• 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!

ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W:91]

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Lursa said:
How is it different from Prohibition and
alcohol?

And yes, even the govt has admitted the War on Drugs is a failure.

And why do we need to do anything differently to keep it from kids than we do today? Or when commercially available, different from cigarette & alcohol sales?

Again, tell me how it's different from alcohol?
Click to expand...

The war on drugs is a failure meme is whats a failure.

It's the typical superficial left wing demagogy.

All laws cost money to enforce.

Unbeliveable.

Anyway. what would your advice be to a youngster that was willing to experiment with marijuana ?

Or do you think its "healthy" ?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Lursa said:
Well I'd say those you listed dont really 'want' pot. But if they did, it's still easily available to them.

My claim is that there wont be a significant change in people using pot, which I think you've confirmed....their work and personal circumstances prevent them now and would continue to do so.
Click to expand...

I confirmed no such thing, rather I suggest the EXACT opposite. Those whose work and personal circumstances prevent them NOW due to its illegality would not be prevented if it was legal.

For or example, I would never smoke currently because it would screw with my security clearance and get me fired. If it was legal then I'd give it a try.

There are football players that won't smoke pot because it can get them suspended from the league, but would smoke it if it was legal and thus not banned by the league.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Zyphlin said:
I confirmed no such thing, rather I suggest the EXACT opposite. Those whose work and personal circumstances prevent them NOW due to its illegality would not be prevented if it was legal.

For or example, I would never smoke currently because it would screw with my security clearance and get me fired. If it was legal then I'd give it a try.

There are football players that won't smoke pot because it can get them suspended from the league, but would smoke it if it was legal and thus not banned by the league.
Click to expand...
Anyone who works for a company that does drug testing, random or otherwise, since THC stays in the test for so long. It's really stayed away from. I was giving dating a try recently, and I of course toke for medical reasons, rarely get actually high, but evenso there were many of my dates that said they would join me in a toke or two if only they could, but alas the company had routine or random drug testing. In other words, I agree.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Zyphlin said:
I confirmed no such thing, rather I suggest the EXACT opposite. Those whose work and personal circumstances prevent them NOW due to its illegality would not be prevented if it was legal.

For or example, I would never smoke currently because it would screw with my security clearance and get me fired. If it was legal then I'd give it a try.

There are football players that won't smoke pot because it can get them suspended from the league, but would smoke it if it was legal and thus not banned by the league.
Click to expand...

Really? You would try it even tho it could still affect your employment? Legal or not, businesses and employers can still require employees to be 'clean' no matter what the law is. And a football league can make the same requirements. Players cant show up drunk, can they?

Nope, if people have work and personal circumstances that keep them from using now...besides the fact that it's illegal in most places...still risk losing their jobs or affecting their personal reasons. If their personal reason was because it was illegal...then I suppose they'll try it. But like many people that try cigarettes...myself included...certainly not all choose to 'use' the substance. Some will, some wont.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Lursa said:
Really? You would try it even tho it could still affect your employment?
Click to expand...

The only way it would affect my employment is if it was still illegal at a federal level.

If its isn't illegal at a federal level then it wouldn't have a severe impact on my Clearance and it wouldn't be grounds for removal from my job. As such, if it wasn't illegal federally it wouldn't affect my employment, which means I'd probably give it a try.

Legal or not, businesses and employers can still require employees to be 'clean' no matter what the law is. And a football league can make the same requirements. Players cant show up drunk, can they?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're just confused or if you're trying to move the goal posts of what I'm talking about.

I never said anything about showing up to work intoxicated. I can't show up to work intoxicated on alcohol...that doesn't keep me from drinking alcohol responsibly during my off time.

I absolutely imagine that businesses, if it's made federally legal, will disallow people to show up to work intoxicated since they ALREADY disallow people from showing up to work intoxicated on anything else. I don't imagine we'll see many businesses suggesting you're not able to be employed if you smoke on your own time and do not show up intoxicated. And if it's LEGALIZED federally, I am positive that would be the case for my work place.

I've not been talking about smoking a joint and then immediately going to work. I'm talking about giving it a try on a Friday night, with the intoxicating effects of the marijuana long being out of my system by work Monday morning.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

RabidAlpaca said:
I've yet to see any evidence of this, and there have been no documented cases of marijuana causing cancer. In fact, there are many studies that have shown that it retards cancer growth.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
20 Medical Studies That Prove Cannabis Can Cure Cancer | Collective-Evolution

It also helps against Alzheimers and a variety of other brain diseases.



Texting while driving is illegal, just like smoking cannabis while driving will be illegal. So either you thought all texting was illegal, and that's why cannabis should be, or your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.
Click to expand...
I dunno.

It's smoke dammit. Smoke is bad. I don't care what you're burning.


That's the entirety of my argument. And probably wildly incorrect.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Hard Truth said:
Not very odd since cancer is one of the top causes of death in older people. Did they all die of cancers likely to be related to smoking ie. lung, mouth, esophagus? Did none of them also smoke tobacco or other drugs? Were none of them exposed to other respiratory hazards such as a spray paint, smoke, car exhaust etc? Were none of them veterans exposed to chemicals, radiation, smoke from explosions etc.?

Even if the facts indicate that cannabis may be a cause of their cancer it would not prove anything since six people are not significantly significant, esp. if they lived in the same geographic area.
Click to expand...

I don't call 47 old:roll:
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Lursa said:
It only shows that your statement was 'selective' and really didnt apply to things that actually infringe on our rights...only things you dont like.

Thankfully, you are part of a quickly shrinking pool of Americans :)
Click to expand...

We know that is a lie with only two states allowing it at the present time
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Zyphlin said:
So if I understand you right, your stance and argument now isn't that bad things can happen in conjunction with pot, but you have issues with things that impair judgement, yes?
Click to expand...

yes, and there is structure for testing people that are drunk, unfortunately people come work after smoking a joint in the parking lot and no one notices until the take a forklift and run over someone
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

austrianecon said:
Ha! You do realize Alcohol kills close to 80,000 Americans a year right? And that's a low ball number because today they are realizing Alcohol can lead to cancers never suspected to be caused by Alcohol.
Click to expand...

We do not track deaths from illegal drugs by drug, so this argument is silly
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
We know that is a lie with only two states allowing it at the present time
Click to expand...

No...I posted your own words that prove either YOU are lying or only capable of reading at a 4th grade level.

The pool of Americans disproving of legalizing pot IS shrinking and those 2 states is evidence.

So.....where's the lie?
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Zyphlin said:
The only way it would affect my employment is if it was still illegal at a federal level.

If its isn't illegal at a federal level then it wouldn't have a severe impact on my Clearance and it wouldn't be grounds for removal from my job. As such, if it wasn't illegal federally it wouldn't affect my employment, which means I'd probably give it a try.



I don't know if you're just confused or if you're trying to move the goal posts of what I'm talking about.

I never said anything about showing up to work intoxicated. I can't show up to work intoxicated on alcohol...that doesn't keep me from drinking alcohol responsibly during my off time.

I absolutely imagine that businesses, if it's made federally legal, will disallow people to show up to work intoxicated since they ALREADY disallow people from showing up to work intoxicated on anything else. I don't imagine we'll see many businesses suggesting you're not able to be employed if you smoke on your own time and do not show up intoxicated. And if it's LEGALIZED federally, I am positive that would be the case for my work place.

I've not been talking about smoking a joint and then immediately going to work. I'm talking about giving it a try on a Friday night, with the intoxicating effects of the marijuana long being out of my system by work Monday morning.
Click to expand...

OK, I was just trying to clarify MY statement that I dont believe many more people will end up using pot (after an initial surge to try it). If your job doesnt have alcohol or drug restrictions in your employee contract now (I just assumed it since you have a security clearance) then you can do anything you want when it's legalized.

But for most people, because their employer may test for it, still have to restrict their use of alcohol and drugs....legal or not. It will be tougher for pot users....it stays in the system longer.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

The Mark said:
I dunno.

It's smoke dammit. Smoke is bad. I don't care what you're burning.


That's the entirety of my argument. And probably wildly incorrect.
Click to expand...

There are numerous ways to consume cannabis. You can bake it into things, you can turn it into a juice, you can even use a thing called a vaporizer, which uses hot air instead of smoke, making it 100% healthy for your lungs.

Open your mind and learn a little about the thing your bashing.


Fenton said:
Whether the effect of a crime is immediate or long term what difference does it make ?

The way I look at it is , is it's effect on our society destructive enough to justify it's current legal classification in 48 States ?

I think it is, and you disagree and thats fine.

And as far as I know my position on it may be irrelevent as more and more states start to decriminalize small amounts.

My sisters ex was a chronic user and wasted a good chunk of his life ( 30 years ) in a pot induced haze. Started when he was 14 and never stopped.

He also never achieved anything, never excelled, bounced around from crappy low paying job to low paying job. Claimed he was "happy" but I guarantee he wasn't.

He didn't mature properly, physically or mentally or emotionally. His natural process of maturing, getting stronger and smarter menatally stopped when he was a teenager.

All I saw was wasted opportunity, wasted life and wasted talent.

You may be exceptional, but I'm not so naive that I would agree that you represent the majority.

From what I've seen, he represented the majority
Click to expand...

What do you mean the effect of crime is long term or short? Are you saying that when you consume cannabis you will statistically go out and hurt somebody after a long enough time line? Why haven't I murdered anyone yet?

Your sister's ex is a loser, plain and simple. For every loser pot smoker there are 100's of losers that don't smoke, and plenty of non-loser potsmokers like myself. It does not make an effective member of society suddenly a loser. As I've explained before, the losers seem overrepresented because the responsible people keep their mouth shut about it. You know lots of people that smoke that you don't know they do.

And I've still yet to see a convincing argument of why YOU want to put ME in a cage.

Fenton said:
The war on drugs is a failure meme is whats a failure.

It's the typical superficial left wing demagogy.

All laws cost money to enforce.

Unbeliveable.

Anyway. what would your advice be to a youngster that was willing to experiment with marijuana ?

Or do you think its "healthy" ?
Click to expand...

If the war on drugs is a great success, as you suggest, why is it that drug use over the past 40 years has done nothing but sky rocket instead of decreasing? We've spent $1 trillion on the drug war to date. Now, seeing as how you're a big government statist type, that type of money is just a drop in the bucket, but for a liberty loving, fiscally conscious constitutionalist like myself, that's a HUGE amount of money for ZERO gains.
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

RabidAlpaca said:
There are numerous ways to consume cannabis. You can bake it into things, you can turn it into a juice, you can even use a thing called a vaporizer, which uses hot air instead of smoke, making it 100% healthy for your lungs.

Open your mind and learn a little about the thing your bashing.
Click to expand...
I already know all that. For what has to be the third ****ing time, I don't have an issue with pot, my issue is with the smoking part of it. That is all
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

beerftw said:
my great aunt died of lung cancer at 62,never smoked anything ever and never exposed to asbestos.
Click to expand...

My Co-workers wife has lung cancer at 38, and she never smoked either.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

The Mark said:
I already know all that. For what has to be the third ****ing time, I don't have an issue with pot, my issue is with the smoking part of it. That is all
Click to expand...

Then don't smoke it. Do any of the other 100 ways to consume it. That simple.

I like to use a bong, and in the course of 6 months of heavy smoking, I filled 1 small ashtray with ashes. A cigarette smoker would do that in a week. Cannabis is substantially more potent so you need substantially less plant matter.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

beerftw said:
first mj doesnt cause brain damage,this was debunked in the seventies,it does cause short term memory loss but thats temporary not permanent,might as well scream that the earth is flat because white house geologists say so.
Click to expand...

It causes brain damage in children. It does this by blocking connections as the brain continues to grow.

Adolescent pot use leaves lasting mental deficits; Developing brain susceptible to lasting damage from exposure to marijuana[/quote]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/health-teen-pot/index.html]Pot smoking may leave mark on teen brains
Heavy marijuana use may damage developing brain in teens, young adults

You'll note that not one of those is from a government source.

beerftw said:
second yes marijuana does have more carcineragens when smoked,but overall have been shown to affect lung capacity mostly,but less damage than cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Smoking ANYTHING will damage lungs. Doesn't matter if its MJ, Tobacco, or seaweed (a very nutritous marine plant). Lungs are not designed to handle smoke period. Thats why firemen wear oxygen tanks in burning buildings. The addition of carcinigens that is in MJ and tobacco makes this damage even worse. As for it causing "less damage". Common sense question here....if smoked MJ has 300 more deadly carcinigens than tobacco then how can it cause less damage?

beerftw said:
further mj has been shown to kill cancer cells,it doesnt cure it by any means,but a pain killer,that cures loss of appetite from chemo,and slows the progression of cancer beyond chemo,sounds nlike a wonder drug to me,rather than prescription drugs that cause more problems than they fix.
Click to expand...

There isn't one single real bonafide doctor that will prescribe marijuana in joint form. They all agree that it is harmful if smoked. That is why doctors, when prescribing marijuana, will precribe it in either pill form or in an inhaler where it is sprayed into the body in mist form. Not smoked. This is something that a lot of pro-marijuana folks love to ignore and skip over when they make the type of arguement that you just made here.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kal'Stang said:
It causes brain damage in children. It does this by blocking connections as the brain continues to grow.
Click to expand...

Did you not read your own sources?

Ashtari added that the findings are preliminary. Among other limitations of the study, such as a small sample size, five of the 14 subjects with heavy cannabis use also had a history of alcohol abuse, which may have contributed an effect. Also, it is possible that the brain abnormalities may have predisposed the subjects to drug dependence, rather than drug usage causing the brain abnormalities.
Click to expand...

But Meier and her colleagues weren't able to entirely rule out alternative explanations for the IQ declines seen in the study. For instance, although they controlled for alcohol and drug use, they focused on full-blown dependence (as opposed to more casual use) and therefore may have underestimated the effects of teen drinking.
Click to expand...
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Lursa said:
OK, I was just trying to clarify MY statement that I dont believe many more people will end up using pot (after an initial surge to try it). If your job doesnt have alcohol or drug restrictions in your employee contract now (I just assumed it since you have a security clearance) then you can do anything you want when it's legalized.
Click to expand...

It has restrictions on coming to work intoxicated.

It has restrictions on taking federally illegal substances.

It has nothing about taking legal substances during my off time and not coming to work impaired.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kushinator said:
Did you not read your own sources?
Click to expand...

Show me one single study that takes into account every single little thing and doesn't have caveats.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kal'Stang said:
Show me one single study that takes into account every single little thing and doesn't have caveats.
Click to expand...

Some research is stronger than others. Part of the difficulty in deriving causality with clinical research is controlling for other factors. Both articles (note you didn't bother sourcing the actual papers) made distinct references to alcohol, which has been shown to have negative effects on the brain. As a result,this research should not be used to support deterministic statements such as:

It causes brain damage in children
Click to expand...

Because causality certainly has not been established.

Here is an example of quality research that has established causality.

Children prenatally exposed to alcohol can suffer from serious cognitive deficits and behavioral problems as well as from alcohol-related changes in brain structure. Neuropsychological studies have identified deficits in learning and memory as well as in executive functioning both in children with fetal alcohol syndrome and in children with less severe impairments. Both groups of children also exhibit problem behaviors, such as alcohol and drug use, hyperactivity, impulsivity, and poor socialization and communication skills. Brain imaging studies have identified structural changes in various brain regions of these children including the basal ganglia, corpus callosum, cerebellum, and hippocampus that may account for the cognitive deficits. Functional brain imaging studies also have detected changes in alcohol-exposed children indicative of deficits in information processing and memory tasks.
Click to expand...
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kushinator said:
Some research is stronger than others. Part of the difficulty in deriving causality with clinical research is controlling for other factors. Both articles (note you didn't bother sourcing the actual papers) made distinct references to alcohol, which has been shown to have negative effects on the brain. As a result,this research should not be used to support deterministic statements such as:
Click to expand...

Did you read the one from the sciencedaily.com? I know I messed up the link however according to it...

The decline in IQ among persistent cannabis users could not be explained by alcohol or other drug use or by having less education, Moffitt said.
Click to expand...
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Zyphlin said:
It has restrictions on coming to work intoxicated.

It has restrictions on taking federally illegal substances.

It has nothing about taking legal substances during my off time and not coming to work impaired.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not familiar with all fields or industries of course but the ones I do know do put it in employee contracts regarding not coming to work impaired.

Some do/did testing to check that but most just did it pre-hire.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kal'Stang said:
Did you read the one from the sciencedaily.com? I know I messed up the link however according to it...
Click to expand...

Sounds like a BS source since IQ has nothing to do with education.

We know alcohol abuse destroys brain cells, wouldnt surprise me that abuse of a hallucinogen did so as well. And that line probably varies per individual.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Lursa said:
Sounds like a BS source since IQ has nothing to do with education.
Click to expand...

IQ affects your ability to learn. The higher the IQ the easier to learn. The lower the IQ the harder. Hence the reason why those with lower a IQ have a tendency to be poorer and less educated than those with a higher IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom