Legalizing marijuana, a topic that seems to be coming up now more than it did a few years ago, and thus deserves some attention. You know that Ron Paul wanted to do it, most students at Aragon High school wouldn't mind either, and personally, i think its PREPOSTEROUS!
Basically everyone who wants to use marijuana can, because it's everywhere, and most who use it, also sell it, meaning there are a lot of small time dealers around. So why not legalize, so that it can be taxed, and can thereby help the state and its population with that money?
BECAUSE while im sure there will be someone in the class who tells me that it'll create jobs, deal a large blow to drug cartels, bring in money, and save on enforcement of law, it is still another drug that even more people will be abusing, getting addicted to, and affecting others in the process.
People drive while high, people don't make thoughtful decisions while high, most people don't even compose complete strands of thought, logic, or reason while high. Being a pothead has medical repercussions, and while less so than smoking or drinking, it has more of the "ruin your life" effect. YES, YES, i will be criticized for saying that marijuana ruins your life, but the fact is, when addicted, which happens easily, kids forget about their education, and live mostly to feed their addiction, hurting their families, friends, and themselves. The last generation was full of potheads, and look how they turned out, just fine. But if you think of how much better they could have turned out, how many years they lost to addiction, how much they sacrificed, and how much harder it was to work up to middle class after quitting, is it worth the cost?
I don't think so, not at all.
Trump’s NY Criminal Trial, Day 6
4 hours ago
57 comments:
First of all, I'd like to note that your post is 100% speculation, there is not a single piece of factual evidence.
Secondly, I would like to mention that attempting to tackle this topic simply in the comments section would be an unwise decision, marijuana is an extremely misunderstood and broad topic.
You say that "when addicted, which happens easily, kids forget about their education, and live mostly to feed their addiction..." Addiction to a substance is defined as dependence upon the substance and withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of use. Marijuana, while potentially habit forming, is not addictive. Furthermore, medical studies have shown marijuana to be less habit forming than caffeine.
You also stated that, in regards to the previous generation, they could have turned out much better had it not been for addiction to marijuana. Scratching the fact that marijuana is in fact not addictive, and that this argument is already moot, there is absolutely no way for you to predict how something MIGHT have turned out.
First off, isn't there already a post on this topic..?
Secondly, you yourself said that those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. We already have these "kids" you speak of in school. They know about the last generation. Just maybe we could teach them something.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Read up on subjects before drawing unfounded conclusions about them.
And be careful when you use the word "brainwash", for your statements will only become even more ironic.
i've read many extensive studies on both sides of this topic. not posting them was intentional, maybe you could use your head and take a guess at why!
and in addition, "awake" whoever you are, why choose to stay anonymous?
I guess my head just isn't functioning.
Please enlighten me as to how NOT using evidence to support any claim could ever be considered a good idea.
You make me laugh. If you've "read many extensive studies on both sides of this topic", then why did you state that marijuana is addictive? Why did you state that it has the "'ruin your life' effect"? Where did you find statistics about cannabis-related car crashes? Where did you read about "the fact" that cannabis causes "kids forget about their education, and live mostly to feed their addiction, hurting their families, friends, and themselves". Help me learn, intelligent boy. Convince me that what you say is true.
My anonymity should not be your primary concern. Stay on topic. Identity does not reflect the extent of one's knowledge. Hence, assess my post instead of distracting from discussion.
The realm in which you provide your other posts ricochets between individuals and generalized groups. You've provided a good claim throughout the post, but here I don't see how "kids forget about their education, and live mostly to feed their addiction, hurting their families, friends, and themselves" can mean the whole group of marijuana smokers. After all, people respond differently to marijuana because of their mental/physical build up. I may have interpreted your words wrong (if I do, I apologize), but that is the impression I get. Furthermore, I'll have to agree with Jebsen that concrete evidence is a good thing. Knowing both sides of the debate is a good thing.
I may or may not be generalizing here, but marijuana it is not "another drug that even more people will be abusing, getting addicted to, and affecting others in the process." It is true that prolonged cannabis use can cause addiction, but it is NOT going to be affecting others to the point where a whole community falls apart because one person started smoking. Furthermore, according to http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html, marijuana is already one of the most abused drugs. I still don't understand why the states/nation cannot capitalize on the taxation the drug, especially in this economic crisis that rages on today.
I think that marijuana does not come in the form of addiction, but rather habitual dependency. The buzz/high comes from the chemical THC, which gives slight pleasure. However, marijuana itself does not cause addiction. There is no chemical identified that causes such a reaction. It is more of a habit/lifestyle that forms. After all, habits are easier to break than addiction.
I am in support for legalizing marijuana not only because it is a great form of revenue but also because it grants personal liberties. People are given the choice to smoke marijuana and it is ultimately their decision to face the consequences.
However hypothetical this may sound, it IS possible to regulate marijuana usage. Take similar measures with cigarettes and ban marijuana usage in public places to reduce secondhand smoke and thus, reduce the amount of "violation" people may feel because of that.
Loving your compassion for the subject and I apologize for making such a long comment.
thanks kasper, an im gonna post more on this late tonight either as comments, or as a post, if commissar silton doesn't shut last weeks group off by then.
And for you , 'awake'. i have no respect for someone who says that their identity shouldn't be my concern. i like to know who im talking to, who im debating with, and why it is that they may hold a particular opinion. if you're too afraid of what people might think if you identify yourslef, then get lost. all the students at aragon arent afraid to reveal their opinions with their names tagged along. i have a few ideas as to who you are, because ive been advertising this blog, and awake is a good tipoff, but still, you could be someone i've never met and never will, and i feel no obligation to answer to your bait.
This is one thing I can agree with Victor about. The people who are most likely to drop out of this school are also the most susceptible to using narcotics.
"I guess my head just isn't functioning.
Please enlighten me as to how NOT using evidence to support any claim could ever be considered a good idea."
It's not hard to come up with evidence surrounding cannabis and addiction. I went to the WHO website and typed in "cannabis addiction", and found this:
http://www.emro.who.int/mnh/whd/PublicInformation-Part3.htm
Your second argument is invalidated by the fact that pot is addicting.
" It is true that prolonged cannabis use can cause addiction, but it is NOT going to be affecting others to the point where a whole community falls apart because one person started smoking. Furthermore, according to http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html, marijuana is already one of the most abused drugs."
Look at the lives of the people who DO use pot right now; are they going anywhere in life? No, their entire world consists of a couple green leaves. They are degenerate because the majority of them can't do anything else other than smoke pot. If this is legalized, the scale of this scourge would be at a community level, then the community would suffer the same fate that befell the individuals that used it before it was legalized.
Awake, you're identity is our concern. Mr. Silton already wants us to identify ourselves when we post. If you don't know who he is or the fact that this blog was originally meant for Aragon High schoolers, then you would be an interloper.
Not that I would have a problem with it, but Mr.Silton potentially would. The more people that join this blog, the more fish I can fry.
Well, Victor, whoever awake is isn't the only one who's curious to see where you are making your claims from. I still can't figure out why you won't post your evidence.
Also, Kevin, you are over generalizing. You are forgetting many many people, if not a majority, who use only moderately. There is ALWAYS a broad range of people in any specific group. For example, just because someone drinks wine at dinner once a week does not make him an alcoholic. Someone who uses pot once a week does not make him an addict. You cannot assume that EVERYONE who uses a drug blows all their money on it AND has absolutely no other life goal. I know a decent number of people who use drugs and are in no way overly destroying their lives. Hell, I'd say some are smarter than I am.
Also, Kevin, your EMRO link, is it from 2001? And another link for you guys.. All drugs are addictive, but marijuana is so much LESS addictive that it makes me wonder why the worse of two evils is legal and the lesser isn't.
Since my identity is quite clearly hindering the exchange of information in this discussion, I inform you that my name is Ilaf Atu. There. You now know who I am, and you may now proceed in replying to my posts.
Victor, you still have not sufficiently replied to my previous comment, and I would like answers to my questions. Thanks in advance.
-Ilaf Atu
Kevin, please read through the sites that you link through.
Does that page list Cannabis as an addictive substance? Yes
Does that page give any evidence acquired from actual studies about the addictiveness of marijuana? No
All that that site does is give its own definition of addiction and list cannabis as addictive without providing evidence that it is.
"Your second argument is invalidated by the fact that pot is addicting."
No. That website does not provide any factual evidence whatsoever specifically relating to marijuana.
I could just as easily find websites that argue the opposite, but I could also find clinical studies about how the human body does not develop a physiological dependence on marijuana.
"Look at the lives of the people who DO use pot right now; are they going anywhere in life? No, their entire world consists of a couple green leaves. They are degenerate because the majority of them can't do anything else other than smoke pot."
Really? All you're insinuating is that marijuana users are aimless degenerates that can do nothing but think of the drug?
I hope you realize that less than 1% of marijuana smokers actually use the drug on a daily basis. In fact, many statistics exaggerating the spread of "marijuana abuse" simply classify any use of marijuana (even 1 time users simply trying it out) as abuse. Take a page from UnSpun and look into specifics.
Franklin, I was still writing my reply at the time of your post, and I must say.
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, we make similar points.
Yo Victor. I got to say that Jebsen and Franklin are making some pretty hard-core arguements. However, making marijuana legal still scares me. I have seen people who are high, and they are not the kind of people I want driving the car next to mine. Aren't drunk drivers bad enough? Do we really need high ones?
"I have seen people who are high, and they are not the kind of people I want driving the car next to mine. Aren't drunk drivers bad enough? Do we really need high ones?"
1. It would be extremely erroneous to imply that all cannabis users are going to drive while high.
2. Alcohol is legal. Drunk driving is illegal. Can't cannabis be legal, and driving under the influence of it be illegal?
3. Sometimes I wonder why designated drivers and good decision making exist.
-Ilaf Atu
Victor, your arguments are good, but it lacks evidence which might benefit your statements, yadidamean?
It's not worth starting post based on no factual evidence and creating a political battlefield over speculation and information that everyone can infer for themselves.
The argument stated here is very good but it isnt factual. to have a good opposing side i believe that you should atleast have some argument on it. I believe that marijuana isnt a addictive substance anxd it can help unhealthy patients. It is used among the young and it should stop..but because it is commnly used, your right marijuana ought to just be legalized. There are alot of factual arguments that work to prove this and http://www.usdoj.gov should be looked at to help prove this.
Here, go sift through the sites of potential evidence.
http://search.who.int/search?ie=utf8&site=default_collection&client=WHO&proxystylesheet=WHO&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8&q=cannabis+addiction&sitesearch=
Have fun.
And yes, I do bear a condescendence towards potheads, but I'm not going to say why.
"2. Alcohol is legal. Drunk driving is illegal. Can't cannabis be legal, and driving under the influence of it be illegal?"
As if our list of societal problems isn't enough.
Let's go legalize marijuana, so that more people will use it and crash more cars while high. The more people that use it, the more likely people will drive while under its influence.
"The argument stated here is very good but it isnt factual. to have a good opposing side i believe that you should atleast have some argument on it."
Sabina, Victor does have an argument; just not enough evidence to go with it.
"Let's go legalize marijuana, so that more people will use it and crash more cars while high. The more people that use it, the more likely people will drive while under its influence."
Self-proclaimed "Wise One", just because an individual is high does not mean he/she is completely stupid. Have you ever even experienced an altered state of consciousness? You make it appear as if all people that smoke will go out to their cars, turn them on, and start driving them into other cars. No, this is not what happens. People that smoke cannabis can still think and make rational decisions. Cannabis no way near impairs judgment the same way alcohol does. Study the neurochemistry involved and the studies/reports that have been done on cannabis usage.
I also think everyone here trying to make the cannabis+driving argument would find these articles interesting:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459
http://www.fcda.org/driving.htm
Im going to have to agree with Ilaf Atu on most of these posts. I agree that legalizing marijuana does not instantly lead to people jumping in their cars and causing crashes, however this could be a side effect. Restating the fact that Drunk driving is illegal while drinking is not, Smoking marijuana is relatively the same thing. People who smoke marijuana are just as capable of making good and bad decisions as drunk people are. Designating a designated driver is just as hard when you are drunk then when you are high.
Now it should be said that legalizing marijuana is not necessarily something I would vote for. I do believe that if it was legalized the rate of DUI's would increase significantly, as well as crashes while high. But I will argue that not every person who smokes is going to drive. Just like how not every person who drinks is going to make that decision.
-Jacob Schroeter
Well, Awake, it's time for you to wake up yourself from your "altered state of consciousness" and be aware that what you do while you're high does not reflect reality.
"You make it appear as if all people that smoke will go out to their cars, turn them on, and start driving them into other cars. No, this is not what happens."
There will always be a number of wayward, delirious people who are high enough to do that. The percentage of people who drive while high scales with that of the number of people who use the drug.
If more people in general, for example, consumed more alcohol, then we can expect to see a rise in drunk driving.
"People that smoke cannabis can still think and make rational decisions."
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/
I love how you get your "facts" from interest groups.
"You make it appear as if all people that smoke will go out to their cars, turn them on, and start driving them into other cars. No, this is not what happens. People that smoke cannabis can still think and make rational decisions."
If smoking pot does not impair judgement, then why do you try to deny the fact that people do drive after using pot. If rational judgement is not affected, then there should be no problem with driving while high. Then you would not be denying it.
Kevin, I just wanted to mention that the sites you gave us was purely from the WHO. The WHO is simply an organization that promotes maximum health security [http://www.who.int/about/agenda/en/index.html] I checked some of the sites in that search link you gave us and nearly all of it was concerned with the HEALTH effects that marijuana will cause. True, they are bad and true, they are backed by research, but no where did I find that pot users don't go "anywhere in life" nor do I find anything that proves that cannabis causes addiction. Moreover, you can't merely assume that people who smoke pot are stupid. I found this from one of the links you told us to sift through. "[T]he hazards linked to the use of any drug
are strongly influenced by such factors as the social and cultural context of drug use in the community, the political
and economic context, availability of various psychoactive substances, preparation and dose, route of administration,
frequency of use, and associated life style."
It is true that there is a possibility of car accidents increasing [http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459]; however, I'd like to make a comparison. Compare the current state of keeping marijuana illegal with the prohibition act of 1920. During the prohibition act, crime rates went up and tax revenues decreased. Furthermore, prohibition " led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition." Isn't there a likelihood that legalizing marijuana would lead to a decrease in people utilizing hundreds of other more harmful drugs and substances?
Alcohol Prohibiion: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
"what you do while you're high does not reflect reality."
Yes it does. You cannot escape reality. Everything that occurs, even hallucinations, occur due to physical reasons. That is an entirely different discussion, however.
"There will always be a number of wayward, delirious people who are high enough to do that. The percentage of people who drive while high scales with that of the number of people who use the drug.
If more people in general, for example, consumed more alcohol, then we can expect to see a rise in drunk driving."
You obviously did not read the articles I posted.
"I love how you get your "facts" from interest groups."
Please feel free to point out any misinformation in the articles I presented. If someone actually looked up the studies/research cited in those articles, that person would realize that they are legitimate. I would also like to note that the sources I mentioned are widely used and well known to those that study and debate drug-related topics.
"If smoking pot does not impair judgement, then why do you try to deny the fact that people do drive after using pot. If rational judgement is not affected, then there should be no problem with driving while high. Then you would not be denying it."
Where did I try to deny that some people drive after smoking cannabis? My eyes must be failing. In response to the latter portion, ignorant people make poor decisions. Ignorant people that smoke cannabis will most likely make poor decisions high or sober because they were ignorant in the first place! If you recall, I stated, "People that smoke cannabis can still think and make rational decisions. Cannabis no way near impairs judgment the same way alcohol does." And never did I suggest implicitly or explicitly that driving after using any psychoactive substance is acceptable. Don't put words in my mouth.
Kasper good point. The prohibition is a common, but great comparison.
This documentary highlights many of the points of that argument; provides interviews with scientists, historians, and dealers; and a compilation of information on cannabis.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007&ei=80i4So77K5r8qAOT7rn0AQ&q=union+business&hl=en&client=firefox-a#
"The WHO is simply an organization that promotes maximum health security..."
No dispute there.
"I checked some of the sites in that search link you gave us and nearly all of it was concerned with the HEALTH effects that marijuana will cause. True, they are bad and true..."
Mostly the bad. And don't forget what you said earlier about WHO being concerned about other people's health.
"I found this from one of the links you told us to sift through. '[T]he hazards linked to the use of any drug
are strongly influenced by such factors as the social and cultural context of drug use in the community, the political
and economic context, availability of various psychoactive substances, preparation and dose, route of administration,
frequency of use, and associated life style.'"
Yes, that is right. In the context of the US, illegal drugs like pot are associated with gangs and dropouts.
"Isn't there a likelihood that legalizing marijuana would lead to a decrease in people utilizing hundreds of other more harmful drugs and substances?"
That would only probably work if pot was legalized for recreational use. People who use pot for medical reasons wouldn't turn to other drugs like methamphetamine for help.
But then again, I thought you guys were only trying to legalize marijuana for medical use only? Or do I sense another ostensible reason for trying to legalize it?
Haha sorry, I didn't clarify that I was talking on the grounds of general marijuana use.
Kevin:
"Yes, that is right. In the context of the US, illegal drugs like pot are associated with gangs and dropouts."
Do you know WHY?
Precisely because it IS illegal, it is considered a "gateway drug" (which has been found to be completely false, as you can find in many studies which I am, at this point in time, too lazy to find for you).
The only reason marijuana might lead to other illegal activities is precisely because it is illegal in the first place. If marijuana was legal, people who wished to purchase it would not need to go through shady, illegal vendors who would also try to sell them other illegal, more harmful, drugs.
If marijuana were legal, there would be no gateway theory (not that the gateway theory is true, mind you).
"
That would only probably work if pot was legalized for recreational use. People who use pot for medical reasons wouldn't turn to other drugs like methamphetamine for help.
But then again, I thought you guys were only trying to legalize marijuana for medical use only? Or do I sense another ostensible reason for trying to legalize it?"
Never, EVER, have we stated that we're ONLY advocating medical marijuana.
I guess it's a failure of comprehension on your part, but this entire time we've been talking about complete legalization.
"Yes it does. You cannot escape reality."
My bad.
"...the way you think - which leads to actions which may adversely affect you - does not reflect reality."
There, better?
"'Cannabis no way near impairs judgment the same way alcohol does.'"
Depends on the amount of alcohol or pot consumed or smoked.
"These totals, while far from negligible, suggest that the prevalence of illicit drug use among US drivers is far less than the prevalence of alcohol among this same population."
From your link:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459#_ftn2
This does not necessarily mean that drug users don't or rarely drive under the impairment of pot. The number of people who consumes alcohol far exceeds the number of people who uses drugs. Therefore, the percentage of people who drive under the influence of alcohol scales to that number of alchol-consumers, which means that it would be higher than the number of people driving under the influence of pot.
The numbers are correct, but not necessarily the conjectures of causation. It's the take on the evidence that is disputable. And that website decides to put a spin favorable to it.
"You make it appear as if all people that smoke will go out to their cars, turn them on, and start driving them into other cars. No, this is not what happens."
That last sentence is a denial. By saying that people who are high can make rational decisions, you are making the connection that it is ok to drive under the effects of pot.
"The only reason marijuana might lead to other illegal activities is precisely because it is illegal in the first place. If marijuana was legal, people who wished to purchase it would not need to go through shady, illegal vendors who would also try to sell them other illegal, more harmful, drugs."
If people wanted to use pot for pleasure, eventually they'll go try other drugs. Fostering people's desire for pleasure will not end it; on the contrary, it will grow and expand towards other sources - like "other illegal, more harmful, drugs."
If people wanted to use pot for pleasure, eventually they'll go try other drugs. Fostering people's desire for pleasure will not end it; on the contrary, it will grow and expand towards other sources - like "other illegal, more harmful, drugs."
The gateway theory has never been proven. Our sole purpose is to argue if marijuana should be legalized. Your argument about how people MIGHT desire to try other illegal drugs is irrelevant.
Adding to Yoda's point, no one can blame cannabis for people choosing to try harder drugs. There is no chemical in cannabis that drives one to try a harder drug. Blaming cannabis for doing so is unfounded, irrelevant, and completely irrational.
"By saying that people who are high can make rational decisions, you are making the connection that it is ok to drive under the effects of pot."
Compare this to drunk driving. Just because someone drinks does not mean that they will drive. That is what Awake was trying to point out.
Can people who are drunk or high make rational decisions? As easily? No. But are they still able to? Yes. Just because you are under the influence does not mean that you will completely go against something that has been drilled into your mind since childhood.
A drunk person may have impaired judgment, but in a society where we have been taught where something (theft, for example), is wrong, simply being drunk does not mean that we will go out and steal. Our generation has been taught from birth that driving under the influence is wrong, simply being under the influence will not make us go against this teaching.
Simply being under the influence does not mean we will automatically stray towards BAD decisions. In fact, someone under the influence would most likely stray towards the decision they would normally make, it's just that they would spend less time thinking about it. If we inherently think that driving under the influence is wrong, we would keep that opinion.
And Kevin, what you've just posted is essentially the gateway theory, albeit a part of the theory that I failed to mention before, which was my mistake. But as Yoda and I have mentioned, the theory has been proven false in its entirety.
"There is no chemical in cannabis that drives one to try a harder drug. Blaming cannabis for doing so is unfounded, irrelevant, and completely irrational."
I never mentioned chemical. I did mention desire and curiosity.
Legalizing pot would not prevent ignorant people from saying or thinking:
"If pot makes me feel this good, I wonder if other drugs live up to their reputed claims to be pleasurable."
You can't deny that someone out there would come across this thought, and ignore the dangers of the other drugs. Therefore, it's not the chemicals, but the desire that drives people to try other drugs.
"Our sole purpose is to argue if marijuana should be legalized. Your argument about how people MIGHT desire to try other illegal drugs is irrelevant."
Yes, it is relevant. By legalizing pot, more people might try it and end up curious about other drugs, so laws concerning other drugs are broken. That's a reason not to legalize pot.
About that cone snail argument, it will be on the animal cruelty post.
Three people vs. one, and I'm still lasting.
You've just completely restated the gateway theory in its entirety, which we've already mentioned has been DISPROVED. There is no point in further replying to this specific argument of yours.
"Three people vs. one, and I'm still lasting."
What is this? Some sort of game to you?
Please, this is an intellectual discussion, take it more seriously.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html
Kevin, like Jebsen stated, you are just restating the gateway theory. And I don't know about you, but restating what you've already commented gets kind of boring. Awake and Jebsen have already disproved your gateway theory. Please find something else to keep this discussion going. I'm actually learning a lot from this assignment.
And three vs. one? We're just voicing our opinions. Don't feel like you are being attacked because you're not. If my posts seem hostile, please tell me so i can reword some of the things i say. I am just trying to simply argue my point through these comments. I am sorry if i have offended you.
"Three people vs. one, and I'm still lasting."
Very immature.
"Legalizing pot would not prevent ignorant people from saying or thinking:
'If pot makes me feel this good, I wonder if other drugs live up to their reputed claims to be pleasurable.'"
Once again, completely irrelevant...but here it goes: The solution is not keeping cannabis illegal. Cannabis does not cause anyone to try a harder drug. Solely the person makes the decision to try harder drugs. You can't draw such a faulty conclusion. Cough medicine can produce pleasurable effects if abused. This does not mean that cough medicine increases the chance that an individual will start shooting up heroin. The same applies to cannabis. The reason why ignorant people choose to try harder drugs is because of their IGNORANCE, NOT BECAUSE OF CANNABIS. Hence, education is the solution. Banning cannabis will do nothing to stop ignorant people from trying harder drugs. Like Jebsen said, "The Gateway Theory has been disproved". I just spelled it out for you. Hopefully you understand now.
"Therefore, it's not the chemicals, but the desire that drives people to try other drugs."
You just disproved the Gateway Theory. Congratulations.
"'Therefore, it's not the chemicals, but the desire that drives people to try other drugs.'
You just disproved the Gateway Theory. Congratulations."
If you think that I was trying to prove the gateway theory by saying that chemicals in pot drives people to crave for other drugs, then you're wrong. I mentioned desire and ignorance. See below for more information.
"The reason why ignorant people choose to try harder drugs is because of their IGNORANCE, NOT BECAUSE OF CANNABIS."
Cannabis fosters that ignorance. They would think like this:
"If pot is safe, and it's pleasurable, then other drugs must also be the same as well".
From Jebsen's article:
"Nearly a quarter of the study population who used both legal and illegal drugs at some point – 28 boys – exhibited the reverse pattern of using marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco, and those individuals were no more likely to develop a substance use disorder than those who followed the traditional succession of alcohol and tobacco before illegal drugs, according to the study, which appears in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry."
Right, at a young age, before 18, alcohol and tobacco are illegal substances for adolescents to use. That study said that "nearly a quarter of the study population who used both legal and illegal drugs at some point – 28 boys – exhibited the reverse pattern of using marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco..."
"Most importantly, a general inclination for deviance from sanctioned behaviors, which can become evident early in childhood, was strongly associated with all illicit drug use, whether it came in the gateway sequence, or the reverse."
Pot, just like tobacco and alcohol, encourages adolescents to deviate "from sanctioned behaviors".
Your link just says in a nutshell that pot is as bad as tobacco and alcohol in being a gateway drug.
Alcohol and tobacco are bad enough, why should we allow pot to become even more widespread?
"'Three people vs. one, and I'm still lasting.'
What is this? Some sort of game to you?"
You think it is a game after all the lengthy posts that I made? If I wanted to have fun, I wouldn't be here.
No one else suggested that this was a game, except for you.
"'Three people vs. one, and I'm still lasting.'
Very immature."
I was saying that there are only four people who have consistently commented on this issue, and three of you are on one side, and I'm on the other. For one person to be arguing against three other people, I'm doing a fine job of it. Don't jump to conclusions so quickly, and say that I'm immature. This argument would've more inflammatory statements if that was true.
"And three vs. one? We're just voicing our opinions."
Yes, so? You're siding with the other two in voicing the same opinions. I'm not offended by your reasonings. I give no respect for people; they must earn it. You and the other two are not part of that group. In an odd way, you guys are demostrating competence by being able to argue reasonably. I post here because I expect to find more reasonable people who would say more than just "f*ck you".
"Cannabis fosters that ignorance."
"Pot, just like tobacco and alcohol, encourages adolescents to deviate 'from sanctioned behaviors'."
Really? Are you being serious right now? Do you realize that you just personified inanimate objects? You might as well throw in there that guns shoot people on their own. You are making completely illogical and impossible arguments. People foster their ignorance. People choose to make poor decisions. Objects that cannot think, move, or speak do not and cannot manipulate people to behave certain ways on their own. People choose to interact with objects. Objects don't "foster" or "encourage" anything or anyone. If you really want to shut out poor decision making, ban people. Because people are the reason behind acts of ignorance. Otherwise, don't childishly point your finger at objects. Use your brain.
"I mentioned desire and ignorance."
Exactly. Cannabis and other inanimate objects have nothing to do with desire or ignorance; they don't have a consciousness! People themselves choose to want something or to be stupid. Since cannabis is neither addictive nor containing a chemical that damages neural function, cannabis cannot be blamed for people's wants and stupidity.
"People choose to make poor decisions."
And you think letting them go unpunished for making foolish decisions is a good thing? By legalizing pot, you are encouraging that poor-decision-making mentality.
"Objects don't "foster" or "encourage" anything or anyone."
The very article that Jebsen brought up against me said otherwise.
"People themselves choose to want something or to be stupid."
And removing a ban on pot just makes them worse. It condones their behavior and ignorant mentality.
Wow. I see no need for further discussion. We're clearly not on the same level of maturity and intellect.
-Ilaf Atu
"Wow. I see no need for further discussion. We're clearly not on the same level of maturity and intellect."
You're the first person to make a comment to insult someone else' intelligence and maturity. In your own words from that 3 vs. 1 comment, "very immature".
Anymore insults (rather than actual arguments) you wish to leave before we bring an end to this dialectic discussion?
Correction:
Anymore immature insults (rather than actual arguments) you wish to leave before we bring an end to this dialectic discussion?
Kevin:
"Right, at a young age, before 18, alcohol and tobacco are illegal substances for adolescents to use. That study said that "nearly a quarter of the study population who used both legal and illegal drugs at some point – 28 boys – exhibited the reverse pattern of using marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco...""
How is this even relevant? All that the article says is that those who use pot before alcohol and tobacco are just as likely to develop a substance use disorder compared to those who use alcohol and tobacco before marijuana. That says nothing about marijuana leading to more dangerous drugs. In fact, all it does is CONFIRM that there is no direct correlation between marijuana use and further substance abuse (seeing as how those who started with ONLY alcohol and tobacco were JUST as likely to develop substance use disorders).
"Pot, just like tobacco and alcohol, encourages adolescents to deviate "from sanctioned behaviors"."
If you're going to use a quotation, learn to comprehend what it's saying before trying to make it sound as if it supports your argument.
All the quote says is that "a general inclination for deviance from sanctioned behaviors" (in layman's terms, KIDS WHO DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES) leads to illicit drug use.
The statement is not saying that marijuana / alcohol / tobacco lead to "deviance from sanctioned behaviors", in fact, it's saying just the opposite. What it means is that "deviance from sanctioned behaviors" is what leads to marijuana / alcohol / tobacco use. This is the EXACT opposite of what you somehow interpreted it as, and as you can see, it in no way supports your argument.
"You think it is a game after all the lengthy posts that I made? If I wanted to have fun, I wouldn't be here.
No one else suggested that this was a game, except for you."
I never once said I thought this was a game, I was merely saying that, regarding your "3 vs 1" comment, it seemed like you were the one who thought of it as one.
As I recall, you were the one who posted something about wishing for "more fish to fry".
This blog is about intellectual discussion, not "winning" or beating others at advocating points.
Kevin, the fact that you're accusing people of swearing when you are, whether knowingly or not, doesn't earn you the respect you think you get from anyone else either. We all are trying to voice opinions. This blog was not created so that one person could play God. Everyone's opinion should be respected.
Now whether you're just trying to voice an opinion or whether you think you're the supreme decision maker of everyone who's posting, I don't know. But disrespecting others and accusing them of what they're doing rather than trying to work out a problem isn't going to get you the respect you don't give anyone else.
"Most importantly, a general inclination for deviance from sanctioned behaviors, which can become evident early in childhood, was strongly associated with all illicit drug use, whether it came in the gateway sequence, or the reverse."
"...strongly associated..." - That just made the connection between bad behavior and illicit drug use.
"...and those individuals were no more likely to develop a substance use disorder than those who followed the traditional succession of alcohol and tobacco before illegal drugs..."
Very relevant indeed. People who use tobacco, alcohol, and pot are all equally likely to develop substance abuse disorder. As if tobacco and alcohol didn't contribute enough to our problems, let's go legalize pot.
"This blog is about intellectual discussion, not "winning" or beating others at advocating points."
Competition spurs intellectual discussion.
Just take a long look at this:
http://aragonhitchhikers.blogspot.com/2009/09/im-sitting-in-dark-with-no-water.html
We got pretty deep there.
"...the fact that you're accusing people of swearing..."
Patrick, I never said he was swearing. I did say he was insulting; which is what this comment is about:
"We're clearly not on the same level of maturity and intellect."
"...you think you're the supreme decision maker of everyone who's posting..."
I'm flattered that you even suggested that. But no, I'm just trying to voice my opinions.
"Everyone's opinion should be respected."
Agreed. Ilaf should not have insulted my intelligence or maturity because he doesn't like my opinion.
"I give no respect for people; they must earn it. You and the other two are not part of that group. In an odd way, you guys are demostrating competence by being able to argue reasonably. I post here because I expect to find more reasonable people who would say more than just "f*ck you"."
If that isn't swearing and accusing other people of something they're not doing, then I guess I've been proven wrong, I must go back to foul-language school. My apologies
"As if tobacco and alcohol didn't contribute enough to our problems, let's go legalize pot."
Kevin, this is definitely a true statement, there are TONS of problems out there right now that fail to be addressed properly, including poverty and crime rates. However what seems unnerving to me is failure to correlate and compare both sides of the spectrum. There rather advantageous benefits towards legalizing marijuana, and those arguing for the legalization of marijuana have stated those as of before. Rather, you've been posting things over and over again-which are logically true-but that is one of my concerns haha.
I have no idea how the subject of marijuana became distraught by the ideas of "immatur[ity]" and "intelligence."
"Just take a long look at this:
http://aragonhitchhikers.blogspot.com/2009/09/im-sitting-in-dark-with-no-water.html
We got pretty deep there."
You guys got pretty deep there but this does not reflect this thread whatsoever. I see you guys carried out a decent conversation without having to discuss with words that are painted with hauteur, unlike what has been done here multiple times.
"Competition spurs intellectual discussion."
Competition spurs intellectual discussion. Condescending posts do not. Both sides have walked the fine line between simple ad hominem attacks and well constructed rebuttals. It is not simply for me to judge who said what to who, nor does it give me authority to claim that my statements are 100% true;however this is what i say- "intellectual discussions" tainted by mockery and disdain are naive as they detract from the main topic. Pressing on what negative comments people said about one another isn't very intellectual, isn't it? Rather, wouldn't it be better if we used reason and completely legitimate knowledge concerning all aspects of everyone's posts to carry out with our "intellectual discussion?"
"'I post here because I expect to find more reasonable people who would say more than just "f*ck you'.'
If that isn't swearing and accusing other people of something they're not doing, then I guess I've been proven wrong, I must go back to foul-language school. My apologies"
I did find what I came here for. Nobody said the "f" word (or any similar words), thus my expectations were fulfilled.
This isn't like Youtube where I end up with ignorant comments like this:
"Okay you sick twisted fa*got. You are being racist by comparing blacks to fa*gots and d*kes who have brain malfunctions. Gay marriage isn't about skin color. It's about TWISTED BEHAVIOR. THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO TEH WRONG GENDER SO THEY WANT TO MARRY THE WRONG F*CKIN GENDER. A black man can get a white woman pregnant while fa*gots f*ck eachother in their sh*t holes. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE"
- Charliecheckm
And yes, that is an actual response from when I posted on a video about gay marriage.
None of you have ever reached that level of ignorance, thus my expectation was fulfilled. Those three - Ilaf, Jebsen, and Yoda - earned my respect for using reasons instead of swearing and reasons.
"However what seems unnerving to me is failure to correlate and compare both sides of the spectrum. There rather advantageous benefits towards legalizing marijuana, and those arguing for the legalization of marijuana have stated those as of before."
However, Jebsen and Ilaf were advocating for the full legalization of pot, not just for medical reasons.
My concern is that the medical pot would be exploited in unintended ways. Given how much drug smugglers go at lengths to smuggle drugs, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to exploit the proposed system of distributing medical pot.
From smuggling drugs through the puppy's stomach to smuggling them through submarines, these smugglers will not stop delivering their cargo.
Drugs smuggled through puppies:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/02/01/drug.pups/index.html
Drugs smuggled through submarines:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/19/drug.subs/index.html
Patrick, I have also been humble:
"'Yes it does. You cannot escape reality.'
My bad."
I don't remember a single post where Ilaf or Jebsen accepted the criticism.
"You guys got pretty deep there but this does not reflect this thread whatsoever. I see you guys carried out a decent conversation without having to discuss with words that are painted with hauteur, unlike what has been done here multiple times."
I wish we could. But you know things have turned slightly sour when somebody says:
"Wow. I see no need for further discussion. We're clearly not on the same level of maturity and intellect."
As for me, yes I am very critical of people, and it's the extremists that becomes inflammed over my criticisms - whether it would be Ander's view on free market, Victor's comparison of Obama's administration to the Third Reich, or Ilaf and Jebsen's support for full legalization of pot.
I should start complimenting more.
Medical marijuana is already legalized, so if they were arguing for legalization of medical marijuana, they would be wasting their time.
The entire country has not legalized it, so it is still an issue.
This kind of issue comes up often when mock debates are assigned.
Okay fair enough. The entire country did not legalize marijuana and you're right about that. However, the main point is that Ilaf, Jebsen, and Yoda were never limited talking about medical marijuana nor were they defending/endorsing it. I have no clue how you deducted that we were talking about medical marijuana in the first place. The original posts and original arguments were talking about all marijuana use, not just soley medical marijuana.. and also it was constantly repeated by multiple people that they were not talking about medical marijuana.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1054910627465846465&postID=3615776477580461614
This was the blog post that I believed I first saw. The title of the article made me think that the issue was strictly about legalizing medical pot. Nobody in that post said explicitly said they were talking about legalizing marijuana in general until I made my assumption known - then they stated their position. A couple people before me even talked about legalizing medical pot.
You guys keep saying that legalizing marijuana is a bad thing, blah blah blah... but really people, come on now! this issue has been debated over for hella long!! GET OVER IT!!! While i personally think they should legalize weed, i can see why many are against the idea.
That whole argument about drunk driving being illegal...yeah, driving high would be the same thing!! the substance would be legal, but driving under the influence of said substance would be illegal. that's because what a person does while under the influence of a substance is based on their own judgement. It's not something that can be regulated by the government!!
Jodi-
I personally think Marijuana should be legalized, however, the counter argument to the case you just brought up is that "do we really want to add another substance that people can use that will eventually lead to people driving high?" It's not the fact that people can't control their judgment while under the influence, but rather just another item to the list.
Franklin just wrapped up one of my concerns nicely.
Post a Comment