Curse

Faer · Nov 26, 2008, 07:26 PM // 19:26

A dear friend of mine was killed by a trio of stoners who were too focused on their pot to pay attention to the road.

I may be a Libertarian, but kcuf marijuana.

Winterclaw · Nov 26, 2008, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Sorry to hear about your friend Faer.

DreamRunner · Nov 27, 2008, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Whirlwind

So, what you're suggesting is that we should only listen to drug addicts or former drugs addicts when dealing with whether or not to legalize something like marijuana. Because all the doctors and scientists haven't done drugs, so their opinions does not count! That is just about the most silly thing I've heard this month!

Where did you get that idea? I didn't say that at all. I said if you want to know what something is like, then you need to try it for yourself instead of having people making opinions for you. Some people are so against marijuana because of what they have heard or religious reasons and yet they have never tried it.

If you want to legitimize a substance such as marijuana, then that's a whole different scenario. Doctors and scientist could tell you how bad alcohol or tobacco is killing tens of thousands of people every year and yet it is legal. However both doctors and scientist will give a third person perspective from what they observed. What I am saying is on a personal level or first person perspective.

Yang Whirlwind · Nov 27, 2008, 10:47 AM // 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Where did you get that idea? I didn't say that at all. I said if you want to know what something is like, then you need to try it for yourself instead of having people making opinions for you. Some people are so against marijuana because of what they have heard or religious reasons and yet they have never tried it.

If you want to legitimize a substance such as marijuana, then that's a whole different scenario. Doctors and scientist could tell you how bad alcohol or tobacco is killing tens of thousands of people every year and yet it is legal. However both doctors and scientist will give a third person perspective from what they observed. What I am saying is on a personal level or first person perspective.

That was not what you argued in the earlier posts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

If a doctor whom specialized in diabetes(endocrinologist) and didn't have the disease, would he know more about diabetes than a person who has it? I would say No, however you're saying yes.

Translating that remark to our marijuana debate; potheads know more about the effects of smoking marijuana than brain doctors and sociologists who have studied this area for years. Instead of forming opinions based on studies of marijuana related psychosis, abuse patterns and the like, they should go light up a joint.
Unless they do, they can't really know what they are talking about,- right?
Funny stuff!

I might add: yes, Ive smoked pot several times when younger. Though not as legal as in Amsterdam, it is quite socially accepted in Denmark, easy to obtain and only confiscated if discovered (in small amounts).

DreamRunner · Nov 27, 2008, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Whirlwind

That was not what you argued in the earlier posts:

Translating that remark to our marijuana debate; potheads know more about the effects of smoking marijuana than brain doctors and sociologists who have studied this area for years. Instead of forming opinions based on studies of marijuana related psychosis, abuse patterns and the like, they should go light up a joint.
Unless they do, they can't really know what they are talking about,- right?
Funny stuff!

I might add: yes, Ive smoked pot several times when younger. Though not as legal as in Amsterdam, it is quite socially accepted in Denmark, easy to obtain and only confiscated if discovered (in small amounts).

What is terribly funny is I don't think you understand the difference between experiencing an action and looking at it from a 3rd person perspective. The diabetes example was given to show between actually having it and experiencing it everyday from reading it in the text book or by looking at people whom do have it.

The person who is smoking the joint knows more about experiencing the effect of it than the expert who hasn't. I can't believe I have to say the same thing over and over again. Unless the expert actually smoke's pot at least once, he or she doesn't know what it is like to experience marijuana.

I'll try a different approach. Is there a difference between shooting a gun and studying a gun?

Yang Whirlwind · Nov 28, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

I'll try a different approach. Is there a difference between shooting a gun and studying a gun?

Yes there is!
But you don't have to ever fire a gun to be an expert on guns.
You can measure the: recoil, balance, weight, velocity and just about anything else you need, scientifically.
You don't need to shoot a gun, to legislate laws involving guns. Nor does firing a gun, make you more able to determine the acceptance of guns in a legal context.

You don't seem to understand, that I, do not care about the difference between trying marijuana yourself and "only" knowing the facts about it's adverse effects from scientific studies.

Politicians do not need to smoke weed to legislate laws on the subject!
People do not need to smoke weed to form opinions on the subject!

This is the context in which you originally brought up this issue,- suggesting that they did need the personal experience:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

*snip* I love the ideology of how people justify themselves by saying its for your own good, as if people are expecting to believe it without actually experiencing it. If people do say that x drug is bad without experiencing or knowing why, then simply they are ignorant and stupid. *snip*

Winterclaw · Nov 28, 2008, 05:41 AM // 05:41

Who cares what the experience of marajuana is if it'll ruin your life? You don't need it to live anyways.

I think there should be a basic rule: if anything physically takes away your ability to judge and act on those judgements in some sort of case where judgement is necessary for survival and there is no urgent pressing need and approprate control of such substance, then it probably needs to be illegal.

Since marajuana impairs judgement, it needs to be illegal for general use unless you can prove some urgent pressing need and no alternatives.

zwei2stein · Nov 28, 2008, 09:53 AM // 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I think there should be a basic rule: if anything physically takes away your ability to judge and act on those judgements in some sort of case where judgement is necessary for survival and there is no urgent pressing need and approprate control of such substance, then it probably needs to be illegal.

(TV should be illegal too according to what you said - kudos; And with same mindset you can make any object that can be used for self harm illegal too because it can interfere with survival of people who would use it harm themselves.)

But, no, it just means that you probably should not use it. Not that it should be illegal. Government should not be your nanny. Hell, being dependent on some authority and trusting it that whatever it does is for your good and all that stuff is much more dangerous than couple of potheads, because you outsource your judgement to someone else.

Btw: I am all for potheads/low-iq that can't see consequences getting their chance of being naturally selected out of human genome.

obsidian ectoplasm · Nov 28, 2008, 09:57 AM // 09:57

dont listen to them!

WEED IS GOOD FOR YOU!

but dont do ciggs

ciggs should be banned

AscalonWarrior · Nov 28, 2008, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Whirlwind

Smoking marijuana has at least one victim,- you!
It dulls the brain and slows the reflexes. Heavy usage/abuse makes you unfit to perform even simple work.

Thank God alcohol doesn't do that...

DreamRunner · Nov 28, 2008, 04:42 PM // 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Whirlwind

You don't seem to understand, that I, do not care about the difference between trying marijuana yourself and "only" knowing the facts about it's adverse effects from scientific studies.

Politicians do not need to smoke weed to legislate laws on the subject!
People do not need to smoke weed to form opinions on the subject!

This is the context in which you originally brought up this issue,- suggesting that they did need the personal experience:

Yes, because the facts on which the scientific community is always right. Oh, wait the facts they use involving drugs are not always right at all. But you're right that you don't need to smoke weed to form an opinion, it is just going to be an extremely poorly limited one. Let's hear it up for you because you seem to accept the scientific analysis of what you learn and from what you hear of other people tell you.

The drug aspirin was always known as a pain reliever, however now doctors gave out the drug for heart attacks which the FDA didn't test on at all and it seems without forming a personal experience for yourself, you will accept what others teach you. Just like what the government tried to teach the public about weed in the U.S during the 20th century. They said it causes madness, insanity, anger and hate which are symptoms that are not true at all. But you don't care because you like others to form opinions for you.

Mercury Angel · Nov 28, 2008, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

They said it causes madness, insanity, anger and hate which are symptoms that are not true at all. But you don't care because you like others to form opinions for you.

To be fair, that rumor actually has some basis in fact, to the best of my knowledge. Individuals who are predisposed to psychotic episodes (especially due to Schizophrenia) actually are more likely to trigger them following the use of cannabis.

On a related note, brain damage associated with cannabis use has only been confirmed to consistently occur in individuals with diagnosed schizophrenia. No causal link has been established. (That is, marijuana is not known to actually cause deterioration by itself. An interaction effect is more likely to be revealed.)

But aside from that, the literature people are citing in this thread, if any at all, is a bit ridiculous. Only recently has marijuana quality and amount been actively controlled in studies, with the advent of legal (federally illegal) Medical Marijuana.

Past studies have minimal internal validity. They used marijuana with inconsistent or unmeasured dosages, unknown contaminants, and the sampled individuals weren't adequately controlled for past, or worse, concurrent drug use.

This is not the same as "no effect" - this is "no rigorous or widely accepted scientific study has produced consistent long-term effects for cannabis, particularly with defined amounts and frequencies for substance use".

Dizziness is the most common, and most serious consistent short-term effect with medical marijuana.
Marijuana is considered to have a mid-level risk of psychological dependency. For comparison, Nicotine and Alcohol are both high risks for physical and psychological dependency, and caffeine has a low risk of physical dependency.
Cancer (associated with smoking in general) is the only widely accepted long-term effect of recreational marijuana use.

Marijuana has not been confirmed as a gateway drug - the use of marijuana appear to be less important in progressing to harder drugs than risk factors specific to the individual. This is outside of the legality hypothesis, in which the legal status of a drug may produce a strong interaction effect on whether or not an individual proceeds to other drugs.

TLDR Summary:
Study "findings" dating back more than ~15* years are tainted by bad research practices. Marijuana has negative effects, but don't include unconfirmed or inconsistent effects without qualifiers.

*Arbitrary number. You actually should review primarily literature within the last 10 years as a common practice, regardless of the topic.

Bibliography

Choo, T., Roh, S., & Robinson, M. (2008, Spring2008). Assessing the Gateway Hypothesis Among middle and high school students in Tennessee. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(2), 467-492. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Cruz, M., Bajo, M., SChweitzer, P., & Roberto, M. (2008, June). Shared Mechanisms of Alcohol and Other Drugs. Alcohol Research & Health, 31(2), 137-147. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Degenhardt, L., & Hall, W. (2008, June 17). The adverse effects of cannabinoids: implications for use of medical marijuana. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, pp. 1685,1686. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Yacoubian, G. (2007, December). Assessing the Relationship between Marijuana Availability and Marijuana Use: A Legal and Sociological Comparison between the United States and the Netherlands. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 51(4), 17-34. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Zullino, D., Waber, L., & Khazaal, Y. (2008, October). Cannabis and the course of schizophrenia. The American Journal Of Psychiatry, 165(10), 1357. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from MEDLINE database.

Winterclaw · Nov 28, 2008, 07:45 PM // 19:45

Zwei, TV by itself would still legal because it doesn't make it physically impossible for you to have good judgement. However generally speaking drugs and alcohol would have to either be illegal or heavily controled when the situation warrents it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

But, no, it just means that you probably should not use it. Not that it should be illegal. Government should not be your nanny. Hell, being dependent on some authority and trusting it that whatever it does is for your good and all that stuff is much more dangerous than couple of potheads, because you outsource your judgement to someone else.

I largely agree with this (take Katrina and the people of NO waiting 30 years on the government), but the problem with that is I live in the US. People here don't want to think for themselves and they do want the government to be their nanny. Why else do you think the election was McCain vs Obama with Obama winning? Not enough of the voters care about the Constitution anymore. They don't want to be independant. Unfortunately with the US set up as it is, their voice is more important when making policy.

The people on the left in the US want a Hilter to lead them. They want a Mousillini. They want a Stalin.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Nov 28, 2008, 09:38 PM // 21:38

I like how the OP said this is not a thread on weed

Yang Whirlwind · Nov 28, 2008, 10:05 PM // 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

They said it causes madness, insanity, anger and hate which are symptoms that are not true at all. But you don't care because you like others to form opinions for you.

We have 200 confirmed cases of what is known in Denmark as "Hash Psychosis". That is confirmed cases of psychosis triggers by smoking hashish.
I agree with Mercury that it is very hard to determine whether these cases was only triggered or actually caused by the drug.
I also agree that the "gateway" part of the reputation is largely fictional,- if not weed, these people would find another drug. They feel the need to escape reality and will use whatever is handy to accomplish that.

What I really wanted to accomplish here, was to take the debate away from the "yeah,- let's smoke some weed and stick it too the man" juvenile silliness by playing the devil's advocate, thus provoking people to actually argue their case. Mission accomplished!

Personally, I'm divided on the issue of whether or not to legalize hashish (we mostly don't smoke the leafs, but use the distilled product known as hashish).
There is a large chunk of crime centered around this drug and by legalizing it, you could get rid of that and guarantee good quality.
On the other hand, it is a drug that impairs judgment and we should be working to remove these from the streets altogether.

The ban tobacco and alcohol issue:
tobacco: yes, coming along!
alcohol: not going to happen in my lifetime (thank all the gods)

Now, enough serious talk,- I'll go drink some beer and have some fun!