Marijuana, why isn't it legalized?

[lwilson100]

the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug and is addictive is ridiculous. i have been smoking for over 2 years and i have yet to become addictive(i have taken several short breaks because i thought i might have been mentally addictive but i wasn't) and i have yet to do cocaine, heroine, meth and 99% of the pills available to me. yes some people DO become addicted to marijuana but hell anything substance or activity can be addicting so i don't understand that argument.

 

It's not as ridiculous as you think--let me explain:

 

 

 

* Marijuana is among the foremost of "gateway drugs" (second only to alcohol). Statistically, while the majority of marijuana-users will never make the leap to "harder" drugs, it has been shown that most "hard" addicts originally drank/used marijuana before moving on. This is where the "marijuana is a gateway drug" claim comes from.

 

 

 

* Marijuana, as any user would know, stimulates the appetite--and this, inevitably, leads to at least a small amount of weight-gain in most users. THC, the addictive substance in marijuana, is stored in fat cells if in excess (only so much THC can enter the brain and bind to the appropriate receptors). These two facts, in conjuction, practically guarantees that every long-time user will have a sizeable amount of THC stored away. Once, and if, these particular people decide to quit, their appetites will return to normal in due course--causing them to lose weight and steadily burn off the THC-rich fat cells. This, in addition to the fact that marijuana withdrawal symptoms are naturally light to begin with (it's a "soft" drug, after all), often leads people to erroneously believe that marijuana is non-addictive. The truth is that it is both psychologically addictive (most substances--e.g. food--have the potencial to be) and physically addictive (although, even caffeine is more so than marijuana).

 

 

 

I support legalizing marijuana (or, at the very least, decriminalizing it), but I just wanted to point this out.

 

 

 

i completely agree that it can be physically addicting, I'm just that there are a lot of things that physically addicting(such as your example as caffeine), yet they are still accepted in modern society yet marijuana is not.

 

 

 

i personally believe the only reason that marijuana is a even noted as a gateway drug is the fact that it is relatively safe, meaning you can't overdose on weed but you can on heroine or get alcohol poisoning from drinking too much.

[llcoolguy972]

the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug and is addictive is ridiculous. i have been smoking for over 2 years and i have yet to become addictive(i have taken several short breaks because i thought i might have been mentally addictive but i wasn't) and i have yet to do cocaine, heroine, meth and 99% of the pills available to me. yes some people DO become addicted to marijuana but hell anything substance or activity can be addicting so i don't understand that argument.

 

It's not as ridiculous as you think--let me explain:

 

 

 

* Marijuana is among the foremost of "gateway drugs" (second only to alcohol). Statistically, while the majority of marijuana-users will never make the leap to "harder" drugs, it has been shown that most "hard" addicts originally drank/used marijuana before moving on. This is where the "marijuana is a gateway drug" claim comes from.

 

Just because "hard addicts" have used marijuana before, doesn't mean that it was the cause for them going to harder drugs. If I killed someone after I played GTA, that doesn't necessarily mean that GTA caused me to kill them.

[lwilson100]

 

Just because "hard addicts" have used marijuana before, doesn't mean that it was the cause for them going to harder drugs. If I killed someone after I played GTA, that doesn't necessarily mean that GTA caused me to kill them.

 

 

 

yes but there are ignorant people in the world who believe that video games make kids want to kill people and rock'n'roll turns us into the devil, but that doesn't mean they're blame free. i believe people who do hard drugs were willing to do them form the very beginning they just needed to try weed or another "gateway drug" first just to answer any curiosity they have about drugs, but i still believe its ultimately the individuals choice on whether or not to do drugs no matter what outside circumstances affect it(movies,video games, books,peer pressure) because in the end its your decision and you are always to blame for your own decisions.

[venomai]

Marijuana is among the foremost of "gateway drugs" ... it has been shown that most "hard" addicts originally drank/used marijuana before moving on

 

How many of those hard drug addicts also drank coffee? :lol: Correlation does not imply causation. You'll need something else if you wish to argue that marijuana is a gateway drug.

[warri0r45]

Marijuana is among the foremost of "gateway drugs" ... it has been shown that most "hard" addicts originally drank/used marijuana before moving on

 

How many of those hard drug addicts also drank coffee? :lol: Correlation does not imply causation. You'll need something else if you wish to argue that marijuana is a gateway drug.

 

 

 

I agree with you, but the coffee comparison is pretty ridiculous. For one, going to buy coffee has little to no chance of exposing you to people willing to sell you hard drugs.

[The_Dragon_Reborn]

Massachusetts, voted to allow a person to have up to an 1oz of weed without getting a criminal penalties.

 

 

 

[LINK]

 

 

 

I didn't read the whole part of this topic, only the first page, so if this has been said before, sorry for repeating. But, your comment is misleading. There are no criminal penalties, but it doesn't go unpunished. The weed is confiscated, and you have to pay fines that increase each time you are caught, and after enough instances (not sure on the exact number) criminal charges will be brought against you.

 

 

 

I for one, don't smoke weed. I know several types of people who have though. There are the people who can smoke weed and only weed and nothing else. They don't do harder drugs, and never have, and they rarely drink. I also know another type of people. The people who smoked weed, then gradually progressed into other drugs. I know some really messed up people now because of minor experimentation with seemingly harmless drugs. Buddy of mine just checked into rehab for a serious heroin addiction. He's 19 now and he started smoking weed (his first drug ever) when he was 16. For the people who say it's not a gateway drug, it is.

[venomai]

Marijuana is among the foremost of "gateway drugs" ... it has been shown that most "hard" addicts originally drank/used marijuana before moving on

 

How many of those hard drug addicts also drank coffee? :lol: Correlation does not imply causation. You'll need something else if you wish to argue that marijuana is a gateway drug.

 

 

 

I agree with you, but the coffee comparison is pretty ridiculous. For one, going to buy coffee has little to no chance of exposing you to people willing to sell you hard drugs.

 

Neither does alcohol, particularly among adults. Yet, solely because a correlation has been shown with hard drug use, Rien_Adelric claims that alcohol is the "foremost of gateway drugs."

 

 

 

Correlation does not imply causation, whether it is alcohol, marijuana or coffee. On the other hand, exposure to "harder" drugs in the purchase of marijuana may be more appropriate grounds for an argument. :)

 

 

 

In my opinion? Marijuana can be a "gateway drug" in that some individuals who use it may become more interested in experiencing a wider variety of highs that can only be obtained from other drugs, and its purchase does often enable us to this wider variety of substances. This is, of course, highly dependent on the individual -- in my experience, the vast majority who will smoke marijuana do not purchase it from dealers, nor do they show much more interest in other drugs than the average non-smoker.

[deloriagod]

 

I didn't read the whole part of this topic, only the first page, so if this has been said before, sorry for repeating. But, your comment is misleading. There are no criminal penalties, but it doesn't go unpunished. The weed is confiscated, and you have to pay fines that increase each time you are caught, and after enough instances (not sure on the exact number) criminal charges will be brought against you.

 

 

 

I for one, don't smoke weed. I know several types of people who have though. There are the people who can smoke weed and only weed and nothing else. They don't do harder drugs, and never have, and they rarely drink. I also know another type of people. The people who smoked weed, then gradually progressed into other drugs. I know some really messed up people now because of minor experimentation with seemingly harmless drugs. Buddy of mine just checked into rehab for a serious heroin addiction. He's 19 now and he started smoking weed (his first drug ever) when he was 16. For the people who say it's not a gateway drug, it is.

 

 

 

I think the number of times you can get caught is 3 before serious charges are brought against you. And I think your friend who had to check into rehab is an idiot for moving to such a hard drug and not having any self control (there are people who do use drugs like that responsibly and I commend them for it). I'll admit, marijuana is somewhat of a gateway drug but this is why I think it is:

 

 

 

In school we're taught how bad all drugs are (including alcohol and tobacco since they are drugs) and how we should never ever try them and risk dire consequences or something to that effect. Well many of us choose to give weed a shot since it's so widely used. What do we find out? The schools and gov't lied to us about how terrible it is. So they must be lying about the other drugs too. From there on out you don't feel like you're doing anything wrong by taking different drugs because you're rejecting the information (though usually propaganda) given to you in school.

 

 

 

I 100% disagree with anyone who will say that marijuana makes you want to try other drugs. The first drug I tried was alcohol. Moving then from weed, to a period of time using tobacco, nitrous oxide, dexamethosone, diphenhydramine, and various other pills. I ended up taking these things because I found out marijuana wasn't this terrible drug it was made out to be in school and that's why I stand behind my theory. I wouldn't consider alcohol to be a gateway drug because I grew up with my parents going out to bars most weekends and coming home pretty tipsy so I knew it wasn't as bad as the schools made it out to be.

[Rien]

 

Neither does alcohol, particularly among adults. Yet, solely because a correlation has been shown with hard drug use, Rien_Adelric claims that alcohol is the "foremost of gateway drugs."

The reason is that both alcohol and marijuana are in far greater abundance than hard drugs (the legality of alcohol, in addition to a few other factors, makes it "the foremost" of gateway drugs rather than marijuana). Also, if not alcohol and marijuana, what would you consider to be a "gateway" drug? You point out that the correlation between initial alcohol/marijuana use and future hard-drug abuse is simply that--a correlation. And, while under normal circumstances, a mere correlation may not imply causation, I believe that it does in this case. Before you jump on the "I believe" in the last statement, consider this metaphorical analogy:

 

 

 

* Before non-swimmers jump off into the deep-end of a pool, they are far more likely to walk into the shallows and learn to swim.

 

 

 

I don't know the intent of the coffee example you gave (it seemed like mockery to me), but surely you can follow the logical sequence of events? Warrior points out--correctly--that the coffee correlation is illogical and, hence, ridiculous. Few people will willingly sample hard drugs initially, and the actual exposure to hard drugs matters little, as it turns out. I would say that most people have at least heard of the dangerous effects of drugs, while many others may have witnessed the effects themselves--through a friend, acquaintance, or family member. There aren't all that many people who would be willing to jump off into the deep-end, (again) initially. Having never experienced the "rewards" associated with drug-use, the severity of the risks (which they are familiar with) will almost always out-weigh the "rewards." However, if they first experiment with one of the gateway drugs (either through peer pressure, hesitant curiosity, boredom, etc...), their chances of moving on to harder drugs increase exponentially--compared to non-users--, especially if addiction sets in and they feel the crave for additional, more potent highs. This is because the light drugs introduce the new-found users to the "rewards" side of the coin. I agree with this statement:

 

This is, of course, highly dependent on the individual -- in my experience, the vast majority who will smoke marijuana do not purchase it from dealers, nor do they show much more interest in other drugs than the average non-smoker.

Which is why I specifically wrote this (the key words being underlined):

Statistically, while the majority of marijuana-users will never make the leap to "harder" drugs, it has been shown that most "hard" addicts originally drank/used marijuana before moving on.

A majority of light drug users will be satisfied with what they have, but some will inevitably chase their first high with something a little more powerful. As addiction sets in, the consequences of their actions gradually take a backseat to the urgency of their cravings--inhibition is over-ridden by their driving need for an altered mental state; an occurence which non-users never experience and one less reason they have to try hard drugs to begin with. As I've mentioned before, the exposure to hard drugs isn't paramount. As you've said, an alcoholic has no access to harder drugs at the bar he or she frequents or the convenience store where they might pick up a few, nor do marijuana addicts necessarily know dealers of harder drugs or of alternative places to get them, but what is important is that after on-and-off users become addicts, they will usually stop at nothing to reach the next, more powerful high--despite their lack of access/knowledge, they will try to find a way. Once they're hooked, it only becomes a matter of time, for the most part.

[LP]

I hope this gets locked

 

Just because I'm sick of seeing it bumped.

[Quoi_Tu]

I hope this gets locked

 

Just because I'm sick of seeing it bumped.

 

 

 

Me too.

 

I say we keep posting on it, expressing our dislike of seeing it bumped.

[LP]

Yeah, its just the same [cabbage] over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

 

 

 

This is just like religious threads... it wont end... ever...

 

someone is always going to be a [bleep]...

[lwilson100]

don't be mad just because you don't like what were talking about, you don't have to post or even open this topic as a matter of fact

[LP]

don't be mad just because you don't like what were talking about, you don't have to post or even open this topic as a matter of fact

 

 

 

Im just saying its a pointless cycle of repetitive responses of opposing views that will never end

 

A.k.a a waste of time. Especially those who write huge [wagon] responses.

[venomai]

Also, if not alcohol and marijuana, what would you consider to be a "gateway" drug?

 

I agree that marijuana/alcohol can be seen as "gateway drugs" in the sense that their use may lead to the desire to experience other mind-altering substances. However, this is generally not how society understands the idea of a "gateway drug".

 

 

 

I reject the gateway effect ("habitual use of a soft drug leads to 'hard' drug addiction and crime") for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the more popular soft drugs tend to be illegal, so an element of crime already exists. Secondly, the vast majority of marijuana users, even chronic marijuana users, does not become 'hard' drug users. Thirdly, the main argument behind the gateway effect is correlation -- which we know does not imply causation.

 

 

 

Warrior points out--correctly--that the coffee correlation is illogical and, hence, ridiculous.

 

Both you and warri0r missed the intention of my post: that suggesting correlation as the sole support for the gateway drug theory is ridiculous as it can be applied to any drug (including caffeine). Which is why I ended my post asking for "some other" form of support.

 

 

 

and the actual exposure to hard drugs matters little, as it turns out

 

Sources, please?

 

 

 

However, if they first experiment with one of the gateway drugs (either through peer pressure, hesitant curiosity, boredom, etc...), their chances of moving on to harder drugs increase exponentially--compared to non-users--

 

This increase in chance is, again, based on a correlation.

 

 

 

Consider that people who abuse drugs are more inclined to smoke cigarettes than the general population. It would be valid to conclude, based on this correlation, that smokers have a higher chance of abusing (other) drugs than do non-smokers. However, attempting to use this correlation alone to suggest that cigarette smoking leads to drug abuse would be a post hoc fallcy.

 

 

 

especially if addiction sets in and they feel the crave for additional, more potent highs. ... after on-and-off users become addicts, they will usually stop at nothing to reach the next, more powerful high

 

Somebody with an addiction to alcohol will physically and mentally crave more alcohol -- not more opiates or cocaine.

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand the idea of addiction. Take cigarette addiction, for example, which is driven by nicotine. People who are addicted to cigarettes depend on them to suppress withdrawal symptoms throughout the day (including cravings, irritability, etc). As dependence increases, so too will frequency of use. However, an increase in dependence does not necessarily lead to an increase in dose potency. If it did, cigarette addicts would be seeking out nicotine tablets, needle injections, etc. rather than merely smoking progressively more frequently.

 

 

 

Also, an addiction to nicotine does not make the user seek out entirely different classes of drugs (e.g. cocaine and opiates) in order to get their 'fix'. Such drugs, although they may allow the individual to take their mind off the withdrawal symptoms, would not be seen by the body as a proper substitute for nicotine.

 

 

 

 

 

I say we keep posting on it, expressing our dislike of seeing it bumped.

 

Hah. :lol:

[sohkmj1]

I think it's because (perhaps) marijuana is proven to kill, whereas other legalized stuff like cigarettes aren't is because the theory is that they can potentially kill, but it's just not tested and proven.

[ElkNight]

I think it's because (perhaps) marijuana is proven to kill, whereas other legalized stuff like cigarettes aren't is because the theory is that they can potentially kill, but it's just not tested and proven.

 

What do you mean proven to kill?

[venomai]

I think it's because (perhaps) marijuana is proven to kill, whereas other legalized stuff like cigarettes aren't is because the theory is that they can potentially kill, but it's just not tested and proven.

 

I'm really laughing here. :lol:

[LP]

an Epic facepalm is in order.

 

 

 

[sohkmj1]

:wall:

 

Sorry, just woke up, wasn't in a proper state of mind, glad to have made your day though...

 

:x

[Dalcyte]

Pot won't be legal for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, is the fact that it's illegal right now. That's a huge reason. Second, saying since pot isn't as addictive as tobaco, heroin or crack or something is not a good excuse to say it should be legal (lesser of the evils). Just a terrible reason. pot can lead to depression, lack of motivation, and lung diseases. Don't want to legalize something that is a detriment to your health. Also, although pot's pretty easy for people to get, legalizing it would obviously make it much easier to obtain. It is not healthy for teenagers with developing brains to smoke--it's harmful.

 

 

 

So what you're saying is that people shouldn't have the choice to change their own mindsets/put certain drugs into their body?

 

 

 

I mean, this argument I can sort of understand for harder drugs (sorta), but for weed? No way.

 

 

 

In moderation it is fine and I see no reasons other than stigma to keep it illegal.

 

 

 

Actually, that is what i'm saying. When you decide to live in a certain country, you get rights via the government but you also give up rights. This is a right you give up. What your saying is the equivelant of abolishing a drinking age limit, even though it would really hurt people. Although weed isn't as dangerous as alcohol, it's the same concept. You say "people have a right to do whatever they want to themselves". But they don't entirely.

[Dalcyte]

Pot won't be legal for a couple of reasons.

 

Strange... in some jurisdictions, it is already.

 

 

 

Ugh, don't play symantics with me. You know exactly what i mean.

 

 

 

A causal effect has not yet been shown, even in large samples.

 

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7059

 

 

 

Correlation does not imply causation

 

 

 

We can debate sources all day my friend.

 

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:LW6 ... cd=1&gl=us

 

 

 

Sources please? Mine suggest otherwise.

 

 

 

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

 

 

 

Um, you just debunked an argument that i didn't make. That's all perfectly true, but i never said any of that.

 

I never said that pot is more harmful than tobacco. I said it can cause lung damage (source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62910.php)

 

 

 

Nor did i make any of the other claims in that article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say goodbye to fast food! :lol:

 

...

 

I'm willing to debate about this, but not if you take arguments out of context. Fast food doesn't intoxicate you.

 

 

 

 

 

What makes you think this? Right now many teens find it as easy (if not easier) to acquire weed than it is to acquire alcohol or cigarettes (two very legal drugs).

 

 

 

(it's illegal to drink and purchase alcohol if you're under 21, and illegal to buy cigarettes if you're under 18. No one has ever uttered a word about setting an age limit on smoking or purchasing pot. If it's legal for you to buy something, i think it's reasonable to say that it's pretty easy to obtain.)

 

 

 

 

 

Proper decriminalization would, however, remove the criminal element of purchasing weed. i.e. Users would no longer need to purchase it from criminals in the cover of a dark alley. :lol:

 

ok?

 

 

 

 

 

Sources please? Harmful in what particular ways?

 

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:LW6 ... cd=1&gl=us

[Zierro]

...

 

I'm willing to debate about this, but not if you take arguments out of context. Fast food doesn't intoxicate you.

 

 

 

It's a detriment to your overall health in the same way smoking pot is. And actually I'd say eating fast food (in the same moderation as someone smoking pot) would be worse for you in the long run.

[venomai]

Ugh, don't play symantics with me. You know exactly what i mean.

 

What exactly do you mean?

 

 

 

We can debate sources all day my friend.

 

And, like I said, your evidence is based on correlation, not causation.

 

 

 

One study linked social withdrawal, anxiety, depression, attention

 

problems, and thoughts of suicide in adolescents with past­year

 

marijuana use.10 Other research shows that kids age 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than non­users to have thoughts about committing suicide.11 A recently published longitudinal study showed that use of cannabis increased the risk of major depression fourfold

 

 

 

Um, you just debunked an argument that i didn't make.

 

You made claims of marijuana use leading to a lack of motivation and lung disease, and I responded with sources casting doubt on such claims.

 

 

 

Although the site touches on a broad number of claims, it does address both of your claims. Here are the two specific responses in question. My apologies for not highlighting them earlier.

 

 

 

[hide=]For twenty-five years, researchers have searched for a marijuana-induced amotivational syndrome and have failed to find it. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are unlikely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.

 

 

 

. . .

 

 

 

Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.[/hide]

 

 

 

I'm willing to debate about this, but not if you take arguments out of context. Fast food doesn't intoxicate you.

 

Why is intoxication relevant to the legality of a substance? Hell, the right dose of caffeine can be intoxicating. If fast food burgers had an intoxicating effect, would you be against them being legal?

 

 

 

No one has ever uttered a word about setting an age limit on smoking or purchasing pot.

 

Age restrictions come with the territory of legalization. It's utterly ridiculous to assume that those advocating for law reform wish to allow children to legally purchase these drugs.

 

 

 

And, for the record, age restrictions of legal marijuana has already come up in this thread.

 

 

 

Your source is a joke. :lol: It does not list the works cited, and its arguments are primarly dependent on the false assumption that correlation implies causation.

 

Marijuana use is also associated with a number of risky sexual behaviors, including having multiple sex partners, initiating sex at an early age, and failing to use condoms consistently.

 

 

 

Give me some sources (with proper citations) that are not reliant on correlation alone. Your claims hold no weight at the moment.

[Quoi_Tu]

edit: Whoops.