• 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!

Rand Paul: Marijuana users lose IQ points and lack motivation

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Oh Jeez - I did not say what it proved or disproved....I merely said it was evidence - which you even agree with.

I don't even begin to care whether it proved anything as I really don't care much whether marijuana is or is not a gateway drug.

'ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
'

evidence - definition of evidence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


My overall point is this statement of yours:

'There is no evidence that Marijuana is a gateway drug.'


is totally unprovable.

There is no possible way you could know what every single person's reason for starting serious drugs are/were.

So there is no possible way for you to know that there is 'no evidence' that marijuana is or is not a gateway drug.

You can guess, hope or even believe - but you cannot know.

Making inexact statements that are totally unprovable does not further your cause.


You disagree?

Take a WILD guess how much I care?


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
there is a reason it is illegal an should stay that way

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.
 
U
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.
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.

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.
 
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.
You do realize that marijuana is also loaded with chemicals, right?

Even your water is loaded with the chemical dihydrogen monoxide!
 
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 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 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

This is completely and utterly wrong.

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.

No. All recreational drug use is bad. It is entirely foolish to suggest otherwise.
 
You do realize that marijuana is also loaded with chemicals, right?

Even your water is loaded with the chemical dihydrogen monoxide!

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.
 
This is completely and utterly wrong.
Why? What's wrong about it? It's a simple fact, backed up by dictionary definitions. Go look at what traditional libertarianism actually is.

No. All recreational drug use is bad. It is entirely foolish to suggest otherwise.

The point of life is happiness. If it makes me happy and has few negative consequences (especially if eaten instead of smoked), then it's foolish to suggest it's all entirely bad. It isn't. Different people have different ways of being happy. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are bad.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yeah, I know. Alcohol and cigarettes contain chemicals too. Your entire body is composed of chemicals! EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals!!
 
W

Yeah, I know. Alcohol and cigarettes contain chemicals too. Your entire body is composed of chemicals!!

There thread is about the marijuana plant though. Alcohol and cigarettes contain carcinogens.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Let me make it tediously clear. It is idiocy to misuse the word "chemical" as you have been doing.

Only someone who is anal retentive would make an issue out of this. Why don't you get back onto the topic. Oh I know why, because you're argument sucks. :lol:

You'd probably feel better and be happier if you pulled that stick out of there you know.
 
Back
Top Bottom