• 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 Marijuana be legalized?


  • Total voters
    78
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.

Thanks, I appreciate it! :)

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.

Why is it a libertarian-esque mindset or approach? Surely it cannot be because I am trying to establish a principle by which we evaluate whether it should be criminal. Are libertarians the only folks who talk in terms of principles?

I can see how people would assume I mean harm to anyone including themselves. I need to raise the visibility of that distinction.

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".

Yes, you are right. Very odd. I am not sure why I specified "long term".

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.

I refer to those other arguments, before focusing on the single issue of identifying a principle. Here is what I say:

http://www.noharmmeansnofoul.org said:
There are good pragmatic reasons to legalize marijuana. These include the observation that drug use is a health problem and not a criminal problem, the removal of a black market for drug trafficking, the undermining and reduction in criminal enterprise associated with illegal drugs, both at the street level and at the organized crime level, and the fact that the War On Drugs creates crime and criminal enterprise. It even has foreign policy and national security implications as international cartels destabilize our allies in central and latin america as they supply the drug demand of the USA.


Principles

However, it is not the intent of the website to rehash these arguments, which have been heard before. My intent is to focus on one thing. I aim to discuss the principle underlying the criminalization and proposed legalization of cannabis. The principle we should use to evaluate the moral imperative of the criminalization of marijuana is what is known as the Harm Principle. Although there were previous mentions and outlines of this principle, one of the first known in writing is the Grandfather of the Constitution, John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government in 1689. This work was continued, and best enunciated, by John Stuart Mill in his On Liberty, published in 1859.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

– John Stuart Mill

The harm principle is the bolded phrase quoted: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

A corollary to harm to others is regarding harm to self: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

So here we see my approach to both issues. First, the issue of recognizing other arguments for legalization, but not addressing them in this essay. Second, distinguishing between harm to self versus harm to others.

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.

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 am thinking about adding a robust section on "harm to self".

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.

Yep, I see this.

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 reference the crime angle, and reduction of criminal enterprise. I hit the national security angle. I say that it should be a health problem and not a criminal problem. I do NOT make a fiscal argument nor a social argument (which seems to be a crime argument, so perhaps I touch on it). I was trying to super briefly acknowledge these other argumnets, to be found elsewhere, and focus the reader on my principle.

I am trying to attract conservatives. I have always said that I think it is a natural issue for conservatives. That may be me confounding a libertarian mindset on conservatives, although I have my parents convinced. Personal responsibility and individual freedom are conservative principles, right?

When I caught the bug to setup the site, I had just been turned down for an interim security clearance. My 2nd turn down. All because I used to smoke pot 4 years ago. It is a ****ty thing, it pissed me off and I created the site.

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

Excellent! I look forward to hearing your opinion about it!
 
I'm shocked that 29 people are against it, nevermind the fact that nobody has ever died from it or the 10 billion the U.S spends combating it or the near 1,000,000 people who find there way into jail for it.

I mean we would save a lot of money and get rid of a major amount of the illegal drug trade.
 
Why is it a libertarian-esque mindset or approach? Surely it cannot be because I am trying to establish a principle by which we evaluate whether it should be criminal. Are libertarians the only folks who talk in terms of principles?

It is because the specific principle you are trying to establish as the sole criterion by which we determine whether or not it should be criminal is a fundamentally libertarian notion, and relies on the libertarian definition of "harm". Social conservatives believe that encouraging or condoning immoral behavior is harm. Progressives consider damage done to one's self, either deliberately or out of ignorance, to be harm. Lost productivity can be considered a form of harm. Convincing people who believe in these principles to support your agenda requires acknowledging their understanding of harm and convincing them that legalization is less harmful-- by their understanding of the term-- than the current policies.
 
Conservatives certainly do take an immoral stance on Marijuana, just exactly where do they get the idea that Marijuana is immoral though?
 
I mean we would save a lot of money and get rid of a major amount of the illegal drug trade.

At the cost of more people considering it acceptable behavior and more people engaging in it. I believe there are more effective methods of combating drug abuse, but my goal is still combating drug abuse. Many people remain unconvinced that treating it as a social or medical problem would be more effective. Many people, including myself, are afraid that if cannabis or other drugs are legalized without a regulatory framework and harm-reduction model in place, it will lead to an uncontrolled expansion of the recreational drug market.
 
Conservatives certainly do take an immoral stance on Marijuana, just exactly where do they get the idea that Marijuana is immoral though?

Think about all the people you've known that have habitually smoked cannabis. How many of them were responsible, upstanding citizens?
 
It is because the specific principle you are trying to establish as the sole criterion by which we determine whether or not it should be criminal is a fundamentally libertarian notion, and relies on the libertarian definition of "harm". Social conservatives believe that encouraging or condoning immoral behavior is harm. Progressives consider damage done to one's self, either deliberately or out of ignorance, to be harm. Lost productivity can be considered a form of harm. Convincing people who believe in these principles to support your agenda requires acknowledging their understanding of harm and convincing them that legalization is less harmful-- by their understanding of the term-- than the current policies.

Thank you, Rat. I thanked the post and bookmarked it too so I can refer to it later. Very elegantly and concisely put. I do see that arguing from their perspectives is the key.

My first point of confusion is that John Locke and John Stuart Mill are to be considered libertarian? I suppose the social conservatives look to the bible and I am not surprised that progressives don't look to such Enlightenment philosophers. Still, I thought they were pretty mainstream.

You list three alternatives: social conservatives, progressives and I am not sure what to call the third - economic conservatives? What about fiscal conservatives (moderate conservatives) and liberals? What do they classify as harm?

By the numbers:
Social conservatives: is habitually smoking pot immoral? It would be tough to make an argument here if they do.

Progressives: do Progressives really think this? Again, it would be hard to make an argument here, other than to state that the harm is mild.

Economic conservatives (?): Stress relief can increase productivity. Abuse can decrease it.
 
It amazes me to see so many people that want to legalize MJ and say that it doesn't do any harm, real harm, long term harm etc etc. Sure they use statistics and "studies" to try and prove their point. But I don't trust either one of em.

I am against it for very real reasons. Reasons that I myself have observed and seen with my own eyes. MJ does in fact cause what I would term as brain damage. My sister who use to be a great cook can no longer even boil water without burning it.

MJ has also been the cause of my sister stealing. Now I have heard arguments that MJ doesn't make my sister steal. Well if that's true then drinking and driving doesn't cause accidents. ;) IE there is a direct correlation.

So go ahead and bring on all your studies showing how MJ isn't really bad for ya. Personal experience always trumps what some "expert" that most people haven't even met, or more likely even heard of, says.
 
Think about all the people you've known that have habitually smoked cannabis. How many of them were responsible, upstanding citizens?

most of them are, I am being dead serious too..Telling the honest truth, none of my smoking buddies have ever been arrested. Just look at Marijuana use in college, it's not a bunch of high school drop outs smoking in their parents bedroom.
 
It amazes me to see so many people that want to legalize MJ and say that it doesn't do any harm, real harm, long term harm etc etc. Sure they use statistics and "studies" to try and prove their point. But I don't trust either one of em.

I am against it for very real reasons. Reasons that I myself have observed and seen with my own eyes. MJ does in fact cause what I would term as brain damage. My sister who use to be a great cook can no longer even boil water without burning it.

MJ has also been the cause of my sister stealing. Now I have heard arguments that MJ doesn't make my sister steal. Well if that's true then drinking and driving doesn't cause accidents. ;) IE there is a direct correlation.

So go ahead and bring on all your studies showing how MJ isn't really bad for ya. Personal experience always trumps what some "expert" that most people haven't even met, or more likely even heard of, says.

so since your sister is irresponsible, that's not Marijuana's fault by the way, you think Marijuana should be illegal. Sorry but there are no studies linking brain damage to Marijuana, I think you ought to go get your sister checked out though, sounds like she is mentally deteriorating which could be disease or using other harder drugs. I mean I'm not gonna say people don't steal money for pot but it's not addictive and the cheapest drug there is. Sounds like she is using harder drugs, just my opinion though.
 
Last edited:
so since your sister is irresponsible, that's not Marijuana's fault by the way, you think Marijuana should be illegal. Sorry but there are no studies linking brain damage to Marijuana, I think you ought to go get your sister checked out though, sounds like she is mentally deteriorating which could be disease or using other harder drugs. I mean I'm not gonna say people don't steal money for pot but it's not addictive and the cheapest drug there is. Sounds like she is using harder drugs, just my opinion though.

No studies? You should actually do some research before making such a claim. There have been tons of studies done, just to be nice here's one right here....

ABC: Study strengthens marijuana brain damage case

You could also look in the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). They have articles about studies done also.

And yes my sister was/is irresponsible. But then so is every other druggie in the world.

BTW do you seriously believe that MJ has no negative side effects? There isn't a drug in the world...legal or not...that doesn't have some sort of negative side effect.
 
No studies? You should actually do some research before making such a claim. There have been tons of studies done, just to be nice here's one right here....

ABC: Study strengthens marijuana brain damage case

You could also look in the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). They have articles about studies done also.

And yes my sister was/is irresponsible. But then so is every other druggie in the world.

BTW do you seriously believe that MJ has no negative side effects? There isn't a drug in the world...legal or not...that doesn't have some sort of negative side effect.

study comes from Australia buddy makes it completely invalid, Australia is the worst for bullsh!t propaganda against Marijuana...Marijuana does have negative side effects, never said it doesn't, but they are very minimal and certainly not deadly.

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

Some studies have shown that heavy Marijuana use in young teens increases the likelyhood of Schizophrenia to those predisposed to it. This only strenghtens the case for legalization, ask any teenager or adult what was easier to get Tobacco and Alcohol or Marijuana, most of them will say Pot...I can attest to that.
 
A) Healthier than tabbaco and alcohol
B) Has no chemical addictive substance, only habits/psychological addictions are possible just like with anything
C) Legalizing would severely undercut the black market
D) It's users would be healthier because it could be regulated with health checks so that some a-hole drug dealer cant' sell you something mixed with paint thinner
E) Taxation benefits are an economic benefit

Being against marijuana legalization is just really stupid.
 
I'd like to see the people against it actually give me substantial, factual reasons.
 
study comes from Australia buddy makes it completely invalid, Australia is the worst for bullsh!t propaganda against Marijuana...Marijuana does have negative side effects, never said it doesn't, but they are very minimal and certainly not deadly.

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

Some studies have shown that heavy Marijuana use in young teens increases the likelyhood of Schizophrenia to those predisposed to it. This only strenghtens the case for legalization, ask any teenager or adult what was easier to get Tobacco and Alcohol or Marijuana, most of them will say Pot...I can attest to that.

Not really surprised that you disregard that study. But hey I did suggest another site that you could look at. And an American one at that. I'd provide links to the articles themselves but apparently they want you to download a PDF of the article so you will need to do the research yourself.

Also the researchers in your article apparently did not do a study using the drug itself but instead "analysed" several other studies. So they not only didn't do any of their own work but used studies that more than likely used differing methods...which would skew the results when all put together. Anyone could take a bunch of related studies and make them all "add up" to what it is they want to say.

And just because it might be harder to get a hold of alcohol and tobacco sure doesn't stop the problem that kids still get a hold of em. Regularly. Indeed when I was younger there were often keggers being held every Friday the whole school year. Guess how many of them kids smoked also.... Hell you often saw far more tobacco smokers than you did pot smokers. So it being easier to get a hold of? Doubtful.

PS EDIT: Sorry also wanted to add that we have no idea what studies they used or if the studies used were flawed to begin with. Nor do we know their methodologies(sp?).
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see the people against it actually give me substantial, factual reasons.

I have. You ignored it and tried to pass it off as something else. Something that pro-legal MJ folks often do.
 
Ok, Even if it is real, although the findings to say the least are controversial..it still is no worse than tobacco and alcohol. So why keep it illegal while those other two legal?

*ALSO*

For every study saying it causes brain damage there's a study that says it doesn't. Maybe it does but still the plant has yet to kill anybody that we know of and it is impossible to overdose on. And you will only get brain damage if you are a daily user which many, many people are not. I mean Alcohol can give you brain damage and cancer...if you don't use it in moderation.

I just think if that's the best you have then it's obvious what should be done with Marijuana, legalize it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because a person has the right to imbibe whatever substance they wish. This is based off of the right of self-ownership.
 
Thanks, I appreciate it! :)

Why is it a libertarian-esque mindset or approach? Surely it cannot be because I am trying to establish a principle by which we evaluate whether it should be criminal. Are libertarians the only folks who talk in terms of principles?

Welcome!

I see Kori summed this up pretty well but I'll go from my angle a bit on it. Libertarians principle tends to be slightly more to the "right" on the conservative scale in regards to governmental conservatism than your average Republican and even many general conservatives. The notion of "anything that doesn't harm others shouldn't be dealt with by the government" is part of this. Its where you have libertarians breaking with Republicans in regards to assisted suicide for example as well.

The reason I was saying the way you were tackling the issue was very narrowly focused and unlikely to garner wide appeal in regards to attracting additional support is because yours is one of, if not the, main argument that seems to be at the heart of most libertarian individuals reasons for legalization...that what one does with ones self should be ones own business and no one elses. While SOME non-libertarian minded conservatives may agree with this to an extent, the length of that extent will vary and depending on that may not be enough to sway them despite some generalized agreement. So the main argument you're making is most likely to have the greatest impact on the one group that has the largest percentage of its population already in favor of what you want.

This is not necessarily bad, and it seems this is more you having a particular theory and a pet issue, and pushing it because it interests you rather than trying to have some kind of tangible or realistic effect. In which case, you're dead on and doing a good job of that. I am simply saying that if your goal is not primarily from a philosophical and ideological but from a persuasive and activist stand point that a shift in your focus would be needed. But it seems your desire is more for the former, in which case your focus is perfectly find and well reasoned.

My first point of confusion is that John Locke and John Stuart Mill are to be considered libertarian? I suppose the social conservatives look to the bible and I am not surprised that progressives don't look to such Enlightenment philosophers. Still, I thought they were pretty mainstream.

Not necessarily simply the bible but cultural tradition. Cultural tradition in the country is that drugs are bad. While TECHNICALLY alcohol and caffeine are drugs, technically people are animals but every day people don't normally view ourselves as such do they? Marijuana, despite all the evidence you may present, is traditionally and culturally ingrained in many people to be more in line with coke and heroin then it is Jack Daniels and Budweiser, because of no other reason but its illegality and classification as a drug for the majority of these individuals lives. The notion of legalizing it is the notion of turning a cultural norm and standard on its head, in turning what they were taught by their parents and what they've taught their children into essentially a falsehood, and to establish in their mind the slippery slope possibility of "if we let one drug in, how quick will they use the same kind of arguments to get more". Its not necessarily the "Bible", as much as it is the cultural and societal traditions amongst many in America.

There could be numerous reasons for various others to not want it. Take Diane Fienstien, an unabashed liberal democrat, in regards to California's recent efforts as needing to be defeated because, as she describe it, legalization would be "a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe." The general thought process being that sure, it may be no worse than alcohol...but do we need to add more alternatives out there for people to enter an altered state of mind. Lets say you take 100 people who would only do either while its legal. There's a 75% overlap of people who drink that also would smoke. Lets say the bottom 10% of that are people who would only drink and never smoke, and the top are people who would only smoke but never drink. There's 5% that would never do either. By adding marijuana you essentially take the number of potential intoxicated individuals (85%) and raise it higher (95%) with regards to that sample size, as now there are legalized choices are wider than it previously was. There's also the issues of combinations, as if I remember correctly studies generally find that Alcohol + Marijuana is more dangerous in regards to it affects than either substance on its own. So you have the safety issue as one of the possibilities.

The legal issues are one as well, in regards to the difficulty of it. People talk about how much it'd save in bureaucracy in regards to law enforcement, but one must look also at the difficulties in establishing it. To my knowledge there's no easy way to test for intoxication by marijuana like there is for alcohol to manage DUI issues. You have the unquestionable public issues that would arise if outdoor smoking of it is as allowable as cigarettes due to the persistence of stereotypes and the lacking of true, thorough, long term, studies in regards to second hand smoke from marijuana. That's going to cause constant issues with regards to it. While we can use alcohol and tobacco as a baseline for many things with it, neither are a direct analog so the issue of putting laws down that makes it reasonable and addresses concerns is going to likely be far from simple.

It annoys me a bit when people suggest there's no reasonable reason to oppose legalization. There is. There may be reasons you DISAGREE with. There may be reasons that counter your world view and what you think is logical. But this does not mean its an irrational or unreasonable position to have, nor that it even is technically logical. No one individuals view points of what is and isn't important in regards to government is somehow magically better, more "True", or more important than anothers base on nothing but their view. For example Kori's notion of the need for the government to regulate things to maintain a certain level of cultural morality, with that morality being defined by the society, is not necessarily "wrong" anymore than Reefs notion that the government should stay out of the business of telling people what to do with regards to their own body is "right". One could argue its not what the founders would want, but then again one could argue back that there's no where in our laws that state that we must have political opinions in line with the founders or that only those opinions are "correct" or "right".

IS it possible to have unreasonable opinions as to why marijuana should remain illegal? Absolutely! If you think it should remain illegal because its going to make black people go crazy and rape white women then absolutely, your opinion is unreasonable. This is the same in regards to the other side. If your argument for legalization is "Marijuana is safer for you than Water!" your opinion is also unreasonable. But neither makes either side inherently unreasonable with regards to any and every argument being made against/for it.

(The last bit wasn't specific to you reef, just a general thing)
 
My first point of confusion is that John Locke and John Stuart Mill are to be considered libertarian?

I'm sad to say it, but if you're even capable of naming the philosophical thinkers behind your political ideals, you're not part of the mainstream. The Enlightenment itself was a massive intellectual revolt against the authoritarian governments of the day, and almost all of its political philosophers-- except Hobbes-- formed the basis of classic liberalism. Liberalism essentially split into two movements in the early 20th Century, between those liberals who absorbed progressive ideals and those who absorbed anarchist ideals. I think most people would agree that the classic liberals today would be considered moderate libertarians, while the modern Libertarian Party is more hardline-- having absorbed many of the arguments and beliefs of the anarchist movement.

I suppose the social conservatives look to the bible...

It's not really the Bible. It's the political philosophies of Calvin and Hobbes with Biblical justification.

You list three alternatives: social conservatives, progressives and I am not sure what to call the third - economic conservatives? What about fiscal conservatives (moderate conservatives) and liberals? What do they classify as harm?

I wasn't sure what to call the third, either. Not fiscal conservatives, quite, but anyone who considers financial responsibility and balanced budgets a paramount concern. As far as moderate conservatives, I'd say it's a matter of whether they're more heavily influenced by social conservatism or fiscal conservatism, but generally they consider the two to be intrinsically linked. Immoral and irresponsible behavior lead to financial ruin and dependence upon government programs. As far as modern liberals go, you're looking at people who basically agree with your concept of harm, except they believe you have to have the means to exercise your rights in order for the existence of those rights to be meaningful; they're the people who took on the progressive mantle of seeking to alleviate poverty and establish strong social safety nets. It's a matter of convincing them that keeping people out of prison is more important than keeping them off drugs. Aside from libertarians, they're the group most likely to support legalization already.

By the numbers:
Social conservatives: is habitually smoking pot immoral? It would be tough to make an argument here if they do.

They're the people that gave us the first Prohibition. You tell me.

Progressives: do Progressives really think this? Again, it would be hard to make an argument here, other than to state that the harm is mild.

I try not to speak for other people; I'm painting with a broad enough brush already. But yes, generally they believe that people do need to be protected from themselves and from the power of exploitative marketing. This is close to my own position, which is why I support legalization only in the context of strict regulatory controls. The argument here isn't so much that the harm from cannabis is mild-- though it helps-- but that the harm caused by criminal organizations and otherwise handling recreational drug use as a criminal problem is greater.
 
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.

While I appreciate your argument, it can all be negated by one simple concept: Informed consent.

Put a label on commercially sold recreational drugs informing the purchaser of the potential risks, and allow him to make the choice.

BUT, if someone chooses to take those drugs, the law should make it perfectly clear that the idiot has NO legal recourse when his brain melts, his lungs rot, or his pecker falls off. Smokers choose to smoke. From the first day they decided to ignore the painful hacking cough from their first drag on their first cigarette, they choose to take the second one, and put the onus of dying from lung cancer on themselves.
 
study comes from Australia buddy makes it completely invalid, Australia is the worst for bullsh!t propaganda against Marijuana...Marijuana does have negative side effects, never said it doesn't, but they are very minimal and certainly not deadly.

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

Some studies have shown that heavy Marijuana use in young teens increases the likelyhood of Schizophrenia to those predisposed to it. This only strenghtens the case for legalization, ask any teenager or adult what was easier to get Tobacco and Alcohol or Marijuana, most of them will say Pot...I can attest to that.

do you have proof Australia is the worst for bull**** propaganda against marijuana? and the study was conducted by the best university in Australia, not a government agency, meaning it has no stake in legislation.

and the study you cited against the study Kal'Stang cited are incompatible, your study measured participants response to a set of criteria, Kal'Stang's showed a difference in brain make up.
 
The site that I made the assumption on was a site about Australia's drug campaign. They have changed the info on there, rightfully so.They claimed outrageous things like "overdosing on Marijuana can lead to death"(although technically true, just never mentioned how much was needed). This was a couple years ago when I saw the site since then they have updated the info, thankfully.

Obviously I didn't look where the study came from so I apologize for making that claim..I don't know how Australia's government is towards weed because I don't live there but I did make the assumption from said site and a couple of Australian people on another forum talking about the government's way towards pot. Of course two people don't speak for an entire nation and the site has since been updated.
 
The entire issue of whether or not marijuana is good or bad for you is a red herring and is non essential for the debate. Are there potential health risks for using marijuana.. sure there are, but this is also the case from virtually every substance and or foodstuff we put into our bodies. Alcohol and cirrhosis, and also alcohol induced dementia primarily comes to mind with the mention of the study finding hippocampus and amygdala deterioration that was cited.

I would even go so far as state that if marijuana was harmful and had an impact on brain development then that would be an even more compelling reason to have it regulated and controlled in order to make it more difficult for youth with brains that are still finishing their development to not have such ease of access to the drug.

I will concede that drugs are bad, which is precisely why we need to not yield control over their distribution, and is precisely why they need to be legalized, regulated and controlled. Marijuana likely does have a potential to negatively impact a developing brain or a developing child, which is hwy we should take realistic PRACTICAL steps to keep it out of the hands of children,

ok before I go off on a tangent I do have a few points to cover in regards to the study Kal Stang cited.

The actual study and not the press write up is here:
Arch Gen Psychiatry -- Regional Brain Abnormalities Associated With Long-term Heavy Cannabis Use, June 2008, Yücel et al. 65 (6): 694

First off is to criticize the sample size, a sample size of 12 is not going to get much in the way of meaningful results.. that jumped at me immediately, and what digging I have done I have also found talk of peer reviewers criticizing it on the same grounds.

secondly, I found a review that includes their study alongside 41 others on the same topic.

the link for the pdf here:

Neuroimaging in cannabis use: a systematic review of the literature

Results Sixty-six studies were identified, of which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three were functional (SPECT/PET/fMRI) and eight structural (volumetric/DTI) imaging studies. The high degree of heterogeneity across studies precluded a meta-analysis.

41 studies and their findings were inconsistent and they could not do a meta analysis as a result.
they also make mention of this:

Some of the functional studies in the literature had groups that were smaller than what would usually be regarded as an acceptable minimum (... for fMRI studies 15 subjects)

Yucel as I mentioned before only had 12 subjects, and it was an MRI study, so it was among those being referenced by the preceding quote from the review)

Furthermore, the review mentions a couple of things worth highlighting:

With regards to structural neuroimaging studies, only two found significant differences between users and controls (Matochik et al. 2005; Yucel et al. 2008)

out of 41 studies only 2 found significant differences, Yucel was one of the 2.

there is more interesting info to be had there as well, but this is getting long enough as it is. As is usually to be found with press coverage of scientific literature being released it is to be taken with a grain of salt.

For news articles and journalistic write ups on scientific literature it is in their interest to not dig into details, it is not their job to investigate the validity of the study, it is their job to sensationalize it.

At best the Yucel study is interesting, yet inconclusive, and I also saw secondary quotes where Yucel himself had essentially stated as much.. which I wont link to since they are secondary and not admissible in a court of law, or solid for debate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom