• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Recreational Use of MJ Causes Brain Damage

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,253
Reaction score
13,585
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Warning!!! Warning !!! Warning!!!!!

:roll:

Tell me, what's worse for humans?

1) tobacco
2) processed sugar
3) processed salt
4) alcohol
5) marijuana
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,551
Reaction score
21,469
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not this **** again.

I am unsure anyone said causal use of marijuana has zero impact on the body, the question on relation to alcohol ends up far more political than based on science as well. The bigger question is why we regulate and allow various products that can cause physical harm over the long term, then turn and ban other products that arguably can cause other physical harm.

How about we leave it up to the individual to be in charge of what they do to themselves, quit leading the planet in incarceration rates because of making this and that illegal, and look to education and treatment for when any product becomes a problem for someone?
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,253
Reaction score
13,585
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not this **** again.

I am unsure anyone said causal use of marijuana has zero impact on the body, the question on relation to alcohol ends up far more political than based on science as well. The bigger question is why we regulate and allow various products that can cause physical harm over the long term, then turn and ban other products that arguably can cause other physical harm.

How about we leave it up to the individual to be in charge of what they do to themselves, quit leading the planet in incarceration rates because of making this and that illegal, and look to education and treatment for when any product becomes a problem for someone?

Funny how someone who labels themselves as a "conservative", who supposedly touts the "less government intrusion, more personal freedom" mantra would support the government outlawing something like pot?

Or would that not be funny, and more like hypocritical?

One of those surely fits doesn't it?
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,309
Reaction score
28,834
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Warning!!! Warning !!! Warning!!!!!

:roll:

Tell me, what's worse for humans?

1) tobacco
2) processed sugar
3) processed salt
4) alcohol
5) marijuana

Just off the top of my head, I'd say:
  • processed sugar
  • processed salt
  • marijuana
  • alcohol
  • tobacco
But again, a lot of this harm has to do with excess consumption. I don't know anyone who'd be against a glass of wine or beer or two in the evenings, where as eating a pound of candy every day is sure to get you early on set diabetes.

The missing thing here is the consumption metric. Trying to define this in the terms of absolutes is pretty much hopeless.

Suffice it to say that there isn't a single pleasurable thing in life that can't be taken the extremes where it's harmful.
 

beefheart

You left out a Hoongadoonga
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
39,730
Reaction score
29,769
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh Fenton...answer me this: How many people have ever died from an overdose of marijuana?

Just a point of fact... just because someone hasn't died from an overdose of marijuana doesn't mean it's harmless.

Other than that, carry on.
 

beefheart

You left out a Hoongadoonga
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
39,730
Reaction score
29,769
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just a point of fact... just because someone hasn't died from an overdose of marijuana doesn't mean it's harmless.

Other than that, carry on.

Water is more dangerous. The only way marijuana can kill you is if you get crushed by a giant bale of it.

Fenton keeps pulling the Officer Friday line of defense, it was silly 40 years ago, even more so today.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Water is more dangerous. The only way marijuana can kill you is if you get crushed by a giant bale of it.

Fenton keeps pulling the Officer Friday line of defense, it was silly 40 years ago, even more so today.

Just because it won't kill you doesn't mean it is harmless.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,551
Reaction score
21,469
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Funny how someone who labels themselves as a "conservative", who supposedly touts the "less government intrusion, more personal freedom" mantra would support the government outlawing something like pot?

Or would that not be funny, and more like hypocritical?

One of those surely fits doesn't it?

Welcome to the misnomer of saying "conservative." Social conservatism has zero to do with government conservatism, that is proven time and time again. Worse, both tend to ignore the principles of classical liberalism which embraces "less government intrusion, more personal freedom" in a manner closer to Libertarianism than anything else.

This nation did not go to nuts with legislation related to marijuana until the 1950's, when plenty of social conservatism took over making just about everything a moral issue. But once we passed by Nixon and his deceleration of war ("all-out offensive... to defeat this enemy, drug abuse") incarceration took a path that never went back.

What bothers me is far more people die from other causes while we sit here and argue about a plant.
 

beefheart

You left out a Hoongadoonga
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
39,730
Reaction score
29,769
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The petitions for legal MJ are now at 200,000 signatures in AZ, they needed about 150,000, and they will continue to get signatures till they reach 225,000. Polls are looking good for legal MJ in AZ!
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not this **** again.

I am unsure anyone said causal use of marijuana has zero impact on the body, the question on relation to alcohol ends up far more political than based on science as well. The bigger question is why we regulate and allow various products that can cause physical harm over the long term, then turn and ban other products that arguably can cause other physical harm.

How about we leave it up to the individual to be in charge of what they do to themselves, quit leading the planet in incarceration rates because of making this and that illegal, and look to education and treatment for when any product becomes a problem for someone?

'Skunk' cannabis can cause 'significant' brain damage | Health News | Lifestyle | The Independent

Yes, someone disagrees with your position on Marijuana legalization so its " this **** again ".

So you support anarchy ?

The problem with " leaving individuals to be in charge of what they do to themselves " is that their self destructive decisions can and do impact those around them and society in general.

They're not making those choices in a vacuum and surprise, there's two sides to the legalization issue whether you like it or not

Their " right " to pickle their brains should stop at my right of wanting to raise my family in a Society not inundated with people under the influence of powerful psychoactive chemicals.

Do I or anyone who's against legalization get a say in what kind of Community I get to raise my family in or does the addicts poor choices supersede everything ?
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,253
Reaction score
13,585
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Just off the top of my head, I'd say:
  • processed sugar
  • processed salt
  • marijuana
  • alcohol
  • tobacco
But again, a lot of this harm has to do with excess consumption. I don't know anyone who'd be against a glass of wine or beer or two in the evenings, where as eating a pound of candy every day is sure to get you early on set diabetes.

The missing thing here is the consumption metric. Trying to define this in the terms of absolutes is pretty much hopeless.

Suffice it to say that there isn't a single pleasurable thing in life that can't be taken the extremes where it's harmful.

I agree about the "consumption metric", but I don't agree with your list.

Why would you put marijuana ahead of alcohol and tobacco? At the very worst shouldn't they be tied with each other?
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,309
Reaction score
28,834
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I agree about the "consumption metric", but I don't agree with your list.

Why would you put marijuana ahead of alcohol and tobacco? At the very worst shouldn't they be tied with each other?


I put marijuana ahead of alcohol and tobacco not so much for it's physical detriment but for it's mental detriment.

The old movie cliche appears to be the norm, where the typical pot head is the one who turns on, shuts down, keeps smoking and can't find motivation for much of anything, even with moderate consumption. These impacts are far worse than the physical ones of alcohol and tobacco, if you ask me.

Now before you go off and assert that it doesn't affect everyone that way, fine, admitted, but seems that those people would be more so the outliers rather than the norm. Where else would the cliche come from?

Of course all of this is IMHO, so . . . .
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"A stoned society is a happy society".

At least that is the plan in California. They have all kinds of multi billion dollar tax plans to spend the money already. But I doubt it will materialize. The prices of legal weed are ridiculous. You can grow "good enough" weed in your back yard. Users who can are going to grow at home will, those who can't are going to buy from those who can.

Now they are going to try to stop all the "illegal" grows and make them get licenses, pay fees, taxes, etc. to do what they are already doing for free.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,253
Reaction score
13,585
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The old movie cliche appears to be the norm,

Have you ever smoked pot?
Have you ever hung out with people who smoked pot?

Or, are all your ideas and thoughts about it based on movies, legends, and stereotypes you've learned over the years?

Your "consumption metric" is very important here because I'm betting that you have no clue how many really smart, really productive, and highly creative people around you either smoked it quite a bit at some point in their life, and quite possibly still smoke it today.

Pot is NOT like crack-cocaine where some addictive demon stomps down your personality and productivity until you basically die from the inside out.

Pot does not turn people into Cheech & Chong characters.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,309
Reaction score
28,834
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"A stoned society is a happy society".

At least that is the plan in California. They have all kinds of multi billion dollar tax plans to spend the money already. But I doubt it will materialize. The prices of legal weed are ridiculous. You can grow "good enough" weed in your back yard. Users who can are going to grow at home will, those who can't are going to buy from those who can.

Now they are going to try to stop all the "illegal" grows and make them get licenses, pay fees, taxes, etc. to do what they are already doing for free.
All the more easier to control them.
Have you ever smoked pot?
Have you ever hung out with people who smoked pot?

Or, are all your ideas and thoughts about it based on movies, legends, and stereotypes you've learned over the years?

Your "consumption metric" is very important here because I'm betting that you have no clue how many really smart, really productive, and highly creative people around you either smoked it quite a bit at some point in their life, and quite possibly still smoke it today.

Pot is NOT like crack-cocaine where some addictive demon stomps down your personality and productivity until you basically die from the inside out.

Pot does not turn people into Cheech & Chong characters.

I have, in my youth.

I was not saying that it does turn people into Cheech & Chong characters, nor was I saying that it would make you die from the inside out. But what it does seem to do to a great many is keep them sitting on the couch and mindlessly staring into the TV or playing video games, rather than more productive things.

Of course, you go and try to make the case for outliers being the great median, and I figured you would. It really doesn't matter if there are a few, or quite a few outliers, what matters is how it affects the majority, and in this case, I think my assessment is closer to the reality than yours.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,253
Reaction score
13,585
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
sitting on the couch and mindlessly staring into the TV or playing video games, rather than more productive things.

That's the vast majority of anyone under about 35 years old these days isn't it?
Regardless of pot or not?
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just because it won't kill you doesn't mean it is harmless.
Just because it's not harmless, doesn't mean it should be illegal. Not that you are implying that, just saying.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I smoked a few times in college and one thing I noticed was that if I got stoned on the weekend, the effect never fully left me until Wednesday. The "effect" being a light feeling of drowsy distraction. It was very minor deal, but big enough that I noticed it.

I don't know about today's weed, but back then you were either stoned or you weren't.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,309
Reaction score
28,834
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's the vast majority of anyone under about 35 years old these days isn't it?
Regardless of pot or not?

Could be. I don't know about that. There are quite a number of 'failures to launch' and 'college degree and debt while living in parents basement without a job'.

Yeah, best to give them some sort of opiate of the people, right? Makes them all the easier to manage.
 
Top Bottom