Benign: Exhibiting gentleness and mildness. Tending to promote well-being: BENEFICIAL. Not malignant.
That, from Webster.
From Francis Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge after days of hearings on the subject, way back in about 1981: marijuana is the safest therapeutic substance known to man.
It seems the DEA Administrative Law Judge had a more open mind, and better skills at inference than yourself?
So, if I produce experts that say the opposite of Francis Young, you would have to admit that they have more of an open mind and better skills at inference than yourself, correct? See, that's what happens when you debate with logical fallacies.
No, because Francis Young was not the only person to have reached that conclusion, he just happened to be, ironically, an agent of the DEA basically. Young's conclusion was reached previously by virtually every study ever done regarding the substance, by both the US government and other governments around the world going back decades and century.
Debate? I suppose so, but in so many cases, including my own, my opinion is also formed by personal experience. The pot debate is not conducted in a vacuum, it is greatly influenced by the personal experiences of many.
By every definition and every standard, the substance is benign. Not harmless, but benign. Those 2 words are not synonyms, and pretty much every poster here has acknowledged that. It is not harmless, but it is benign.
Whatever harm it might cause, whatever effect its use may have on each individual, is minor, especially when compared to other substances "blessed" by our illustrious legislators.
You are confusing two issues. Is marijuana as harmful as other substances? From a totality standpoint, it is the least addictive of any major "substance" (opiates followed by nicotine would be worst), and it's harmfulness is less apparent or significant than many others. But benign? Nope, not based on the definition you used. And I reject personal experience in this case. That's anecdotal and is marred by the bias of the user.
Your comments are inconsistent. It's not harmful... you won't overdose and there is no toxic level. Telling people that there is no harm when using marijuana is just as invalid as telling people that if you use marijuana you will become a lazy, insane, non-productive member of society. Neither of these extreme positions are true.
Well, tell me how many people have overdosed, tell me the toxic level. Nothing extreme about saying that there is no level that causes an overdose.
Casual Marijuana Use Linked to Brain Abnormalities: Northwestern University News
Ya think ? But hey, its not only a " safe "alternative to alcohol, its q healthy alternative alcohol
Overdosing is not the only thing that defines whether a substance is harmful. I can keep going with this for a long time. You are making an illogical argument.
My argument on this thread is dealing with the toxicity of marijuana. Get it? I am talking about the fact that you can't die of an overdose. You however want to just gainsay whatever the hell I am saying for whatever reason, I don't know.
So...focus....I am talking about the fact that no one has ever died from marijuana in their system, and that there is no THC poisoning.
If you want to discuss something else about marijuana, go ahead, but your constant picking and hectoring has gotten tiresome and is bordering on trollish behavior.
I get it...you want to talk about other things regarding marijuana, feel free. But, for years I have been reminding Fenton whenever he puts up a stupid anti MJ thread that no one has ever died from overdosing, and there is no toxic level of it.
I hope you understand, and get over your urge to criticize me for making this point.
You are making the point that since one cannot overdose on marijuana it is not harmful. That is illogical. As long as you continue with that position, I will call you on it. Concede that just because one cannot overdose on something doesn't mean that thing cannot be harmful in some way and I will leave you to your thread.
Casual Marijuana Use Linked to Brain Abnormalities: Northwestern University News
Ya think ? But hey, its not only a " safe "alternative to alcohol, its q healthy alternative alcohol
where is the constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene?
they knowingly needed an amendment to ban alcohol and the same is true with MJ. why do you side with big government propaganda?
Why does a drug addicts " right " to pickle their brain and go through life impaired supercede my right to raise my Family in a community not inudnated with drugs and drug addicts ?
Why does a drug addicts " right " to pickle their brain and go through life impaired supercede my right to raise my Family in a community not inudnated with drugs and drug addicts ?
Overdosing is not the only thing that defines whether a substance is harmful. I can keep going with this for a long time. You are making an illogical argument.
Hyperbole alert!!!!!
Troll alert !!!
Troll alert !!!
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, get the hell over it.
I have made focused statements about one facet of marijuana, and that is going to have to be good enough to for you. Obsessively pick on someone else.
Is there anything I am saying that is untrue about no one ever overdosing, or there being a toxic level? Yes or no.
Yes, you can, you have already obsessed over your minutiae for several posts. I am and have been focusing on the one point, marijuana is not toxic, there is no way to overdose. Can you understand what I am saying? It is a part of an argument for legalization, there are several more, as has been seen here.
Nothing illogical about the fact that no one has overdosed, or that there is not a toxic level. That is what I am focusing on, please disprove what I am focusing on, or stop with the obsessive nitpicking.
Does that fact that one cannot overdose on marijuana mean that it is NOT harmful at all? All you have to do is answer that question, correcting what you have said in this thread and I will leave. That simple.
Does that fact that one cannot overdose on marijuana mean that it is NOT harmful at all? All you have to do is answer that question, correcting what you have said in this thread and I will leave. That simple.
Why does a drug addicts " right " to pickle their brain and go through life impaired supercede my right to raise my Family in a community not inudnated with drugs and drug addicts ?
Overdosing is not the only thing that defines whether a substance is harmful. I can keep going with this for a long time. You are making an illogical argument.
Does that fact that one cannot overdose on marijuana mean that it is NOT harmful at all? All you have to do is answer that question, correcting what you have said in this thread and I will leave. That simple.
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?