• 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!

Miracle Marijuana

Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%

  • No

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 11.8%
  • Total voters
    51
CaptainCourtesy said:
Alcohol, as you said is ingrained in our culture, and has been for centuries. Marjiuana is not.
Click to expand...

Marijuana has been "ingrained" in human culture for thousands of years.

This section outlines the many and varied uses of marihuana through history, and deals with its use in medicine and its use as an intoxicant. The experience of the 1960's might lead one to surmise that marihuana use spreads explosively. The chronicle of its 3,000 year history, however, shows that this "explosion" has been characteristic only of the contemporary scene.

The plant has been grown for fiber and as a source of medicine for several thousand years, but until 500 A.D. its use as a mind-altering drug was almost solely confined in India. The drug and its uses reached the Middle and Near East during the next several centuries, and then moved across North Africa, appeared in Latin America and the Caribbean, and finally entered the United States in the early decades of this century (Snyder, 1970: 129). Meanwhile it had been introduced into European medicine shortly after the invasion of Egypt by Napoleon and had a minor vogue as an intoxicant for a time in France.

Cannabis sativa has been used therapeutically from the earliest records, nearly 5,000 years ago, to the present day (Mikuriya, 1969: 34) and its products have been widely noted for their effects, both physiological and psychological, throughout the world. Although the Chinese and Indian cultures knew about the properties of this drug from very early times, this information did not become general in the Near and Middle East until after the fifth century A.D., when travelers, traders and adventurers began to carry knowledge of the drug westward to Persia and Arabia. Historians claim that cannabis was first employed in these countries as an antiseptic and analgesic.

Other medical uses were later developed and spread throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe. Several years after the return of Napoleon's army from Egypt, cannabis became widely accepted by Western medical practitioners. Previously, it had had limited use for such purposes as the treatment of burns. The scientific members of Napoleon's forces were interested in the drug's pain relieving and sedative effects. It was used during, and to a greater extent, following his rule in France, especially after 1840 when the work of such physicians as O'Shaughnessy, Aubert-Roche, and Moreau de Tours drew wide attention to this drug.

With the rise of the literary movement of the 1840-1860 period in France (Gautier, Baudelaire, Dumas, etc.), cannabis became somewhat popular as an intoxicant of the intellectual classes.

In the United States, medical interest in cannabis use was evidenced in 1860 by the convening of a Committee on Cannabis Indica of the Ohio State Medical Society, which reported on its therapeutic applications (McMeens, 1860: 1). Between the period 1840-1890, Walton states that more than 100 articles were published recommending cannabis for one disorder or another.
Click to expand...

More...
 
Smoking pot is what tore Napoleon's bone apart.
 
I think that anyone who doesn't smoke pot already should never start.

I think the people who do smoke pot should stop.

Maybe the cost would go down. :rofl
 
marduc said:
He tells you he is in favor of legalization and you then respond with this?

You are not helping any by ostracizing and attacking those who are sympathetic to your cause you know. Zyphlin's points are valid, and if anything you should take them as constructive criticism. Instead you double down at the irrational zealous mode.. really.. just do yourself -and others- a favor and stop.
Click to expand...

Only CC can make ME stop.
 
Hatuey said:
I do not recommend this to anybody but try smoking weed for 5 days and stopping. You most likely will. Try taking pain killers for 5 days and then go cold turkey. You'll look at the bottle for about 5 minutes until you decide to pop one.
Click to expand...

All that proves is that certain painkillers are more addictive than weed... which is true and I've already said. It does NOT however, demonstrate that weed is NOT addictive.
 
Zyphlin said:
As I tell many of the conservatives on this site that can't stand me...

If I can not hold the side I am on to the highest of standards what right do I have in telling the other side that they're wrong. If I can not, and do not, point out the ridiculous or highly questionable arguments and statements of my side what right do I have in telling the other side they're wrong. And more over that I will not sit by and idlely twiddle my thumbs while those on my side make me look like I'm in league with a bunch of raving lunatics just out of the nature of being on the same "team".

If people come in here making accusations weed turns people into mindless killers, that weed is 10 times more dangerous than alcohol in every way, that permanently rots away the brain of anyone who smokes it at all, that anyone htat wants it legalized is just a mindless pot head that wants to get high, etc then I'll react just the same. Ignorant, exaggerated, or flat out dishonest statements from either side need to be confronted if there's ever going to be a legitimate chance for legalization to come to fruition in this country.
Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree, unfortunately is is the zealousness that gets noticed and is what also turns away those who are either already on your side, or those who are on the fence and could be easily swayed by a simple rational argument that supports the case. There are a few posters who cannot seem to see that they atrr arguing their case to people who for the most part are already on their side -albeit for different reasons. The arguments they make do not help, they hinder.

Really it is not a difficult argument, here it is distilled to 6 words (and 2 symbols):

prohibition = drug anarchy
legalization = drug control
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
Pot is not a crutch, and it's not a place to hide. If anything, it is like looking at the World through a microscope. I don't blame people for fearing their own minds. the thought of expanding it is probably more than they can bear.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. For some it's a crutch. For some it's recreation. Those who chose not to use are not afraid of it... that's a pot smokers fallacy, same thing as conservatives who erroneously claim that liberals are afraid of Palin. There are plenty of ways to expand ones mind. Some just choose to do it without the side effects of pot.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
He tells you he is in favor of legalization and you then respond with this?

You are not helping any by ostracizing and attacking those who are sympathetic to your cause you know. Zyphlin's points are valid, and if anything you should take them as constructive criticism. Instead you double down at the irrational zealous mode.. really.. just do yourself -and others- a favor and stop.
Click to expand...

Like Zyph, when I see someone making an argument that misrepresents reality, I always tell them how it weakens their position... especially if I agree with them. Glorifying marijuana is a complete misrepresentation. If one has to lie and omit in order to prove their point, their point isn't very strong to begin with.
 
marduc said:
Wholeheartedly agree, unfortunately is is the zealousness that gets noticed and is what also turns away those who are either already on your side, or those who are on the fence and could be easily swayed by a simple rational argument that supports the case. There are a few posters who cannot seem to see that they atrr arguing their case to people who for the most part are already on their side -albeit for different reasons. The arguments they make do not help, they hinder.

Really it is not a difficult argument, here it is distilled to 6 words (and 2 symbols):

prohibition = drug anarchy
legalization = drug control
Click to expand...

Extremists always seem to have the loudest voices. They also tend to most uninformed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
All that proves is that certain painkillers are more addictive than weed... which is true and I've already said. It does NOT however, demonstrate that weed is NOT addictive.
Click to expand...

I still think the addiction is primarily psychosomatic :p

I have looked and looked for evidence one way or the other, and I have not seen anything conclusive, although you have better access to information and the latest papers on the subject than I - it seems odd that if there were conclusive studies they would be waved around and touted, especially by the ONDCP.

This is an old argument, and moot point though, even if it is physically addicting it changes nothing as far as the argument for its legalization goes, it is nothing but a red herring.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
All that proves is that certain painkillers are more addictive than weed... which is true and I've already said. It does NOT however, demonstrate that weed is NOT addictive.
Click to expand...

I would like them to do some studies on this using humans for an experiment to see if pot is addictive.

I hereby volunteer my services free for this study.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's ridiculous. For some it's a crutch. For some it's recreation. Those who chose not to use are not afraid of it... that's a pot smokers fallacy, same thing as conservatives who erroneously claim that liberals are afraid of Palin. There are plenty of ways to expand ones mind. Some just choose to do it without the side effects of pot.
Click to expand...
How is it a fallacy, when all we hear is " it is addictive, it will make you do heavy drugs, it will rot yer brain, it will make you think fat gals, look purdy good." and the list goes on. when no one, myself included knows one thing about what another person should do with themselves, nor is it any of their business. Now if a persons "actions" become a problem, then I agree, they should be reined in. but If a Guy wants to blow a bowl of pot, and listen to Mississippi Queen" real loud, let him. It's his life. ---Life can be miserable enough, with out some do gooder looking over your shoulder, to see if yer enjoying your self to much.
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
How is it a fallacy, when all we hear is " it is addictive, it will make you do heavy drugs, it will rot yer brain, it will make you think fat gals, look purdy good."
Click to expand...

One person making a fallacy by making ignorant stupid over exaggerations and generalizations doesn't justify your own use of ignorant and stupid over exaggerations and generalizations

You're not better than the people who go "it is addictive, it will make you do heavy drugs, it will rot yer brain, it will make you think fat gals, look purdy good." You're just their mirror image
 
Zyphlin said:
One person making a fallacy by making ignorant stupid over exaggerations and generalizations doesn't justify your own use of ignorant and stupid over exaggerations and generalizations

You're not better than the people who go "it is addictive, it will make you do heavy drugs, it will rot yer brain, it will make you think fat gals, look purdy good." You're just their mirror image
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out how ridicules they sound when they make those unfounded claims. I was in fact, holding up that mirror.
 
Zyphlin said:
One person making a fallacy by making ignorant stupid over exaggerations and generalizations doesn't justify your own use of ignorant and stupid over exaggerations and generalizations

You're not better than the people who go "it is addictive, it will make you do heavy drugs, it will rot yer brain, it will make you think fat gals, look purdy good." You're just their mirror image
Click to expand...

There you go again, calling someone's statements "stupid over exaggerations". Have you read your writing lately?:roll:
 
Skateguy said:
I was just pointing out how ridicules they sound when they make those unfounded claims. I was in fact, holding up that mirror.
Click to expand...

No, you were, in fact, being as ridiculous as they are and are now back tracking.

Or are you now seriously trying to bull**** and say that your statement that "Pot is not a crutch" was not a serious statement?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
There you go again, calling someone's statements "stupid over exaggerations". Have you read your writing lately?:roll:
Click to expand...

I'd read yours but you never actually SAY anything, you just bitch and whine because you can never counter peoples arguments when they obliterate yours the few times you actually deem it worthy to actually debate rather than make snarky one liners.

Saying "Pot is not a crutch" as a blanket statement is a stupid over exaggeration, by the very fact that YES, pot CAN be a crutch for some people.

Saying "Pot is not addictive" as a blanket statement IS a stupid over exaggeration, by the very fact its been proven to be mentally addictive to some people and studies showing its physically addictive to some people as well.

Both are examples of people trying to state things as FACTS that are actually incorrect over exaggerations.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I'd read yours but you never actually SAY anything, you just bitch and whine because you can never counter peoples arguments when they obliterate yours the few times you actually deem it worthy to actually debate rather than make snarky one liners.

Saying "Pot is not a crutch" as a blanket statement is a stupid over exaggeration, by the very fact that YES, pot CAN be a crutch for some people.

Saying "Pot is not addictive" as a blanket statement IS a stupid over exaggeration, by the very fact its been proven to be mentally addictive to some people and studies showing its physically addictive to some people as well.

Both are examples of people trying to state things as FACTS that are actually incorrect over exaggerations.
Click to expand...

Show me the studies. I know about pot because I am experienced about it and you are not.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
There you go again, calling someone's statements "stupid over exaggerations". Have you read your writing lately?:roll:
Click to expand...
good manners, is all about a persons upbringing. some people may have unresolved issues, from when little Johnny took their bike from them in third grade. I pay them no mind. I was much the same in my younger years. Before I got all Cool and Groovy like. :cool:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Show me the studies. I know about pot because I am experienced about it and you are not.
Click to expand...

Well, since you're making amazingly illogical debate fallacies as your method of argument (goes back to your whole crappy debate skills thing) I'll save myself some time and just play on your playing field.

CC is actually involved in the field of study, which makes him more experienced and knowledable about it than you, and has read the studies, so show me counters to his statements.

Yay, its fun playing your pathetic games of appeal to experience.
 
Goshin said:
Good morning Children.

It's Mister Rogers again. Won't you be my neighbor?

It's time for today's word.

Today's word is "Single Issue Poster".

Can you say "Single Issue Poster?"

I knew you could.



:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick Mr. Rogers, but that's three words. :mrgreen:
 
Skateguy said:
good manners, is all about a persons upbringing. some people may have unresolved issues, from when little Johnny took their bike from them in third grade. I pay them no mind. I was much the same in my younger years. Before I got all Cool and Groovy like. :cool:
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as:

"Yes, I did make a stupid over generalization, got called on it, attempted to say I wasn't serious, got called on it again, and rather than counter it I'll make a snide little aside".

Good to know!
 
Zyphlin said:
Otherwise known as:

"Yes, I did make a stupid over generalization, got called on it, attempted to say I wasn't serious, got called on it again, and rather than counter it I'll make a snide little aside".

Good to know!
Click to expand...
there ya go again, just blindly humpin my leg.
 
Since when does someones 45 years of first hand experience count for nothing?? When some strangers limited experience, if any, is treated like Gospel. I know exactly what I'm talking about, and don't have to read any one's notes to reach my conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom