• 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!

Who is the most influental conservative voice in America?

Who is the most influential conservatve voice in America?


  • Total voters
    56
LA, prove that any of the studies that were presented in the links Zyph provided are flawed. You and Djoop are acting like some of our pro-gun folks. You're acting like someone is going to storm your house and take your weed away from you. No one is saying that, and as I have said, I am pro-legalization. Doesn't change the fact that marijuana is addictive. Less so than other drugs, but addictive nonetheless.

Do you know of any scientific studies that I can volunteer for so I can prove that I have never been addicted to it? I will. If not you are asking me to prove something that would be physically impossible to do.

What is a scientific test for addiction? I know about hard drug addiction where people suffer from withdrawal symptoms which can lead to death. It happened to a friend of mine who was an alcoholic a long time ago. He died on a shrimpboat on the way to bay of Campeche, Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Do you know of any scientific studies that I can volunteer for so I can prove that I have never been addicted to it? I will. If not you are asking me to prove something that would be physically impossible to do.

What I'm asking you to do is to find flaws in the studies that were in Zyph's links. IF there are some, you can do this. And no, I know of no studies you can volunteer for.

What is a scientific test for addiction? I know about hard drug addiction where people suffer from withdrawal symptoms which can lead to death. It happened to a friend of mine who was an alcoholic a long time ago. He died on a shrimpboat on the way to bay of Campeche, Mexico.

The only "drug" that whose withdrawal symptoms can be life threatening is alcohol. Other drugs have varying degrees of withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal is defined by the APA and AMA.
 
I never claimed that it wasn't addictive, I deserve a better mockery than this.

You made this comment surrounding claims that marijuana is addictive:
Maybe some day people like zyphlin & cc will realise that they have been believing false studies.

Therefore, you go the mockery you deserved.

You talking about studies you have mentioned in the past are just as anecdotical to me.

And that is an absurd and irrational statement. You do not know what anecdotal means and the difference between that and actual studies. Zyph posted the links. Because you are too lazy to look a them does not make them anecdotal.

The difference is that I clearly presented an opinion, I stay well away from telling others what to believe.

When you present an opinion that is inaccurate based on facts, I'll point that out. Don't like it? Don't do it.

That's were you are wrong, personal experience does count, it's just that we don't base scientific studies on the experience of one person.

Correct. That's why the experience of one person or a few people as opposed to information gathered by studies are pretty meaningless. You have no control group.

Opinion vs evidence, I thought it was pretty clear I presented the former.

And I think it is pretty clear that I have presented evidence that opposes your opinion... one that you have presented no evidence for.

There are countless studies on the subject, with a wide variety in quality.

Post one. Any one.

I have read numerous and came to my conviction. I wonder how that works for you, do you gather all the evidence first before you form an opinion? Do you hold any convictions that can't be proven? Step further, do you hold any convictions of which you know there is evidence against it? Personally, I realise that I'm severely limited when it comes to storing all the evidence, then again I am a habitual MJ smoker.

This is not about other situations. This is about this particular issue.

Annoying isn't it, when people make unfounded claims. It seems you don't even realise your claims baited my response.

I never have to prove my opinion and my beliefs,

You're right. You never have to prove them. But when you attempt to state that the positions of others who HAVE provided evidence is incorrect, when you have provided none, what you do is demonstrate that your opinions are meaningless... except to you. If you want to hold on to opinions that are not based in facts... go ahead. Just understand that is the reality if the situation.

I can always annoy you with them as you often annoy me with yours.

Your opinion doesn't annoy me. The fact that you attempt to present it as accurate without a shred of evidence makes me smell blood in the water like a shark. If that annoys you, show some evidence and then we might actually discuss the issue. If you just want to soapbox, just say so.

Once you realise that all our positions are opinions we may find some room for a proper discussion.

Once you realize that in this kind of discussion, if you present an opinion without evidence, all you are doing is soapboxing without substantiation. It's weak.
 
The scientific method is far from perfect. If it was then drug companies would no longer be sued. Just saying, you know.

However its FAR better and more accurate than "Yeah man, I never had any problem and I drive all the time when I'm stoned, so that PROVES its safe!!!!"
 
I never claimed that it wasn't addictive, I deserve a better mockery than this.

No, but the person you're coming in agreeing with and saying is "absolutely right" DID make that argument and it was that which was being argued against.

You talking about studies you have mentioned in the past are just as anecdotical to me. The difference is that I clearly presented an opinion, I stay well away from telling others what to believe.

You don't seem to know what "anecdotal" means.

The studies CC are referencing, which are in the threads link on in this thread, are not "anecdotal" evidence. They are actual studies showing evidence that is tested and verifiable and used to make reasonable conclusions.

LA saying that he's driven while high all the time and never wrecked and therefore its perfectly safe to drive while high IS anecdotal because it speaks ONLY to his own personal actions.

You stating you've never hallucinated in 15 years of smoking is anecdotal because it speaks ONLY to yourself.

That's were you are wrong, personal experience does count, it's just that we don't base scientific studies on the experience of one person. Opinion vs evidence, I thought it was pretty clear I presented the former.

Personal experience does count, but it can also be wrong, and it doesn't count greater than anythign else. If someone goes "My grandfather smoked till he was 99 and didn't get lung cancer so smoking doesn't cause lung cancer" the fact he's using personal experience doesn't necessarily not count....it just doesn't disprove or trump scientifically studied and verified information. Nor does it lead to the absolute conclussion he made.

Opinions CAN be wrong, despite what you may've been told in school.

Here's the difference....

On one side you have CC and myself, with actual scientific evidence, that is stating that marijuana does have addictive qualities, can have withdrawl symptoms, and can have adverse affects on an individual that are potentially severe. We have stated this does not mean it affects everyone the same way, that they manifest in everyone, or that they're worse than alcohol. All of these things are verified by scientific tests.

On the other side you have LA, that says its not addictive, there's no withdrawl symptomns, there's nothing bad about it, and its perfectly safe to drive while high all based on his own experiences.

One of those is "anecdotal", one isn't. One of those is worthless and "doesn't matter" because its taking an extremely small sample size and using it to make absolute statements about the entire population.

There are countless studies on the subject, with a wide variety in quality. I have read numerous and came to my conviction. I wonder how that works for you, do you gather all the evidence first before you form an opinion? Do you hold any convictions that can't be proven? Step further, do you hold any convictions of which you know there is evidence against it? Personally, I realise that I'm severely limited when it comes to storing all the evidence, then again I am a habitual MJ smoker.

Why would he form an opinion before hand. He's already stated he comes from this as someone that thinks it should be legalized. If it really was 100% not addictive, 100% completely safe, 100% no withdrawl symptoms, 100% not impairing to things like driving why would he not go into it wanting that if his desire is legalization? That makes no sense to even accuse. What's more likely is CC actually went into it without bias and simply wanting the truth, not just to find something to excuse his own personal actions.

I never have to prove my opinion and my beliefs

Of course you can't.

You can just expect your opinion to be viewed as it is, worthless, and your beliefs to be viewed as they are, foolish, until such a point that you actually back it up with anything that is worth while and shows it to be anything but ignorance based on bias.
 
It works for me.

Something that works for you DOES NOT prove it works for EVERYONE that way. Which is the entire issue.

"I've ran across the street hundreds of times and never got hit, so that proves no one could ever run across the street and get hit by a car"

"I've gotten into half a dozen car crashes and never got severely injured, so that proves its impossible for someone to ever get severely injured in a car crash"

"I eat candy regularly and I never gain more than a few pounds, so that proves you can't gain weight by eating candy"

"I smoked for 50 years and I never got cancer, that proves its impossible to get cancer from smoking"

"I've never blacked out while drinking no matter how much I've had, so that shows that its a lie when people say you can black out when drinking"

Do you not see the utter illogic and absolute stupidity in such arguments? They're no different then you suggesting its perfectly safe to drive cars while hide because YOU have done it without any consequences.
 
Do you know of any scientific studies that I can volunteer for so I can prove that I have never been addicted to it?

I'm not even suggesting you ARE addicted to it.

I'm suggesting it does have addictive qualities, ie "is addictive". This does not mean EVERYONE that uses it will become addicted, nor does it indicate the addiction is somehow more or less than other types of drugs.
 
I'm not even suggesting you ARE addicted to it.

I'm suggesting it does have addictive qualities, ie "is addictive". This does not mean EVERYONE that uses it will become addicted, nor does it indicate the addiction is somehow more or less than other types of drugs.

The DEA website claims that it is addictive, but I think it is addictive of the dea to claim that it is addictive.

One of the reasons that I will not accept any, so called, scientific studies about this matter is because pot is scheduled as a class of drug that has no medical qualities. That, in itself, proves the hypocrisy of any scientific studies in this matter. If it is ever rescheduled, then maybe I will believe them.
 
The DEA website claims that it is addictive, but I think it is addictive of the dea to claim that it is addictive.

One of the reasons that I will not accept any, so called, scientific studies about this matter is because pot is scheduled as a class of drug that has no medical qualities. That, in itself, proves the hypocrisy of any scientific studies in this matter. If it is ever rescheduled, then maybe I will believe them.

I don't take my information from the DEA. I take if from the APA, the AMA, and the medical model and definition of addiction. The DEA also takes it's information from those places. What it does with that information is irrelevant as to whether it is accurate or not. It is accurate. That doesn't mean that how the DEA handles that accuracy makes sense.
 
No, but the person you're coming in agreeing with and saying is "absolutely right" DID make that argument and it was that which was being argued against.
I quoted the part I agreed with (Post #125).

You don't seem to know what "anecdotal" means. The studies CC are referencing, which are in the threads link on in this thread, are not "anecdotal" evidence. They are actual studies showing evidence that is tested and verifiable and used to make reasonable conclusions.
If you want to use studies in an argument you have to be more specific. You can't link a 140 page document and say it collaborates your view, like CC's assertion that:
Actual studies trump the agenda and anecdotal evidence of those who smoke.
The contrary is true, anecdotal evidence tends to collaborate these studies.

LA saying that he's driven while high all the time and never wrecked and therefore its perfectly safe to drive while high IS anecdotal because it speaks ONLY to his own personal actions.
I agree.

Do marijuana and driving mix? - The Week
Does Marijuana Impair Driving Ability?
Marijuana Drug Test Detection Time

As shown in the fourth column of Table 2, drivers with high blood alcohol levels (above the standard legal limits of .08% or .10%) showed consistenly high culpability ratios, on the order of 5 or 6. In contrast, drivers with THC present in their blood rarely exceeded 2, and in several cases were less than 1 - indicating they were actually safer than drug free drivers! This phenomenon has been explained by the fact that marijuana-using drivers tend to slow down, while alcohol-using drivers tend to speed.

You stating you've never hallucinated in 15 years of smoking is anecdotal because it speaks ONLY to yourself.
The point is, you're less likely to believe a study that contradicts your personal experience.

Personal experience does count, but it can also be wrong, and it doesn't count greater than anythign else. If someone goes "My grandfather smoked till he was 99 and didn't get lung cancer so smoking doesn't cause lung cancer" the fact he's using personal experience doesn't necessarily not count....it just doesn't disprove or trump scientifically studied and verified information.
Agreed.

Nor does it lead to the absolute conclussion he made.
Nor does it exclude the possibility of the conclusion being right. We're conditioned to discover patterns in our experiences.

Opinions CAN be wrong, despite what you may've been told in school.
Here's the difference....
On one side you have CC and myself, with actual scientific evidence, that is stating that marijuana does have addictive qualities, can have withdrawl symptoms, and can have adverse affects on an individual that are potentially severe. We have stated this does not mean it affects everyone the same way, that they manifest in everyone, or that they're worse than alcohol. All of these things are verified by scientific tests.
On the other side you have LA, that says its not addictive, there's no withdrawl symptomns, there's nothing bad about it, and its perfectly safe to drive while high all based on his own experiences.
One of those is "anecdotal", one isn't. One of those is worthless and "doesn't matter" because its taking an extremely small sample size and using it to make absolute statements about the entire population.
It's when you say can have withdrawl symptoms or when you translated a small impairment into perfectly safe, I feel you're being dishonest. Like CC you are putting value on a position by calling it worthless and thus we have left the realm of facts. I have no problem with these statements but to keep it reasonable I should be able to put a value on your position as well. I did, post #137.

Why would he form an opinion before hand. He's already stated he comes from this as someone that thinks it should be legalized. If it really was 100% not addictive, 100% completely safe, 100% no withdrawl symptoms, 100% not impairing to things like driving why would he not go into it wanting that if his desire is legalization? That makes no sense to even accuse. What's more likely is CC actually went into it without bias and simply wanting the truth, not just to find something to excuse his own personal actions.
You can also turn it around; If I had an agenda I could take comfort in the fact you guys both support legalization. I read a lot of contradicting 'evidence' on this topic, I assume that someone who explored the subject would have found the same.

You can just expect your opinion to be viewed as it is, worthless, and your beliefs to be viewed as they are, foolish, until such a point that you actually back it up with anything that is worth while and shows it to be anything but ignorance based on bias.
I'm sorry YOU feel that way. I have to draw the line somewhere with these boards, otherwise I'll spend my days proving the holocaust. I can rely on the self evidence of truth.
 
Last edited:
This. We need a "High five" as opposed to "thanks" button.

I'm sorry YOU feel that way. I have to draw the line somewhere with these boards, otherwise I'll spend my days proving the holocaust. I can rely on the self evidence of truth.
 
I'm sorry YOU feel that way. I have to draw the line somewhere with these boards, otherwise I'll spend my days proving the holocaust. I can rely on the self evidence of truth.
Link please:)
 
....

Did someone just compare Marijuana having zero negative affects, being 100% safe to drive while high on, and having zero addictive qualities on the same level of "obviousness" as there was a holocaust.

Did you seriously just compare the death of millions of people to the notion that marijuana is 100% completely and utterly safe and utterly harmless with no addicting qualities what so ever?

And you wonder why people don't take people making your types of arguments serious

By the way...congratulations, you've provided a study that says that its does affect people negatively while driving though not as much as alcohol, an OPINION from a lawyer concerning how to get off on DUI's with marijuana, and the only actual study that supports yours and LA's suggestion that it is absolutely safe to drive is one put forth by a lobby group specifically pushing the legalization of marijuana. In regards to that one I'd be interested to see what some like Right or CC with a better understanding of the methodology of studies would think of in regards to it.
 
Last edited:
....Did someone just compare Marijuana having zero negative affects, being 100% safe to drive while high on, and having zero addictive qualities on the same level of "obviousness" as there was a holocaust.
No, of course not. It was a figure of speech, if you respond to any idiots demand of proving something, especially on the internet, you'll end up proving idiotic stuff like the holocaust. Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Did you seriously just compare the death of millions of people to the notion that marijuana is 100% completely and utterly safe and utterly harmless with no addicting qualities what so ever?
It´s such a foolish suggestion I´m almost offended by it.

And you wonder why people don't take people making your types of arguments serious.
I don't know how many followers you have here on this forum where you are a moderator and supposed to be a landmark for civility. You don't speak for other people, get it? You are only one very limited soul as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what other people think, I care about arguments and this wasn't even your lousiest so far.

By the way...congratulations, you've provided a study that says that its does affect people negatively while driving though not as much as alcohol,.
There was a reason why I quoted part of the conclusion for you:
In contrast, drivers with THC present in their blood rarely exceeded 2, and in several cases were less than 1 - indicating they were actually safer than drug free drivers!

an OPINION from a lawyer concerning how to get off on DUI's with marijuana, and the only actual study that supports yours and LA's suggestion that it is absolutely safe to drive is one put forth by a lobby group specifically pushing the legalization of marijuana. In regards to that one I'd be interested to see what some like Right or CC with a better understanding of the methodology of studies would think of in regards to it.
Well first I'll tell you that more countries conducted the same studies and, by en large, came with the same results. Not that it would matter because you wouldn't have forgotten that this argument started because you contested the existance of these studies...

I'm done, I feel you're so far behind me it's unhealthy. You may have the last word
 
Back
Top Bottom