New Jersey legalizes medical marijuana...and bans gay marriage

[BlindBaker]

Marijuana can be PSYCHOLOGICALLY addicting (which I guess you could call a habit).

 

Many things are psychologically addictive, including masturbation. I personally see that kind of addiction as a "meh" type deal due to how common it is.

 

 

Marijuana contains more cancer-causing substances than tobacco and alcohol. But because it's usually not addicting, you tend to receive less of that (a smoker smokes at bare minimum one cigarette per day, a marijuana smoker usually smokes the same amount every two weeks or a month, unless you're a major pothead which is bad).

 

You won't get cancer from marijuana though, and it will actually slow the growth rate of tumors.

 

Both of those are exactly what I was trying to say. :P

[Zierro]

Personally, I'd rather die of cancer than smoke marijuana.

 

And you don't find that close-minded?

 

Calling me close minded is going to open a whole new can of worms that I don't think you'd be willing to deal with. I admit, it's a bold statement. Close minded? I don't think so. Radical? Yes.

 

Just to clear any confusion, I'm not saying, "If you don't smoke then you're a close-minded person." That would be pretty close-minded of me. Some people might have very good reasons not to, such as health problems, not enjoying the effect, or perhaps enjoying the effect too much. But by the sound of your cancer comment, it seems like you are pretty unreceptive to the idea that marijuana can be a positive thing (or at least a better choice than dying of cancer), which is where I think the close-mindedness comes into play. Unless of course you have some bold support for your bold statement. I don't mind opening cans of worms. I've always been interested in drug debates.

[RpgGamer]

Personally, I'd rather die of cancer than smoke marijuana.

 

And you don't find that close-minded?

 

Calling me close minded is going to open a whole new can of worms that I don't think you'd be willing to deal with. I admit, it's a bold statement. Close minded? I don't think so. Radical? Yes.

 

Just to clear any confusion, I'm not saying, "If you don't smoke then you're a close-minded person." That would be pretty close-minded of me. Some people might have very good reasons not to, such as health problems, not enjoying the effect, or perhaps enjoying the effect too much. But by the sound of your cancer comment, it seems like you are pretty unreceptive to the idea that marijuana can be a positive thing (or at least a better choice than dying of cancer), which is where I think the close-mindedness comes into play. Unless of course you have some bold support for your bold statement. I don't mind opening cans of worms. I've always been interested in drug debates.

 

I am infact afflicted with a lung condition where smoking would practically kill me instantly [premature birth ftw?]. But my main reasno for being so anti-drug is because I've seen drugs change people. I've lost a lot of very close friends to drug abuse and alcohol dependency. it alters your life style in ways I would never give into willingly. After reading and debating with literally dozens of people, I do see that marijuana under iedal condtions does have some benefits. Especially economically. But I reamin very against it for my own reasons, and the unwillingness to accept that makes those who call me close-minded seem rather hypocritical. And I have low tolernce for hypocrits. So forgive me when I imply that marijuana is over all a horrible substance that I wish to remove from the slate of existance, because I have seen with my own two eyes the horrors it can cause and the lives it can consume. Maybe it doesn't literally kill you, but it might as well. So you can keep your faulty research and propoganda spewing advocates, but I've made my opinion. you can spit facts at me all you want, but I've personally witnessed contrary.

[Zierro]

Okay, I guess that statement wasn't as bad as I thought now that I'm aware of the context.

 

So forgive me when I imply that marijuana is over all a horrible substance that I wish to remove from the slate of existance, because I have seen with my own two eyes the horrors it can cause and the lives it can consume. Maybe it doesn't literally kill you, but it might as well. So you can keep your faulty research and propoganda spewing advocates, but I've made my opinion. you can spit facts at me all you want, but I've personally witnessed contrary.

 

I see where you're coming from now, but you're basing your entire opinion off of a few select experiences. Of course there are going to be people who are worse off thanks to drugs, just as there are people who are now better off. You're only looking at one side of the coin.

 

I just think we should take things as they are. Drugs alone aren't good nor evil. In the wrong hands, of course they can be bad, just like literally every object on this planet. (Pencils can be used to blind someone you dislike.) But, in the right hands, they can be extremely beneficial. I hate when drugs get a bad rap because a bunch of idiots were being irresponsible. It's the same as hating cars just because a drunk driver took your family away.

 

As for those advocates giving out skewed data, I agree completely. People should know both the pros and cons to drugs and then make the decision on their own. Letting conflicts of interest and biases interfere with the information being conveyed to the people is just unfair. And I see it among both sides of the debate.

[RpgGamer]

Okay, I guess that statement wasn't as bad as I thought now that I'm aware of the context.

 

So forgive me when I imply that marijuana is over all a horrible substance that I wish to remove from the slate of existance, because I have seen with my own two eyes the horrors it can cause and the lives it can consume. Maybe it doesn't literally kill you, but it might as well. So you can keep your faulty research and propoganda spewing advocates, but I've made my opinion. you can spit facts at me all you want, but I've personally witnessed contrary.

 

I see where you're coming from now, but you're basing your entire opinion off of a few select experiences. Of course there are going to be people who are worse off thanks to drugs, just as there are people who are now better off. You're only looking at one side of the coin.

 

I just think we should take things as they are. Drugs alone aren't good nor evil. In the wrong hands, of course they can be bad, just like literally every object on this planet. (Pencils can be used to blind someone you dislike.) But, in the right hands, they can be extremely beneficial. I hate when drugs get a bad rap because a bunch of idiots were being irresponsible. It's the same as hating cars just because a drunk driver took your family away.

 

As for those advocates giving out skewed data, I agree completely. People should know both the pros and cons to drugs and then make the decision on their own. Letting conflicts of interest and biases interfere with the information being conveyed to the people is just unfair. And I see it among both sides of the debate.

 

This is also tributed to the fact that when it comes to humans, there are no "right hands" only wrong ones. I see the human race as a bunch of disgusting corrupt, selfish beings. I'm not perfect either, and am flawed. But the way i see it, legalizing medicinal mariijuana only makes a fairly easily obtained drug even more available. And if it's more available, more people are suseptable to try it. The more taht try it, the more likely it is to have it fall into "the wrong hands". I'd rather contain the problem and let no one have it. If no one has it, it can't be abused. And I'm not just talking about the drug itseslf, its the things the drug will cause you to do. I've seen people stoop to rediculous lows for a hit, and its flat out disheartening.

 

And although I get what you're saying, I would never hate driving for the drunk drivers. I'd blame both alcohol for existing, and the person for being weak willed. I understand your point though.

 

Thank you for being reasonable, most I debate with this I end up getting into major fights with :lol:

[Ss_J9_Goten]

You may have seen people become "junkies", and you can spout that personal experience crap, but everyone I know that smokes are responsible people living normal lives. But we can't both be right, eh?

 

Besides which, you have no business telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. This nanny [cabbage] is really irritating and condescending.

 

Everything has the potential to be abused. Would you outlaw morphine? Or other painkillers, like oxycontin? Hell, just like Zierro said, even a pencil could be abused. And glue, and petrol.

 

Marijuana has been shown to be of some benefit in treating Alzheimers, blocking proteins "that inhibit memory and cognition" [1].

 

It has also been shown to reduce lung cancer tumours and inhibit the spread of said cancer. [2] Further, smoking marijuana does not increase the risk of lung cancer or chronic pulmonary obstructive disorder (although when smoked with tobacco the risk of COPD is tripled over smoking tobacco alone).[3][4]

 

There are more medical benefits you will read on Wikipedia since you're open-minded. And, funnily enough, marijuana has been shown to assist in the treatment of opioid dependance (links on Wikipedia).

 

Would you still outlaw marijuana, given these medical benefits?

[warri0r45]

Okay, I guess that statement wasn't as bad as I thought now that I'm aware of the context.

 

So forgive me when I imply that marijuana is over all a horrible substance that I wish to remove from the slate of existance, because I have seen with my own two eyes the horrors it can cause and the lives it can consume. Maybe it doesn't literally kill you, but it might as well. So you can keep your faulty research and propoganda spewing advocates, but I've made my opinion. you can spit facts at me all you want, but I've personally witnessed contrary.

 

I see where you're coming from now, but you're basing your entire opinion off of a few select experiences. Of course there are going to be people who are worse off thanks to drugs, just as there are people who are now better off. You're only looking at one side of the coin.

 

I just think we should take things as they are. Drugs alone aren't good nor evil. In the wrong hands, of course they can be bad, just like literally every object on this planet. (Pencils can be used to blind someone you dislike.) But, in the right hands, they can be extremely beneficial. I hate when drugs get a bad rap because a bunch of idiots were being irresponsible. It's the same as hating cars just because a drunk driver took your family away.

 

As for those advocates giving out skewed data, I agree completely. People should know both the pros and cons to drugs and then make the decision on their own. Letting conflicts of interest and biases interfere with the information being conveyed to the people is just unfair. And I see it among both sides of the debate.

 

This is also tributed to the fact that when it comes to humans, there are no "right hands" only wrong ones. I see the human race as a bunch of disgusting corrupt, selfish beings. I'm not perfect either, and am flawed. But the way i see it, legalizing medicinal mariijuana only makes a fairly easily obtained drug even more available. And if it's more available, more people are suseptable to try it. The more taht try it, the more likely it is to have it fall into "the wrong hands". I'd rather contain the problem and let no one have it. If no one has it, it can't be abused. And I'm not just talking about the drug itseslf, its the things the drug will cause you to do. I've seen people stoop to rediculous lows for a hit, and its flat out disheartening.

 

And although I get what you're saying, I would never hate driving for the drunk drivers. I'd blame both alcohol for existing, and the person for being weak willed. I understand your point though.

 

Thank you for being reasonable, most I debate with this I end up getting into major fights with :lol:

 

Still, you have to appreciate what Zierro is saying. You're basing your perception on personal experience, which makes you think that legalisation will lead to the amount of drug abuse that you have seen. This is faulty reasoning. You should look at controlled studies and see how many people abuse the drug to make a judgment as to whether it should be legalised.

 

Also, as far as I can see there is no correlation between legalisation and how many people use marijuana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_country

 

The Netherlands have more or less legalised pot, but there are other countries where it's illegal and used more.

[Laura]

I just can't wait until the American people finally realize that they do in fact have the ability to think on their own and don't have to take everything that their parents, teachers, the government, or especially the news say as fact. Another thing, don't have [strong] opinions on things you aren't educated in - this isn't aimed at anyone specifically, but in general.

I find this statement extremely hypocritical. Whether you're American or not makes no difference, you're stereotyping an entire group. Because, of course, it's always and only the Americans.

[warri0r45]

I just can't wait until the American people finally realize that they do in fact have the ability to think on their own and don't have to take everything that their parents, teachers, the government, or especially the news say as fact. Another thing, don't have [strong] opinions on things you aren't educated in - this isn't aimed at anyone specifically, but in general.

I find this statement extremely hypocritical. Whether you're American or not makes no difference, you're stereotyping an entire group. Because, of course, it's always and only the Americans.

 

Ignorance, sure, but not hypocrisy.

[Furah]

I just can't wait until the American people finally realize that they do in fact have the ability to think on their own and don't have to take everything that their parents, teachers, the government, or especially the news say as fact. Another thing, don't have [strong] opinions on things you aren't educated in - this isn't aimed at anyone specifically, but in general.

I find this statement extremely hypocritical. Whether you're American or not makes no difference, you're stereotyping an entire group. Because, of course, it's always and only the Americans.

I don't think you mean hypocritical....

[RpgGamer]

You may have seen people become "junkies", and you can spout that personal experience crap, but everyone I know that smokes are responsible people living normal lives. But we can't both be right, eh?

 

Besides which, you have no business telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. This nanny [cabbage] is really irritating and condescending.

 

Everything has the potential to be abused. Would you outlaw morphine? Or other painkillers, like oxycontin? Hell, just like Zierro said, even a pencil could be abused. And glue, and petrol.

 

Marijuana has been shown to be of some benefit in treating Alzheimers, blocking proteins "that inhibit memory and cognition" [1].

 

It has also been shown to reduce lung cancer tumours and inhibit the spread of said cancer. [2] Further, smoking marijuana does not increase the risk of lung cancer or chronic pulmonary obstructive disorder (although when smoked with tobacco the risk of COPD is tripled over smoking tobacco alone).[3][4]

 

There are more medical benefits you will read on Wikipedia since you're open-minded. And, funnily enough, marijuana has been shown to assist in the treatment of opioid dependance (links on Wikipedia).

 

Would you still outlaw marijuana, given these medical benefits?

 

1) Wikipedia isn't the best source in credibilty

2) I would infact moderate over any kind of painkiller, making it only available while in the hospitals. Because as you said, it can be abused

3) Marijuana treats opium dependancy? psh. all it does is move the addiction from one substance to another.

4) I think my personal observations are more valid than research. Especially when this research is primarily done by potheads for potheads. I can see my results with my own two eyes. Prove yours.

[Ss_J9_Goten]

You don't have to trust Wikipedia, but you can certainly follow the links they so conveniently provide.

 

Everything has the potential to be abused. Would you outlaw petrol? Quite a few people abuse petrol by sniffing it.

 

What business do you have telling people what they can and can't do to their own body? You have no business "saving people from themselves", because it's their life, not yours.

 

Opiate's are physically addictive. Marijuana is not. So no, it's not just trading one addiction for another. Marijuana is only addictive in the same way that video games are addictive (and they can be abused, so you'd better ban them quick!)

 

And ahahahahahahahahaha. I think you missed the point of this...

 

You may have seen people become "junkies", and you can spout that personal experience crap, but everyone I know that smokes are responsible people living normal lives. But we can't both be right, eh?

 

...my personal experience "disproves" yours, just as yours would "disprove" mine. So why don't you provide sources to back up your claims, because until then your claims have no substance.

 

Also, stop being such a condescending [wagon]. Those sources I provided aren't "by potheads for potheads" (did you even click the links?). And hey, while you're at it, why don't you "prove yours".

[RpgGamer]

You don't have to trust Wikipedia, but you can certainly follow the links they so conveniently provide.

 

Everything has the potential to be abused. Would you outlaw petrol? Quite a few people abuse petrol by sniffing it.

 

What business do you have telling people what they can and can't do to their own body? You have no business "saving people from themselves", because it's their life, not yours.

 

Opiate's are physically addictive. Marijuana is not. So no, it's not just trading one addiction for another. Marijuana is only addictive in the same way that video games are addictive (and they can be abused, so you'd better ban them quick!)

 

And ahahahahahahahahaha. I think you missed the point of this...

 

You may have seen people become "junkies", and you can spout that personal experience crap, but everyone I know that smokes are responsible people living normal lives. But we can't both be right, eh?

 

...my personal experience "disproves" yours, just as yours would "disprove" mine. So why don't you provide sources to back up your claims, because until then your claims have no substance.

 

Also, stop being such a condescending [wagon]. Those sources I provided aren't "by potheads for potheads" (did you even click the links?). And hey, while you're at it, why don't you "prove yours".

 

 

Honestly no, I didn't click the links but I appreciate your logic in pointing out my flawed argument. Touche. I am condescending, but I do it for [ateast what I believe to be] the greater good. If you can look upon your "junkie" friends and consider them responisible, and through your eyes meet high expectations, than they are doing well for themselves. My only bone to pick with them would be to question why they need to subject themselves to foreign substance. And marijuana is infact addicitive, just not chemically. It's a psychological thing. Moving an opiate junkie onto marijuana won't be satisfying to their desire for a better high. Even if it did, they'd rely so heavily on the marijuana, they'd become psychologically dependant on it, which to me is pretrty much the same thing as an addiction. It's true, I don't have any buisness telling people how to run their lives. But if they're willing to sacrifice their welbeing to rebel against my sometimes overbearing cynacisms on humanity, that's really up to them. I respect that it's everyones decison for themselves, but those who make the wrong decision in my eyes will be looked down upon. Simple as that. Now excuse me as I dabble around in your links that I probably should have read before posting

 

[EDIT]

okay, now that I've read them, I have this to say. Those articles were out dated. Most of them were between the eras of 2006 and 2007. This is 2010. not to say that old news is bad news, but I can prove myself by linking things too. INfact this one comes from one of the same sites you used:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm

 

Not to mention that the one link about the similiar gene notations sounded like someone flipped through a biology book and threw some words together. Looking legit and being legit are two different things.

[Furah]

1) Wikipedia isn't the best source in credibilty

2) I would infact moderate over any kind of painkiller, making it only available while in the hospitals. Because as you said, it can be abused

3) Marijuana treats opium dependancy? psh. all it does is move the addiction from one substance to another.

4) I think my personal observations are more valid than research. Especially when this research is primarily done by potheads for potheads. I can see my results with my own two eyes. Prove yours.

1) That's what the whole citation thing is supposed to stop. Wikipedia pretty much just summarises it for you.

2) Remember those tablets you took last time you had a bad headache? They can be easily abused. Do you see people saying that they should be only available if you're in hospital? That would just put an unneeded strain on all the hospitals. So would making marijuana available only in hospitals. A lot of these people are quite capable of looking after themselves and keeping their jobs.

3) No, marijuana is not physically addictive, which opium is.

4) *facedesk* "Everyone I've seen drinking cough medicine just ends up coughing more and become nauseated, the millions in research stating that helps in reducing coughing mustn't be valid." This is research done by medical institutes, a number even seem to support medical marijuana.

• 
   
  
• The American Medical Association
  
• The American College of Physicians
  
• Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
  
• American Academy of Family Physicians
  
• American Alliance for Medical Cannabis
  
• American Public Health Association
  
• American Psychiatric Association
  
• American Nurses Association
  
• British Medical Association
  
• AIDS Action
  
• American Academy of HIV Medicine
  
• Lymphoma Foundation of America
  
• Health Canada
  

[Erk02]

The give it to terminally ill folk, cancer patients, alcoholics, and insomniacs. The government marijuana probably won't be "quality" for all of those who are pro-legalization. It's going to have more effects of laziness and sedativity than creativity bursts and mind release that the junkies crave. To me that smells like a mind control conspiracy.

 

[G]ive the junkies another excuse to be pathetic and weak?

 

...continue

You're kinda uneducated, aren't you? Medical marijuana doesn't come from the government; dispensaries buy large quantities from private growers, and sell them in their stores. These same growers would be selling to illegal dealers without legal marijuana. Therefore, it's the same quality. Also, I assume you've never smoked, as you talk about mind control through pot. I can only hope you're trolling with this. I'm a "junky", as in I smoke pot regularly, but at least I know my facts. Even though I live in California, (we have legal medical pot) I don't believe I'm a slave to the government. Also, marijuana is proven to be a good medicine, so I don't know what you're getting at..

 

Please, do some research before you open click "post".

 

As to people thinking it's stupid that New Jersey legalized medical marijuana, while banning gay marriage, why do you think that's so unreasonable? I'm staunchly against Prop 8, (Prop 8 banned gay marriage in my state a while ago) and I'm pro-legalization. However, I understand not everyone shares my views on issues such as the ones at hand. You guys need to understand that some people may hate pot, but love the idea of gay marriage, and vice-versa. They're not mutually exclusive, as we can see in New Jersey.

[Romy]

As to people thinking it's stupid that New Jersey legalized medical marijuana, while banning gay marriage, why do you think that's so unreasonable? I'm staunchly against Prop 8, (Prop 8 banned gay marriage in my state a while ago) and I'm pro-legalization. However, I understand not everyone shares my views on issues such as the ones at hand. You guys need to understand that some people may hate pot, but love the idea of gay marriage, and vice-versa. They're not mutually exclusive, as we can see in New Jersey.

 

The main reason is that addicting drugs are more than usualy seen in a bad light, while the freedom to sexual orientations is seen in a liberal light, etc.

[RpgGamer]

As to people thinking it's stupid that New Jersey legalized medical marijuana, while banning gay marriage, why do you think that's so unreasonable? I'm staunchly against Prop 8, (Prop 8 banned gay marriage in my state a while ago) and I'm pro-legalization. However, I understand not everyone shares my views on issues such as the ones at hand. You guys need to understand that some people may hate pot, but love the idea of gay marriage, and vice-versa. They're not mutually exclusive, as we can see in New Jersey.

 

The main reason is that addicting drugs are more than usualy seen in a bad light, while the freedom to sexual orientations is seen in a liberal light, etc.

 

 

What he said.

 

And there's a difference between being uneducated and being brainwashed. Which am I? Which are you? Neither of us can really "prove" eachother wrong. In a sense we're both right. Why? Because at this point we're just arguing over my zealous position on the matter.

[Erk02]

As to people thinking it's stupid that New Jersey legalized medical marijuana, while banning gay marriage, why do you think that's so unreasonable? I'm staunchly against Prop 8, (Prop 8 banned gay marriage in my state a while ago) and I'm pro-legalization. However, I understand not everyone shares my views on issues such as the ones at hand. You guys need to understand that some people may hate pot, but love the idea of gay marriage, and vice-versa. They're not mutually exclusive, as we can see in New Jersey.

 

The main reason is that addicting drugs are more than usualy seen in a bad light, while the freedom to sexual orientations is seen in a liberal light, etc.

 

 

What he said.

 

And there's a difference between being uneducated and being brainwashed. Which am I? Which are you? Neither of us can really "prove" eachother wrong. In a sense we're both right. Why? Because at this point we're just arguing over my zealous position on the matter.

I proved you wrong by stating that medical marijuana is not government-regulated. Are you just going to ignore that?

[RpgGamer]

The fact that it isn't goverment regulated actually concerns me more, so I may have been uninformed of its source, but taht doesn't change anything about my opinion. I'd actually prefer it was government regulated. That way people would be less inclined to use it recreationally. No one likes partying with the government.

[Zierro]

My only bone to pick with them would be to question why they need to subject themselves to foreign substance.

 

Most smokers don't "need" it anymore than you "need" chocolate. It's just something with mild repercussions that people enjoy using. Now yes, people who smoke 20 times a day or eat chocolate 20 times a day probably will have to face harsher repercussions. But then again, too much of any substance, including healthy food and water, isn't good for your body.

[Romy]

As to people thinking it's stupid that New Jersey legalized medical marijuana, while banning gay marriage, why do you think that's so unreasonable? I'm staunchly against Prop 8, (Prop 8 banned gay marriage in my state a while ago) and I'm pro-legalization. However, I understand not everyone shares my views on issues such as the ones at hand. You guys need to understand that some people may hate pot, but love the idea of gay marriage, and vice-versa. They're not mutually exclusive, as we can see in New Jersey.

 

The main reason is that addicting drugs are more than usualy seen in a bad light, while the freedom to sexual orientations is seen in a liberal light, etc.

 

 

What he said.

 

And there's a difference between being uneducated and being brainwashed. Which am I? Which are you? Neither of us can really "prove" eachother wrong. In a sense we're both right. Why? Because at this point we're just arguing over my zealous position on the matter.

 

I'm a she. :blink:

[RpgGamer]

My apologies romy, I fogot :oops:. I should look at names before quoting and labeling gender.

 

And Zierro, you have avery good point, but I believe in moderation. Again, we're speaking about how I feel all of this is. I would never eat that much chocolate at one time. "That" being any large quantity. I'm not huge on anything. I believe life is a balancing act, where every variable you encounter has to be moderated to exterminate gluttony. Self control is a huge part of that. Addiction pretty much negates self control. But going back to smoking and pot, these things have very high negative sides. So much so, I don't see anything positive enough to counterbalance them. Therefore, I will never indulge in such activities.

 

 

[rogerfoger]

at least jay n silent bob will be happy :P

[RpgGamer]

at least jay n silent bob will be happy

 

 

7 posts and i already love you :lol: