• 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!

Marijuana legalization hearing tomorrow in California!

On this we agree.

What, that you're not a medical doctor and thus are unable to speak intelligently as to the legitimate treatment options afforded to patients?
 
Usage will increase of course. This increases the number of individuals who will experience lung damage which will increase the healthcare costs for all of us.

source

So promote brownies
 
I can run off the effects of a big mac. If I smoke enough marijuana.....I can no longer run.

Some runners prefer running one marijuana for the psychological state it induces in them to run further.

counter-intuitive i know, but I've been told by a runner or two.
 
Last edited:
Nice, personal attacks without addressing any of the issues raised. Is that what you consider.....intelligence?
Report it, if you feel it is.

My reactionary opinion is that if we entrust our children's education to someone who ignores sound medical and scientific facts to promote drug hysteria rather than drug education, we are doing a disservice to our children.
 
Report it, if you feel it is.

My reactionary opinion is that if we entrust our children's education to someone who ignores sound medical and scientific facts to promote drug hysteria rather than drug education, we are doing a disservice to our children.

You're in luck, I'm not an anal-retentive liberal. Strangely, I didn't see your links to sound medical and scientific facts. I provided some to back up my arguments. Why didn't you?
 
I believe you to be wrong. Increased availability and a lower price pretty much guarantee greater use.

source

I never said greater use wouldn't occur. I said that it wouldn't dramatically increase it. People do it now regardless of the laws in place. There are far bigger and more harmful drugs to be concerned about than pot.
 
I never said greater use wouldn't occur. I said that it wouldn't dramatically increase it. People do it now regardless of the laws in place. There are far bigger and more harmful drugs to be concerned about than pot.

The study I linked indicated it would. Naturally, some people will always break the law. Are you suggesting we should legalize rape? Kidnapping? Robbing banks? I don't believe you are. Who cares if there are more dangerous drugs. I just don't see the point of legalizing this one.
 
The study I linked indicated it would. Naturally, some people will always break the law. Are you suggesting we should legalize rape? Kidnapping? Robbing banks? I don't believe you are. Who cares if there are more dangerous drugs. I just don't see the point of legalizing this one.

Yeah, because that's the same as smoking pot. :doh
 
No, because the negative aspects of legalization outweigh the positive aspects of legalilzation for these drugs. :naughty

Can you point to examples in other countries where ending the prohibition of marijuana has shown this to be true?
 
I already have provided an article referencing a study.

I read the article and the study. It is a seriously coordinated attack on marijuana legalization. It would behoove you all favoring this to counter the weak arguments made here. My top argument is that it does not violate the [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle]Harm principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].

Here are the arguments the article makes against the legalization of marijuana:

- Where Legalization Has Flourished, Drug Use Has Increased
- Marijuana is Addictive
- Experts Agree That Marijuana Contributes to Mental Illness
- Use of Marijuana Leads to Other Drugs
- Marijuana Use Can Be Addictive, While Also Damaging the Lungs
- Marijuana Use Contributes to Crime
- It is a Myth That Small Time Marijuana Users are Crowding our Prisons
- Legalization Advocates Never Answer The Hard Questions
---- Treat it like alcohol and tobacco
---- Tax the hell out of it
---- Make it cheap -- cut out the black market
- There are Ways To Make Current Policy Better

If you keep clicking the "Next argument" link at the bottom of each argument, you will eventually reach the NORML counter-arguments.
 
I can't link at the moment, but look up the Cato Institute's study of the effects of legalization of drugs in Portugal.

You may be surprised, Dutch.

And for the record, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.
 
I believe you to be wrong. Increased availability and a lower price pretty much guarantee greater use.

source

Should we be concerned with the number of people who use marijuana at least once in their life, or should we be concerned with people who use it more frequently -enough for it to be detrimental?

The study your mined argument is citing states:

We examined Dutch lifetime prevalence data from various sources between 1970 and 1996 (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997). (Past-month or past-year prevalence estimates would be more informative but are scarce, especially prior to 1986.)

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/where-legalization-has-flourished-drug-use-has-increased

So in a relaxed atmosphere, more people try marijuana, go figure! I assume since 3x the amount of people who tried marijuana would translate into a threefold increase in the amount of use on a regular basis, and that after 30 years of relaxed policies, it would be sufficient time for this dramatic spike in regular users to manifest itself, and frequent use of MJ in Amsterdam would be sky high when compared to the rest of Europe, where marijuana remains illegal.

I will call upon the EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) and their data for my argument.

First:

Of those aged 15–64 who have ever used cannabis, only 30 % have done so during the last year (42). But, among those who have used the drug in the last year, on average 56 % have done so in the last month.

Estimating intensive and long-term patterns of use is an important public health issue. Daily or almost daily use (use on 20 days or more in the last 30 days) may be an indicator of intensive use. Data on this form of cannabis use in Europe was collected in 2007/08 as part of a 'field trial' coordinated by the EMCDDA in collaboration with national experts and the Reitox focal points of 13 countries.

EMCDDA | State of the drugs problem in Europe ? cannabis

Well the first thing that jumps out (especially since I bolded it) is that lifetime use is most certainly not a good reference point - as admitted in the MCCoun & Reuter study your expert is citing, and leaning on heavily for his rebuttal - and that there is a huge discrepancy between those that try it at least once and those that use it on an annual basis, yet alone a regular basis.

What we need to be concerned with is regular, and habitual use, especially when approaching this from a harm reduction standpoint.

Looking at the table provided in the EMCDDA report on the state of the Cannabis issue in Europe we see something that immediately jumps out:

Highest prevalence countries (lifetime age 15-64):

Denmark (36.5 %),
France (30.6 %),
United Kingdom (30.1 %),
Italy (29.3 %)

Well your author has got one thing right, more people in the Netherlands have tried Cannabis over their lifetimes than any other European country evaluated. This trend holds true as well when you look at it more narrowly for the 15-34 year group, and 15-24 year group. Unfortunately we do not have minors isolated so we cannot tell trends specifically among those who are not of legal age.

now lets look to see where Dutch use fares when analyzing the yearly and monthly usage trends.. Its probably a safe bet to assume they are at the top as well since legalization leads to such rampant use, I will use the 15-64 year old group again for consistency:

Highest prevalence countries (last year use 15-64):

Italy, Spain (11.2 %),
Czech Republic (9.3 %),
France (8.6 %)

Highest prevalence countries (last month use 15-64):

Spain (8.7 %),
Italy (5.8 %),
United Kingdom,
France, Czech Republic (4.8 %)

This is also fairly consistent when you consider 15-34, and 15-24 breakdowns as well, the only change is Italy gets replaced by the UK in the top 4.

What?? where did the Netherlands go?? Must be a glitch. I bet they just missed the cut for mention.. lets look more closely at the data this table is drawing on:

EMCDDA | Statistical bulletin 2008: Table GPS-7: Frequency of use of cannabis among all adults (aged 15 to 64 years) and young adults (aged 15 to 34 years) in nationwide surveys among the general population. Part (i) Frequency of use among all users

here we go last month usage for 15 different European countries, and we even have another important stat, habitual use (20 days+ /30).

Where do the Dutch end up, they were not in the top 4.. they must be close though, lax laws undoubtedly result in rampant usage.

last month usage (dutch 15-64): 3.3%

Netherlands comes in at 8th out of 15 European countries.. of which all have a much more punitive stance in comparison,

prevalence of daily or almost daily use (Netherlands 15-34): 1.6%

Netherlands comes in at 8th out of 15.. again!!!

So where does that leave us?? the Dutch had an increase in those who had at least tried it, and in fact by far leads the other European countries in those who have tried it; however the correlation expected between this and regular usage is NOT THERE.

So we have more people trying marijuana where it is (essentially) legal. absolutely no surprise, but the problematic, regular usage is significantly lower both as a percentage of those who tried it at least once in their lives, and in comparison with other European nations with stringent laws in place.

Seems to be an EXCELLENT trade off from a harm reduction standpoint, 30 years of pseudo-legality, and habitual usage rates are AVERAGE compared to the rest of the continent.

It seems the data suggests that just because you try it, does not mean that the "flavor" of intoxication" attained from marijuana appeals to everyone, and the percentage of those who have a propensity to use habitually is fairly constant despite legal status.

which will segue me into my next rebuttal.. after I take a break from the keyboard.
 
Last edited:
I have. I no longer hang out in front of 7/11's asking people to buy alcohol for me.



Well, drug dealers have no qualms about selling marijuana to children and no, that's not my fault. The people buying alcohol for my friends and myself weren't suppose to buy alcohol for us either. But hey, it was easy to get. which brings me to my next point....the most prevalent drug being used by children of school age isn't marijuana, it's alcohol. Hardly surprising since it's both more readily accessable and cheaper than marijuana. These are just two more reasons you should oppose marijuana legalization too.

source

never mind the break form the keyboard, this rebuttal is quick and easy.


Is this because of its legal status, or because a larger percentage of people enjoy the effects Alcohol in comparison with those who enjoy the effectrs of cannabis?

Looking at countries where restrictions on marijuana use have essentially been lifted we find that alcohol consumption is by far the leader in rates of use as well, in all demographics, including minors. I am not going to dig up the data, but I have posted it before.. Alcohol consumption in the Netherlands is far more prevalent than marijuana usage, and the rate of consumption amongst minors blows ours away.

Perhaps many people are inclined to enjoy the buzz attained from alcohol compared with those who enjoy the buzz attained from Cannabis.

There is a HUGE difference in effect. Alcohol eases tensions, and lowers inhibitions, it is widely viewed as a social lubricant for this effect, and as such would be VERY appealing, not only to adults, but also for youth, who are striving to fit in. For minors social life takes precedence above almost everything else, it is only natural they have a predisposition to seek out a social lubricant.

Marijuana does not have this effect, and in fact tends to have an antisocial aspect to it.

Does it come as any surprise that alcohol is preferred, even in the face of legal status of both substances?

This is why the focal point of both high school, and college parties is alcohol, not marijuana. without alcohol there is no party, this is because of the nature of the buzz, not because of the legal status.

Year after year minors report that it is MUCH easier to get Marijuana than alcohol, yet they go to great lengths to attain alcohol for social functions, despite the fact that they could go through much less hassdle and have weed on hand.

It has nothing to do with availability, it is because of the nature of the intoxication.

For some people Alcohol is the drug of choice, for others it would be marijuana, one thing is common regardless of legality or availability.. many more people seek out, and seem inclined to enjoy the intoxication of alcohol over that of marijuana.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
Last edited:
you just think you've chosen to smoke. wait until you try to quit, then you know choice doesn't have a lot to do with it anymore.
I quit for 6 months, cold turkey. I picked it up again because I missed it, not due to a physical addiction. The initial choice was mine, do not be obtuse.
 
I suggest marinol.

You prefer this to Marijuana? Hardly a safe alternative.

SIDE EFFECTS: Dizziness, drowsiness, irritability, mood changes, difficulty concentrating, distorted vision, dry mouth and changes in appetite may occur especially the first several days as your body adjusts to the medication. If any of these effects continue or become bothersome, inform your doctor. Notify your doctor if you develop: skin rash, rapid heart rate, sleep disturbances, depression, memory loss, mental confusion, hallucinations, behavior changes, numbness or tingling of the hands or feet. Be aware that this medication may cause mood or behavior changes. If you experience any such effects, remain calm. Do not take any more doses until you contact your doctor. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist.

PRECAUTIONS: Tell your doctor if you have: heart disease, high blood pressure, a history of depression or other emotional or mental conditions, allergies (especially to sesame oil). Long-term use of this medication may cause dependency. Withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, restlessness, sleeping problems, sweating, hot flashes, hiccups and loss of appetite have been reported when this medication is discontinued abruptly following long-term therapy. Do not drive, operate machinery or engage in activities requiring alertness while taking this medication. This medication should be used with caution in elderly persons as they may be more sensitive to the effects. This medication should be used only if clearly needed during pregnancy. Discuss the risks and benefits with your doctor. Because this medication appears in breast milk, consult your doctor before breast-feeding.
 
You prefer this to Marijuana? Hardly a safe alternative.


Got to love a world where a synthetic version of a substance replaces one that is easily and readily attained naturally. But then again a drug company could not really profit off from natural THC, or related cannabinoids which would be able to be purified and processed to pharmaceutical standard with ease, and at a fraction of the cost.

I love when Marinol gets touted as the universal answer to medical marijuana, when there are over 60 cannabinoids that have been isolated from cannabis. THC is but one of a whole class of substances in the understudied cannabinoid family.

Little is known about which cannabinoids have which specific medical benefits, so they release a synthetic version THC as a generic panacea to say "see we are not overlooking its medical value", while overlooking a whole myriad of potential uses for the entire class substances, many of which are non intoxicating.

Being pure THC (even synthetic) marinol is good at one thing, getting the user very high; unfortunately most users report that cannabis itself is much better at alleviating their nausea, and promoting appetite without such a complete and overwhelming stoned feeling from pure THC.

So, no Marinol is not the cure all for the problem as it is being touted, rather exploring what it is specifically in the whole class of cannabinoid drugs, and which ones specifically have which benefits is. Doing this could very well result in finding a much better solution (processed from natural cannabinoids working in tandem) that can be tailored to have the desired results, while minimizing on the intoxication effects that result from THC alone.

Medical marijuana patients often tailor the strain of cannabis they use to maximize the desired combination of cannabinoids. Different strains and different ratios of THC to other cannabinoids produce different effects, and even different intoxications, some more beneficial than others for a specific user or problem, and this does not necessarily equate to maximizing THC content and the associated intoxication.

Marinol -clocking in at 100% THC (synthetic)-, most certainly does maximize THC content, and as such is not what the doctor ordered for many medical marijuana recipients, so no, Marinol is not a viable alternative for many.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I wish california would just go ahead and withdraw from the union.
Cool with me. I'll just move there with all the thin pot smokers and you can move to Alabama with all the 500lb 13 year old kids who eat at McDonald's 5 times a day (but don't smoke pot since its' "bad for their health"). :lol:
 
Got to love a world where a synthetic version of a substance replaces one that is easily and readily attained naturally. But then again a drug company could not really profit off from natural THC, or related cannabinoids which would be able to be purified and processed to pharmaceutical standard with ease, and at a fraction of the cost.

I love when Marinol gets touted as the universal answer to medical marijuana, when there are over 60 cannabinoids that have been isolated from cannabis. THC is but one of a whole class of substances in the understudied cannabinoid family.

Little is known about which cannabinoids have which specific medical benefits, so they release a synthetic version THC as a generic panacea to say "see we are not overlooking its medical value", while overlooking a whole myriad of potential uses for the entire class substances, many of which are non intoxicating.

Being pure THC (even synthetic) marinol is good at one thing, getting the user very high; unfortunately most users report that cannabis itself is much better at alleviating their nausea, and promoting appetite without such a complete and overwhelming stoned feeling from pure THC.

So, no Marinol is not the cure all for the problem as it is being touted, rather exploring what it is specifically in the whole class of cannabinoid drugs, and which ones specifically have which benefits is. Doing this could very well result in finding a much better solution (processed from natural cannabinoids working in tandem) that can be tailored to have the desired results, while minimizing on the intoxication effects that result from THC alone.

Medical marijuana patients often tailor the strain of cannabis they use to maximize the desired combination of cannabinoids. Different strains and different ratios of THC to other cannabinoids produce different effects, and even different intoxications, some more beneficial than others for a specific user or problem, and this does not necessarily equate to maximizing THC content and the associated intoxication.

Marinol -clocking in at 100% THC (synthetic)-, most certainly does maximize THC content, and as such is not what the doctor ordered for many medical marijuana recipients, so no, Marinol is not a viable alternative for many.

Not to mention the counter-intuitive method of ingestion.

Cancer patient: I'm really nauseous. I can't eat.

Doctor: Here, swallow this pill!
 
Last edited:
you just think you've chosen to smoke. wait until you try to quit, then you know choice doesn't have a lot to do with it anymore.
Unlike tobacco, marajuana has no physically addictive traits at all (it's purely psychologically addictive).

And no, I'm a smoker and I do choose to smoke. About 2 months ago, I went for a week with without smoking (which proves I can choose not to smoke) - but I gave in and decided to buy a pack (and I started smoking every day again).

Even now, some days I choose to go with only 5-7 cigarettes a day if smoking intereferes with my priorites. Other days I'll smoke a whole pack. Qutting tobacco is a hard choice, but it's still a choice.
 
you just think you've chosen to smoke. wait until you try to quit, then you know choice doesn't have a lot to do with it anymore.

I was a heavy smoker for 18 years. I chose to smoke every time I lit one up. I also chose to quit and continue to choose not to smoke.
 
Back
Top Bottom