• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize pot?

  • Total voters
    113
angrybeaver said:
I would hazard guess and say most tokers started in adolescence.
What we havent got is strong data of long term use in adulthood.
Do you think that after a certain age cannabis completely stops harming you..?
Click to expand...
Is there no data on adult 'heavy' users, or have you not found any which show how "dangerous" it is?
I do think heavy cannabis use is of concern for adolescents, it can interfere with personality development and, as the studies suggest, this may later become an issue of psychological well-being.
You are welcome to show how damaging cannabis is generally, but using material which references this age group specifically is not convincing.

Both you and marduc pointed out that frequent use can trigger depression but others denies it.
Because you two admit this does it mean I must never mention again?
Click to expand...
What a bizarre question.
Mention it as often as you like, but it is a marginal risk. And the keyword is "trigger".
Let's keep in perspective.
 
Last edited:
roderic said:
Is there no data on adult 'heavy' users, or have you not found any which show how "dangerous" it is?
I do think heavy cannabis use is of concern for adolescents, it can interfere with personality development and, as the studies suggest, this may later become an issue of psychological well-being.
You are welcome to show how damaging cannabis is generally, but using material which references this age group specifically is not convincing.

What a bizarre question.
Mention it as often as you like, but it is a marginal risk. And the keyword is "trigger".
Let's keep in perspective.
Click to expand...

Trigger as in the same way tobacco can 'trigger' cancer,emphysema,heart disease etc etc

Once again do you think that there is a cut off point where the adolescent becomes grown up and thus resistent to the effects of cannabis.
to use the example of tobacco again,children were far nore damaged by secondary tobacco smoke adults but adults WERE affected.
 
angrybeaver said:
Trigger as in the same way tobacco can 'trigger' cancer,emphysema,heart disease etc etc

Once again do you think that there is a cut off point where the adolescent becomes grown up and thus resistent to the effects of cannabis.
to use the example of tobacco again,children were far nore damaged by secondary tobacco smoke adults but adults WERE affected.
Click to expand...

How about secondary diesel exhaust smoke? Ever smelled it?
 
angrybeaver said:
Trigger as in the same way tobacco can 'trigger' cancer,emphysema,heart disease etc etc
Click to expand...
No, tobacco, or rather the chemicals inhaled, are at least a contributing cause of cancer.
"Trigger" and "cause" are different terms, and there are very good reasons when a scientific study uses one but not the other.

Once again do you think that there is a cut off point where the adolescent becomes grown up and thus resistent to the effects of cannabis.
Click to expand...
I responded already.
to use the example of tobacco again,children were far nore damaged by secondary tobacco smoke adults but adults WERE affected.
Click to expand...
And how does this translate to cannabis? Are you referring to the psychotropic properties or the adverse health effects of the inhaled burned organic material?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I know from personal experience that marijuana is not addictive as the article in the link asserts. It's a complete fabrication, a total lie.

In my fifty years of smoking pot there were many marijuana droughts. Sometimes I would go a month without pot. I never had any withdrawal symptoms whatsoever except for maybe eating less.

If organizations like the dea claim it is addictive they lose all creditability with me.

I took morphine (prescription) for a few years for back pain. When I quit it I went through about a month of hell on earth. Now, that's addiction.
Click to expand...

Well thank god for your anecdotal evidence. That proves it!

:roll:
 
reefedjib said:
I think of it firmly in the realm of a strong indicator for pre-existing illness and not a causation of that illness. It is not a completely benign drug, as it has impacts on memory, but I absolutely do not believe it causes depression or schizophrenia.
Click to expand...

The problem is some people are having to argue against people who aren't actually being logical about it like you, and are making outrageously idiotic and worthless claims like WATER is more dangerous for you than marijuana and that there's nothing bad about it.

Its idiotic arguments and comments like those, akin with the whole notion some have that OMG how dare you say we shouldn't drive and smoke pot, that do more damage to this movement than anything else. Because its ridiculous and idiotic stereotypical stoner coments like that which makes intellectual honest, neutral people in this debate that actually AGREE with legalization but have no stake in it because we haven't been smoking our ass off for 50 years and are just bitter have to turn around and argue AGAINST those that are pushing for legailzation because they're over pushing their hand.

Its like anything else when you debate. When you begin to become so over the top and idiotic you hurt your sides angle because you weaken it as those that actually are doing it because of PRINCIPLE and not because of their own personal benefits are going to speak out against it. People pushing the idiocy that water is so much more dangerous than marijuana, you should be fine driving with it, that there's nothing bad about it, etc etc is akin to the idiots who push that Obama is a Muslim and is secretly trying to open up the U.S. to Al-Qaeda control. It pushes a point so far to the idiotic extreme that those supporting the same thing (marijuana legal/Obama's policies are bad) HAVE to speak out against you or else they look, and the movement looks, ****ing ridiculous and bad.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
What is your life experience about drug usage? So you have any clues?
Click to expand...

Nope. Never used it. I have no dog in this fight, which is quite obviously the opposite of you who has a very biased view and attachment to the issue. And mind you, I'm absolutely for legalization of it.

My only experiene with it is with friends and aquaintences that have taken it. I could throw all sorts of anecdotal evidence around about what I witnessed or was told from them and guess what, it'd be worth as much as your anecdotal evidence.

About pissing distance past zero.
 
Zyphlin said:
Nope. Never used it. I have no dog in this fight, which is quite obviously the opposite of you who has a very biased view and attachment to the issue. And mind you, I'm absolutely for legalization of it.

My only experiene with it is with friends and aquaintences that have taken it. I could throw all sorts of anecdotal evidence around about what I witnessed or was told from them and guess what, it'd be worth as much as your anecdotal evidence.

About pissing distance past zero.
Click to expand...

You don't "take" marijuana, you smoke it.
 
Well, you really cut to the point of my comment :roll:

Godwin's law, anecdotal experience, linguist nazi. You truly are a walking ball of typical cop outs and invalid debate techniques aren't you?
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, you really cut to the point of my comment :roll:

Godwin's law, anecdotal experience, linguist nazi. You truly are a walking ball of typical cop outs and invalid debate techniques aren't you?
Click to expand...

Why do you resort to insults?:(
 
roderic said:
No, tobacco, or rather the chemicals inhaled, are at least a contributing cause of cancer.
"Trigger" and "cause" are different terms, and there are very good reasons when a scientific study uses one but not the other.

I responded already.
And how does this translate to cannabis? Are you referring to the psychotropic properties or the adverse health effects of the inhaled burned organic material?
Click to expand...

Trigger and cause have very little difference to the victim.
Mental problems triggered by cannabis are ok because they were already latent are they?
Some people are genetically prone to cancers so tobacco smoke may trigger the cells to become cancerous.
I dont really think you have an argument by arguing the difference between trigger and cause.


I am refferring to the adverse effects of each drug.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Why do you resort to insults?:(
Click to expand...

Not an insult, just an obersvation of your debate style. I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your arguments, which for the most part have in a variety of threads I've ran into have often been things like anecdotal evidence put across as if its absolute fact, gross exaggerations and misdirections, idiotic appeals to hilter and nazi's, or complaining that smeone said a word wrong instead of actually dealing with the material.

You do not leave much to actual debate, or talk about, as far as substance goes because you don't leave much substance. When I make an entire post answering your question and explaining my position on anecdotal evidence your only response is to bitch about me saying "take" instead of "smoke". What do I have to comment on, or respond to, other than your rather worthless debate technique of trying to nit pick on a word I use rather than deal with what I actually SAID.

Here's a tip, don't want people complaining about your poor responses...stop giving poor responses.

Why is your anecdotal evidence that you never had issues with pot any more relevant, worthwhile, factual, or useful than someone elses anecdotal evidence that it was harmful to themselves or someone they knew? Why is your anecdotal evidence more worthwhile, relevant, factual, or useful than an actual scientific study? Why should anyone care about your anecdotal evidence when you present it as an undisputable fact yet dismiss anyone's anecdotal evidence that disagree's with yours?
 
As it happens, I do have extensive life experience, both of personal use and friendships with "dope-fiends", but I indulged in marijuana only for about a year in my late teens - it's not for me, and legalising it would not tempt me in the slightest.
 
angrybeaver said:
Trigger and cause have very little difference to the victim.
Mental problems triggered by cannabis are ok because they were already latent are they?
Click to expand...
It does make a difference when you are establishing the causative effects of cannabis to justify its illegal status.
No, mental problems are not "ok", I wish you'd refrain from posing silly suggestive questions.

Some people are genetically prone to cancers so tobacco smoke may trigger the cells to become cancerous.
I dont really think you have an argument by arguing the difference between trigger and cause.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have an argument by comparing cancer caused or triggered by tobacco smoke to mental health issues.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
You don't "take" marijuana, you smoke it.
Click to expand...

You can eat it. And there are Nicotine patches and gums. Nicotine itself is still deadly, but at least those eliminate the risk of emphysema and lung cancer. Regular pot smokers actually have a higher risk of lung cancer than cigarette smokers, because they generally don't use a filter. That is one reason why a legitimate doctor would never prescribe marijuana cigarettes to a patient. But pot brownies eliminate this risk.

angrybeaver said:
Custard can't.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone has never experienced a sugar high. :wow:

angrybeaver said:
Their study of more than 50,000 men found those who had smoked the drug in the late 1960s were 30% more likely to have developed schizophrenia
Click to expand...

In a similar study, 85% of children who hear imaginary voices develop schizophrenia in adulthood. That's a joke, but you see the point? Perhaps people prone to depression or schizophrenia seek out drugs, rather than the other way around.

angrybeaver said:
Fine words dont solve the problem.
If you allow all drugs to be legalised you will have a strung out stoned druggies for citizens,.IMO
If you ban drugs you have a organised criminals making money from what should be a non crime in your opinion.
Click to expand...

We already have strung out stoned druggies for citizens. The difference is, under the current system they have to resort to crime to pay for their addiction. And the profit margins are so high that the drug trade pays for organized crime and terrorist states. The drug war wastes billions of tax dollars. And the prisons are full of non-violent offenders, so much so that the people who are actually dangerous to society are let out early.

angrybeaver said:
Portugal seems to be trying to reduce the amount of drug use without prosecuting the user which is brilliant and if can be done would of course be far better than prohibition but the people on this thread that want to decriminalise pot do not want to stop using it..they want to use it as much as they like without fear of prosecution.
So the aim of the portuguese government is different from the premise of this thread.
But thank you for the Portuguese reference I didnt know about that.
Click to expand...

I've never used any illegal drugs and I still want them decriminalized. So your ignorant generalization there is wrong.

American said:
You can tell who the potheads are by their fervent defense of legalization.
Click to expand...

Wrong, not a pothead.

Chuz Life said:
So true,...

Just as you can pretty much tell (in the abortion threads) who has and who has not hired someone to,....
Click to expand...

Wrong, never caused a pregnancy.

Zyphlin said:
The problem is some people are having to argue against people who aren't actually being logical about it like you, and are making outrageously idiotic and worthless claims like WATER is more dangerous for you than marijuana and that there's nothing bad about it.
Click to expand...

Water is more dangerous. I wouldn't recommend inhaling.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Not an insult, just an obersvation of your debate style. I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your arguments, which for the most part have in a variety of threads I've ran into have often been things like anecdotal evidence put across as if its absolute fact, gross exaggerations and misdirections, idiotic appeals to hilter and nazi's, or complaining that smeone said a word wrong instead of actually dealing with the material.

You do not leave much to actual debate, or talk about, as far as substance goes because you don't leave much substance. When I make an entire post answering your question and explaining my position on anecdotal evidence your only response is to bitch about me saying "take" instead of "smoke". What do I have to comment on, or respond to, other than your rather worthless debate technique of trying to nit pick on a word I use rather than deal with what I actually SAID.

Here's a tip, don't want people complaining about your poor responses...stop giving poor responses.

Why is your anecdotal evidence that you never had issues with pot any more relevant, worthwhile, factual, or useful than someone elses anecdotal evidence that it was harmful to themselves or someone they knew? Why is your anecdotal evidence more worthwhile, relevant, factual, or useful than an actual scientific study? Why should anyone care about your anecdotal evidence when you present it as an undisputable fact yet dismiss anyone's anecdotal evidence that disagree's with yours?
Click to expand...

I would not have anything I could not feel sometimes.
 
roderic said:
It does make a difference when you are establishing the causative effects of cannabis to justify its illegal status.
No, mental problems are not "ok", I wish you'd refrain from posing silly suggestive questions.

I don't think you have an argument by comparing cancer caused or triggered by tobacco smoke to mental health issues.
Click to expand...

I wish you would refrain from using the difference between trigger and cause as a bogus argument.

They both are health problems caused by ingesting drugs or the toxins that are with them.. the argument stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom