• 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!

Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize pot?

  • Total voters
    113
Zyphlin said:
Why are you not equally as strongly arguing for the prohibition of Alcohol, whose negetive qualities is on par if not greater than Marijuana and whose positive reasons for being legal are relatively the same?

If its 21 years of age just like Alcohol the sample size of the population that can be affected by it is no larger than what the sample size for alcohol is. Alcohol has similar negative effects. Why should it matter which thing they get the negative effects from. And furthermore what right does the government have in saying that you're allowed to use this recreational drug that has many adverse affects but you're not allowed to use this recreational drug that has similar adverse affects?
Click to expand...

I have answered this many times in previous posts.
 
reefedjib said:
I disagree. It's current black market status means users get their drugs in an unregulated fashion right now. Legalizing will not increase the number of users, it will just take it off the black market. To do studies, you need users.
Click to expand...

You want to put people potentially at risk because just so you can toke without penalty :roll:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I don't believe you. Your reality is not my reality. Just because you disagree with me is no reason to infer insults upon my person.

You are not being a good role model for such a high ranking member.:(
Click to expand...

You don't believe me? What don't you believe?

Throughout this entire time you haven't not dealt with any argument I've made throughout. You CONTINUE to duck, dodge, and weave. This is not a "personal attack", its dicussing of your arguments and views. Your views are not YOU. Having a stupid view is not the same as being a stupid person.

You have not once, in this entire thread, actually dealt with my content at all. If you want to debate, then debate. But just throwing out over exaggerations or poor debate tactics like appealing to anecdotal evidence is not debate.

Tsunami said:
I know you took my last response as a joke, but I actually agree that water is more dangerous than cannabis. There are a lot of things that your body needs that can kill you if you overdose. These things used responsibly are relatively harmless, and the same is possibly true for marijuana. But like anything, if you drink too much water or take too much iron or iodine then they can kill you. Water intoxication is more dangerous than cannabis overdose because it is easier to do and also because people remain unaware of the danger.
Click to expand...

Wow...you're seriously trying to say that water is worse than marijuana.

....just wow.

Please refer to my post 9 posts up and you'll see my argument against this notion. Just because water overdose, which is EXTREMELY unlikely and almost 99% of the time occurs not due to water but due to some kind of outward activity that combines with it, can cause death does not mean it is more dangerous than Marijuana.

Put it this way...

Find all the cases of "Water Drunk in excess + Holding it in for a contest = death" that you can, and I'll find all the "Smokes pot + drives car = death" and lets see whose total is higher.
 
angrybeaver said:
This comment by PROFFESOR Joseph Rey.
Could and should carry more weight than life time of posts by tokers and lets make drug legal posters
Click to expand...
There is no need for this, specially since the article doesn't actually show how dangerous cannabis is, you still have not produced any statistics or other indications of just how many people are reported to be mentally ill in connection with cannabis.

reefedjib said:
The only thing you can say about such studies is that a much higher percentage of people who smoke pot end up in serious depression or schizophrenia. Not that smoking pot triggers the onset of these diseases or that pot causes these diseases. Only that they correlate.
Click to expand...
I think it's well established that any mind-altering substances may act as a trigger for a latent mental health issue.
They didn't do a control group or look to isolate the people genetically predisposed to depression or schizophrenia. They only observed the natural occurrence of pot smoking and mental illness. It is no surprise that people already at high risk of depression or schizophrenia concurrently seek self-medication through pot smoking. These users tend to be heavy users as well. Anecdote: I smoked 3-4 times a day for 23 years. I was a very heavy user. It was entirely self-medication. Once I got on proper medication, I put my bong away. To me, the high occurrence of heavy pot smoking is an indicator for mental illness and those users should be identified and treated. But heavy pot smoking is not the cause of mental illness.
Click to expand...
This makes sense, but I can cite anecdotal evidence of people who refuse to indulge in pot because they have a mental history and know it might unbalance them, and another who has not had this reservation and ended up in psychiatry after a grass and speed binge.
The "correlation" is not an abstract, academic one, but is observable reality.
 
Tsunami said:
Like you, I trust my own judgment more than that of others. But unlike you, I don't base my knowledge on personal experience. I have done nothing. I agree with most of the points you are making, I just don't feel that your argument of having to try something yourself before developing a valid opinion makes sense.



I know you took my last response as a joke, but I actually agree that water is more dangerous than cannabis. There are a lot of things that your body needs that can kill you if you overdose. These things used responsibly are relatively harmless, and the same is possibly true for marijuana. But like anything, if you drink too much water or take too much iron or iodine then they can kill you. Water intoxication is more dangerous than cannabis overdose because it is easier to do and also because people remain unaware of the danger.
Click to expand...
to me, Life is one big "tasting contest"--I try everything, to see what I like. the things I like, I order up a double. the things I don't like, I feed to the dog. I don't live in fear of death, I welcome it's coming. Calculated risk is fine with me---but I don't bungie jump.
 
Zyphlin said:
You don't believe me? What don't you believe?

Throughout this entire time you haven't not dealt with any argument I've made throughout. You CONTINUE to duck, dodge, and weave. This is not a "personal attack", its dicussing of your arguments and views. Your views are not YOU. Having a stupid view is not the same as being a stupid person.

You have not once, in this entire thread, actually dealt with my content at all. If you want to debate, then debate. But just throwing out over exaggerations or poor debate tactics like appealing to anecdotal evidence is not debate.



Wow...you're seriously trying to say that water is worse than marijuana.

....just wow.

Please refer to my post 9 posts up and you'll see my argument against this notion. Just because water overdose, which is EXTREMELY unlikely and almost 99% of the time occurs not due to water but due to some kind of outward activity that combines with it, can cause death does not mean it is more dangerous than Marijuana.

Put it this way...

Find all the cases of "Water Drunk in excess + Holding it in for a contest = death" that you can, and I'll find all the "Smokes pot + drives car = death" and lets see whose total is higher.
Click to expand...

You seem to have this aversion to anecdotal rhetoric. People write their congressmen all the time using anecdotes. The congressmen still treat it with respect most of the time. You act like it's the black plague.

Music is very anecdotal and you can not rufute the persuasiveness or the power of music.

You would be a hypocrite, I believe, if you said that you never use anecdotes.

Anecdotes make the world go round.:spin:

Please stop demoralizing my writing style. You are not my teacher.
 
roderic said:
There is no need for this, specially since the article doesn't actually show how dangerous cannabis is, you still have not produced any statistics or other indications of just how many people are reported to be mentally ill in connection with cannabis.

I think it's well established that any mind-altering substances may act as a trigger for a latent mental health issue. This makes sense, but I can cite anecdotal evidence of people who refuse to indulge in pot because they have a mental history and know it might unbalance them, and another who has not had this reservation and ended up in psychiatry after a grass and speed binge .
The "correlation" is not an abstract, academic one, but is observable reality.
Click to expand...

I have no access to up to date statistics that show how many people are reported to be mentally ill in connection with cannabis and you have no statistics that could dispute the proffessors statement.
Given the choice between believing the learned proffessor and a toker in a debate about legalising cannabis I will ( with all due respect) believe the proffessor.
 
I think I'll make a pot of coffee and chug a lug it.:roll:
 
Hey angry beaver can I argue with you a while? You have good manners.:)
 
roderic said:
I think it's well established that any mind-altering substances may act as a trigger for a latent mental health issue.
Click to expand...

Show me.

This makes sense, but I can cite anecdotal evidence of people who refuse to indulge in pot because they have a mental history and know it might unbalance them, and another who has not had this reservation and ended up in psychiatry after a grass and speed binge.
The "correlation" is not an abstract, academic one, but is observable reality.
Click to expand...

Correlation means they occurred together, not that one caused the other.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
You seem to have this aversion to anecdotal rhetoric. People write their congressmen all the time using anecdotes. The congressmen still treat it with respect most of the time. You act like it's the black plague.
Click to expand...

No, anecdotal evidence can help form an opinion on something. However your anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove actual researched evidence, which is what you tried to do.

If someone goes "Yeah I smoke, I know it is supposed to cause a lot of troubles but I've never experienced any issues breathing so it doesn't bug me" that's them forming an OPINION for themselves based on their anecdotal evidence.

If however in response to a report saying a recent study showed cigerette smoke increases breathing issues in 75% of smokers and someone goes "That's a lie/bull****/false/not true/biased because I've been smoking for 50 years and I've never had any issue" then I find THAT worthless because rather than founding an opinion on anecdotal evidence they're attempting to invalidate actual, factual, tested, information based on nothing but their own first hand experience. You're free to do it, its just dumb to do it.

Also, a difference. Your congressman needs your vote. Your congressmans job is to represent you. I'm not your congressman. I'm a member of a debate site trying to debate and issue. Part of debating IS dealing with fallacies, of which using anecdotal evidence as if its unquestionable factual evidence to invalidate studies is one.

Music is very anecdotal and you can not rufute the persuasiveness or the power of music.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what in the world you're trying to say here.

You would be a hypocrite, I believe, if you said that you never use anecdotes.
Click to expand...

Oh no, no no no. I've never said I don't use anecdotals. I definitely use anecdotals. However I rarely couch my entire argument, if I'm trying to make assertions and not just state opinions, on anecdotal alone. I look at historical precedence, I look for studies, I try to look for analagous situations and compare, all along with anecdotal. I've never said I don't use anecdotal. However what I don't do is use a piece of anecdotal evidence to claim someone elses study they posted is false or invalid. And also what I don't do is generally act like my anecdotal evidence is massively greater than other peoples anecdotal.

Please stop demoralizing my writing style. You are not my teacher.
Click to expand...

Its not your writing style. I don't care about your writing style. I've not touched it at all. The only person that has said anything about writing style was you, when instead of discussing the context of my post you decided to comment that I said "take marijuana" instead of "smoke marijuana".

What I have spoken of is your debate tactics, because that's all you've given me to discuss in regards to this debate, because you refuse to do anything more it seems than duck and dodge around the actual issues at hand.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Show me.
Click to expand...

Hold on, I'm confused.

Are you arguing that marijuana can't just up and by itself cause mental issues....or are you arguing not only that, but it doesn't have the potential to act as a sort of trigger or accelerant for some mental issues in some people predisposed to said issues?
 
Zyphlin said:
Hold on, I'm confused.

Are you arguing that marijuana can't just up and by itself cause mental issues....or are you arguing not only that, but it doesn't have the potential to act as a sort of trigger or accelerant for some mental issues in some people predisposed to said issues?
Click to expand...

I am questioning whether pot smoking can be a trigger for pre-existing mental illness.
 
One meaning of anecdote is "not published". Since my posts are published on this forum for the whole world to read then it is no longer anecdotal.:doh
 
reefedjib said:
I am questioning whether pot smoking can be a trigger for pre-existing mental illness.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I may've missed it throughout this whole thread. Were there any official studies definitively stating it definitely did not? It seemed everything I've seen varies from "yes it does" to "we can't definitively say yes or not". And it seems many are attempting to take the fact that they can't definitively say yes or no as reason enough to act like, imply, and assume there's no danger of pot doing such a thing. Evidence I've seen thus far point to it being questionable at best to likely at worst with having no affect being the least likely option. But perhaps I missed a study showing that it flat out doesn't have an effect.

LiberalAvenger said:
One meaning of anecdote is "not published". Since my posts are published on this forum for the whole world to read then it is no longer anecdotal.:doh
Click to expand...

You're proving my point about your debate style, or really lack there of.
 
angrybeaver said:
I have no access to up to date statistics that show how many people are reported to be mentally ill in connection with cannabis and you have no statistics that could dispute the proffessors statement.
Given the choice between believing the learned proffessor and a toker in a debate about legalising cannabis I will ( with all due respect) believe the proffessor.
Click to expand...
I do not dispute what the prof said, quite the opposite if you cared to follow my responses to other posters.

I am not questioning that there is a risk, but am asking to quantify it. Is it significant, or are the guardians of morality and public order making a mountain out of a mole-hill as so often?
Sorry, popular media quoting a suggestion from a researcher about the potential ill-effects does not convince me that cannabis should remain illegal.
If one took every warning of possible side-effects seriously, one shouldn't even take Aspirin. lol
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Honestly, I may've missed it throughout this whole thread. Were there any official studies definitively stating it definitely did not? It seemed everything I've seen varies from "yes it does" to "we can't definitively say yes or not". And it seems many are attempting to take the fact that they can't definitively say yes or no as reason enough to act like, imply, and assume there's no danger of pot doing such a thing. Evidence I've seen thus far point to it being questionable at best to likely at worst with having no affect being the least likely option. But perhaps I missed a study showing that it flat out doesn't have an effect.
Click to expand...

You are correct and I am questioning the validity of those studies for making such a claim. If you have 2 populations, each with 100 people. Pop A smokes pot heavily and sees 10% of it's members develop depression and schizophrenia. Pop B does NOT smoke pot and sees 1% of it's members develop depression and schizophrenia. The studies are claiming that at the least pot is triggering the depression/schizophrenia, if not causing it. I am saying that the population of depressed and schizophrenic people prefer to smoke pot, but the pot causes nothing and triggers nothing that would not already have occurred without it. From what I read about the studies, nothing dictated that pot was a trigger.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Honestly, I may've missed it throughout this whole thread. Were there any official studies definitively stating it definitely did not? It seemed everything I've seen varies from "yes it does" to "we can't definitively say yes or not". And it seems many are attempting to take the fact that they can't definitively say yes or no as reason enough to act like, imply, and assume there's no danger of pot doing such a thing. Evidence I've seen thus far point to it being questionable at best to likely at worst with having no affect being the least likely option. But perhaps I missed a study showing that it flat out doesn't have an effect.



You're proving my point about your debate style, or really lack there of.
Click to expand...

How so? The world according to you?
 
Zyphlin said:
But perhaps I missed a study showing that it flat out doesn't have an effect.
Click to expand...
It's a fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those people who claim MJ causes mental health problems.
 
I mean no offense to you, but I've seen numerous studies ranging from the two ends of the spectrum I said earlier, generally conducted by varying well studied scientists and individuals and each generally seperate from each other. In general, while I understand your hestitation, I hope you'd understand that many people are likely to trust that amount of evidence over your own simple belief, based simply on a guess, on the matter when it is also relatively clear from your postings that you definitely have a dog in this fight.

I respect your opinion, but honestly your opinion does not invalidate nor counter numerous studies.

As to Liberal, save your breath. You've shown yourself, again and again and again, not interested in debate or conversation but just dodging and deflection. I'm not going to help you derail this thread any longer by taking your baits. You want to be addressed, actually talk about the subject matter.
 
roderic said:
I do not dispute what the prof said, quite the opposite if you cared to follow my responses to other posters.

I am not questioning that there is a risk, but am asking to quantify it. Is it significant, or are the guardians of morality and public order making a mountain out of a mole-hill as so often?
Sorry, popular media quoting a suggestion from a researcher about the potential ill-effects does not convince me that cannabis should remain illegal.
If one took every warning of possible side-effects seriously, one shouldn't even take Aspirin. lol
Click to expand...

I take your point but a professors opinion quoted in popular media convinces me more than tokers.

I respect yours but agree with him.

Thanks Roderic
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I mean no offense to you, but I've seen numerous studies ranging from the two ends of the spectrum I said earlier, generally conducted by varying well studied scientists and individuals and each generally seperate from each other. In general, while I understand your hestitation, I hope you'd understand that many people are likely to trust that amount of evidence over your own simple belief, based simply on a guess, on the matter when it is also relatively clear from your postings that you definitely have a dog in this fight.

I respect your opinion, but honestly your opinion does not invalidate nor counter numerous studies.
Click to expand...

What are the two ends of the spectrum?

I want to see the science that causes them to reach a conclusion that pot is a trigger at a minimum. I am surprised they are able to make such a claim.

That is the scientific method. Given evidence of adjustment of facts and coercion of the peer review process that has come to light in the climate change debate, I am sure you will forgive me if I look on government subsidized research on drugs reaching a conclusion that they are bad for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom