Decrim of Marijuana (part 4) - Page 11 - Political Forum

Seer · 10-26-2007, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Watch out! It looks like the scientific community doesn’t have a consensus on the subject. Here is a professional who thinks ADD could be treated with the Devil’s plant.

And those meth-like drugs they give kids now are so safe?

This inspired me to wander around for videos.

The following is less than half of an episode of Penn and teller’s TV show ‘bullshit’. I searched but couldn’t find a full episode. I’ve seen the whole thing before and it’s far better than just watching this bit. This is still interesting though. I don’t agree with everything they say but they have said some things that I’ve said previously on this forum. If you manage to get the whole episode, they elaborate much further.

I’m just posting these last two for fun.

I think this is pretty funny. Stand up comedy by Bill Hicks. It makes me pissed that they replaced the video with random pictures of pot related things. But it’s still good.

The Marijuana-Logues on The Bill Maher Show.

This is still the best film about marijuana though:

Locke9-05 · 10-26-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

This inspired me to wander around for videos.

All of those videos you posted would be considered "for fun." Those were all completely biased propaganda-style videos in which the makers/directors/producers/etc. of said videos/shows were attempting to persuade people to see the benefits of one side of this issue. By definition, that's propaganda--all of those above videos--and they have no real merit as arguments, if that's what you were intending to use them as.

Seer · 10-26-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

All of those videos you posted would be considered "for fun."

Yes. They would. I like fun.

But if it’s arguments you’re looking for, the film I recommend has some good ones.

Locke9-05 · 10-26-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

Yes. They would. I like fun.

But if it’s arguments you’re looking for, the film I recommend has some good ones.

So do I. I love fun too, ya baystahd...

No, I'm messin with ya. But I do love fun. Yeah, I have yet to watch Grass. I suppose since you've recommended it, I'll probably end up picking up sometime in the near future.

Shiva_TD · 10-26-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

It's not a matter of being "rudely" chastised, it's a matter of this being a debate, you diverting from the original topic more than once--in light of the fact that we had already established the topic--and me calling you out on it. It's a debate, I'm going to call you out for irrelevant tangents, sources, etc. You're free to do the same, although I try my best to be meticulous and thorough about the content I post.

Actually this is a political forum in which ideas are discussed. That does not make it necessarily a political debate. Please read the title of the website. It is not titlted Political Debates, is it?

You continue to say that my position is unsupported but the fact remains that tens of millions of Americans smoke marijuana and there have not been reports substantial negative effects from that usage. With the massive usage of marijuana it would be logical to assume that any negative effects would be highly evident but they are not. At best there are rare instances of individual problems that can easily be explained by other reasons.

Shiva_TD · 10-26-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

That's because taking caffeine pills sharpens your senses. It's the complete opposite scenario of marijuana. Marijuana dulls the senses and influences the mind--through distorted perception, impaired cognition and other negative side-effects--and puts the health and safety of non-users at risk. It's the opposite case with caffeine.

This is untrue in both cases. Caffeine does not "sharpen" one's senses nor does marijuana dull them. While caffeine does "excited" the nervous system by inducing the release of adreneline that does not imply that sight, sound, or touch is effected or that the logical process of the brain are positively (a subjective term I hate to use) effected. And while marijuana relaxes the nervious system that does not imply that it negatively effects touch, sight, hearing or logical reasoning. In fact, studies such as the one from Canada related to marijuana and driving cited the fact that because marijuana does not dull the logical process drivers on marijuana were as safe as any other drivers. (If you haven't read the report I can look it up and provide a link).

I always remember the photos of the spider webs from my high school psych book that showed webs made while the spiders were normal, on marijuana, on "downers" and on LSD. Amusing was the fact that the web made on LSD was literally perfect even when compared to the web that a "normal" spider produced. That would not imply that we should do LSD if we seek perfection (or would it?). Of course this is slightly off topic.

Locke9-05 · 10-26-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Actually this is a political forum in which ideas are discussed. That does not make it necessarily a political debate. Please read the title of the website. It is not titlted Political Debates, is it?

That's what this topic was originally denoted as. The opening post titled this debate: "Drug Legalization." The topic would have retained that same title, had someone not created a repeat topic, necessitating that the two topics be merged. This is a debate. It's a political forum, and the focus of this topic is a debate about the legalization of drugs (especially marijuana). Naturally, it's your prerogative to see it how you like, but I'm certainly not going to hold back from calling you out on your misinformed perception--based on the focus of this topic/debate for the literally hundreds of pages it's been going on before you became involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

You continue to say that my position is unsupported but the fact remains that tens of millions of Americans smoke marijuana and there have not been reports substantial negative effects from that usage.

You're the one making the claims, and you have to support those claims. There's nothing for me to "refute" or "rebut" because that claim of yours has no legitimate backing. You've failed to provide support for those figures, not to mention many other absurd suppositions you've made throughout this debate. An argument without support means nothing in this setting. I don't have to disprove a claim someone else has made that they've failed to prove (or even attempt to prove) themselves .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

With the massive usage of marijuana it would be logical to assume that any negative effects would be highly evident but they are not. At best there are rare instances of individual problems that can easily be explained by other reasons.

There are no assumptions in debate. There is logic, but there are no assumptions. An assumption indicates that there is nothing to go based off of, that it's simply a person's spontaneous unprovoked thought.

Dictionary.com
The dictionary definition of the word "assumption" is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

something taken for granted; a supposition

It's not logical to take something for granted. That's the opposite of logic. There is really no such thing as a logical assumption, because an assumption indicates no prior knowledge or experience of the topic/matter about which the individual is "assuming" something.

Once again, you've failed to back up your position. You say that the negative effects aren't highly evident, yet you offer no support on any scale to back that up, it's simply your perception. Unfortunately for you, your perception means little when it comes to a debate like this. We (anti-legalization) have already shown evidence depicting the harmful effects marijuana and its side-effects have on people around the user in isolated instances and on a national level as well. Unless you're able support your position, it really doesn't merit further cross-examination.

Locke9-05 · 10-26-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

This is untrue in both cases. Caffeine does not "sharpen" one's senses nor does marijuana dull them. While caffeine does "excited" the nervous system by inducing the release of adreneline that does not imply that sight, sound, or touch is effected or that the logical process of the brain are positively (a subjective term I hate to use) effected. And while marijuana relaxes the nervious system that does not imply that it negatively effects touch, sight, hearing or logical reasoning. In fact, studies such as the one from Canada related to marijuana and driving cited the fact that because marijuana does not dull the logical process drivers on marijuana were as safe as any other drivers. (If you haven't read the report I can look it up and provide a link).

No need, I've already posted pages of evidence that prove marijuana not only dulls perception, it also impairs cognitive abilities. Here's one:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

You continually ignore the facts, yet you post none yourself. That doesn't do much for your position.

Shiva_TD · 10-26-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Coffee is not nearly as harmful as marijuana.

Opinion

Quote:

We've already established that at least once.

Caffeine is physically addictive and marijuana is not. Both have side effects that could be called equal in most regards.

Quote:

Not only that, but there isn't a national issue over coffee. Why? Because coffee isn't on the same threatening level as marijuana is. Coffee may be addictive, yes, but so are many things. A person can become addicted to just about anything; computers are a prime example of that. Coffee doesn't have nearly the same detrimental effects that marijuana does, and that's why the marijuana versus coffee argument just doesn't work. Not only that, but this topic isn't about coffee is it? Ranting about what you perceive to be "double standards"--or whatever the hell you see them as--will accomplish nothing, as the point of this debate is to argue whether or not marijuana should be legalized.

There isn't a debate on coffee because coffee is legal whereas marijuana is not. The debate is not about whether coffee should be criminalized but instead whether marijuana should be legalized.

Many, such as myself, would argue that coffee is just as "dangerous" as marijuana and yet we would not support a prohibition against it.

Locke9-05 · 10-26-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Opinion Caffeine is physically addictive and marijuana is not. Both have side effects that could be called equal in most regards.

Ah right, because psychosis and schizophrenia come so close to temporary sleep-deprivation--which is essentially the main purpose for caffeine anyway...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

There isn't a debate on coffee because coffee is legal whereas marijuana is not. The debate is not about whether coffee should be criminalized but instead whether marijuana should be legalized.

There isn't a debate about coffee, because like you said coffee is legal. Hmmm, why could that be? That would lead one to believe that because coffee is legal, and because there aren't really any large disputes about its legal status, that it's not a big deal, and that it's fairly obvious that people are just fine with it the way it is. It's the opposite case with marijuana. Plain and simple, there's a national issue over marijuana, and that's what this topic is about. Stick to it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Many, such as myself, would argue that coffee is just as "dangerous" as marijuana and yet we would not support a prohibition against it.

Then you would be denying the facts. So you're making the argument that coffee is just as dangerous as marijuana, now prove it. That's something I have yet to see you accomplish. I haven't seen a single one of your arguments based on anything except your own opinion thus far. That won't get you very far in a debate.