• 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
Just remember that during prohibiktion that there were a record number of children who were alcoholics because any kid could buy it. They also used to deliver buckets of beer which they tweaked, during the delivery process.

Go ahead keep it illegal so our kids can ea:roll:sily obtain it from the local crack dealer.
Beer was here in America from the beginning.
 
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.
It does make me high, which is why I do it. being high is a more evolved state of mind, hence the name. Most Masterworks have been done by People that were High. ---It also makes ugly people, look somewhat better, I might add. :mrgreen:
 
Free clue: It certainly does contain addictive substances. It attaches and excites cannabiod receptors in the brain, similar to what opiates do to opioid receptors. This can cause an addictive reaction in some folks. You are providing incorrect information.
Free Clue: until you provide the requested source(s) it is YOU that is providing incorrect information.

I've already said that the studies are copyrighted and I cannot link to them. I am trying to locate some excerpts that I can post. I will try to locate them tonight.
Good, I'm anxious to see them.

The AMA article says nothing about Marijuana being addictive and your editorial from the Collegiate Times only says this:
Unlike caffeine, most evidence suggests that marijuana is not physically addictive. Physical addiction to a drug is caused by the drug physically altering one’s brain chemistry in a way that nurtures dependence. For example, the brain is not accustomed to caffeine. The dependence one develops comes from his brain attempting to compensate for the unnatural chemical reaction.
Got anything else you'd like to try?
 
Not very, it appears:

"THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 g/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08 g%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs' (Robbe, 1994; Robbe and O'Hanlon, 1995; O'Hanlon et al., 1995). Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence."

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance

I tried to find a link to this on the NHTSA's website, but they seem to have deleted it (which is one reason that I don't consider the US government to be a reliable source about drugs, they have a history of ignoring and trying to cover up anything that doesn't support "Drugs are bad, M'Kay").
From a long history of personal experience I conclude that:
1) Marijuana affects people differently. Unlike alcohol which impair people basically in the same manner.
2) different types of marijuana produce different effects. Add those differences to #1 above and the range of variation widens.
3) It certainly can impair driving in some people because of,
  • it's hallucinatory effects (the tendency to daydream)
  • the tendency to loose focus or be easily distracted.

The study you present is FAR to narrow, in all aspects, to be useful.
 
I found the study that I remember citing. As I said, because of copyright limitations, I cannot link to the actual study. Here is my post from oh so long ago:



And here:



And here:



There's more spread throughout a few threads and post due to the inability of direct quoting or linking to the study.

Nothing you quoted proves that Marijuana contains any addictive substance. Everything you quoted indicates habitual dependence.

Not only that but you'd have to link to or present the entire studies for examination because clinical information on MJ has been and still is lacking as well as a lack of serious scientific study on a scale large enough to draw conclusions while thousands of years of anecdotal use denies the vast majority of government propaganda.

As a Schedule One drug, MJ research (in the USA) may only be performed by approval of the fedgov and the samples for research use are provided by one government source which is limited in strains.
 
The AMA article says nothing about Marijuana being addictive
Really. I guess you missed the part where it says "4 percent to 9 percent of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence."

and your editorial from the Collegiate Times only says this:
First you discount the source as being an editorial, then you turn around and use it for your own purposes? The only thing I used that source for was to reference the addictiveness chart published by the NIDA, which I saw a long time ago but can't seem to find again.
 
Really. I guess you missed the part where it says "4 percent to 9 percent of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence."

Pot is as addictive as sugar, or any substance that can be mentally addicted to. This does not make it an addictive drug. Pot is not physically addictive.
 
I have backed off on the "gateway drug" position since I posted those links. Though in my experience, I have seen this to be absolutely true, the research that I have read is either inconclusive, correlation but not causation, or completely refutes it. Though my anecdotal evidence supports this, that doesn't mean too much when research opposes my position.
If you were to honestly investigate your anecdotal evidence on the "gateway" premise you might find that it is not actually MJ that is the gateway but rather the situations and or people associated that cause the "gateway".

Have you ever smoked pot and thought, Hmm, I could go for some cocaine or maybe some Xtacy or LSD... or was it someone you were getting high with who offered some other drug?
 
Really. I guess you missed the part where it says "4 percent to 9 percent of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence."
Thank you for highlighting the word DEPENDENCE which is very different from ADDICTIVE. :2wave:

First you discount the source as being an editorial, then you turn around and use it for your own purposes? The only thing I used that source for was to reference the addictiveness chart published by the NIDA, which I saw a long time ago but can't seem to find again.
Which part did I use for my own purpose?
 
Nothing you quoted proves that Marijuana contains any addictive substance. Everything you quoted indicates habitual dependence.

Not only that but you'd have to link to or present the entire studies for examination because clinical information on MJ has been and still is lacking as well as a lack of serious scientific study on a scale large enough to draw conclusions while thousands of years of anecdotal use denies the vast majority of government propaganda.

As a Schedule One drug, MJ research (in the USA) may only be performed by approval of the fedgov and the samples for research use are provided by one government source which is limited in strains.
What about lung cancer?
 
Thank you for highlighting the word DEPENDENCE which is very different from ADDICTIVE. :2wave:
Medical experts use those two terms interchangeably.


Which part did I use for my own purpose?
When you quoted the author's assertion about marijuana addictiveness, that's an appeal to authority because as you correctly pointed out that article is an editorial. It refers to a peer-reviewed addiction chart and that's the only thing I used from it.
 
What about lung cancer?
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.


The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.


"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."



Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com
 
What about lung cancer?

People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users...

...Studies suggest that marijuana smoke contains 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer than cigarette smoke. Marijuana smokers also tend to inhale deeper than cigarette smokers and hold the inhaled smoke in their lungs longer.

So why isn’t smoking marijuana as dangerous as smoking cigarettes in terms of cancer risk?

The answer isn’t clear, but the experts say it might have something to do with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is a chemical found in marijuana smoke.

Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD.

FOXNews.com - Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

There have been further studies with reversals of induced tumors in rats that indeed does show anti-tumor, anti carcinogen potential for some Cannabinoids.

here is the abstract from the Tashkin study - I could not find the full study - not that anyone would likely read the whole thing,:

Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerod... [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006] - PubMed result

Similar results had been noticed comparing tobacco and marijuana smoking in another study looking at rates of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.

None of this is significant in regards to whether or not marijuana should be legal or not, it is significant in regards to rescheduling, the need for further unrestricted research, and the very real untapped potential medical value of cannabinoids.
 
Last edited:
Medical experts use those two terms interchangeably.
No, they don't. Mostly because they mean two different things. Any "expert" that would do that is no expert.

When you quoted the author's assertion about marijuana addictiveness, that's an appeal to authority because as you correctly pointed out that article is an editorial. It refers to a peer-reviewed addiction chart and that's the only thing I used from it.
Ah, I see the mis-communication. I highlighted that part of the quote to say - even your own source disagrees with you - not as buttress for my position.
 
No, they don't. Mostly because they mean two different things. Any "expert" that would do that is no expert.
Two that do:

"Drug addiction is a dependence on a street drug or a medication." (Mayo Clinic)

"Drug addiction, or dependence, is the compulsive use of a substance, despite its negative or dangerous effects." (National Institute of Health)

There are some calls to officially define them differently but that hasn't happened yet.

Ah, I see the mis-communication. I highlighted that part of the quote to say - even your own source disagrees with you - not as buttress for my position.[/QUOTE]
Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Two that do:

"Drug addiction is a dependence on a street drug or a medication." (Mayo Clinic)

"Drug addiction, or dependence, is the compulsive use of a substance, despite its negative or dangerous effects." (National Institute of Health)

There are some calls to officially define them differently but that hasn't happened yet.
Regardless, we are talking about the difference between an addictive substance and habitual dependence. Marijuana contains no addictive substance. You can become dependent on anything = habit.
 
Nothing you quoted proves that Marijuana contains any addictive substance. Everything you quoted indicates habitual dependence.

Not only that but you'd have to link to or present the entire studies for examination because clinical information on MJ has been and still is lacking as well as a lack of serious scientific study on a scale large enough to draw conclusions while thousands of years of anecdotal use denies the vast majority of government propaganda.

As a Schedule One drug, MJ research (in the USA) may only be performed by approval of the fedgov and the samples for research use are provided by one government source which is limited in strains.

Wrong. You didn't pay attention to what was written, if that is your conclusion. Something termed "physically addictive" is defined by either consistently producing withdrawal symptoms when stopped abruptly, requiring more to get the same effect, or both. The first criteria was easily met.

Marijuana is physically addictive in a small percentage of people as shown by the evidence. Now, if you want to disagree with that evidence, that's fine, but understand that you have presented nothing factual to dispute it.
 
No, they don't. Mostly because they mean two different things. Any "expert" that would do that is no expert.

This is a confusing issue and until recently, the terms WERE used interchangeably. In recent times, the DSM-IV has completely replaced the word "addiction" with the word "dependence" for all substances.

Currently, some people do use the terms interchangeably. It is not completely correct to do so, though often used amongst professionals as a kind of "shorthand". Dependence is a subset of addiction. An addiction can refer to either physical or psychological dependence, and can apply to both behaviors that can generate positive results or negative ones. Dependence, in the professional world specifically refers to diagnostic criteria used to make a diagnosis, including physical dependence. The interchangeability is that both physical addiction and physical dependence. These two terms mean the same thing.
 
This is a confusing issue and until recently, the terms WERE used interchangeably. In recent times, the DSM-IV has completely replaced the word "addiction" with the word "dependence" for all substances.

Currently, some people do use the terms interchangeably. It is not completely correct to do so, though often used amongst professionals as a kind of "shorthand". Dependence is a subset of addiction. An addiction can refer to either physical or psychological dependence, and can apply to both behaviors that can generate positive results or negative ones. Dependence, in the professional world specifically refers to diagnostic criteria used to make a diagnosis, including physical dependence. The interchangeability is that both physical addiction and physical dependence. These two terms mean the same thing.

I recently read an article talking about dependence and addiction but it pertained to opioids. American Pain Foundation Home Page
 
I recently read an article talking about dependence and addiction but it pertained to opioids. American Pain Foundation Home Page

You actually posted an article in another thread that described the difference pretty well. It mirrored what I said a bit, and I expanded on it. Addiction and dependence are not the same thing, though they are similar. I think the article you linked described it well so I will repost the description, here:

Psychiatrists are careful to distinguish between addiction and dependence. The latter occurs in almost all people who take opioids long-term; over time, they develop a tolerance to the drug, and suffer withdrawal if the drug is abruptly stopped. The point is, they are able to stop taking it eventually. Addiction, however, is defined as the compulsive use of a substance in spite of negative consequences: addicted patients whose pain symptoms have been resolved still can't quit taking the drug.

The description above is consistent with what I said and how the DSM-IV looks at these two. Dependence is a subset of addiction.
 
You actually posted an article in another thread that described the difference pretty well. It mirrored what I said a bit, and I expanded on it. Addiction and dependence are not the same thing, though they are similar. I think the article you linked described it well so I will repost the description, here:



The description above is consistent with what I said and how the DSM-IV looks at these two. Dependence is a subset of addiction.

I am dependent on women and addicted to love.:mrgreen:
 
I was talking to my parents about marijuana legalization, and truth is we were talking about hard drug decriminalization as well, and they brought up a great point about mind altering substances. They observed that it is the irresponsible actions taken when under the influence that is the problem. Granted one would be charged with DUI, but that doesn't save the person in the other car you hit while driving high or drunk. Granted use does not increase when legalized. Abuse does not increase either. Presumably this means irresponsible use does not change. But the risk is there that a legal substance can affect other people. This is a problem with alcohol, already legal. Their question was why should we add to the problem?

What say you?
 
I was talking to my parents about marijuana legalization, and truth is we were talking about hard drug decriminalization as well, and they brought up a great point about mind altering substances. They observed that it is the irresponsible actions taken when under the influence that is the problem. Granted one would be charged with DUI, but that doesn't save the person in the other car you hit while driving high or drunk. Granted use does not increase when legalized. Abuse does not increase either. Presumably this means irresponsible use does not change. But the risk is there that a legal substance can affect other people. This is a problem with alcohol, already legal. Their question was why should we add to the problem?

What say you?

Pot is safer than booze, is my opinion. Pot helps sober you up when you are intoxicated by alcohol such as thunderbird.
 
Back
Top Bottom