user1991

Hold the phone there Bruno, they're all studies that talk about the impairments of marijuana. We all know it has them, what Im asking you is to prove that they would actually mean something. If marijuana was legalised, the only way the impairments would make a difference would be if the numbers of people using marijuana grew to ridiculous heights, thus causing more traffic accidents. Now I've given you studies that say the numbers wouldn't grow that much, not enough for the negatives to outweigh the benefits. "Marijuana legalisation would cause more deaths than if it was illegal" - Your words. So you're saying, that the numbers of people who die in car accidents/accidents due to marijuana, would be, not only much more than now, but more than the number of people SAVED from removing both the illegality, the gang relations, the concept of lacing the drug, and allowing people to use it as a medicine. Who knows what the future holds for marijuana medically - it has been shown to stop the growth of cancers in lab mice, which for anything other than marijuana, the government would look into immediately. Yet, they refuse to allow people to do anything other than theoretical studies or studies that can only use their, government grown (yes they grow it) strain of marijuana, which is of an extremely low quality. So, again, we all know it causes you impairment issues. But thats irrelevent. That wouldnt matter unless the number of users would rise dramatically, which so far, I haven't seen proof for. Don't compare the entire legalization to medical us. I'm entirely pro medical use. And excuse my ignorance, but the link you gave me was such as a book, and I cannot find your "If legalized numbers would not increase" statement. Even when I see it, I still can't believe it. It's like if speeding was made legal, no one would do it, despite all the facts that it would cause more deaths etc. So yes, I'm basing this on the ignorance of the people today, population of humans, and legal drugs used today. Billions would be gained by the government, but they can stand ideally without spending a cent of it towards victims of marijuana use. Of course I think they should allow the studies of THC and its various forms, but I can't see that happening as of yet. I know it's not physically addicting, but how come this place(http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com/)doesn't exist for math or sports? The numbers of users would increase, but by a small amount. Not enough to actually affect anything dramatically. "Even when I see it, I still can't believe it." So you're asserting that your gut instinct, unfounded with evidence or experience, is more valuable than dozens of scientific studies/reports? Okay, well now I know what I'm dealing with. That's sort of like "blind faith", right? The reason that website exists, is because of the image of marijuana in society. By making it illegal, you add to the stigma. Noone talks about caffeine addiction, when that is much more of a problem than marijuana addiction. And why not? Because you can buy it, in drinks, in food, in pretty much everything. There isn't this image of it as a dangerous drug, like there is for marijuana. People convince themselves they're addicted to it to the point where they actually are addicted - but the only reason this happens is because of their subconscious and how it is influenced. If you're told all your life something is addictive, and you take it, you might think yourself addicted. However, if you're told all your life it isn't addictive, what are the chances of you imagining yourself to be addicted to it? Not very high.

Some of them show the effects of mothers who smoke. Others show the neurological effects of heavy users. I found multiple ones on the failed results of medical marijuana, but didn't post them. I'm just arguing that all the "little" thinks that weed does, adds up, regardless of whether you want them or not. It's just to much of a risk to have every other drug company growing marijuana and spreading its use. Some of which ignorant about the facts, to drive, operate machinery, and do it in public. Also who will pay for the cost and maintenance(social, criminal, research, etc) of legalization? Who will be responsible for the newly created drug addicts? Who will support and aid the drug addicts addiction? The USA would save billions of dollars by taxing it. Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman published a report saying this anyway. ... addiction, you're kidding right? You're aware its not physically addictive, right? Psychologically, yep, but so is EVERYTHING. And I mean everything. Even MATH. In terms of actual, real addiction, coffee is worse. Look at all the addicts in for caffeine. Yeh, millions of em -.- If you take away the whole image of marijuana as some sort of dangerous drug, people stop viewing it like some sort of new age opium and think they're addicted to it. If anyone actually says they are addicted to it, it is purely their imagination, which is caused by their subconscious, which is influenced by shadow media and societal pressure, which dictates that marijuana is bad. Also, before you start to show me statistics on the numbers of people in addiction problems for marijuana, I must inform you, about 95% of them are only there because they have been ordered to go there by the courts. The courts tell them jail or rehab, what would you do? The number of people actually there of their own accord is minimal. People have the wrong idea of addiction. If someone smoked weed all day everyday, they aren't necessarily addicted. That's like saying that someone who isn't smoking it all day is addicted to not smoking it. Really, its that ridiculous. Addiction is where you have to take it, you can't stop yourself, you come back, one way or another. Just cause someone chooses an alternative lifestyle, it doesn't make them an addict. In all my days of blazing, I have never encountered ANYONE like this. Sure, I know a lot of people who like to toke up, but I can guarantee, if suddenly the weed supply stopped, they may be pissed, but they would not be shaking, vomiting, or going into fits of rage like you get with harder drugs. At worst, maybe a little weeping. Nah, just kidding.

Hold the phone there Bruno, they're all studies that talk about the impairments of marijuana. We all know it has them, what Im asking you is to prove that they would actually mean something. If marijuana was legalised, the only way the impairments would make a difference would be if the numbers of people using marijuana grew to ridiculous heights, thus causing more traffic accidents. Now I've given you studies that say the numbers wouldn't grow that much, not enough for the negatives to outweigh the benefits. "Marijuana legalisation would cause more deaths than if it was illegal" - Your words. So you're saying, that the numbers of people who die in car accidents/accidents due to marijuana, would be, not only much more than now, but more than the number of people SAVED from removing both the illegality, the gang relations, the concept of lacing the drug, and allowing people to use it as a medicine. Who knows what the future holds for marijuana medically - it has been shown to stop the growth of cancers in lab mice, which for anything other than marijuana, the government would look into immediately. Yet, they refuse to allow people to do anything other than theoretical studies or studies that can only use their, government grown (yes they grow it) strain of marijuana, which is of an extremely low quality. So, again, we all know it causes you impairment issues. But thats irrelevent. That wouldnt matter unless the number of users would rise dramatically, which so far, I haven't seen proof for.

I went through the whole phase of wanting to sue him for damages. He prescribed me Effexor XR under the age of 18 years which is illegal and didn't help. I went through with the suit and dropped out. I decided it wasn't worth it, moved on and just happy that I can have a normal life with my son :D If you had sued, the defense would have used the marijuana against you, for sure. But I think you would have won. Then again, I'm not one for retribution. Neither was Ghandi, and he was the man.

Just adding on to this: If people use marijuana responsibly, but decide not to adjust their dosage the worst things you'll see from them is vomiting or they'll pass out (and probably wake up long after they've crashed aka wasted their weed). I've smoked some pretty weak stuff and some pretty strong stuff and the worst that has happened to me was passing out a few times. Unlike alcohol, taking using more marijuana than you should have (for a good high) isn't going to kill you. @laura: Please stop with your opinions that you keep pushing as facts and the gov't propaganda. I can see why TheTrueNoob would be angry with you when you're not even using correct facts in your arguement. We never said marijuana is going to kill you. :roll: And why does everyone say every website that lists sideffects of marijuana is government propaganda? You've smoked, would yuo feel comfortable to drive in that situation? I never pushed my "opinions" as facts either. But any ways you look at it, legalizing this drug would cause more deaths than keeping it illegal. Angry is one thing(besides, it's a debate, and public forums), swearing and yelling is different. Not every website, but the DEA, pretty much. They're known for it. They won't even let scientists do studies on marijuana, they always have to synthesise THC, which is slightly different. To actually get approval to do a study on marijuana, especially from the DEA, would be a nightmare. It's as if they dont WANT to know what its all really about. I wouldn't feel comfortable driving whilst high. BUT, I would feel more comfortable than if I was drunk. Driving high would be illegal, but lets theorise, if someone decides to break the law, they are much LESS likely to crash than a drunk driver. More likely than if they were sober, thats granted, but a LOT less than if they were drunk. Also, being drunk actually causes aggression which in turn would make you want to go faster. I remember watching this thing on BBC about this woman who went to Amsterdam and tested weed against alcohol whilst driving (on a track of course), and when she was high, she drove much safer than when she was drunk. She was actually more cautious whilst high, whereas with alcohol, she was driving at ridiculous speeds. I'm not saying that driving high is good, but rather, that it isnt nearly as bad as you say it is. Also, the increased number of deaths would rely entirely on the assumption that more people would start smoking if it was legalised. Studies have shown that the number would not be THAT much, not enough to be noticeable. We're talking 1-8%. The deaths relating to marijuana are practically ZERO now anyway. Some happen, granted, but they are rare. You cannot die form the drug itself. It is physically impossible. You can even check with the DEA on that one. You cannot overdose, no matter how much you take. You would literally have to take 500LBs of it to overdose. Think about the amount of deaths legalisation would reduce. There are reasons for this: 1) The entire gang relation to marijuana is removed. No more robberies, shootings related to it. 2) People who would have bought marijuana from a dealer, only to have harder drugs later pushed on them, no longer need to worry, as they can buy marijuana from a licensed seller. 3) If you buy it now, you don't know if its laced with something else. If it was legalised, you would. You would also know how strong it was and be able to adjust your dosage correctly. 4) People no longer go to prison. I know they don't die, but it can ruin your life. Harder to get a job etc. And for what? Marijuana? Pffft 5) People who need it medically can use it legally. And people who don't use it medically but with nothing helping them can also try it legally. Are you aware how many diseases it has been proven to help? Don't be a cynic about it, marijuana DOES help illnesses + neuropathic pain. And your argument is that the amount of driving related accidents would increase and the deaths from that would be MORE than the amount of people still alive from those above^ reasons. Now my assumptions, rely simply on marijuana being in a regulated market. I very much doubt big marijuana would try and sell me PCP laced stuff. So my assumptions, are generally just compounded by common sense. However, your assumption, that marijuana use would grow exponentially with legalisation, is based upon nothing, but the DEA, the very people who are most against marijuana in every way, shape or form. And they haven't even said that, you've just tied it in with the number of people who smoke cigs (which might I add, contain actually physically addictive compounds, with actual withdrawals that can last for YEARS.) I've given you countless studies for the EXACT point about the numbers of users after legalisation, and you've given me numbers of cig smokers which you've used as a basis to make an assumption that the same would also apply for marijuana. Do you even have any shred of evidence, from a NEUTRAL source, that's right, NEUTRAL, as in a scientific journal of some kind, that usage would really rise exponentially with legalisation. If you don't, then its simply your opinion. If you do, then we restart the debate. As for now, this argument is over. Until you give me a piece of evidence from any neutral source, any, a scientific journal or something, then we continue. I've done the same for my side of the argument, now its your turn. I haven't used "pothead" websites, although admittedly the surveys were compounded there, but they actually do originate from scientific journals, and you can check back if you don't believe me. Now I'm sure there will be studies that suggest usage will grow, but you're arguing that it will grow exponentially, which is an entirely different matter. For it to kill more than are killed now, the deaths from driving would have to kill more than would be saved from the cleanliness of the drug, the gang concepts, and the prisons, which I'm sure it would not. You seem to be so sure about what you're saying, but you haven't even provided a shred of any credible evidence. When you do, then we have a real debate. Until then, you're just talking your own opinion and I'm sorry, when we're talking about millions of people, opinions aren't good enough. Unless you've won the nobel prize, like Milton Friedman, for economics. Funny how he thinks marijuana would be a gold mine. (report: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf) I feel for you on that one, honestly. But, you've got to admit, that was more the doctor's fault than the marijuana. In fact, if it WAS a legal medicine, then you would include it in the list of medications recently taken. And also, doctors would be more aware of warning people about using it whilst using other medications. If its viewed as some dodgy street drug by doctors, they aren't going to ask about it, but as a medicine, they would. Was your anxiety caused BY the marijuana itself?

For once, I agree with you completely. He's a smart man. The people blowing themselves up? Not so smart. But Bin Laden knows how to push their buttons to get them to do whatever. The problem with the War on Terror is that I really can't see it being won. I know thats a negative attitude, and probably not the most productive, but when you have a war on an ideology, it's significantly harder to defeat than other enemy or foe. For one, even being in an area where people hold such thoughts is damaging, as they may start to creep into your subconscious. From there, you have a sort of sleeping acceptance of the general principal of radical islam. The invasion of Iraq I think is the most important factor. It worked in Bin Ladens favour. Now he can be the victim, the martyr - and the people there buy into his infidel bs simply because we were far too agressive. Whilst ridding Iraq of Saddam, in principle, was a good thing, far more people will die simply due to the increase in terrorism that the invasion will create. The war there will take decades, in order to rid the country entirely of militia men who would simply hop into power if we removed our troops. Im pretty much as liberal as they come on most topics, but withdrawal of the troops is just RIDICULOUS. The invasion was a bad idea, but too many people dwell on that. If we want to stop the death, we need to solve the problem, and removing troops will just give the various militia groups chance to overthrow and take control - and that, we DONT want. However, it's a vicious circle. If we leave, militia take control. If we stay, more people convert to radical terrorist principles. Which one is more damaging? I don't know. That's what the vote should be on. Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread off topic, so Ill stop with that discussion.

Ok, I'm sorry, but most of those statistics are pure propaganda. You're forgetting one important thing. And it's something you really shouldn't forget when you compare the cigarette usage to possible marijuana usage. Cigarettes are highly addictive, both physically and psychologically. Their withdrawals last for MONTHS. Heroin withdrawals don't even last that long. People who quit cigs years ago still find it hard to stay away. They still feel the urge. If you quit, you sometimes get the shakes = a sign of physical dependence. Marijuana, is NOT physically addictive. There are no withdrawals. It can be addictive psychologically, but so can anything. Masturbation, sport, video games, RUNESCAPE, anything can be. Not to mention, the DEA are entirely full of it on this topic. The potency issue, isn't an issue at all. If the potency is higher, it takes less to get you high, and someone who is responsible would adjust their dosage. Most of the stuff out there isn't that strong. And when it is, you adjust how much you take. Just like with alcohol. You drink a bottle of bud, but when you get onto the spirits or whiskeys, you adjust how much you drink (hopefully) It really isn't an issue. Also, with a regulated market, you KNOW how potent it is. When you buy it on the streets, you don't. The potency thing is in fact an argument FOR legalisation. If indeed, there are these ultra strong strains out there in such abundance as the DEA would like you to think, would it not be better to regulate it and actually inform peope of the strength of what they're smoking, as to avoid problems? In Amsterdam, in the coffee shops, they have this information. All the arguments about potency and things being mixed with the drugs, would be helped much more by legalisation rather than keeping it a criminal issue. As well as the gateway theory. The main reason why people would possibly go onto harder drugs is because of the dealers. They are the ones who sell the product. So if you buy weed from them, they may offer you something more serious. If it is regulated, you don't get this. You get a shop that sells weed. Nothing more. Nothing less. Weed, that's it. There is no lacing, no pushing of harder drugs. Legalisation, pretty much solves these problems.

Its not nice to make threads like these either. I get really ticked about things like this, people finding reasons to prove christianity wrong. and in this case its a simple statistic. I'm willing to make an intelligent discussion. But I don't see how much intelligence is going on when someone posts a statistic saying most higher intellectuals are non-believers. I see no point in this thread other than to start controversy. That's pretty much the most defensive position you could take. If you're so angry with threads like these why don't you do something, ugh, like disprove the title statement? I'd actually think most intelligent people would be agnostic/atheist. But then again, most people view atheism and theism as polar opposites, which is just ridiculous. There are many atheists who don't deny that God COULD exist, just haven't seen anything that proves to them that he does. So they don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean he couldn't exist. Most theists however, simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't exist. Again, I said most. Some do, so don't come at me. Theists state that something exists, and atheists (most of them) state that they don't believe that, but it is possible that he could. Hell, its possible we are all just a computer simulation created by aliens in a completely different reality. Unlikely, but possible nonethelesss. So when you get theists who refuse to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist, it does kinda lead you to believe that any intelligent person would see that. The problem is that there are people on both sides who ruin the reputation of the majority. Then again, I've never actually heard a Christian explain exactly WHY the Bible is the Word of God, or how it is, without using the Bible itself as proof. It is no secret that most faith stems from upbringing. It is rare for people brought up without faith to convert to a religion, (it does happen, so again, quoters, don't come at me). Someone who is intelligent is more likely to challenge/analyse their beliefs than someone who isn't. That's a fact. That ability comes with the intelligence. As for the OP's post. Well, that professor does have a point. General intelligence has risen, and the amount of believers has fallen. Is there a link? I'm not sure. You could tie in the internet, information being more accessible etc into the intelligence argument, and the lack of punishment for not believing into the drop in believers. I think the actual amount of believers is much less than what people think, when you consider that the 1.6 billion people the Catholic Church boast as members, millions of them are simply on the list, and have changed what they believed, and are simply members because of parentage. The problem with me saying anything like this is that it makes theists automatically defensive, and makes them say things like "look at this guy, he isn't stupid," as if that disproves the general point. There are people of great intelligence on all sides, even fundamentalist Islam. In most cases however, intelligence does lead to you dissecting the very core of your understanding and general perception of reality, which I believe, is more likely to lead to either atheism,agnosticism, or what I like to call vague theism, where you say that God could exist, but that the concept of religion is too specific in terms of what it says, and that it is more liekly, if there is a God, that it is just completely random and we know nothing of anything.

No, I simply used the Netherlands as an example of where in some cases, it is less. And they're generally much more liberal on the topic. So therefore, the whole link between acceptance and exponential growth in users is WEAK, and doesn't realy draw off evidence, more speculation. I'm sorry for acting aggressively. Fact is, virtually all your points were made off the assumption that amount of use would rapidly increase with legalisation. I provided evidence from studies that states otherwise. Of course, I realise studies aren't some sort of Divine source of knowledge, but if any of the stuff about schizophrenia (there may be a link, but that link is SO small that its practically similar to the amount of people that get schizophrenia from a head injury, percentage wise), or traffic accidents (I'm aware it causes impairment, and that you should not be allowed to drive whilst high, BUT, the impairment is much less than alcohol, so if someone did drive high, the chance of an accident would be much less. I'm not condoning it, but nevertheless, even with exponential growth (very unlikely), the amount of accidents would be nowhere near the amount caused by alcohol even with the same amount of users,) was true, you would surely see this in the Netherlands. Not only does none of this happen, their drug statistics are pretty much better all round. Why is this? Well personally, I think it's because they take a mature look at it. They aren't a big deal, they're drugs. When I was in highschool, most people did drugs just to look cool. I'm certain that if back then weed was legal, most people wouldn't have even bothered. Very few actually did it for the feeling, mostly, it was to impress others - and that feeling of impressing someone came from the fact that it was illegal. Look, I'm open to debate, but you need to bring some evidence to the table. Give me a couple studies where it suggests that growth of users would be rapid and massive after legalisation, (im sure there will be some), and then we can discuss it further. I'm sorry about getting angry, but the assumptions you were making were entirely based off of other assumptions which if anything, are entirely improbable..

Therefore, all my arguments mean nothing. Nice open inviation there for people to hop on the negativity=disproof bandwagon.

1) The Battle Rifle from Halo (yeh, nerdy I know) 2) Hummer by the Smashing Pumpkins 3) Jessica alba, naked.

But then again, assessing everything psychologically isn't entirely productive in terms of absorbing or realising a message, without it challenging your subconscious. If my previous message was directed at you, even with the fact that acting angry makes people less open to actually consider what you're saying, I think you still would have responded with that response. But I have understood what you said. Being angry can also be good though. As you said, 90% of what you say will not be heard. I like to picture it as the subconscious, the influencer of belief, is unlocked as they let the basis of their true mental processes out into the open. For example, my Uncle, was blatantly a racist, yet he was also a devout Christian. Obviously, due to the teachings of Jesus on equality, and his racist subconscious, cognitive dissonance was ever-present. And in order to rationalise it, he became cynical, and questioning of pretty much everything. You could never get him to talk openly, or admit that he was actually racist. He would always shpeel off some [silliness], and often hold bias towards people of certain races - yet he never really had a reason. And he could not assess himself to attain that reason, simply because his entire process of thought was entirely devoted to making everything circular and generally just being a rather obtuse cynic. It was only when someone made him angry, did he finally snap and revealed the beliefs which he held, possibly unknowingly, at the basis of his belief system. You can only really change it if you make someone aware of the fact that they believe something, for no apparent reason. Point is, Laura would be against drugs even if you proved that there were no downfalls (which is impossible, everything has downfalls.) Why? Because it's her subconscious, and only when she experiences said cognitive dissonance, does that change. At the basis of her assumptions, is her subconscious, and all I am trying to do, really, is prove that she is against marijuana simply because she is. Making someone angry is one of the few ways to actually reveal what they really believe. You know when someone says something they "dont mean" - they actually do. They just don't know it, but it influences how they perceive the reality that they engage in. Only after you highlight it, can you discard it. You may not literally agree with what you said, but it was likely those thoughts that directed you in the direction of similar thoughts beforehand. If you simply tell someone they're biased, it is rare for them to actually take that on board. Just as an example, if I made a post highlighting subconscious bias, I would probably be accused of taking a "better-than-thou" attitude, which is a very defensive position. It is rare to affect the subconscious with normal dialogue. Why do you think so many people "agree to disagree"?

Laura, virtually everything you have said about driving UTI, public conduct and such, relies entirely on the assumption that social acceptance of marijuana would lead to substantial increase in its use. According to this report: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/, that link is entirely [silly]. It states "In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." Also, the Connecticut Law Review Commission stated that "reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine." "However, the increase in marijuana use was even greater in other states and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties" - researchers on the amount of users in states which decriminalized and those that didn't. To assert something, you must have evidence. Above, is evidence that suggests that your assumption, is complete [silliness]. And unlike you or I, these people are scientists. They carry out surveys, and do research, and look at papers, and studies, and more research - we do not. Therefore, I have absolutely NO IDEA where you are getting this [silliness] about such large increases in marijuana use if it was legalised. Maybe a little, but enough to cause "millions of innocent deaths" (your words), no way. I would argue that there would be LESS deaths due to marijuana, as the entire gang concept is removed. Even if use did rise exponentially, (which is just an assumption, clearly stemming from your anti-drug subconscious), marijuana is nowhere near as bad as alcohol in terms of impairment. Alcohol can cause aggression - FACT. Marijuana, does not cause aggression - FACT. Most people who take marijuana are actually more cautious whilst high. I'm not saying driving high is good or anything, but when you compare it to driving drunk, it is much less severe. But anyway, THIS IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVENT. All your [silliness] about acceptance causing "exponential growth in rates of use" is just [silliness]. "The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong." - R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. Forget theoretical situations, LOOK AT THE NETHERLANDS. If ANY of what you said was true, you would expect to see it happening there. Why then, is it not? Cut the [fecal matter], come up with some real reasons. Please watch your language, no need to swear to make your point- Pryomancer

Okay, not that much time would be freed up in court. What about the other points?

Done. I'll call my creation "Jamaica". Just kidding. Look, people who want to use it use it. If its legalized, the numbers of people using it won't soar, they would probably rise, but not by such a vast amount that it would have any serious affect on public safety. Of course, laws would be put in place. This sort of reefer madness approach, that the number of people using it would rise exponentially, with people walking naked in the streets, crashing cars, causing a nuisance, is PURE propaganda. 1 million people on pot would be awesome. Absolutely awesome. And your point about the FDA is totally ridiculous. It's their job. Weed shouldn't be illegal simply because it would take a while to regulate the sale of it. That's just stupid. Oh, regulating it may take a while, I know, I'll just keep it illegal, putting people in prison and ruining lives, needlessly. That makes perfect sense. Perfect, perfect sense.

The point is, nothing has perfect users. Humans, are by nature, imperfect, and thus, negative and problematic scenarios are sometimes unavoidable, especially when you're dealing with a general public numbered in the hundreds of millions. What I meant when I was talking about the side effects, is that they aren't nearly as damaging as you seem to think. There are benefits. And you seem to be ignoring this point, so here it is, loud and clear. Legalize weed, and you can still apply laws that cover DUI and public conduct. Don't think that legalising it would somehow also legalize other, more serious crimes Not everything to do with it is negative. So what if I choose to set aside a couple hours of perfect physical ability in exchange for a feeling of being at one with the universe, physically feeling the vibration of peace and love, forgetting stress and letting all those worries fade away. If only it could be permanent, I say.

Oh and the term "physiologically addictive" is just a plain bs term. ANYTHING is addictive in that way. Running, helping people, playing video games. You just subscribe to the whole "drug" stigma because you can't actually view anything from someone else's perspective. Think of the actual people affected. People in prison for using weed? Pure [cabbage]. Absolutely, pure [cabbage]. Why should people who use it be LOCKED IN A CELL? Ugh, need I say anything more? You need to cut the [cabbage], and actually think. Forget whatever you've been told, and view it from a neutral perspective.

You're assuming first, that use would increase exponentially with legalisation. I'm not so sure. Using marijuana whilst driving = bad. And the same goes for most things. Hell, playing a game of chess whilst driving is bad. This, I understand. Driving, whilst doing something else, is usually bad. You compared the use of marijuana to speeding. When I say "use of marijuana". I mean, the use of marijuana without breaking other laws. And those health risks you listed, dizziness etc. They are just pure bs. But, lets assume, for a second, that they actually occur when the high wears off. Is it not the user's choice to decide whether they put THEMSELVES in that danger.? Why couldn't they just have public conduct laws like they do with alcohol. This is the point you don't seem to get. Why should it be illegal to use marijuana, when the only negative affects it has on other people are when you in turn, BREAK OTHER LAWS. And you seem to forget, that smoking is not the only way of consuming it. Hell, If the government announced it would only be legal to vaporize, i'd take that, any day of the week. If I decide to twist up a joint, and use it at home, without driving, or doing anything else in a public place - what is wrong with that? The government, for some reason, would punish me for doing this. Can you explain why? Oh and, in Amsterdam, it isn't technically legal, the police and government just dont care if you are only using it personally. They can sell it in licensed places, and as long as you only have a small amount, you aren't punished. And the weed isn't confiscated. Now you'd think, seeing as weed is practically legal, they would have all these negative affects that many over here think actually occur. Ugh, need I say anything more? You need to cut the [cabbage], and actually think. Forget whatever you've been told, and view it from a neutral perspective.

It's nothing like that. That is the worst analogy I have ever heard. Speeding can harm others fatally. Using marijuana, can't. Unless you mean by driving and stuff, but that isnt "using marijuana", that is "using marijuana and driving." If a group of friends are just burning one down at home, how can that kill anyone like speeding does? And Amsterdam is entirely relevant. By your speeding analogy it is obvious that you think legalisation and use of marijuana would affect the country in a negative way. And my point is, look at amsterdam. With all the supposed dangers, you would think they would have noticed an increase in all the [cabbage] we link with marijuana use. Look, its clear the propaganda has got to you. I don't want to sound condescending, but for some reason, you're just naturally against marijuana subconcsciously, and in order to rationalise the likely cognitive dissonance that you would experience from people claiming that it has no harms and this being backed up by mainstream society and media, you have to result to these ridiculous points that are both false and entirely irrelevent, for example, asserting that logically, marijuana should be illegal because its legalisation would hold only a small amount of benefit, even though benefit would obviously be huge. Fact is, if someone can have their life ruined for smoking weed, then the system has failed. If you can lose your job for having it in your blood system, the system has failed. If you can be imprisoned for possessing it, the system has failed. If you can be looked down upon by society simply due to government fueled propaganda, then the system has failed. Just answer me this. What bad would come from legalising its use? I think you'll find that the answers, if any, are entirely on a personal level.

God, please let the whole "unhealthy" point go. You dont even have to smoke it. And even if you did, SO WHAT? Being a stunt man is unhealthy. So is caffeine. It isn't the governments role to make personal decisions for the people on matters which aren't even that significant. The governments are starting to let go the whole link between schizophrenia and marijuana, cause they've realised the total idea is [cabbage]. Look at the people in Amsterdam, do they have higher rates of cancer/death/illness/crime/schizophrenia due to marijuana? NO. You'd think with all the supposed "dangers" it has, they would have actually noticed something.

"It adds little benefit" Okay, lets see -More prison space -No money is lost prosecuting people for using it. -The courts are freed up. -People are no longer made criminals for a personal choice -Police can spend time on hard drugs and real criminals -Taxing corporate sales of marijuana would lead to HUGE amounts of money -The illegal marijuana trade would be killed, removing both the gang relations and the stigma. -People can use it, and KNOW that they are buying a product that is free of other, more dangerous drugs, and is also consistent in quality. These really aren't little issues like you seem to think. Not to mention, the entire concept of making something illegal because "it adds little benefit", is totally ridiculous. Yeh, it doesnt add a lot of benefit, I know, LETS MAKE IT ILLEGAL. What? That point is irrelevent anyway, when you consider it would add HUGE benefit. And forget benefit a second - shouldn't people have the choice? Give me a reason why they shouldn't. As for an example of someone being punished - well off the top of my head, I can think of Steve Kubby. The US government refused to give him marinol (a synthetic form of THC, which doesnt even cause the feeling of being high). I think they allowed it when he was close to death, yet still, there are others who have been imprisoned for actually using it medically. This is rare, but what is actually common is the closing down of the medicual marijuana vendors (which you need to show proof that you have doctors permission in order to buy it.) This isnt punishing them directly, but it does take away their regular supply of it. Totally ridiculous.

Yeah let's make video games illegal too since kids have been known to become addicted to video games and even kill other people over consoles. There are video game related deaths and you have to pay money to play so they should be illegal too... He's right. You can't physically OD on marijuana, I think a study revealed that it would take over 1500lbs of PURE THC administered in 15 minutes for a mouse to overdose. That my be an exaggeration, but you get the point. And to whoever said the point about people "needing it to get high" or wanting the feeling of being high - well, shouldn't they have the choice? The social consequences of marijuana are entirely due to stigma and propaganda. Sure, you become impaired, and you could crash a car - so why not make a law like they did for alcohol. When we talk of legalisation, we don't mean we should make everything related to marijuana legal, i.e, you can drive whilst high - we aren't saying that. What we're saying is, it isn't that dangerous, it doesn't even have to be smoked, the same laws we have for alcohol in terms of age and public conduct can apply, and that overall, the only real reason it is illegal is because of problems stemming from the very fact that it is illegal. If you legalise it, then big business taps into it, growing marijuana in a factory - therefore you don't get it mixed with other stuff. As well as this, this would practically put dealers out of business - who the hell would buy weed from some dodgy street dealer when you can buy a product you KNOW Is consistent in terms of quality from a licensed seller. And what kind of dealer would continue to sell marijuana when companies are making better products in bigger quantities in a LEGAL MARKET. Sure, people could grow it, but people can make alcohol and grow tobacco too. As well as this, even if you assumed that 99% of users were growing it (Which is ridiculous and would never happen), the government would still make more money than they do from making it illegal. It would also free up prison space, and give authorities more time to deal with REAL CRIMINALS. So why isnt it legal? Old fashioned stigma and neoconservatives. As for medical marijuana, the fact that the government in the USA still puts people into prison, who have been advised by their doctors to try marijuana, is both sickening and ridiculous. Quite honestly, that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. With all this medication out there, dangerous pills made in a lab somewhere, with various dangers and side effects, they continue to prosecute people who have been told by their doctors that weed could help them. Even in medical marijuana states, the federal government still prosecutes people, something to do with the authority of federal over state law. Goddamn, morphine is made from the poppy seed, (as is heroin), yet they still pump all this [cabbage] about weed being dangerous into the media. Most medication has side effects, get over it. So what if you become high? That is NOTHING compared to the side effects of drugs that are used daily in hospitals around the world.

Woah woah, who said anything about 15 year old potheads? Hey, if they require it, they should get it. It doesn't have to be smoked either. Also, a doctor has to approve you. You can't just make up some disease, they have to have tests and stuff.

They'll never be illegal. Well, smoking cigs MIGHT, well not really. Kinda. Alcohol, no way. Ever, ever. I think weed should be legal anyway, but we're a long way off from that. Medically though, I can see it happening. One thing, how do we go about attaining such status?

...What? Anyway, yeh, they can pretty much do what they want. But, that doesn't mean they aren't complete [wagon].