• 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!

Tobacco Is Illegal In Amsterdam

Should Tobacco be banned and Marijuana legalized?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • No

    Votes: 14 45.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
I know hundreds and hundreds of people who have driven while high. The vast majority of them are doing okay...

I know hundreds and hundreds of people who have driven while under the influence of alcohol...and turned out OK. That does NOT mean they were not impaired.
 
when you're stoned you should only drive nice cars and drive them in a meditative manner. get a good feel for the engine, transmission and steering. you can't experience a car the same way when sober.

i don't enjoy doing more than 40 mph when stoned.

i don't enjoy doing less than 90 mph when drunk.

driving on every drug is different. but the only drugs from my experience that improve your driving are provigil, amphetamines and cocaine. most drugs make you drive worse.

driving on mushrooms is next to impossible - i kept confusing driveways and intersections.

Anything that impairs your judgment or perception, impairs your driving.
 
I know hundreds and hundreds of people who have driven while under the influence of alcohol...and turned out OK. That does NOT mean they were not impaired.

The two are not comparable. I'm not saying driving while high is a great idea or anything but it's not a HUGE deal either.
 
I don't see how anecdotal sentiments even determine that. Two weeks ago, I rode a bike four miles down a boulevard in the early morning under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana. I found it the most epic thing ever. That doesn't constitute empirical analysis of the impairment issue. :shrug:
 
400,000 People are dieing in America from tobacco u idiot and marijuana does not cause any deaths you dumb ass.

tobacco: 430,000 deaths in the US every year (millions worldwide)
alcohol: 85,000 deaths in the US every year, (15,000 die because of drunk drivers)
Marijuana: 0
 
Weed DOES cause cancer. The lead guitar player from my last band underwent a lung resection, where half his lung was taken out at the VA Hospital here in Houston not long ago. He smoked weed to feel better from his diabetes and lupus. Weed contains tar, just like tobacco does, and it is tar, not nicotine, that causes cancer. In fact, weed contains more tar than tobacco. However, if someone wants to smoke cigarettes, or if someone wants to smoke weed, it is none of anybody else business, especially that of the government.

Just curious, did he also smoke cigarettes at any point in his life?

Anything you smoke produces tar. When you combust organic material and inhale it, there is tar... but the type of tar matters.

There is a definite link between cigarette tar and cancer, but the tar from cannabis being connected to cancer has not been conclusively proven. There is a medical assumption that it might, simply because tar from cigarettes does.

But then, there are also those who smoke herbal cigarettes, products which contain comparable quantities of tar, yet the risk of cancer is far lower. I wish I still had access to JSTOR. I once read a peer reviewed article there about how you would require a much smaller daily dosage of cigarette tar to increase cancer risk exponentially as compared to much larger doses of any comparable product.

I've also seen a lot of data and studies which show that people who smoke cigarettes and cannabis have a lower cancer risk than those who smoke cigarettes exclusively. So why is this? There is growing evidence that THC aids the body if self-destructing cancerous cells before they have a chance to become malignant.

I mean... look at the way industry tobacco is designed. It's loaded with thousands of deadly additives in order to construct the perfect nicotine delivery system. There is way more to it than just the tar.

I understand Amsterdam's decision. Smoke from cannabis is not safe but it's definitely safer. The law is just a sign of their political endorsement. Though, as someone who doesn't smoke at all, I would still be annoyed by any kind of second hand smoke.
 
No, if used correctly, prescription drugs DO work and cause far less damage to your body than marijuana. You do not know what you are talking about.

You're wrong. Big Pharma has caused more deaths than any of the illegal drugs combined, and the effects of addiction are more devastating. Once again, no one has ever died because of Marijuana.

An analysis of 168,900 autopsies conducted in Florida in 2007 found that three times as many people were killed by legal drugs as by cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines put together. According to state law enforcement officials, this is a sign of a burgeoning prescription drug abuse problem.

"The abuse has reached epidemic proportions," said Lisa McElhaney, a sergeant in the pharmaceutical drug diversion unit of the Broward County Sheriff's Office. "It's just explosive."

In 2007, cocaine was responsible for 843 deaths, heroin for 121, methamphetamines for 25 and marijuana for zero, for a total of 989 deaths. In contrast, 2,328 people were killed by opioid painkillers, including Vicodin and Oxycontin, and 743 were killed by drugs containing benzodiazepine, including the depressants Valium and Xanax.

Alcohol directly caused 466 deaths, but was found in the bodies of 4,179 cadavers in all.

While the number of dead bodies containing heroin jumped 14 percent from the prior year, to a total of 110, the number of deaths influenced by the painkiller oxycodone increased by 36 percent, to a total of 1,253.

Across the country, prescription drugs have become an increasingly popular alternative to the more difficult to acquire illegal drugs. Even as illegal drug use among teenagers have fallen, prescription drug abuse has increased. For example, while 4 percent of U.S. 12th graders were using Oxycontin in 2002, by 2005 that number had increased to 5.5 percent.

It's not hard for teens to come by prescription drugs, according to Sgt. Tracy Busby, supervisor of the Calaveras County, Calif., Sheriff's Office narcotics unit.

"You go to every medicine cabinet in the county, and I bet you're going to find some sort of prescription medicine in 95 percent of them," he said.

Adults can acquire prescriptions by faking injuries, or by visiting multiple doctors and pharmacies for the same health complaint. Some people get more drugs than they expect to need, then sell the extras.

"You have health care providers involved, you have doctor shoppers, and then there are crimes like robbing drug shipments," said Jeff Beasley of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. "There is a multitude of ways to get these drugs, and that's what makes things complicated."

And while some people may believe that the medicines' legality makes them less dangerous than illegal drugs, Tuolumne County, Calif., Sheriff's Office Deputy Dan Crow warns that this is not the case. Because everybody reacts differently to foreign chemicals, there is no way of predicting the exact response anyone will have to a given dosage. That is why prescription drugs are supposed to be taken under a doctor's supervision.

"All this stuff is poison," Crow said. "Your body will fight all of this stuff." Tuolumne County Health Officer Todd Stolp agreed. A prescription drug taken recreationally is "much like a firearm in the hands of someone who's not trained to use them," he said.

While anyone taking a prescription medicine runs a risk of negative effects, the drugs are even more dangerous when abused. For example, many painkillers are designed to have a delayed effect that fades out over time. This can lead recreational users to take more drugs before the old ones are out of their system, placing them at risk of an overdose. Likewise, the common practice of grinding pills up causes a large dose of drugs to hit the body all at once, with potentially dangerous consequences.

"A medication that was meant to be distributed over 24 hours has immediate effect," Stolp said.

Even more dangerous is the trend of mixing drugs with alcohol, which, like most popularly abused drugs, is a depressant.

"In the case of alcohol and drugs, one plus one equals more than two," said Tuolumne County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Lt. Dan Bressler.

Florida pays careful attention to drug-related deaths, and as such has significantly better data on the problem than any other state. But a recent study conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) suggests that the problem is indeed national. According to the DEA, the number of people abusing prescription drugs in the United States has jumped 80 percent in six years to seven million, or more than those abusing cocaine, Ecstasy, heroin, hallucinogens an inhalants put together.

Not surprisingly, there has been a corresponding increase in deaths. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the number of emergency room visits related to painkillers has increased by 153 percent since 1995. And a 2007 report by the Justice Department National Intelligence Drug Center found that deaths related to the opioid methadone jumped from 786 in 1999 to 3,849 in 2004 - an increase of 390 percent.

Many experts attribute the trend to the increasing popularity among doctors of prescribing painkillers, combined with a leap in direct-to-consumer marketing by drug companies. For example, promotional spending on Oxycontin increased threefold between 1996 and 2001, to $30 million per year. article continued..
 
Just curious, did he also smoke cigarettes at any point in his life?

Anything you smoke produces tar. When you combust organic material and inhale it, there is tar... but the type of tar matters.

There is a definite link between cigarette tar and cancer, but the tar from cannabis being connected to cancer has not been conclusively proven. There is a medical assumption that it might, simply because tar from cigarettes does.

But then, there are also those who smoke herbal cigarettes, products which contain comparable quantities of tar, yet the risk of cancer is far lower. I wish I still had access to JSTOR. I once read a peer reviewed article there about how you would require a much smaller daily dosage of cigarette tar to increase cancer risk exponentially as compared to much larger doses of any comparable product.

I've also seen a lot of data and studies which show that people who smoke cigarettes and cannabis have a lower cancer risk than those who smoke cigarettes exclusively. So why is this? There is growing evidence that THC aids the body if self-destructing cancerous cells before they have a chance to become malignant.

I mean... look at the way industry tobacco is designed. It's loaded with thousands of deadly additives in order to construct the perfect nicotine delivery system. There is way more to it than just the tar.

I understand Amsterdam's decision. Smoke from cannabis is not safe but it's definitely safer. The law is just a sign of their political endorsement. Though, as someone who doesn't smoke at all, I would still be annoyed by any kind of second hand smoke.

2006 study finds Marijuana does not cause cancer

webmd 2006

Harvard Study claims Marijuana shrinks cancer cells

And from an article published earlier this year from ScienceDaily:

ScienceDaily (Apr. 9, 2009) — Guillermo Velasco and colleagues, at Complutense University, Spain, have provided evidence that suggests that cannabinoids such as the main active component of marijuana (THC) have anticancer effects on human brain cancer cells.
 
The degree of misinformation you people have absorbed is alarming.
Marijuana is not addictive and not smoked as often as cigarettes, meaning you inhale less tar during your week. There are also smoking methods that eliminate the burning of the plant, meaning no tar.

The effect of marijuana is different to different people. An accident while on marijuana is most likely to be caused by over caution and hesitation due to paranoia. This is rare. And with the number of people using their cars to ride around and get high (the primary method for those without a 'pad' to spend time at) and thats alot of people. Marijuana is not causing accidents.
 
Marijuana is not addictive and not smoked as often as cigarettes, meaning you inhale less tar during your week.

It's not addictive but it's habit forming.

If you smoke pot several times a week, which most regular users do, then they are easily inhaling more tar than cigarette smokers.

There are also smoking methods that eliminate the burning of the plant, meaning no tar.

True... vaporizing is beneficial, and that's not something you can do with tobacco, to my knowledge.

The effect of marijuana is different to different people. An accident while on marijuana is most likely to be caused by over caution and hesitation due to paranoia. This is rare.

Source?

And with the number of people using their cars to ride around and get high (the primary method for those without a 'pad' to spend time at) and thats alot of people. Marijuana is not causing accidents.

We don't really know that for sure since it's not legal in the places that need the studies the most, like in North America. Few people would risk coming forward and being stigmatized, so the control groups are usually small or based on mere individuals and anecdotal evidence.

What is known for sure is that cannabis impairs motor function and every day thought processing. It impairs short term memory as well. It's a depressant just like alcohol is, and slows down reaction time. In fact, I do believe that cannabis and alcohol both have the same chart for peak high and come-down. During the peak you are the least likely to react in time to immediate and imminent danger. It does tend to make people more mindful but those good intentions don't necessarily translate to an effective reaction time on the road.
 
We don't really know that for sure since it's not legal in the places that need the studies the most, like in North America. Few people would risk coming forward and being stigmatized, so the control groups are usually small or based on mere individuals and anecdotal evidence.

What is known for sure is that cannabis impairs motor function and every day thought processing. It impairs short term memory as well. It's a depressant just like alcohol is, and slows down reaction time. In fact, I do believe that cannabis and alcohol both have the same chart for peak high and come-down. During the peak you are the least likely to react in time to immediate and imminent danger. It does tend to make people more mindful but those good intentions don't necessarily translate to an effective reaction time on the road.


I really cant recall its information that I absorbed years ago.

Habit forming I guess I could agree with in that possessing a certain amount you are likely to smoke it over a relatively short period of time. Meaning a habit is formed, sure.

Im for legalizing small amounts of it. What the ramifications are for the police state ;), I do not know.

Are you sure that marijuana has more tar than cigarettes? That strikes me as REALLY hard to believe. But i will suspend my disbelief. Anyone have a source?
 
It has about seven times more tar, if I recall... and releases more carbon monoxide to boot. This has big ramifications for things like respiratory infections. The cilia in your lungs will get hampered a lot faster by smoking joints and you'll be more susceptible to getting things like bronchitis.

The cancer link isn't the same though. Tar in of itself doesn't necessarily cause cancer. It's proven with cigarettes but not with cannabis tar. I'd wager it's not 'good' for you though.
 
tobacco: 430,000 deaths in the US every year (millions worldwide)
alcohol: 85,000 deaths in the US every year, (15,000 die because of drunk drivers)
Marijuana: 0

Exceedingly hard to prove, since people who do one of the above often do another one or two of the above as well.
 
The degree of misinformation you people have absorbed is alarming.
Marijuana is not addictive and not smoked as often as cigarettes, meaning you inhale less tar during your week. There are also smoking methods that eliminate the burning of the plant, meaning no tar.

The effect of marijuana is different to different people. An accident while on marijuana is most likely to be caused by over caution and hesitation due to paranoia. This is rare. And with the number of people using their cars to ride around and get high (the primary method for those without a 'pad' to spend time at) and thats alot of people. Marijuana is not causing accidents.

Marijuana is Not addictive? I think you are the one with misinformation. I know people who are addicted to weed and smoke it from the time they get up til the time they go to bed. :roll:
 
What is known for sure is that cannabis impairs motor function and every day thought processing. It impairs short term memory as well. It's a depressant just like alcohol is, and slows down reaction time. In fact, I do believe that cannabis and alcohol both have the same chart for peak high and come-down. During the peak you are the least likely to react in time to immediate and imminent danger. It does tend to make people more mindful but those good intentions don't necessarily translate to an effective reaction time on the road.

Marijuana is a mild hallucinogen, not a depressant. Also, there is no way that the reaction time for a Marijuana smoker is comparable to someone who is under the influence of alcohol.
 
Marijuana is Not addictive? I think you are the one with misinformation. I know people who are addicted to weed and smoke it from the time they get up til the time they go to bed. :roll:

No one has said that Marijuana is not addictive. It is not physically addictive, but it is psychologically addictive. When someone quits, they do not have physical withdrawal symptoms.
 
Marijuana is Not addictive? I think you are the one with misinformation. I know people who are addicted to weed and smoke it from the time they get up til the time they go to bed. :roll:

Thats their problem if they were separated form their weed it would take them 1 or 2 days to get over it, the psychological habit of always having it. Most smokers do not smoke marijuana like that, i would consider that abusive. Marijuana is not addictive, compare it to other addictive substances like heroin or nicotine. Marijuana is not remotely like them.
 
I smoke weed and am adamantly opposed to smoking tobacco. Just my thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom