carcinogens.
Well carcinogens are a different story, aren't they. Some chemicals are carcinogenic and some aren't. So if you meant carcinogen why didn't you just say so?
Most people understand that when referring to the "chemicals" in cigarettes and alcohol, we are referring to "bad" chemicals.
That is idiotic.
Please, I don't think you're an idiot. I would never infer such a thing about someone I don't know.
Let me make it tediously clear. It is idiocy to misuse the word "chemical" as you have been doing.
Are you drunk? Or just giving up on your argument because you know you're wrong?Bull****.
Also bull****.
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?