EPTShould weed be legalized? - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RetroAspect
Belgium219 Posts
| ||
|
fatfail
United States386 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:07 iGrepair wrote: This thread favors weed, there should be an even amount of evidence for both sides of the argument. If you tell everyone all these facts you naturally will persuade them that weed is good for you. If you gave equal evidence for both sides you then would make this thread fair I believe this thread should be closed as it isn't fair to both sides of the argument. Because the original poster didn't post both sides of the argument, the thread should be closed? Everyone on the other side of the argument is more than welcome to share their ideas here, this is a conversation that needs to happen. It's a question of personal liberty vs. universal paternal law (the government knows what's best for you!) - most of the counter arguments I've seem come from that perspective anyway. Please, share your opinions, they are welcome here! | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:07 iGrepair wrote: This thread favors weed, there should be an even amount of evidence for both sides of the argument. If you tell everyone all these facts you naturally will persuade them that weed is good for you. If you gave equal evidence for both sides you then would make this thread fair I believe this thread should be closed as it isn't fair to both sides of the argument. While fair debate is always a good thing, I have a question: What if it can't be? To make it fair it would have to be a good topic in which both sides are equally viable. I think you'd have a hard time finding a fair debate for/against slavery. Hyperbole aside, my point is that maybe the deluge of evidence in favor is not because of the sheer liberal nature of the internet, but itself evidence as to which side may be more logical. I'd appreciate more arguments against, because I like to be informed about debates/societal issues. As far as I've seen, it's always been the same two things (IRL and in this thread): 1. Insert fact/statistic/article that has a misleading title that has inconclusive evidence about a possibility (which, I'll admit is not worse better than the average pro-legalization argument...). or... 2. Recreational drug use doesn't really help with anything, so why even give leniency? The 2nd point makes logical sense and I can respect it without agreeing with it, but is pretty much the only good point I can recall throughout the thread. Statistics and articles have been thrown around like confetti, with people not really understanding their own, "evidence." If anyone else has anything to add, please do so :D On September 03 2012 02:24 fatfail wrote: Honestly, in an idealistic society alcohol, tobacco, and weed would all be illegal. However, as the American prohibition of alcohol demonstrated, you can't really take stuff away from people. Stupid American assholes need their drugs, alcohol, and guns. Just legalize it, let the idiots screw themselves, no need to waste money protecting those who don't want to be protected. While I understand the point you're trying to make, I'd say that guns and drugs are VERY different issues. One is about a person's right to personal freedoms, as long as they don't harm anyone else. Guns are about people's right to.... kill? (I honestly don't know. I'm very biased, and see no logical reason for a, "right," to own tools of death). And, though a little bit more aggressive than how I'd present it, that point is pretty true. The system not only is failing because people don't fear it, but even those who are punished don't care. How do you go about helping someone who doesn't want to be helped? And, if you can't, why waste time/resources trying? | ||
|
zasta
United Kingdom99 Posts
For starters, here's a statistically significant paper on the effects of long-term cannabis use: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=194703 "Conclusion: These results confirm that long-term heavy cannabis users show impairments in memory and attention that endure beyond the period of intoxication and worsen with increasing years of regular cannabis use." Although short-term users were equivalent to non-users, long-term users performed signifiicantly worse. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:25 Meta wrote: Because the original poster didn't post both sides of the argument, the thread should be closed? Everyone on the other side of the argument is more than welcome to share their ideas here, this is a conversation that needs to happen. It's a question of personal liberty vs. universal paternal law (the government knows what's best for you!) - most of the counter arguments I've seem come from that perspective anyway. Please, share your opinions, they are welcome here! pretty much agree with this completely especially the paternal law bit.. there shouldnt be an entity other than oneself that makes decisions for oneself. smoking isnt even that bad, I feel like the people who are most strongly against it are the people that have never tried it.. I have never met a person who smokes who thinks that smoking is really that bad | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On September 03 2012 00:10 Praetorial wrote: Barbaric is killing people. Barbaric is oppressing and exterminating groups of people. Possession of drugs is not a offense mandating execution in either the US or Canada. During the Inquisition, thousands of innocents were killed or forced to flee because of direct persecution. How does that equate? Thousands of innocents ARE killed from gang warfare, police shoot drug users all the time, sure there are always excuses as to why it had to happen, maybe the person acted 'erratically' or something, but it happens every single day. People need to live in constant fear/paranoia of prison /being ostracized from society or possessing a plant... And fuck, you don't think locking someone up in a cage for their whole life for possessing a plant that causes no harm to anyone is barbaric? Fair enough, I call it barbaric. But arguing for the precise semantic definition of a word is a pretty boring way to spend time in this thread, and not why I chimed in. Whatever you want to call it, it's fucked up. You can have your definition of whatever word you like, hell, you can call the drug war the playoffs if you like, it doesn't change the underlying reality. On September 03 2012 00:31 TheKefka wrote: W/e man I don't need beheadings to be able to classify something as barbaric behavior. If 40 k people got slaughtered in Mexico alone in the last 5 years just because of drug wars than that's pretty barbaric if you ask me.It happens because the people running the game aren't too sympathetic about individual needs. Harsh drug laws only empower the ones that are dedicated to break it and provide the product to the consumer base,which always exists. This is a general drug problem tho,so I don't want to get into this any further,as we are just discussing why cannabis should/shouldn't be legal. Pretty much. But this general problem is another reason cannabis should be legal-- its illegality creates a lot more problems in society than there needs to be. Discussing the social consequences of the legality/illegality of cannabis is just as, if not more relevant than the biological effects of the plant itself or what have you. Compare to the way we used to treat schizophrenic patients. 'They should be locked up', Why? 'because they see/hear/believe things that aren't'. Counterarguments could be made 'well, they dont necessarily always believe in VIOLENT things that aren't there, so maybe they shouldnt be locked up'... Excluding the social element of this discussion, i.e. what the overall effect on society is when we lock people up for psychological disorders, makes the conversation absolutely bizarre by todays standards.... | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
On September 02 2012 22:49 Th1rdEye wrote: You don't use it but you may need to some day to cure or cope with some kind of ailment. In America it's legal in close to 20 states for medical use. Why ? Because it helps. And this year it's on the ballot for other states as well, including my own. Like how stupid are people? Do you really think they would legalize it for medical use if it wasn't a medicine of some sort? A cheap, growable, better alternative to those medications you spend thousands on each year. Yeah, cause I'm clearly talking about medical use?? :/ I can barely understand what your point is. You can't just get whatever drug you want cause it has medical uses for some illnesses. More often than not you need a perscription from the doctor. Even if it's good for you in some cases, in others it's not. They are already giving way more crazy things from the doctor than weed so I don't really see how that is relevant to what I was saying :| But I guess it wasn't really obvious to you so here it is: I am talking about everyday use for fun, not medical treatment. And to my point there is so much bias already in this thread. People just subjectively pick and choose points and sigular studies to confirm their point. The issue is that for every shitty study saying one thing on this subject, there is another saying the exact opposite. The way people phrase things and also alot of the time it's just scenarios that people conjure in their own minds. Like look at you - you can't even argue this without calling "people" idiots. I'd love to try that in my next article and see how far that gets me :p | ||
|
iGrepair
34 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:49 iGrepair wrote: You take something bad to cover up weed. Its sad. Just because beer is legal and can be bad doesn't mean you can use that to defend weed being legal. One beer a day is good for you, however weed benefits no one in any good way. Sure I believe it should be able to be used medically but not for recreational purposes and to need it medically it should be for very serious things. Not just "oh my head hurts now I want to get high". People who sell weed illegally will often put other addictive drugs in the weed which not only is a serious health concern but also makes the "patient" come back again and again. Cigarettes are bad for you yes. However if they were to make cigarettes illegal crime would rise dramatically so that people could get there cigarettes not to mention the rest of the possibilities. In the past cigarettes had been tested and no one found much proof of it being negative, however with time it became obvious that cigarettes negatively affect you in many ways, after a good 20 or 30 years of people smoking weed and people still show no negative correlation then I will believe it is safe, either way it shouldn't be legal for recreational use. All the more reason to legalize it so that people aren't forced to go to dealers to acquire weed. Besides, why do you care if it's safe? As long as they aren't smoking it next to you, you're entirely unaffected by the choice someone else makes. Who are you to arbitrarily declare what people can and can't do with their life when it affects no one but themselves? | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:49 iGrepair wrote: You take something bad to cover up weed. Its sad. Just because beer is legal and can be bad doesn't mean you can use that to defend weed being legal. One beer a day is good for you, however weed benefits no one in any good way. Sure I believe it should be able to be used medically but not for recreational purposes and to need it medically it should be for very serious things. Not just "oh my head hurts now I want to get high". People who sell weed illegally will often put other addictive drugs in the weed which not only is a serious health concern but also makes the "patient" come back again and again. Cigarettes are bad for you yes. However if they were to make cigarettes illegal crime would rise dramatically so that people could get there cigarettes not to mention the rest of the possibilities. In the past cigarettes had been tested and no one found much proof of it being negative, however with time it became obvious that cigarettes negatively affect you in many ways, after a good 20 or 30 years of people smoking weed and people still show no negative correlation then I will believe it is safe, either way it shouldn't be legal for recreational use. Care to elaborate? I've heard that a little bit of red wine is good for the heart, but I've never heard of beer being good. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:53 rd wrote: All the more reason to legalize it so that people aren't forced to go to dealers to acquire weed. Besides, why do you care if it's safe? As long as they aren't smoking it next to you, you're entirely unaffected by the choice someone else makes. Who are you to arbitrarily declare what people can and can't do with their life when it affects no one but themselves? Yup. I can find a good number of people that would call hang gliding, or crab fishing, or rodeos, or eating wild edible mushrooms pretty dangerous. Maybe we should just fucking ban all that too eh?  | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:53 TALegion wrote: Care to elaborate? I've heard that a little bit of red wine is good for the heart, but I've never heard of beer being good. Here is a bit of reading for you, although the subject of beer's possible health value is a conflicted one. http://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20031111/dark-beer-may-be-better-for-heart In short, the darker, opaque beers are more likely to have higher concentrations of flavonoids and other heart healthy nutrients. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
My grandmother gets Codine and Oxycontin for her headaches (she doesn't take the Oxycontin, thankfully). Those are synthetic opiates. Their effects on the brain are comparable to opium and heroin, and our doctors peddle them out like aspirin. But we need to debate giving marijuana to cancer patients to help them with their nausea? It's obscene. Beyond that, arresting people for possession of marijuana simply isn't doing anything good for society. A lot of people arrested for marijuana would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding, and have no criminal record. Why give them one? Why take their money? Why do anything to punish them? Heavier drugs are a more complicated issue. I can see decriminalizing some of them to a degree, to at least stop punishing people who don't need punishment. But marijuana should be fully legalized, taxed, and sold in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol is perhaps the most disorientating and debilitating drug of them all. Society can handle drugs, it doesn't need to violently oppose its own people for a perceived behavioral flaw, which is all the drug war is really doing. | ||
|
beg
991 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:30 zasta wrote: I agree it should be legalised, but let's make sure we're talking about informed opinions from peer-reviewed data when we're talking about toxic substances (which frankly, pretty much everything we consume is). It's all very well throwing random pseudo-data around. For starters, here's a statistically significant paper on the effects of long-term cannabis use: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=194703 "Conclusion: These results confirm that long-term heavy cannabis users show impairments in memory and attention that endure beyond the period of intoxication and worsen with increasing years of regular cannabis use." Although short-term users were equivalent to non-users, long-term users performed signifiicantly worse. those are kinda long known facts, but keep in mind that this study doesnt say anything about possible recovery. and it may surprise you, but as long as you didnt start heavy smoking before you were 18, you will basically recover completely. in a few months or so. lol. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:41 Cereb wrote: Yeah, cause I'm clearly talking about medical use?? :/ I can barely understand what your point is. You can't just get whatever drug you want cause it has medical uses for some illnesses. More often than not you need a perscription from the doctor. Even if it's good for you in some cases, in others it's not. They are already giving way more crazy things from the doctor than weed so I don't really see how that is relevant to what I was saying :| But I guess it wasn't really obvious to you so here it is: I am talking about everyday use for fun, not medical treatment. And to my point there is so much bias already in this thread. People just subjectively pick and choose points and sigular studies to confirm their point. The issue is that for every shitty study saying one thing on this subject, there is another saying the exact opposite. The way people phrase things and also alot of the time it's just scenarios that people conjure in their own minds. Like look at you - you can't even argue this without calling "people" idiots. I'd love to try that in my next article and see how far that gets me :p Here's something that doesn't require a study. It drastically alters the state of mind of the user, making them unable to operate vehicles or even be around heavy equipment without endangering themselves and the people around them. | ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
| ||
|
GnarlyArbitrage
575 Posts
On September 03 2012 03:18 aksfjh wrote: Here's something that doesn't require a study. It drastically alters the state of mind of the user, making them unable to operate vehicles or even be around heavy equipment without endangering themselves and the people around them. Are you implying that weed should be illegal based on this post? If so, then you also think that alcohol should be illegal. Right? | ||
|
tMomiji
United States1115 Posts
| ||
|
La1
United Kingdom659 Posts
i say legalize everything (maybe not herion and shit like that) and tax the fuck out of it, make it safe etc.. anyway posting the youtube link to the bbc horizon show which did a great documentary on the top 20 worst drugs + Show Spoiler + | ||
| ||
