Neither is lusting after 10 year olds.
You didn't show my argument to be invalid. Daily things we do, eat, etc. can be harmful. Who is to judge that anyway?
Red meat, sunbathing, sugar, etc, etc, etc... These are items people will claim have good and bad effects both.
I ask you again, where within such an authoritarian mindset do you wish to draw the line? Shouldn't people choose for themselves as long as their choices don't infringe on others?
But then that's giving a false dichotomy and it's not about what's good or bad for you. Smokers obviously don't care about the side effects of smoking compared to the desire to smoke. They won't pick one and abandon the other, so it's not a "better brand" of cigarettes. It's an additional thing to smoke, not an alternative thing to smoke. In fact, I'd say it would likely lead to more people smoking cigarettes as they accept smoking pot for recreational purposes (a bit like how a sushi neophyte can adapt to sashimi better than someone who's never even had sushi).
My point has nothing to do with negative effects. I was pointing out that the "legalize marijuana" push has been going on for a long time, and at first it was because the hemp could be used to make cool, strong ropes and wallets and stuff. In reality, people just want to smoke pot. Now it's medicinal. People just want to smoke pot. I remember when 7 and 7 was "cough medicine" because people just wanted to drink. No one did much research on it.
I don't doubt the positive effects of cannibis, but I do question the motive of those people, especially on here, who push to legalize it. There are dozens if not hundreds of effective medications held up by the FDA that people here aren't even mentioning. Why marijuana? People want to smoke pot.
Can we choose for ourselves to grow poppy plants or make crystal meth? Where do you draw the line? I don't care if marijuana is legal or not, I just don't think you've made a valid argument.
agree with this.
I've smoked on and off for quite some time, and I really appreciate it, but I know for me to enjoy the better aspects, sometimes i have to accept or deal with its drawbacks. There's usually a yin and yang or balance to everything.
I'm not shocked by this story though. I research on epilepsy for my brother's sake, and it seems excessive glutamates in the brain lead to seizures. Well cannabis is an antagonist for glutamates, so it makes sense. Even his medication though is full of cannabanoids so it helps out.
And you realize that no one here except a few of you give a flying rat's ass about the medical benefits of marijuana, they just want to get high. It's like me pushing to make Morphine an OTC medication so I can use it for recreational purposes.
I already answered that: "Shouldn't people choose for themselves as long as their choices don't infringe on others?"
Thanks for sharing that.
What you are doing there is called "begging the claim". Your question does nothing to support it's conclusion "don't infringe on others" but you're using that as if it's a fact.
I'm not saying marijuana use infringes on others, I'm saying you've not shown it doesn't and since you're claiming that, the burden of proof is yours.
However, let's apply your assertion to other things as well: crystal meth doesn't infringe on others. We should be free to choose to use it. Huffing paint doesn't infringe on others, we should be free to do it. Cocaine use doesn't infringe on others, it should be legal as well. All drugs should be legal since their use doesn't infringe on others.
But wait, what if you have children or if you're pregnant? Does your use now infringe on others? If you smoke marijuana in your home and your children are exposed to it, does that infringe upon them? If you smoke it in public and others are exposed to it, does that infringe upon them?
There are too many variables that you're ignoring with your moralistic worldview that it would take a compendium of essays to address them.
Bottom line though: Do you want to get high by smoking marijuana? You personally.
"lessen it's negative effects"
which are? disabilities? diseases? deaths?
I'm saying I'm OK with legalizing drugs that don't burden society. I'm saying that's my line with what should and shouldn't be legal.
I think most people will agree that it is less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. I don't think its necessary to take that tangent.
Most of these you mention are things that do irreparable damage and have long term effects. Now if someone has a caretaker, instead of imposing on the social system as these people deteriorate, then I'm OK with people destroying themselves.
Why are you getting in such a tizzy over this?
Yes, there are too many variables, and I was speaking in general terms. Aren't you smart enough to realize that?
High, no. several years ago, I used to use it every night. One bong hit as a sleeping aid. Works great for me.
I first smoked it in the 70's when you could get good rolling weed for $20/oz and good bud for $40 to $55/oz. Even getting stoned, the effects are not as bad as alcohol, and it isn't addictive.
Define "burden society". Do you think cigarette smokers burden society? Do you realize the cost to the system is 200B a year? Who do you think pays for it? Alcohol burdens society as well. Just because there's no immediate direct effect doesn't mean there's not residual effects.
So again, you're not even attempting to show that marijuana doesn't burden society, so why take that approach?
So then the "less than alcohol or cigarettes" rule should apply to all things. Since cigarette smoking kills millions, and since school shootings kill far fewer, kids should be allowed to carry firearms at school.I think most people will agree that it is less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. I don't think its necessary to take that tangent.
See how easily your arguments can be dismissed? Without statics and some form of a basis for proof that your criteria is even valid, you're just using front porch talk.
So then the criteria is that you don't require a caretaker when you get old. Who's choice is it to be a caretaker? How is someone needing a caretaker to survive infringing upon your rights to not be a caretaker?Most of these you mention are things that do irreparable damage and have long term effects. Now if someone has a caretaker, instead of imposing on the social system as these people deteriorate, then I'm OK with people destroying themselves.
Since you cannot provide any logical responses, it must be that I am too emotionally invested.Why are you getting in such a tizzy over this?
I realize you're only trying to impress other people with your vast amount of general knowledge that you cannot pinpoint except in a naysaying fashion. That much I am well aware of. I just get a kick from calling you out on your verbal diarrhea. If you have a position that's anything other than a gut feeling, I've yet to be made aware of it.Yes, there are too many variables, and I was speaking in general terms. Aren't you smart enough to realize that?
Which closes the case. You're into the high, not into the medicinal use of it. The argument for legalization for medical reasons has nothing to do with getting high, and you've only argued for the getting high aspect. Many drugs are legal by prescription only. Why don't you argue for their full legalization? Easy, because it doesn't benefit you. What benefit exists for the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes? Taxation? If that's it, is the goal of a free society to tax itself into bankruptcy?High, no. several years ago, I used to use it every night. One bong hit as a sleeping aid. Works great for me.
Since you cherry pick questions to answer, I doubt I'll ever get anything resembling a coherent response on most of the points I've made.
And look at you now, cyberstalking young girls.I first smoked it in the 70's when you could get good rolling weed for $20/oz and good bud for $40 to $55/oz. Even getting stoned, the effects are not as bad as alcohol, and it isn't addictive.
LOL...
DMC has a bug up his ass...
You should be able to tell me the genus and species, from your gut feeling, right?
Maybe you don't, but I have better things to do with my time than do searches to satisfy your trolling.
I stand corrected on one thing however. It's a spur up your ass. Not a bug.
Like searches for flag lots until you find the one where the shadow matches the photo so you can send your target the information to secure her fear.
DMC just took a huge dump on your face, bro.
i might keep using...i'm just not gonna smoke it no more. that smoke....worse than cigarettes.
I'm surprised you were able to express that with his so deep down your throat!
The Stalking
I don't type with my mouth, bruh
i love it when people express what they're thinking about.
So you admit it!
The Media Should Stop Pretending Marijuana's Risks Are a Mystery -- The Science Is Clear
Kleiman’s allegation—that the marijuana plant and its effects on society still remains largely a mystery—is a fairly common refrain. But it is far from accurate.
Despite the US government's nearly century-long prohibition of the plant, cannabis is nonetheless one of the most investigated therapeutically active substances in history. To date, there are over 20,000 published studies or reviews in the scientific literature referencing the cannabis plant and its cannabinoids, nearly half of which were published within the last five years according to a keyword search on PubMed Central, the US government repository for peer-reviewed scientific research. Over 1,450 peer-reviewed papers were published in 2013 alone. (By contrast, a keyword search of "hydrocodone," a commonly prescribed painkiller, yields just over 600 total references in the entire body of available scientific literature.)
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/mariju...tter939697&t=4
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote