• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

To legalize or not to legalize

Should marijuana be legal?


  • Total voters
    40
Conflict said:
Actually I wasn't.

And yes, you are supposed to cry and feel sorry for me.

:rofl

Eh, figured I'd wager a guess with that, seeing as how you mentioned you get belligerent when you drink....

Anyhow, you've given me no reason to feel sorry for you. :lol:
 
vergiss said:
Argh, I've given you evidence to show that pot causes mental health issues in those who are genetically predisposed, and even those who aren't. What evidence have you given me to show that it's just bullcrap? Hmm... none. That article does cite specific sources, in case you were too busy convenicently ignoring them. Besides, it's just one of many articles I've read on the subject recently.

What do you have to say about my friend's brother?

What's the big deal? It's not like I'm against de-criminalising it, I'm just telling you not to act as if it's some miraculous drug without any long term negative effects. You people refuse to accept that there are risks - which is idiotic. If someone kept denying that tobacco was unhealthy, or that alcohol can be severely destructive, I'm sure you'd think they were addicted, foolish or both.
This is from The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding
Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972.
Here is the link: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncchap2.htm

"Rare cases of full-blown psychotic episodes have been precipitated by marihuana. Generally, the individuals had previous mental disorders or had poorly developed personalities and were marginally adjusted to their life situation. Often the episode occurred at times of excessive stress. These episodes are characteristically temporary. Psychotherapy and sometimes medications are useful in prompt control and treatment of this psychological reaction. In addition, rare nonspecific toxic psychoses have occurred after extremely high doses. This state of nonspecific drug intoxication or acute brain syndrome is self-limited and clears spontaneously as the drug is eliminated from the body."

This is the link to the menu of the report: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

This is from: Lynn Zimmer and John Morgan. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, (New York: The Lindesmith Center, 1997).

"In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.""

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior."

There you go.
 
This shows flaws in the swedish study: http://psychiatry.mc.duke.edu/Residents/substance.html#MARIJUANA INDUCED

"Andreasson found in a Swedish study that having used cannabis between one and 10 times increased the relative risk of schizophrenia to 1.3, the risk rising to 6.0 for those having used cannabis >50 times. A weakness of this finding was the fact that this was self reported use. Also some argue that cannabis is used as a self-medication for psychotic symptoms. Linszen and colleagues studied 93 subjects with schizophrenia prospectively over a year. They found a higher rate of relapse (of acute schizophrenia) in the cannabis users than in the non-users. This study is limited however by the role of polysubstance use and reliance on self -reporting. It seems as though cannabis is rarely the only substance used.

Here is another report that is questioning the methodology of these "studies" that "prove" marijuana is a cause of psychosis.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/21436
 
vergiss said:
Argh, I've given you evidence to show that pot causes mental health issues in those who are genetically predisposed, and even those who aren't. What evidence have you given me to show that it's just bullcrap? Hmm... none. That article does cite specific sources, in case you were too busy convenicently ignoring them. Besides, it's just one of many articles I've read on the subject recently.

What do you have to say about my friend's brother?

What's the big deal? It's not like I'm against de-criminalising it, I'm just telling you not to act as if it's some miraculous drug without any long term negative effects. You people refuse to accept that there are risks - which is idiotic. If someone kept denying that tobacco was unhealthy, or that alcohol can be severely destructive, I'm sure you'd think they were addicted, foolish or both.

You have shown inconclusive evidence, I ahve posted other sites, that admit the possibility, but also state that many of these "conclusive studies" are not so conclusive at all.

Many of the people with the genetic predispostion may in fact, be attracted to pot or other drugs, as part of the onset of psychoses.

The drug may merely speed up, what is already occuring

Other factors, hard to isolate to pot alone, may have been involved, like LSD, PCP, wetstick, or other psychosis inducing drugs.

What even your site says, is that pot induced psychoses quickly subside as they respond better to treatment, and do not last much after pot use.

I can't diagnos, over the internet especially, a person I have never seen, and am likely getting third hand information. Were you present during the psychotic break? How familiar are you with his actual medical history, have you seen his records? What other risky or psychosis inducing behaviors had your brother's friend participated in, ever or recent to the episode? Was he receiving any kind of treatement he may not have wanted to tell your brother, or you, about for mental illness? What other environmental factors may have plyed a role, mercury or heavy metal poisoning, pollution, radiation, other environmental stresses and social factors (did his parents beat him, and the like)? Was he bullied, easily affected to stress form school/work/girlfriends/boyfriends. Did he drink alcohol?

---
Yes, pot use DOES have consequences, just like masturbation, everything does. But long term mental health issues, AFTER not-smoking for a day (and any prior psychotic breaks cleared), do not really seem to be one of them.

Smoking does tar the lungs, may cause cancers, and may get people fat as a result of munchies and lethargy. It can result in temporal psychotic episodes.

I have had a bad case of paranoia, but I KNOW I would not have had it, should it not been prohibited. I throught my land lady was going to narc, and the cops arrest me. It sucked. I just went to sleep, figuring it would be my last good sleep for a while. woke up, in my bed, and the sun was out, and no paranoia.
 
Last edited:
Well, what about slightly "harder" drugs?

Personally, I'd be all for the legalisation of ecstacy.
 
vergiss said:
Well, what about slightly "harder" drugs?

Personally, I'd be all for the legalisation of ecstacy.

I object, categorically, to the war on drugs. There is no Constitutional justification for it. It is not the government's job to protect me from myself. Educate people about drugs, and tell them the truth, not the BS propaganda that the government is putting out now.

It should all be regulated about the same as alcohol.

Instead of the government wasting billions of dollars every year, they could be making money through taxation.
 
vergiss said:
What do you have to say about my friend's brother?

That he made a wrong choice, but that doesn't mean that others should be denied their freedom to choose their own life's path for themselves.

You skipped entirely over the fact that YFB WAS living in a society in which marijuana is contraband. Hence using YFB as anecdotal support for continuation of the ban is weird.
 
vergiss said:
Well, what about slightly "harder" drugs?

Personally, I'd be all for the legalisation of ecstacy.

Never tried it. I am not a pill popper. But whatever floats your boat.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You skipped entirely over the fact that YFB WAS living in a society in which marijuana is contraband. Hence using YFB as anecdotal support for continuation of the ban is weird.

Did you people not read any of my posts?! I support legalising marijuana, I just don't think people should be allowed to grow it for themselves. I've only said so about three times. :roll:
 
vergiss said:
Did you people not read any of my posts?! I support legalising marijuana, I just don't think people should be allowed to grow it for themselves. I've only said so about three times. :roll:

I read your posts. I disagree about letting people grow their own. But we can agree to disagree.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I read your posts. I disagree about letting people grow their own. But we can agree to disagree.

How is the government meant to tax it if it's not sold in stores, like tobacco and alcohol?
 
vergiss said:
How is the government meant to tax it if it's not sold in stores, like tobacco and alcohol?

The same way vegetables are taxed. This is America. People will generally be too inept or lazy to grow their own. They could also tax seeds and hydroponics machines. They could tax bongs, pipes, and rolling papers. People can brew their own beer but don't usually. The same thing goes for wine.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The same way vegetables are taxed. This is America. People will generally be too inept or lazy to grow their own.

So what makes you think they'll buy it from stores, rather than friends who'll be cheaper?
 
vergiss said:
So what makes you think they'll buy it from stores, rather than friends who'll be cheaper?

I also forgot to mention marijuana bars. Because in order to grow anything to match the quality of what would be commercially produced it would cost the grower far too much to sell cheaper. This is why people don't make their own clothes and sell them. This is why people don't own a cow for milk or churn their own butter.
 
vergiss said:
So what makes you think they'll buy it from stores, rather than friends who'll be cheaper?

For the same reason most people buy computers already made instead of getting their friends to put one together for them.

Not too many people brew their own beer (some do), and I know of absolutely know one, ever, that grows their own tobacco. Market forces and economies of scale drive the amateur out of the market. Certainly there would be marijuana hobbiests and connoiseurs, but the overwhelming bulk of sales would rapidly become commercial, quality controlled, traceable, and taxable.

Same rationale goes for LSD, crystal meth, Exstacy, heroin, cocaine, gerbils, and all the other stupid things people put in their bodies against common sense and doctor's advice.
 
vergiss said:
How is the government meant to tax it if it's not sold in stores, like tobacco and alcohol?

there is no law that prevents a person from making their own tobacco or alcohol. Every time you've said "just like alcohol and tobacco" I've told yopu you are wrong.

People buy home brew kits, or have their own stills. Tobacco is harder to grow, because of teh climate it needs, but epople still do that too. So if you want to treat it just like alcohol and tobacco, people can produce their own, for personal consuption, PERIOD.

If people do procude their won, they just not allowed to sell it without proper licenses. That's the way the law is now.

You keep arguing for something different than the law, saying it's the law.

if SOME people choose to grow their own, how will the state tax it? easy, MOST people won;t grow their own. Just like MOST people don't brew or distill their own alcohols. Just like MOST people don't grow their own tobacco.

Economies of scale, division of labor, and specialization are the reasons the state will be able to tax it, just like alcohol and tobacco.

IF they can't too bad, big deal, they'll save BILLIONS and BILLIONS by not prosecuting it. Why should they save Billions AND make Billions too?
 
Fine, yes - they can grow it, just not sell it.
 
vergiss said:
Fine, yes - they can grow it, just not sell it.

Why not? If they do it commercially, then they would have to abide by the laws governing business.

However, if it were legal, then the profit margin would evaporate. There wouldn't be much incentive to sell it yourself.

To use the beer analogy, if you brew your own, it costs more (especially if you figure in the brewing time) than just going to the store and buying it.
 
Back
Top Bottom