<p>c'mon, thats sensationalizing it a bit, dont you think? Lives may be destroyed for 3rd or 4th time offenders, but I really cant feel sorry for them in the least. Anyway, I'm reading more and more about how judges are letting misdemeanor pot offenders run wild, b/c like you said, the system is at max capacity. So, maybe reform is on the horizon?</p>
<p>I think the stigma of "mental illness" has scared lawmakers whenever studies are brought up regarding the potentially harmful effects...</p>
<p>I just wanted to say that that "psychosis" study was a meta-study based off biased studies. Also, if you get a vaporizer, there are no bad effects for your lungs.</p>
c'mon, thats sensationalizing it a bit, dont you think? Lives may be destroyed for 3rd or 4th time offenders, but I really cant feel sorry for them in the least. Anyway, I'm reading more and more about how judges are letting misdemeanor pot offenders run wild, b/c like you said, the system is at max capacity. So, maybe reform is on the horizon?</p>
<p>I think the stigma of "mental illness" has scared lawmakers whenever studies are brought up regarding the potentially harmful effects...
</p>
<p>No, it's not really sensationalizing it. Although grassroots, state-level popular movements are beginning to mitigate some of the more outrageous excesses of prohibition (thanks be for that), it remains the case that a person can have future career/educational prospects ruined (because drug convictions are very serious business, as the grassroots anti-prohibition movement has been met with increasingly hysterical rearguard attempts to quash the movement from federal drug czars and socially conservative representatives), be jailed, and truly have their lives screwed up because they chose to use a really relatively innocuous substance. The worst part about it is that the most serious consequences fall on the poorest people - the war on drugs has serious racist components (see, for example, the sentencing differential between powder and crack cocaine) - and this is totally unacceptable.</p>
<p>umm i've smoked to the point where my skull felt tingly, almost cracking. My spine also felt like that too. I had a hard time breathing, ears felt HOT. Bad episode. Moral of the story? THC won't kill you, but the smoke might! I actually think it's from a lack of oxygen trying to hold in the smoke....</p>
<p>So many people proclaim weed as the holy non damager. Be real, all kinds of medicines and drugs have ill effects but why are you so close minded to admit that there may be a negative of weed?</p>
<p>oh yeah, happy 2 weeks+ anniversary of 4-20 :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fainting, frequently called syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/), is a sudden, and generally momentary, loss of consciousness, or blacking out caused by the Central Ischaemic Response, because of a lack of sufficient blood and oxygen in the brain.
[/quote]
And this is pertinent because...? THC manipulates neurotransmitters, but it doesn't inhibit circulation -- notably, the article I cited already mentioned that sleeping or incapacitation was going to occur (at very high doses), which involves transitions between states of consciousness (not unlike sleep cycles) . </p>
<p>Alipes, you're not doing very well at constructing a utilitarian argument...</p>
<p>galoisien, your not very good at reading posts. i simply linked it to outline the difference between sleeping pills or whatever, and passing out. maybe if you read the last 8-14 posts you'd have a faint clue what we were talking about.</p>
<p>1of42 - way to change the subject when your out. Are you implying that I should feel sorry for someone who knowingly commits a misdemeanor(felony in some cases)?</p>
1of42 - way to change the subject when your out. Are you implying that I should feel sorry for someone who knowingly commits a misdemeanor(felony in some cases)?
</p>
<p>Did I say you should feel sorry for anyone, or are you just trying to distort and read meanings into my words to make it easier to argue with me?</p>
<p>My point is that your argument against marijuana so far has been that is causes certain health issues. That's fine. But when making the decision to ban it or not, the negative consequences of the banning (criminalizing many otherwise upstanding people; spending a ton of money and police time - both scarce commodities - on enforcement that could better be spent on treatment; causing young people to doubt the veracity of the government's pronouncements on drugs - as mini, a poster in the Parents forum who is an alcohol use and abuse trends specialist and also sits on a NIDA/DEA drug epidemiology council points out, many kids find out that the government hasn't been quite accurate about weed and then become more likely to doubt them and use other, worse drugs in addition to marijuana - and so forth) are just as important as the positive benefits from banning weed (less people using and all the reduction harm that entails - which I assert is minimal, but whatever).</p>
<p>My point is that for almost any user, it is not harm-reducing to jail them for using marijuana. As a society, prohibition is not optimally harm-reducing - as was aptly demonstrated with alcohol. So if you're basing your argument on those grounds, it's a pretty specious argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i simply linked it to outline the difference between sleeping pills or whatever, and passing out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are equivocating. "Passing out" can mean many different things. Fainting is a specific case.</p>
<p>I mean, I was so floored after my AP English Lit exam yesterday (especially after having taken it with a big dose of coffee) that I could sort of say that shortly after I passed out on the floor. Actually, I just found the floor really comfortable, but in any case, the consequence is not extremely damaging. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Like I've said in a previous post, the wedge between cigarettes and cannibas comes in the form of mental illness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have so many holes in your argument.</p>
<p>Firstly you relied on the fallacy that correlation implies causation;
Secondly, you have assumed that smoking is the only means of consumption;
Thirdly, you made countless scientific errors which have been pointed out throughout this thread;
Fourthly, you didn't even know that tobacco had psychoactive components or that it was a Nightshade plant
Fifthly, you keep abandoning contention after contention
Sixthly, you keep on shifting on effects between the mentally ill and the normal demographic, again not keeping the distinction between correlation/causation clear </p>
<p>
[quote]
1of42 - way to change the subject when your out. Are you implying that I should feel sorry for someone who knowingly commits a misdemeanor(felony in some cases)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Civil disobedience. (I trust you are familiar with Thoreau.)</p>
<p>alipes07 with his/her naive nature to trust government power and lack of reluctance in giving the State wide-sweeping powers makes me afraid whether he/she values his/her liberty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But when making the decision to ban it or not, the negative consequences of the banning (criminalizing many otherwise upstanding people; spending a ton of money and police time - both scarce commodities - on enforcement that could better be spent on treatment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your basically saying that sans the health effects, we should legalize it b/c it takes up too many resources. That is an extremely weak argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are equivocating. "Passing out" can mean many different things. Fainting is a specific case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your grasping for straws at this point. they have the same meaning and I ask you to try to find a legitimate online source pointing out the difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Firstly you relied on the fallacy that correlation implies causation;
Secondly, you have assumed that smoking is the only means of consumption;
Thirdly, you made countless scientific errors which have been pointed out throughout this thread;
Fourthly, you didn't even know that tobacco had psychoactive components or that it was a Nightshade plant
Fifthly, you keep abandoning contention after contention
Sixthly, you keep on shifting on effects between the mentally ill and the normal demographic, again not keeping the distinction between correlation/causation clear
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>be more specific</li>
<li>nowhere have I made this assumption, I simply didnt mention the other means</li>
<li>again, be more specific</li>
<li>ur right, i didnt know the specifics</li>
<li>um no, I've stuck to my original platform fo the neg. health effects, until 1of42 shifted subjects</li>
<li>no, the above meta-analysis article involved the mentally fit, as well. paranoia, anxiety (among schizophrenia) are not necessities of a mentally ill person.</li>
</ol>
<p>your misusing your intro-level philosophy terms, also..</p>
<p>
[quote]
alipes07 with his/her naive nature to trust government power and lack of reluctance in giving the State wide-sweeping powers makes me afraid whether he/she values his/her liberty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hast generalization fallacy - implying my cc responses somehow indicate my willingness to give up personal liberties?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your basically saying that sans the health effects, we should legalize it b/c it takes up too many resources. That is an extremely weak argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>galoisien made this recommendation knowing the social problems of drug use; he did not imply that it is only a positive effect if you ignore the health aspect.</p>
<p>I don't use drugs, plan to use them, or like to surround myself with people that do. However, I am wondering what is your end goal and what EXACTLY is the problem? Do you wish to protect people from every bad decision they make on their own? What gives you the right to do such a thing and why can't I use that right against you to control your life?</p>
<p>
[quote]
hast generalization fallacy - implying my cc responses somehow indicate my willingness to give up personal liberties?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We define liberty as something you can do that does not infringe on another's liberty. Drug usage certainly falls in this category and you wish to ban/restrict drugs. From this, we can conclude you are willing to give up some personal liberties (for other people and yourself). How this attitude of yours toward a particular liberty (drug usage) affects your willingness to give up other personal liberties depends on how consistent you are. Would you ban <em>insert X legal activity here</em> with <em>insert effects similar to certain drugs</em> here?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I am wondering what is your end goal and what EXACTLY is the problem? Do you wish to protect people from every bad decision they make on their own? What gives you the right to do such a thing and why can't I use that right against you to control your life?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>a.)are you talking to me?
b.) if so, your coming so far out of left field, i dunno what to say. theres another marijuana thread, coincidentally, below this one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
alipes07 with his/her naive nature to trust government power and lack of reluctance in giving the State wide-sweeping powers makes me afraid whether he/she values his/her liberty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>a.) this is not just about my willingness to give up xyz, but also how much I value them personally. And judging that through one particular portion of civil liberty(legalization of mar..., thereby giving up...) is quite a generalization.
b.) notice the thread made no mention of drugs, so I took it to mean everything.</p>
<p>You ducked the question so I'll ask it again. What is your end goal with regards to drug use and what EXACTLY do you define as the problem? What gives you the right to do such a thing (e.g. ban/restrict) and why can't I use that right against you to control your life?</p>
<p>
[quote]
this is not just about my willingness to give up xyz, but also how much I value them personally. And judging that through one particular portion of civil liberty(legalization of mar..., thereby giving up...) is quite a generalization.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or it could mean that you are logically inconsistent.</p>
Your basically saying that sans the health effects, we should legalize it b/c it takes up too many resources. That is an extremely weak argument.
</p>
<p>Let me clarify. </p>
<p>**There is - in my opinion - only a single good argument for banning marijuana: to reduce the harm to people and thus to society that comes from its use.</p>
<p>I contend that marijuana prohibition, and its attendant waste of scarce money, law enforcement resources, human capital (through jailing otherwise productive members of society), introduction of a significant criminal element in drug trafficking, and loss of tax revenue (which could come from the sale of marijuana), as well as inhibited scientific process through dampened research and loss of funds necessary for treatment of drug users (that are going to enforcement instead) cause more harm than marijuana use ever could.**</p>
<p>Stop trying to twist my words to say something I didn't. There are only 3 responses to what I just posted:</p>
<p>You agree with me.
You disagree with me because you think use causes more harm than prohibition (explain that position in detail, please).
You disagree because you think there is a better argument than harm reduction (explain that position as well).</p>
<p>I'm not going to get involved in this overall legalisation argument because I don't want to get slapped via the internet, so here are just my few cents on some earlier arguments:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>@ alipes07: Dude, you seriously can't be arguing that you faint when you're high. You "pass out", ie. fall asleep. When it comes to any kind of intoxication (of this kind) we all know that when someone reaches the end of their night, they aren't fainting. Like you said, fainting is due to a lack of blood or oxygen being received by the brain. That isn't what occurs when one smokes or drinks too much. They simply fall asleep due to the body's natural shut-down system function. When talking in within this context, there is a difference.</p></li>
<li><p>It's also worth it to note the effects that cannabis use has on developing brains, rather than a matured adult's. Cannabis has been shown to be severely more detrimental to youths' brains as the drug severely inhibits neuropsychological and neurophysiological development. I'd assume that all studies posted here are tests completed on grown adults rather than high school or college level young adults. Like very other drug the effects are far more damaging on a growing body than on a fully developed one, yet we all know that the majority of users are at the high school or college level age (or at least below 25, when the normal human brain is said to be fully matured).</p></li>
</ol>