Medical Marijuana

[Quoi_Tu]

More than 70% of Australian children under the age of 13 report having consumed alcohol and this increased to 90% by 15 years of age. Regular (weekly) alcohol consumption is reported by 25-30% of teenagers (AIHW 2002a.) Epidemiological surveys show that binge drinking is common among young people (AIHW 2002a.) Approximately 40% of young males and females drink alcohol at levels defined as putting them at risk for short-term harm (PDPC 2002). Up to 20% of young people also report alcohol-related aggression or sexual risk taking, such as unwanted sexual intercourse, risky sexual intercourse, no contraception resulting in teenage pregnancy (Shanahan et al. 1999, Bonomo et al. 2001).

 

 

 

That's as far as I'm going to take it - It's quite offtopic now.

 

 

 

That bolded statement alone is quite scary; however, I don't think we have even a close situation in the US. But seeing those figures (assuming they're all correct still), makes me think Australia needs some major reform.

 

 

 

Ok, I'm done, no more dragging this thread off-topic.

[user1991]

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

[IGoddessI]

You don't have to type in capitals and make personal attacks to get your point heard... An aggressive manner actually works in the opposite way you want it to. If you make someone angry enough, over 90% of what you say isn't being heard. So imagine how literally your post is being taken..

[user1991]

You don't have to type in capitals and make personal attacks to get your point heard... An aggressive manner actually works in the opposite way you want it to. If you make someone angry enough, over 90% of what you say isn't being heard. So imagine how literally your post is being taken..

 

 

 

 

 

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"?

[IGoddessI]

Who's talking psychological terms? It's blatantly rude to speak to Laura in the manner that you did and it wasn't needed.

[user1991]

Who's talking psychological terms? It's blatantly rude to speak to Laura in the manner that you did and it wasn't needed.

 

 

 

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

[bloodyhatchetbear]

Who's talking psychological terms? It's blatantly rude to speak to Laura in the manner that you did and it wasn't needed.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Actually, Goddess is right, it is really not necessary.

 

 

 

I'm on the side of legalization, but how many of my posts are completely angry and negative? I, at least, was trying to show the responsible side of marijuana users.

[Laura]

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

 

Ok, I was pretty much done with this topic before, but now, seriously, I am now.

 

 

 

You're basically telling me, that if legalized, that the drug would have LESS users? :roll: I don't know anything about the Netherlands, nor if it's even legal there. If you want to place that argument in my face, come up with some variables as to why it's not. Seriously. There was no reason you have to use immature language, and capital letters just to make your point heard. We respond to nearly all the posts on here and I would have been happy to debate the issue with you. :roll:

[user1991]

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..

[Quoi_Tu]

You're basically telling me, that if legalized, that the drug would have LESS users? :roll: I don't know anything about the Netherlands, nor if it's even legal there. If you want to place that argument in my face, come up with some variables as to why it's not. Seriously. There was no reason you have to use immature language, and capital letters just to make your point heard. We respond to nearly all the posts on here and I would have been happy to debate the issue with you. :roll:

 

 

 

I don't think there would be less users, but there would certainly be less people doing it to rebel or be cool. Unfortunately, right now it seems that a lot of teens are smoking marijuana because that's what the cool crowd, the rebel crowd, the loser crowd are doing. It seems to be a lot peer influencing surrounding marijuana use right now, but that's just my observations.

[Laura]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_smoke_cigarettes

 

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteens.html

 

http://www.mpp.org/

 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html

 

1.8 Billion people smoke cigarettes a year.

 

Of course there are variables, such as how long it has been around, and the fact that it is legal.

 

 

 

I can't believe anything that says that if legalized, that marijuana would have the same or less users than if kept illegal. Sorry, that's what I would say is propaganda.

 

 

 

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

 

 

The DEA Position on Marijuana

 

 

 

The campaign to legitimize what is called "medical" marijuana is based on two propositions: that science views marijuana as medicine, and that DEA targets sick and dying people using the drug. Neither proposition is true. Smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science it is not medicine and it is not safe. DEA targets criminals engaged in cultivation and trafficking, not the sick and dying. No state has legalized the trafficking of marijuana, including the twelve states that have decriminalized certain marijuana use.

 

 

 

MARIJUANA IS DANGEROUS TO THE USER AND OTHERS

 

 

 

Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers.

 

 

 

This is not the marijuana of the 1970s; todays marijuana is far more powerful. Average THC levels of seized marijuana rose from less than one per cent in the mid-1970s to a national average of over eight per cent in 2004.19 And the potency of "B.C. Bud" is roughly twice the national average ranging from 15 per cent to as high as 25 per cent THC content.20

 

 

 

Dependency and Treatment:

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

Adolescents are at highest risk for marijuana addiction, as they are "three times more likely than adults to develop dependency."21 This is borne out by the fact that treatment admission rates for adolescents reporting marijuana as the primary substance of abuse increased from 32 to 65 per cent between 1993 and 2003.22 More young people ages 12-17 entered treatment in 2003 for marijuana dependency than for alcohol and all other illegal drugs combined.23

 

*

 

 

 

"[R]esearch shows that use of [marijuana] can lead to dependence. Some heavy users of marijuana develop withdrawal symptoms when they have not used the drug for a period of time. Marijuana use, in fact, is often associated with behavior that meets the criteria for substance dependence established by the American Psychiatric Association."24

 

*

 

 

 

Of the 19.1 million Americans aged 12 or older who used illicit drugs in the past 30 days in 2004, 14.6 million used marijuana, making it the most commonly used illicit drug in 2004.25

 

*

 

 

 

Among all ages, marijuana was the most common illicit drug responsible for treatment admissions in 2003, accounting for 15 per cent of all admissions -- outdistancing heroin, the next most prevalent cause.26

 

*

 

 

 

In 2003, 20 per cent (185,239) of the 919,833 adults admitted to treatment for illegal drug abuse cited marijuana as their primary drug of abuse.27

 

 

 

Ok, so now that we know how many Americans over the age of 12 have admitted to smoking weed at least once in 2004, and 1.8 billion people smoke cigarettes. It's really not hard to piece together how many people would, or would smoke it at least once. And that's the glory of drugs, it only takes just once. Most of my estimations, statistics, and assumptions were made off of the mass use of this drug, because people want to feel good. And if that feeling is rapidly made available, of course they would buy it; unless there morals or the risks prevent them. Even if the accidents were not in the millions range, it is entirely plausible to base this off of the hundreds of thousands, judging by the millions that already smoke it.

[user1991]

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.

[deloriagod]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[Laura]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[bloodyhatchetbear]

I have to agree with Noob and Deloria on this one. Take any statements made by the DEA with a grain of salt.

 

 

 

The reason why they have never done scientific studies is because the government won't allow it. If they would at least allow that, alot of this debating would stop, because then there would be proof.

 

 

 

And, I mean, if they can use heroine and opium derivatives in prescription medicine, why the heck can't they use THC in medicine? THC is, believe it or not, alot less likely to make someone develope a dependency than said opiates.

 

 

 

Another point I will make. I am a smoker, I have tried to quit several times, and it is hard. That being said, I haven't touched marijuana (which I freely admit I have used in the past) in... at least 4 months. I don't have any cravings for it. If I were to go without a cigarette for a day, I would probably be freaking out. And this is from complete and utter personal experience.

 

 

 

(btw, the main reason I used weed was because it was cheaper than paying hundreds of dollars for health care + prescriptions for my mental disorders. And since most market prescriptions don't actually work for me, I think I was a bit justified. I used it for medicinal purposes, and while I did find something that does the same thing that is legal, and have [free] health care now, it does have a bit more side effects. It also does have the effect of not working after a while, the doctor said that.)

[IGoddessI]

Laura - You probably already know this but just putting this out there if you're interested..

 

 

 

If you're up to reading some facts on a website I find it's a good idea to double check other references to make sure they match. If you read 10/10 studies all with very similar and reliable statistics, it's likely to be more factual but not always.

 

 

 

Google scholar is great for checking these things, they have millions of case studies to prove and disprove research statistics.

 

 

 

University databases are even better but not everybody has access to those kinds of journals.

 

 

 

A good tip I found was to look at both angles (critically analyze something) before coming to a conclusion. It's not so bias then. That way if someone has an argument against what you're saying, you can later go back and point the study out and compare it to stronger cases.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Bear - I had major anxiety and my doctor hadn't asked if I smoked weed. The prescriptions he gave me actually made my symptoms a lot worse and went misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder for 5 years. I'm now 22 only to find out, I can never practice licensed psychology unsupervised because of the previous diagnosis and I'm completely normal. I hope things are working out for you I'm just a tad concerned because of what it did for me. 5 years is a long time to find yourself again.

[user1991]

 

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.

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

Bear - I had major anxiety and my doctor hadn't asked if I smoked weed. The prescriptions he gave me actually made my symptoms a lot worse and went misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder for 5 years. I'm now 22 only to find out, I can never practice psychology licensed unsupervised because of the previous diagnosis and I'm completely normal. I hope things are working out for you I'm just a tad concerned because of what it did for me. 5 years is a long time to find yourself again.

 

 

 

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?

[Laura]

Laura - You probably already know this but just putting this out there if you're interested..If you're up to reading some facts on a website I find it's a good idea to double check other references to make sure they match. If you read 10/10 studies all with very similar and reliable statistics, it's likely to be more factual but not always.

 

I can post more than 10 sites, all stating the same thing. If you want, I'll post them all. :?

 

I even have book references, medical encyclopedias, the New England Journal of Medicine, etc. Which is why I'm thinking somewhere, this government propeganda thing was to end and has some truth.

[IGoddessI]

Google scholar would be better hun, that way you can tell people how they carried out the case study and how they came to the conclusion that they did. Key - bigger the sample size the better.

 

 

 

If you could provide 10 of those, noob would be wrapped (Aussie slang for very happy).

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

It was believed that the marijuana caused my anxiety to begin with but once introduced to my new medication, caused short term psychosis. They under analyzed the symptoms to bipolar disorder, which wasn't the case. So I was on medication for that for years as well which gave me OCD and various of other symptoms. It wasn't until I decided to seek advice about the possibility of post natal depression occurring after my pregnancy that they did further tests.

 

 

 

Had a lovely psychiatrist with 40+ years experience have a chat to me, explained everything, took me off the bloody things and now I've never been more normal.

 

 

 

I went through the whole phase of wanting to sue my old doctor 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

[user1991]

Google scholar would be better hun, that way you can tell people how they carried out the case study and how they came to the conclusion that they did. Key - bigger the sample size the better.

 

 

 

If you could provide 10 of those, noob would be wrapped (Aussie slang for very happy).

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

[Laura]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/7/521

 

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071

 

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/11/967

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3492159

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1338215

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1508814

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9610678

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/4/539

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/brief/318/6/347

 

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/9/1337

 

 

 

10 from Google Scholar.

[IGoddessI]

Awesome stuff you've put a lot of effort in to this Laura. What is the argument you're putting forward? I'll have a quick read through them.

[Laura]

Awesome stuff you've put a lot of effort in to this Laura. What is the argument you're putting forward? I'll have a quick read through them.

 

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?

[user1991]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/7/521

 

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071

 

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/11/967

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3492159

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1338215

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1508814

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9610678

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/4/539

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/brief/318/6/347

 

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/9/1337

 

 

 

10 from Google Scholar.

 

 

 

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.

[user1991]

Awesome stuff you've put a lot of effort in to this Laura. What is the argument you're putting forward? I'll have a quick read through them.

 

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.