Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
These side-effects are universal, they are not only due to "pre-dispositions." That rebuttal has already been attempted. The sources I've used throughout this long debate have indicated that they are indeed side-effects, not people with genetic pre-disposition to certain mental conditions.
|
You're misinterpreting scientific research. There are certainly mental side effects to marijuana that are experienced by all, such as paranoia and anhedonia. Not psychosis however, generally only those predisposed to it experience psychosis. Psychosis is also the only side effect of marijuana that can be said to be dangerous to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
Would you care to provide me with some evidence that weighs caffeine on the same level as marijuana in terms of the mental side-effects?
|
Neuropsychiatric effects of caffeine -- Winston et al. 11 (6): 432 -- Advances in Psychiatric Treatment
Alcohol & Drug Abuse: Caffeine and Schizophrenia -- Hughes et al. 49 (11): 1415 -- Psychiatr Serv
The Caffeine Web » Psychiatrists: “Psychosis can be induced in normal individuals ingesting caffeine at toxic doses.”
All of these sources state that it is possible to induce psychosis through ingestion of caffeine. Since that is true, the same argument you state for criminalizing marijuana can be used to criminalize caffeine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
I'd gladly address that bit of your argument if you do. As for alcohol, I've already told you my position on that. It's no different than marijuana (probably worse), it should be illegal as well.
|
Oh, I see. You're a fascist. Well that explains things quite well. People aren't going to be made better by controlling them, people will only ever be made better by education. It has been proven historically that these kinds of prohibitions are completely ineffective, and only encourage the growth of criminal organizations. Although as a fascist im sure you like those, it gives you more of a reason to infringe upon human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
Anti-depressants are different though. Why? Because they have a beneficial purpose. They are not "recreational drugs" People aren't prescribed anti-depressants for their selfish pleasure. They're prescribed anti-depressants in order to relieve the emotionally painful symptoms of mental conditions that they did not choose to induce.
|
Actually, to the psychiatrist it matters not if the mental conditions were induced voluntarily or were involuntary. They can prescribe to you a drug either way. In fact it is not always necessary that a psychiatric evaluation take place to recieve antidepressants. But this is a moot point.
All that matters is that antidepressants can induce psychosis, and therefore put those around the patient at risk. If you can justify dopamine agonists on the grounds that they can help depression than you can justify marijuana consumption on the same grounds. It too is a dopamine agonist and it also can have positive effects on depression.
Marijuana chemical may treat depression: study | Science & Health | Reuters
EDIT: And as a side note, it is not uncommon for MEDICALLY TRAINED doctors to support the use of Marijuana to treat depression. Psychiatrists and practitioners alike, generally they accept that the anti-depressants pose an equal risk for harm or success.
Anti-depressants are not the only drugs you have to justify, you must also justify amphetamines such as aderol and ridalin. In addition you have to justify narcotic pain killers and many kinds of sedatives. All of those pose an inherent risk to people around the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
You think society's trying to protect the minds of those on the drugs? Hah! Not at all. Society's protecting those around the idiots doing the drugs. Society's protecting those around people who are using substances that induce such mentally unstable and unpredictable side-effects.
|
Then what happens if you can find an environmental cause of psychiatric disorders? Using your same logic, you can restrict the freedoms of those with mental illnesses because it was their choice to induce those mental illnesses through risky behavior. Those with alzhiemers can be jailed for consuming aluminum oxide. Those induced schizophrenia through the use of illegal drugs can be forced to take anti-psychotics because of their negligence. You walk down a slippery slope that you can't come back from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
The individuals on the drugs are selfish and don't deserve society's protection. So society punishes them for being selfish, illogical, irrational, etc. It's no different than speeding in a motor vehicle.
|
Speeding in a car is not a criminal offense. Also, those who speed still have protection under the law, you cannot take their vehicle away just because they sped. Unless you prove under a court of law that a person is a threat to others, you can't take away their rights. There is no such thing as a pre-emptive case of criminal negligence. A crime has to happen first in order for there to be a case. There is evidence that violent television can cause a person to be violent, as well as possession of a firearm. How are those cases any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
Schizophrenia isn't illegal because schizophrenia is a condition that people cannot help. People with legitimate mental conditions are assisted. We're not talking about schizophrenia or legitimate mental conditions. We're talking about selfishly induced side-effects, schizophrenia-like symptoms, cannabis psychosis, drug-induced hallucinations, impaired cognitive abilities, paranoia, etc. all because of a choice to selfishly "indulge" on some stupid drug. There's a huge difference, and people who choose to initiate that kind of risk are punished for good reason.
|
There are many scientific studies that suggest schizophrenia has many environmental causes, one of those being the use of drugs. Should their rights be taken away because they 'selfishly' chose to engage in risky behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
We don't have the "freedom" to induce mental instability at the risk of the safety of law-abiding, upstanding citizens around us, no. That's a major fallacy. If someone is born with schizophrenia or if they develop schizophrenia as a human mental condition, they are assisted, as with any other legitimate mental condition, because it was not of their choosing--but they're still kept under watch, because such unstable conditions are indeed hazardous and risky. Recreational marijuana is a choice to induce such side-effects for no reason other than to get a selfish "pleasurable" high at the risk, health, etc. of those around the user. It's unacceptable in this society by all logical standards
|
We most certainly do have the freedom to induce mental instability. It's constitutionally gauranteed as the right to pursue happiness.
There is a reason for this, no one person can make a claim that a certain mindset is mentally stable. One can say gambling makes a person mentally unstable, as well as television, or stress. Should all of those things be made illegal?
There are plenty of risky behaviors that can be said to cause mental conditions. Should those all be made illegal? There is no perfect mind, criminalizing things will not bring us any closer to it.