• 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
LiberalAvenger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Been done on habitual pot smokers. It's addictive. I'll dig up excerpts from the study tonight.
 
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." 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.
Click to expand...

This too is a fallacy. Point out where I have said any of the things in the first part of your post. They are as obtuse as someone saying, "there's absolutely nothing wrong with smoking weed." Both statements are fallacious.

I don't care if someone smokes, as long as it does not affect anyone else. But don't claim that it is never a crutch. For some it is; for others it is recreation.
 
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...

LiberalAvenger said:
There you go again, calling someone's statements "stupid over exaggerations". Have you read your writing lately?:roll:
Click to expand...

Both of you need to hear what you are doing. You are making implied claims that smoking pot is not problematic in any way. Since this is completely inaccurate, you are making the same ridiculous exaggerations and fallacies that those who claim that smoking weed will make anyone crazy and lazy. People who make either of these assertions demonstrate either their lack of knowledge on the topic, or their lack of ability to look at the topic objectively.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Show me the studies. I know about pot because I am experienced about it and you are not.
Click to expand...

Your experiences are irrelevant. You are one person and do not speak for everyone. I have plenty of experiences that are completely opposite of yours.
 
Skateguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

One person's experience is meaningless. If one person walks into a casino with $5 and comes out winning $1 million, does that mean that it is easy to beat the casino? Now you know why anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your experiences are irrelevant. You are one person and do not speak for everyone. I have plenty of experiences that are completely opposite of yours.
Click to expand...
this is what I'm talking about. How can someones own personal experiences, be classified as irrelevant, but some third parities is treated like fact? No one claims to speak for all people. but if we don't include our personal experiences, we are left to just quote third parties, and to trust in people's findings that have no relevance to our own life experiences. I count on first hand experiences, and to me, they are very relevant.
 
Skateguy said:
this is what I'm talking about. How can someones own personal experiences, be classified as irrelevant, but some third parities is treated like fact? No one claims to speak for all people. but if we don't include our personal experiences, we are left to just quote third parties, and to trust in people's findings that have no relevance to our own life experiences. I count on first hand experiences, and to me, they are very relevant.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, I'm not coming from a 3rd party opinion or anything I read in a medical journal. I speak from what I know to be a fact. Pot is addictive. An addiction that can be broken without any negative side-effects, perhaps, but an addiction, none the less.

I don't care who tries to invalidate what I personally know to be a fact, first hand, up close and personal. If I walked outside to a sunny day and the weatherman was telling me on TV that it is raining, because his radar said it was, I would have the sense to know better.
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
Well, like I said, I'm not coming from a 3rd party opinion or anything I read in a medical journal. I speak from what I know to be a fact. Pot is addictive. An addiction that can be broken without any negative side-effects, perhaps, but an addiction, none the less.

I don't care who tries to invalidate what I personally know to be a fact, first hand, up close and personal. If I walked outside to a sunny day and the weatherman was telling me on TV that it is raining, I would have the sense to know better.
Click to expand...
"Well, like I said, I'm not coming from a 3rd party opinion or anything I read in a medical journal. I speak from what I know to be a fact. Pot is addictive. An addiction that can be broken without any negative side-effects, perhaps, but an addiction, none the less." OK, so you personally know this to be a fact, so I ask how, if not from personal experience, then how?
 
Skateguy said:
"Well, like I said, I'm not coming from a 3rd party opinion or anything I read in a medical journal. I speak from what I know to be a fact. Pot is addictive. An addiction that can be broken without any negative side-effects, perhaps, but an addiction, none the less." OK, so you personally know this to be a fact, so I ask how, if not from personal experience, then how?
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Having partaken on a daily basis, (a few weeks/months off, here and there,) for over 35 years, I would think I know enough about it to not have to depend on a link or a shrink.

I have to ask. Where did you EVER get the idea my words weren't from personal experience? Hell, I wrote the book son.


PS.... I am a Hou-stone-ian too. Northeast. Class of 75. When pot was ten bucks a lid and pounds cost less than a 100.00.
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
this is what I'm talking about. How can someones own personal experiences, be classified as irrelevant, but some third parities is treated like fact?
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence, while not irrelevant, is hardly superior to actual studied affects and can not be used to state broad ideas as FACTS.

If I pass a strip of road every day and never see a cop I could say "In my experience I've never seen a cop there". That is a statement using anecdotal that is useful and factual. If I said "Cops are NEVER there" as a universal fact then that data is relatively irrelevant compared with a study of police movement that shows that a cop is there every two weeks at 2:15 on Tuesday which is 3 hours before you pass it each day.

Likewise, you smoking pot for 40 years and knowing a few dozen others that do it doesn't trump medical research conducted under actual scientific theory of a multitude of individuals over a multitude of time with actual testable results.

No one claims to speak for all people.
Click to expand...

Really? Pretty sure you made this ignorant exaggerated blanket statement earlier:

Skateguy said:
ricksfolly said:
Pot is not a crutch,
Click to expand...

Sure looks like a definitive, universal, statement. It wasn't "Pot usually isn't a crutch" or "Pot is not a crutch for everyone". No, i'm pretty sure that's a universal statement there of you relaying your personal experience as definitive fact for everyone.

I thought you said no one claims to do that...?

I count on first hand experiences, and to me, they are very relevant.
Click to expand...

Yes, relevant. TO YOU. If I go walk slowly across a major roadway every day for a year and never get hit does this prove that "walking across major roadways is safe"? Absolutely not. It means that you've never had an issue with it, but that is ONLY you and that's ONLY referencing your immediate past.

Pot isn't a crutch to you. Great, that doesn't make it a universal truth. That doesn't mean scientific evidence of it being a crutch for some people is not accurate. And it doesn't make your statement of it as a universal thing accurate.

Anecdotal has a place, below actual studied research and pertaining to yourself, your experiences, and your opinions...not broad factual statements
Click to expand...
 
Ok, it is addictive. I take CC at his word because of his expertise.

What I would like to know is how addictive is it? Is there an Addiction Index or something. It is WAY less addictive that cigarettes (plenty of experience here), and I assume Heroin (no experience there). I mean on a scale of 1 to 10, let us say a pack a day smoker is addicted to an 8. I would say a habitual pot smoker is addicted to a 1, or just maybe a 2.
 
reefedjib said:
Ok, it is addictive. I take CC at his word because of his expertise.

What I would like to know is how addictive is it? Is there an Addiction Index or something. It is WAY less addictive that cigarettes (plenty of experience here), and I assume Heroin (no experience there). I mean on a scale of 1 to 10, let us say a pack a day smoker is addicted to an 8. I would say a habitual pot smoker is addicted to a 1, or just maybe a 2.
Click to expand...

Oh, its definitely from what I understand one of the lesser physical addictive type substances but somewhat decently mentally addictive after extended use.

That said, I see no reason why that should mean it should stay illegal. As has been said, numerous addictive things both physically and mentally.... cigarettes, alcohol, caffine, etc...are sold on the market today.

The problem comes with arguing that its absolutely, completely, non-addictive is that:

1) It makes you look either dishonest or stupid
2) It then makes the debate have to start FIRST at your erroneous statement and not first on the "why is addictiveness alone reason to ban when other similar things are not"

By obfuscating and lying it immediately brings the legitimacy of your claims into question and creates a natural backlash.

It also too often is a lead in for some as well to go from "Its not addictive" to "It makes me a better driver" or other such statements when the natural next step comes up in regards to the legalization argument, which is regulation.

Often times people see people arguing "Its not addictive" and "Its perfectly harmless" as a means of setting up the notion that it absolutely should not be regulated in the way similar to alcohol or tobacco.
 
depending on the measures and age group studied, 4 percent to 9 percent of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence. Although some marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of alcohol and nicotine, and the abstinence syndrome is less severe. Like other drugs, dependence is more likely to occur in individuals with co-morbid psychiatric conditions.

AMA - Report 6 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-01) Full t
Click to expand...

dr. Jack henningfield from the national institute of drug abuse made a chart rating the addictiveness of various substances. On it, he rated marijuana as less addictive than caffeine.


Caffeine may be more dangerous than marijuana - CollegiateTimes.com
Click to expand...
0123456789
 
Captain America said:
Are you serious?

Having partaken on a daily basis, (a few weeks/months off, here and there,) for over 35 years, I would think I know enough about it to not have to depend on a link or a shrink.

I have to ask. Where did you EVER get the idea my words weren't from personal experience? Hell, I wrote the book son.


PS.... I am a Hou-stone-ian too. Northeast. Class of 75. When pot was ten bucks a lid and pounds cost less than a 100.00.
Click to expand...
It's just that you posted this, so I just assumed you were against using personal experience as fact.
Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
"Your experiences are irrelevant. You are one person and do not speak for everyone."---and Howdy there H-Town.-- Mexican weed was $50 an lb, and a match box was $5. Ah the good old days.
 
spud_meister said:
so, if they have it in a pill, why does marijuana need to be legal?
Click to expand...

For one thing, one of the main uses of it is to help battle nausea.

If you are puking up the pills (and this is a problem with all anti-emetic/anti-nausea pills), then you are not getting the medicine.

A method of inhalation is far superior to something that needs to be ingested in this instance.

But, as I've said before, I am a proponent of legalization, period.
The medicinal uses are one of the reasons for it. The industrial/commercial uses are another reason. That there is no Constitutional justification for it is another. The violence that is caused by the Drug War is another.

That I personally like it is another reason. However, I have no interest in most other illegal drugs, but I am a proponent of the legalization of those as well.
 
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...

Oh please...:roll:

It gets you high and you like it.

It doesn't make you smarter, it doesn't expand your mind. It just gets you stoned.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Show me the studies. I know about pot because I am experienced about it and you are not.
Click to expand...

That's what's referred to as an "anecdote". It is not evidence of anything.

You are into the same realm of logic that those who say that they KNOW that God exists because they have personally felt his presence.
 
Skateguy said:
this is what I'm talking about. How can someones own personal experiences, be classified as irrelevant, but some third parities is treated like fact? No one claims to speak for all people. but if we don't include our personal experiences, we are left to just quote third parties, and to trust in people's findings that have no relevance to our own life experiences. I count on first hand experiences, and to me, they are very relevant.
Click to expand...

Your personal experiences are relevant... TO YOU. And that's it.
 
reefedjib said:
Ok, it is addictive. I take CC at his word because of his expertise.

What I would like to know is how addictive is it? Is there an Addiction Index or something. It is WAY less addictive that cigarettes (plenty of experience here), and I assume Heroin (no experience there). I mean on a scale of 1 to 10, let us say a pack a day smoker is addicted to an 8. I would say a habitual pot smoker is addicted to a 1, or just maybe a 2.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is an "Addiction Index". It would be a fascinating thing to develop, but I'm not sure how something like that could be objectively measured. If I figure it out, I'm sure I'd make millions. ;)

Marijuana is fairly low on the scale of addictiveness from all the studies I've read. Nicotine is about the highest. Opiates are pretty high also.

But remember, and Zyph said it well, when arguing for legalization (which I am for, btw), making the claim that it is NOT addictive, immediately makes your position appear non-credible, since, right of the bat, you are presenting something that is not true. Same thing when pro-legalization folks say "pot isn't dangerous" or "alcohol is worse". All of these statements are either irrelevant, false, or both. If someone presents a pro-legalization argument, constructed in a way that all they are really saying is, "I want pot legalized so I can get high without consequences", they will look like an idiot and be dismissed as one. I could go just as far with the argument, "I want murder legalized so I can kill someone without consequences." It demonstrates no logic. I was anti-legalization for a LONG time. A poster here at DP changed my mind by making a completely logical and reasonable argument, of which I have expanded after a bit of research. To prove your point, you have to have some viable, valid reason for it to stand on. The argument, "I want pot legalized so I can get high without consequences" is ridiculous and will convince no one. And it will lose.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I was anti-legalization for a LONG time. A poster here at DP changed my mind by making a completely logical and reasonable argument, of which I have expanded after a bit of research.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite. :) What's your argument for legalization?
 
reefedjib said:
Ok, I'll bite. :) What's your argument for legalization?
Click to expand...

My position is this. The War on Drugs is a failure. What we have found is that incarcerating folks for possession does not resolve the issue. When they are released, their drug use continues. A major part of this problem is that these folks, even if they want to get help for their substance abuse issues, cannot afford to get adequate care. This is, to some extent, a health care issue, whereas the insurance industry often marginalizes both substance abuse and mental health benefits. Let's throw alcohol into this, also, as the majority of major crimes are either surrounding some sort of substance or occur because of a substance or intoxication of a substance. Legalization presents us with solutions to many problems that the War on Drugs fails at. Firstly, incarceration for simple possession is ridiculous. Not all marijuana smokers are addicts or commit crimes... just like not all drinkers of alcohol are alcoholics or commit crimes. Further, if the government legalized marijuana use, they could tax the hell out of it. When you combine the monies from these taxes, plus the huge amount of money saved from eliminating the war on drugs, this money is then to be used for free substance abuse rehab for folks that ARE addicted. By doing so, not only do you eliminate a failed policy, and cease charges for something that tends to not created criminal behavior, but you provide a service for those folks that DO have a problem, assisting them to become more productive members of society and to NOT use their addiction to become involved in criminal behavior.

All consequences ascribed to alcohol would apply... driving under the influence, underage intoxication, etc...

I have not decided whether or not this should apply to "harder" drugs, though the free care for addiction, should.

That's my basic position and reasoning. Instead of criminalizing the problem, treat the problem... when there is a problem.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
My position is this. The War on Drugs is a failure. What we have found is that incarcerating folks for possession does not resolve the issue. When they are released, their drug use continues. A major part of this problem is that these folks, even if they want to get help for their substance abuse issues, cannot afford to get adequate care. This is, to some extent, a health care issue, whereas the insurance industry often marginalizes both substance abuse and mental health benefits. Let's throw alcohol into this, also, as the majority of major crimes are either surrounding some sort of substance or occur because of a substance or intoxication of a substance. Legalization presents us with solutions to many problems that the War on Drugs fails at. Firstly, incarceration for simple possession is ridiculous. Not all marijuana smokers are addicts or commit crimes... just like not all drinkers of alcohol are alcoholics or commit crimes. Further, if the government legalized marijuana use, they could tax the hell out of it. When you combine the monies from these taxes, plus the huge amount of money saved from eliminating the war on drugs, this money is then to be used for free substance abuse rehab for folks that ARE addicted. By doing so, not only do you eliminate a failed policy, and cease charges for something that tends to not created criminal behavior, but you provide a service for those folks that DO have a problem, assisting them to become more productive members of society and to NOT use their addiction to become involved in criminal behavior.

All consequences ascribed to alcohol would apply... driving under the influence, underage intoxication, etc...

I have not decided whether or not this should apply to "harder" drugs, though the free care for addiction, should.

That's my basic position and reasoning. Instead of criminalizing the problem, treat the problem... when there is a problem.
Click to expand...

That is extremely close to my opinion, I think. Drugs are not a criminal problem, they are a health problem. So let's stop criminalizing the industry, creating a criminal supply chain that commits additional crimes as organized crime. Let's legalize soft drugs and through proceeds pay for care. Let's decriminalize hard drugs.
 
My former FIL had terminal cancer back in '98. I wish there would have been a way to get him something to help with the after effects of nausea and vomiting after he received chemo treatments via pic line. Like, marijuana.

He instead received THC pills, which did virtually nothing and he most times would vomit those up. He lost weight, was weak and overall nauseated all week until his next round of chemo.

To see someone you love in pain to the point that they starve themselves because their body is revolting against a chemical that is killing not only the bad cells, but the good ones as well ... is indescribable.

Maybe if he'd had access marijuana he could have *at least* been held some food down, maybe he would not have been nauseous all the time - maybe not. But he never got the opportunity. He passed away February 22, 1999.

It's not only "pot heads" that think medical marijuana would/could do some good. I get so angry when I read that only pot heads want to see marijuana decriminalized. Those people have no idea the motives why some of us would like to see this happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom