View Poll Results: Should Marijuana be legalized?

Voters
152. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    84 55.26%
  • No

    59 38.82%
  • Other

    2 1.32%
  • I'd like to see the legalization of drugs expanded beyond Marijuana

    31 20.39%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 167

Thread: Should Marijuana be legalized?

  1. #41
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,877
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What adverse affects are there? As you can see from my sig (it is my site) I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects.
    i have anecdotal evidence it can cause schizophrenia (a friend of mine developed schizophrenia from marijuana), but thats anecdotal, and of no value in a debate, and the jury is still out on whether it causes mental illness or not.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    i have anecdotal evidence it can cause schizophrenia (a friend of mine developed schizophrenia from marijuana), but thats anecdotal, and of no value in a debate, and the jury is still out on whether it causes mental illness or not.
    My anecdotal evidence is the opposite. It doesn't cause Bipolar, but it can relieve the symptoms. It is self-medication.

  3. #43
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,877
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    My anecdotal evidence is the opposite. It doesn't cause Bipolar, but it can relieve the symptoms. It is self-medication.
    fair enough, thats why anecdotal evidence doesn't count, it varies from individual to individual, though from an ironic point of view it makes sense "marijuana giveth, and marijuana taketh away"
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What adverse affects are there? As you can see from my sig (it is my site) I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects.
    Reef, you're better than that. You're creating a strawman.

    Psycho paraphrased - "There are adverse affects possible"

    Reef paraphrased - "What?! You're wrong, there's no risk of long term adverse affects"

    His argument was not concerning specifically long term.

    There are unquestionably potentially adverse short term affects related to marijuana use. Altered state of consiousness, heart rate increase, disruption of short-term memory, slower reaction time, weakened attention span, anxiety, and decreased motor skills.

    Those are all potential short term adverse affects, so to say it has "none" is a bald faced lie.

    In regards to long term, even that is questionable and depends how you term it.

    There's studies showing that long time heavy users who are still currently using can result in a decreased IQ. While not a long term AFTER affect, IE continuing on after its use, it could be considered a long term affect.

    A study in 2002 in the Journdal of the American Medical Association found that long term users performed worse than short term users and non-users in regards to tests concerning memory and attention.

    Additionally there is conflicting studies in regards to the potential cancer risks associated with marijuana as well as simple damage to the lungs. Additionally in some studies the long term affect has either been present but too small to make a judgement, or large enough to back the conclussion but minor enough to suggest discounting. This could be due to the difficulty in actually conducting real studies on this type of thing in the U.S. with any kind of decent sample size. With it being illegal you're limited for the most part of testing current marijuana users only if they're on medical marijuana, which is a smaller sample size and presents other factors within the situation basd on the reason why they are using.

    This is ignoring the ambiguous "other" category of negative affects. Conflicting studies regarding the affects on unborn children when smoked by pregnant mothers. The psychological addictive possabilities of the drug. The potential withdrawl symptoms that, while mild, are at times present. The potential for increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

    At the very least one would have to say that the affects of cannabis beyond the immediete short term is at best inconclusive due to conflicting research and legal limitations with regards to the ability to conduct legitimate, substantial, long term research.

    To counter someone saying there are adverse affects by trying to imply there are no adverse affects is exactly what Psycho is talking about in regards to the end of his post and is exactly the type of thing that will continue to assure that it takes longer then needed to legalize marijuana. Propoganda will be met with Propoganda and when that happens people either tune our or tend to go down whatever side they've traditional been on. Until the legalization side's primary spokesmen and vocal majority become able to talk about this in an adult fashion, honestly, openly, and realistically, acknowledging that it is not a wonder drug or has no adverse affects what so ever or making arguments like "its safer than water" then its going to have a extremely hard time winning over enough of the American people to see legalization happen.

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    i have anecdotal evidence it can cause schizophrenia (a friend of mine developed schizophrenia from marijuana), but thats anecdotal, and of no value in a debate, and the jury is still out on whether it causes mental illness or not.
    From what I understand and read, and I'm sure CC could give more insight into this, Marijauna cannot "cause" schizophrenia". What it can do is act as a "trigger", or essentially something that increases the risk factor, for schizophrenia to manifest in someone whose mind is already predisposed to it.

    To put it in a different, more humorous, and probably not exactly correct way (but we can always use some levity). If you have a girl that is not extremely sexual, not just in outward action but internally as well, having a few glasses of a mixed drink isn't likely to suddenly make her start acting sexually provocative. However, if you have a girl that is usually rather reserved sexually in an outward sense, but internally thinks about it constantly and has a desire to be more sexually transparent, and she's having a few glasses of mixed drinks its more likely that she's going to start acting more sexually provocative.

    This is not the alcohol "causing" her to behave this way, however it is helping to create the psychological and physiological conditions to make that latent potential more likely to manifest fully.

    From what I understand that would be a better way to think of Marijuana with regards to some mental illnesses. The Marijuana doesn’t “cause” it “create” it but acts as a potential trigger

  6. #46
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,877
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    From what I understand and read, and I'm sure CC could give more insight into this, Marijauna cannot "cause" schizophrenia". What it can do is act as a "trigger", or essentially something that increases the risk factor, for schizophrenia to manifest in someone whose mind is already predisposed to it.

    To put it in a different, more humorous, and probably not exactly correct way (but we can always use some levity). If you have a girl that is not extremely sexual, not just in outward action but internally as well, having a few glasses of a mixed drink isn't likely to suddenly make her start acting sexually provocative. However, if you have a girl that is usually rather reserved sexually in an outward sense, but internally thinks about it constantly and has a desire to be more sexually transparent, and she's having a few glasses of mixed drinks its more likely that she's going to start acting more sexually provocative.

    This is not the alcohol "causing" her to behave this way, however it is helping to create the psychological and physiological conditions to make that latent potential more likely to manifest fully.

    From what I understand that would be a better way to think of Marijuana with regards to some mental illnesses. The Marijuana doesn’t “cause” it “create” it but acts as a potential trigger
    while it can act as a trigger for a predisposition, my friend in question had no family history of mental illness, this was all thoroughly looked at when he was diagnosed, and he didn't drink or anything like that, marijuana was his only vice, and the fact that marijuana does alter brain chemistry means that it could render a permanent change, much like alcohol, and stronger drugs.

    and on another note, i found an interesting read on the health effects of marijuana, and its more or less unbiased.
    Marijuana: Health Effects
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  7. #47
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Absolutely not! It does not do harm as my link in my signature discusses. What harm do you think it does?
    Yes that's what your signature suggests. What harm do I think it does? Well, I could copy and paste what I already wrote which is what I think (and what you responded to, so I assume you read it?). My point is that for every 'study' that claims there is no adverse effect on the individual smoking, there is a study claiming the effect is a negative one involving. For every person, such as myself, that have noticed negative effects of marijuana on my friends, there is a student who just got accepted into DUKE who smokes the reefer. My point is that it has a 99.99% chance that it has negative effects. Because everything does if taken beyond moderation.

    I want it to be legalized. But I want to know what those negative effects are. So I think there needs to be real studies done by people that can not be refuted by another study. I just want full disclosure. And then if you choose to smoke it, that's fine with me. Whatever you want. But let's not let companies sell something, such as alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana, without making them tell us the consequences. Why should pot be any different?
    Last edited by fredmertz; 07-16-10 at 11:53 AM.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Reef, you're better than that. You're creating a strawman.

    Psycho paraphrased - "There are adverse affects possible"

    Reef paraphrased - "What?! You're wrong, there's no risk of long term adverse affects"

    His argument was not concerning specifically long term.
    Well, I didn't mean to crate a strawman. It's worse than that from my miscommunication. As you would see from my site, I am claiming that marijuana does not do harm to other people! I am not disputing harm done to an individual smoker, either short term or long term. I agree more studies are needed. This harm to self is not pertinent to the Harm Principle which should govern whether it is criminal to smoke. As others have said, it is your choice what harm you cause yourself, as long as you are fully informed of the risk of that harm.

    There are unquestionably potentially adverse short term affects related to marijuana use. Altered state of consiousness, heart rate increase, disruption of short-term memory, slower reaction time, weakened attention span, anxiety, and decreased motor skills.

    Those are all potential short term adverse affects, so to say it has "none" is a bald faced lie.
    Can I use this list of short term harms on my website? I want to address "harm to self" more directly. Is heart rate increase harmful?

    In regards to long term, even that is questionable and depends how you term it.

    There's studies showing that long time heavy users who are still currently using can result in a decreased IQ. While not a long term AFTER affect, IE continuing on after its use, it could be considered a long term affect.

    A study in 2002 in the Journdal of the American Medical Association found that long term users performed worse than short term users and non-users in regards to tests concerning memory and attention.

    Additionally there is conflicting studies in regards to the potential cancer risks associated with marijuana as well as simple damage to the lungs. Additionally in some studies the long term affect has either been present but too small to make a judgement, or large enough to back the conclussion but minor enough to suggest discounting. This could be due to the difficulty in actually conducting real studies on this type of thing in the U.S. with any kind of decent sample size. With it being illegal you're limited for the most part of testing current marijuana users only if they're on medical marijuana, which is a smaller sample size and presents other factors within the situation basd on the reason why they are using.

    This is ignoring the ambiguous "other" category of negative affects. Conflicting studies regarding the affects on unborn children when smoked by pregnant mothers. The psychological addictive possabilities of the drug. The potential withdrawl symptoms that, while mild, are at times present. The potential for increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

    At the very least one would have to say that the affects of cannabis beyond the immediete short term is at best inconclusive due to conflicting research and legal limitations with regards to the ability to conduct legitimate, substantial, long term research.
    So if we were to construct a list of possible, yet unproven, negative long term harms to a smoker, that list would be: decreased IQ, memory, attention, cancer, pregnancy complications, psychological addiction, withdrawal, and increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

    To counter someone saying there are adverse affects by trying to imply there are no adverse affects is exactly what Psycho is talking about in regards to the end of his post and is exactly the type of thing that will continue to assure that it takes longer then needed to legalize marijuana. Propoganda will be met with Propoganda and when that happens people either tune our or tend to go down whatever side they've traditional been on. Until the legalization side's primary spokesmen and vocal majority become able to talk about this in an adult fashion, honestly, openly, and realistically, acknowledging that it is not a wonder drug or has no adverse affects what so ever or making arguments like "its safer than water" then its going to have a extremely hard time winning over enough of the American people to see legalization happen.
    I agree. This is why I asked what harm is done: to be more accurate and straight up on my site so that it isn't propaganda.

    I meant harm done, by smoking marijuana, to other people, not done to the individual smoker. That is the violation of the Harm Principle. You can do yourself harm without violating it. My greatest frustration is that smoking marijuana is a criminal offense. What crime is committed?

  9. #49
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I meant harm done, by smoking marijuana, to other people, not done to the individual smoker. That is the violation of the Harm Principle. You can do yourself harm without violating it. My greatest frustration is that smoking marijuana is a criminal offense. What crime is committed?
    When I said 'harmful' I didn't mean 'harmful to others' I meant harmful to the smoker. But like you say, what crime is committed there? I don't see a reason why it should be a crime. But I do believe we should know what risks the smoker has. And I want it to be proven so that people can make informed decisions. That's all that I ask. But still, it's not something that should block passage in Congress.

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should Marijuana be legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Well, I didn't mean to crate a strawman. It's worse than that from my miscommunication. As you would see from my site, I am claiming that marijuana does not do harm to other people! I am not disputing harm done to an individual smoker, either short term or long term. I agree more studies are needed. This harm to self is not pertinent to the Harm Principle which should govern whether it is criminal to smoke. As others have said, it is your choice what harm you cause yourself, as long as you are fully informed of the risk of that harm.
    And there's the issue. I'm going to try to be helpful because you're honest and up front about this and I see now this is your own project which I can respect you trying to do.

    The vast majority of people in this country are not going to approach this issue from a libertarian-esque mindset because the vast majority of people in this country don't subscribe actively to said mindset. So while to you the need to say "other people" when talking about the adverse affects is not present. However, to the vast majority of people who read "I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects" they are assuming you mean affects in general, including to themselves.

    Indeed, its rather unusual to think of a statement like that about "long term" affects of a drug and assume you're meaning "long term affects to OTHER people".

    Aside from the point Psycho was making, and I've made for a while here, in regards to the damage done to the movement by those who are simply the mirror image of the anti-pot propogandists your post illustrates the next most difficult hurdle the movement will need to overcome. This cannot be fought primarily or singularly from the logical stand point of a libertarian. “Harm Principle” cannot be your overriding argument if you want to win people over to this. This is actually at the heart of my issue with Ron Paul back during the primaries.

    These types of arguments cater SPECIFICALLY to a rather small niche of the population (libertarians) while having a good deal of variation with regards to its impact with the vast majority of the population. The problem with that is that the people you are wanting to convince are not going to be libertarian types, as they are most likely going to be the ones already in favor of what you’re wanting.

    Instead what you need to do is, instead of identifying what’s important to you and why you want it legalized identify what’s important to your target audience and then find out how to relate reasons for legalization to that crowd.

    Can I use this list of short term harms on my website? I want to address "harm to self" more directly. Is heart rate increase harmful?
    You’re more than welcome to. I by no means suggest its thorough, complete, or well detailed though but I have no issues with you using it as I think all of those are pretty solidly factual. For the most part they’ve been gathered from various articles ranging from both sides of the fight as well as wiki and a few other sources.

    In regards to heart rate, I believe one study I had saw that mentioned it stated that within the first hour of smoking weed one can experience their heart rate rising up to 4 times its normal level. The belief is that this could potentially raise the risk of heart attacks for those with heart conditions (doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen, but simply creates a better circumstance at that point for such). Similarly it could cause issues with people with existing anxiety or panic disorders. Beyond that it’s a mild thing like increased body heat, etc.

    So if we were to construct a list of possible, yet unproven, negative long term harms to a smoker, that list would be: decreased IQ, memory, attention, cancer, pregnancy complications, psychological addiction, withdrawal, and increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.
    Yep. And if one was to be fair you’d need to point out that the majority of the long term affects if present are primarily apparent only when actively still partaking in the drug regularly. For example, in regards to the IQ/Memory/Attention they found definite decreases in these for long time, regular users, however people who had previously smoked or smoked only occasionally throughout the year did not present these symptoms.

    I’d say withdrawl is one of those things that you could go into on its own as its almost a separate matter as it’s not an affect of the drug, but of leaving the drug. It’d be important to point out that it is one of the weakest drugs in terms of the severity of its withdrawl symptoms, and they do not manifest in every user. Symptoms are generally “mild” compared to other drugs and include things like irritability, anxiety and physical tension, decreases appetite and mood, insomnia, and sweats. While someone could have significant cases of these symptoms, the symptoms themselves are relatively benign compared to detox from others. So while its untrue when people suggest “there is no withdrawl issues with Marijuana” you’d likely want to be a slight bit more thorough then saying that there is withdrawl since that word can mean a lot of things to different people.

    A way to think of it is the warnings on pills. If 4 versions of a type of pills say “warning, use of this drug could cause complications including heart attack, stroke, paralysis, or death” and 1 version says “warning, use of this drug could cause complications” and that’s all people know of that type of pill, they’re going to assume that 5 pill has similar “complications”. However if it the last pill said “warning, use of this drug could cause complications such as exhaustion, fatigue, and dizziness” then people are likely going to go “oh, yeah they’re not good but its not like its DEATH”. If they just left it off completely though, without any warning, people would naturally be distrusting.

    Say Marijuana has the potential for withdrawl symptoms, though generally weaker than many other substances including Alcohol. Those symptoms are [list of symptoms]. All users may not experience withdrawl from the substance.

    I agree. This is why I asked what harm is done: to be more accurate and straight up on my site so that it isn't propaganda.
    Gotcha. And its great to see you open and honest about wanting to find that kind of stuff out and being receptive to it. It’s a quality more in the active community for this needs to have. American’s are conditioned to think of harm not just in what it does to others but what it does to ones self, so behind honest about those will help as it will show that the affects are generally not horrible comparatively.

    I meant harm done, by smoking marijuana, to other people, not done to the individual smoker. That is the violation of the Harm Principle. You can do yourself harm without violating it. My greatest frustration is that smoking marijuana is a criminal offense. What crime is committed?
    Again, you’re viewing this from that libertarian scope.

    Here’d be my advise to you honestly in regards to your site.

    Do not abandon the “harm principle” notions and the government getting out of peoples private business notions. Those aren’t bad. Don’t make it your sole focal point though.

    Hit on the fiscal issues of it. The amount of money we spend yearly in regards to enforcement and incarceration of individuals because of this. Look at the amount of money that could potentially be generated both in the private sector due to manufacturers, government due to taxes, and the economy in general by bringing cash out of the black market. Push how it will help spur job creation as growers, factory workers, retail locations, businesses catering to it, etc will all open up. Between the increased government funds for democrats, increased economical funds for republicans, and increased jobs and decreased money spent on law enforcement for both, you have a factual and useful argument that actually has the chance of touching a base of people your strictly libertarian argument may not.

    You can do this one the Social side as well. Highlight the potential aid it could provide for border relief as it takes one of the main goods causing the smuggling and violence associated with it to occur out of the equation. Highlight how low level offenders who’ve done nothing criminal other than partaking in the use of it would no longer being hounded by the system. Point out how by no longer putting it essentially on par with far harder drugs you reduce part of the “gateway” nature associated with it because you no longer have situations where someone goes “I’m having to hide this activity and I could get in legal trouble for it, so what more harm can come from doing additional things”.

    Obviously the libertarian point is not reaching a broad base, as evident by their generalized numbers at the polls, their numbers of people that self identify as such, and the general issues with legalization as it stands. The more you and others branch out and start thinking “what will convince them” rather than “what would convince me” I think there’s going to be a larger chance of getting some change in a far faster time span.

    I’ll give you site a peak though and look over once I’m home and on my computer. Anxious to see it.

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •