Locke9-05

Once again, you've failed to understand the problem here. It's still a risk. It doesn't matter that it's only a slight correlation, it's still there. Because recreational marijuana has no societal value, because it's nothing more than a selfish indulgence, society discourages that unnecessary risk to the safety and health of law-abiding citizens. Do you get that? Or are you going to continue to repeat yourself? That's all you've done so far.
I've posted more than one study throughout the last 2 sections of this debate (3 and 4--you've been a part of them regardless of the fact that you dishonestly denied it) which strongly correlate cannabis use with both psychosis and schizophrenia. There is a chronic condition known as "cannabis psychosis..." So you don't think there's any reason to believe there's the slightest of cause or correlation there when there's a psychosis named specifically for the number one factor involved--cannabis? Now there's some pristine logic for ya... . If you're too apathetic or if you're incapable of finding those studies I've posted, there's not much I can do to help you.
What don't you get about the term "unnecessary risk?" Is there something there that's not quite clicking? Recreational marijuana is not needed for any aspect of life whatsoever including comfort. By definition, it falls under the category of "selfish indulgence." No matter how slight the correlation is, if there is danger associated that puts the safety and health of innocent law-abiding citizens at risk (there is--and side effects such as irritability, anxiety, impaired cognitive abilities/perception, paranoia, etc. have been proven regardless of the state of denial you're in about it. They've been proven, I've provided pages and pages of sources compared to hmmm... the nonexistent number of legitimate unbiased sources you've provided to support your argument.
This is as clear cut as can be. Recreational marijuana is an unnecessary risk to law-abiding citizens, yet at the same time it serves no societal purpose, there is no collective societal benefit. Guess what that means? Game Over. It's done.
Those side-effects are not rare, and you've shown no evidence to support that claim. Until you do so, that statement of yours is nothing more than a shallow supposition. I guess you still don't quite understand the function of debate, do you? That's too bad, you're slowly digging yourself a very deep hole. That entire quote of yours is nothing more than a rambling session of your unbacked opinionated thoughts. That's fine and good, but this is debate. Why don't you get with it and start actually finding some sources to support the claims you're making?
I already addressed this, yet apparently you failed to notice that I did so. You continue to ignore the fact that the stress-reduction of marijuana users matters little to society. Why? Simple. Because while they're experiencing that brief selfish and idiotic sensation of "euphoria," the safety and health of law-abiding citizens around them--citizens who are responsible enough to take life's problems as they come, instead of cowering in fear (turning to unnatural shit drugs for help)--is being put in unnecessary jeopardy because of an unnatural unnecessary stupid risky substance. That's all there is to it.
Whether it's because of negative/aggressive social interaction, accidents with machinery/motor vehicles caused by impaired cognition, cannabis psychosis, it doesn't matter. The risk is there, and society--as the protectorate of law-abiding citizens' right to a reasonably safe/healthy way of life--must discourage such an unnatural, unnecessarily risky substance. It's the only 100 percent logical thing to do.
What's your point? First of all, I never used that quote, so if you're trying to call me out for it, you're a liar. Use the search utility if you must. Secondly, who cares if the DEA said that? Plenty of unbiased reputable sources say that too... Plenty of those independent studies you requested that I find said the same damn thing, yet you simply ignored those facts and posed little ridiculous strawman arguments when it came to those.
By definition, the illegal use of a drug is abuse... Not only was that a completely incorrect statement, it was also a logical fallacy. Congratulations... I'd also advise you to stop throwing that "10 million Americans" statistic around, as you have yet to prove it. You've been called on that asinine supposition, and you've never once provided support for it. I can pull numbers out of thin air too, my friend. That sort of ridiculousness does nothing but hurt your position.
That's an opinionated statement, it lacks support as have most of your arguments throughout this entire debate. If you wish to actually back it up with some sort of evidence, I'd be glad to address it. You are not qualified to make such blanket statements without a shred of evidence to support them, sorry.
How about this--as a final analogy, let us consider recreational marijuana... I don't think you've stuck purely to the actual topic by itself for a single post of yours throughout this debate. You've inconsistently flung off on these seemingly desperate topic diversions, attempting to push any kind of righteously deserved negative attention focused on marijuana onto some other much more petty subject.

Do recognize how pathetic it is for you to continue with these spontaneous digressions, time and time and again--after the topic has been clearly defined and debaters have been advised constantly to stick to it. I'm not even going to waste my time with another one of those, you've done that far too much throughout this topic. You didn't even back up any of your statements in this new "analogy" of yours (surprise, surprise...)--once again, more generic opinionated suppositions to fit your personal biased agenda without a shred of evidence.
That's the difference between you and I, Shiva. Actually, the main difference here is that I actually take the time to find evidence in the first place. You simply post your own opinion and fill it in with supposed nonsense and seemingly desperate and ridiculous topic diversions which you cloak as "analogies," when it's been constantly brought to your attention that the debate topic is concretely defined and there's no need to digress off onto other ridiculous side-tangents. I've probably posted at least 50 entire pages of support for my position. You certainly haven't. That's the difference here.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

apawllo

Nah, it's legal in California but the DEA still arrests people there. My point, and I believe his was, is that this isn't a matter that should be dealt with on the scale of say the federal government because it's a personal issue and it doesn't affect anyone but the person smoking. Protecting the common good, in this situation, is another way for the feds to say "we can't tax it so we're going to fine you for using it."

Oregon Elephant

Now, I highly disagree with "it doesn't affect anyone but the person smoking," and I relate that to personal experience (because we apparently execpt that). I also highly disagree with "we can't tax it so we're going to fine you for using it," because of my first reason. People don't want to believe that other's have good reasons to disagree with them, so they find some bad reason and claim that that is why. You don't want to believe that the government has good reason, based off of scientific evidence, for keeping it illegal, so you claim that it is because of their greed and selfishness.

Seer

Do you think you could provide me with an example of how marijuana leads to a moral or cultural decline? (You might have already but I’m not sure.) Thus far, I believe that the increase in violent crime in the Netherlands could be due to many factors unrelated to legalization entirely (including cultural changes). I ask only because I’m trying to understand your position about the unnecessary risk to safety of non-users marijuana presumably prescribes.

__________________

counterpointing

You have shown nothing to prove that legalization has affected the Netherlands. I provided just the statistics, without any lame suppositions attached to it, unlike your diluted “sources.”

CBS - Murder rate tripled - Web magazine

I don’t even no what to say to the above. There’s nothing left of your argument, so now you’re just blathering. Are you seriously trying to associate crime rate and marijuana laws, if so you’ll actually have to do some research instead of shooting off some nonsensical correlations.


Where are you going with this. I asked if society's (every society) does everything for the greater good. Did the Nazis do everything for the greater good? What are you saying?


This isn’t math class. The constitution didn’t inact the prohibition. Game over.

Shiva_TD

In Your Opinion.

Millions of people disagree with your opinion and virtually everything we do in life contains some element of risk. The question is whether the risk is worth it to the individual. I scuba dive, fly airplanes, drive cars and ride a motorcycle. Each of these has inherent risks but I judge those risks to be acceptable. That is my RIGHT as an ADULT. All of these activities potentially endanger others and I am responsible for my actions to ensure that I don't harm others when participating in these activities.

The truth is I was so new to this forum (not debate) that I didn't even really notice that the thread had gone from Part 3 to Part 4. I will see if I can locate Thread 3 and see if there are any links provided by you that actually have state that marijuana causes either psychosis or schizophrenia. You are saying that they do and I seriously doubt that I will find clinical evidence that supports your allegations but I will look. I will also research "chronic cannabis psychosis" and see what I come up with.

continued..

Shiva_TD

The fact is that not a single reference link you have provided indicates that normal marijuana use is dangerous to the average individual. An "unnecessary risk" would be one where the dangers outweigh the benefits. For those that casually enjoy marijuana for its many pschological and physical benefits they would deem the remote risks to be acceptable and that is their right. Unquestionably the greatest risk to a marijuana smoker are the penalties with it being an illegal substance. There are people in jail for life because of the prohibition against marijuana. If anything can cause mental illness it is being incarcerated for an extended period. So there is a risk of arrest, the greatest harm facing a marijuana user, is considered by tens of millions people and is found to be acceptable.

As for endangering society, how can someone getting off of work, going home and smoking a few bongs that might equal 1/2 of a joint, and listening to music or watching a good movie, endanger society? Please explain that one to me. Even if they leave to go to the market both US and Canadian research has indicated that statistically they don't present any more of a driving threat than someone that hasn't smoked anything. So where is this imagined danger to society?

I was responding to your reference. Where did it say "common" in the allegations to these supposed side effects? Had they been determined the side effects to be common the authors would have been cited that fact. They did not therefore one can assume that the side effects, while possible, are not a common occurance.

Once again, you are making the allegations that these are common side effects. Provide a study related to common usage by normal people which provides statistics on how common these effects might be. Every high? One in One Thousand highs? One in One Million highs? Show me the statistics before you make allegations that something is common.

The American society is comprised of individuals. What benefits the individual, so long as it harms no others, is beneficial to society.

You still have to provide an example of how normal marijuana by normal individuals impairs driving. I have a reference for you.
Want more?

There are more reports on marijuana and driving if you want them. The fact is that under normal conditions with normal marijuana usage statistically there isn't a significant threat of an auto accident being causing by marijuana usage.


Once again, allegations without support. Yes, I still have to look back and see if I can find Thread 3 but you have provided no evidence to support these allegations and your claim that marijuana usage causes accidents has been successfully dismisses as unsupported by numerous studies. As for aggressive behavior one of the effects of marijuana is to reduce aggressive behavior so that is bullshit. Cannabis pschosis, as I noted earlier, is a new one for me although many substances could produce a psychosis type experience but that does not imply actual psychosis nor does it even imply a negative experience for the individual. For example, a person on marijuana might be very concerned with being arrested by the police. Some would call that psychosis but I would call it common sense. Its illegal and yes a person should be afraid of being arrested by the police.


Your right, I added that but I am pleased to see that you also discount DEA propaganda because it distorts the real facts.


So, if it is legalized it couldn't be abused? Of course that is not what you are saying but you are establishing your personal definition of abuse. I seriously doubt that a scientist or researcher would agree with your definition.

As for "10 million" here is a link. It is a government report so it probably underestimates the actual numbers.

Marijuana Uses, DSAMH


Debate includes statements of opinion by the participants as well supporting arguments. A logical argument is valid in debate as well as supportable statements and analogies. So far your posts are long on opinion and short on supportable statements or agruments. Your references have not supported your allegations (yes, I am still going to try and find Thread 3).


So far in Thread 4 you have not supported your allegations (I will look for Thread 3). Realize, we are looking at your references and they fall apart under close inspection. I have certainly provided links that normal marijuana usage does not present a driving threat and yet you have posted a single reference that established this (in Thread 4 anyway) nor have you provided any source for your allegations that marijuana causes psychosis (your link even denies any evidence to that effect). Yet, you continue to make the allegations. I know you love my analogies so here is one for you.

Shiva_TD

Locke - I found and went through all of Thread 3 and while I only read some of the posts in total I did read most of yours. I will comment on that later. As for links by you I checked them all and still find fundamental problems with your allegations based upon the information that you provided in your links. Let's look at what I found on those links.

The link to Obama's prior usage had no relevence to the subject so I will skip it.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Drugs and Crime Facts: Drug Use and Crime
The DOJ link provided a lot of statistics but no conclusions could be made from the information provided. While some statistics like the number of people in jail that had smoked marijuana before committing a crime is irrelevant because it did not establish any link to marijuana and the motive for the crime. I've never heard of a adult breaking into a house to buy marijuana although it is quite common (from what I understand) for heroin addicts to commit burglary (or rob a bank) to fund their addiction. Because marijuana isn't physically addictive and doesn't cost nearly as much as harder drugs it is unlikely that marijuana provided a motive for crime. Do a lot of prisoners smoke marijuana regularly? Probably. And that use would be with them whether they are in prison or not. A lot of statistics but nothing of real meaning on this link.

Next

Cannabis psychosis

Some quotations:
So, cannabis induced psychosis is different from typcial clinical psychosis. Okay, we can accept that. Oh, and it is unusual for such a unique psychosis to occur without other drugs also being involved.

Oh, there are "suggestions" that a "small" number of cases? No conclusions, merely suggestions, very interesting.

So the researchers as suspicious that their subjects might already be schizophrenic? Let's cut to the chase, the very final statement of the study...

So schizophrenic patients shouldn't smoke pot. Hell, we've all agreed on this. Neither should pregnant women. This study at no point made any statement that marijuana provided a causal effect related to psychosis. They even had to create a new catagory of psychosis because it didn't meet the standard definition. This study, while it did provide some information and recommendations related to marijuana use and psychotic and schizophrenic patients it made no statements that marijuana caused mental illness of any kind.

I will address the next link of yours in my next post.

Shiva_TD

Next Locke Link:

A typcial problem with many studies which this one attempts to redress.

Well it would appear that most of the subjects were underage and no one is advocating legalization for teenagers (that I am aware of) but let's lool furhter. A lifetime use of 5 times? That is absurd. That would classify someone that went on a vacation for a week and smoked pot daily as being a lifetime user. I would call a 5-time user someone that experimented with pot a few times. Oh well, there's more. So 13% of the 2437 or 317of the subjects qualified as "lifetime" users by having smoked pot at least 5 times at the beginning of the study. That increased to 15% or 366 four years later at the end of the study. Interesting facts.

This is the "lifetime" incident and the report says 17% will experience a psychotic symptom or, from the study group 414 are expected to have a psychotic symptom (7% of these will have more). It doesn't state that they have psychosis but they will have at least one symptom. That's more people that even qualify as "lifetime" marijuana users. Proportionately that would mean that about 62 of the marijuana users will experience at least one pyschotic symptom sometime in their lifetime regardless of marijuana use.

I would argue against the entire study at this point. Simply experiencing a symptom of a desease, such as psychosis, does not imply that a person actually has that desease. If that were the case we could all be committed because all of us, at one time or another experiences a sypmtom of psychosis. Moving on.....

These numbers make no sense to me perhaps due to prior knowledge. Only 1:1000 teenagers develop psychosis but no where do I have any number for how many experience a psychotic symptom. If we just use the 1:1000 number that means statistically less than 3 of the subjects could be expected to develop psychosis but that tells us nothing. 3 isn't even a valid sample size mathmatically to draw any conclusions. The risk factor isn't even tied to marijuana but addresses any risk factor.

So, all-in-all this summary of a study doesn't really present any scientific information and it certainly doesn't doesn't support any statement that marijuana causes psychosis.

Whew... tired of writing. I'll address the other two links you provided quickly because they are more straighforward...

Shiva_TD

Locke Link:

BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis increases car-crash risk

The researchers failed to exclude alcohol as the primary cause of the accident. The study did not segregate mulitple potential causes and other studies have established that in most accidents where marijuana has been determined that alcohol was also involved. It also doesn't establish who caused the accident. A person that had smoke marijuana 22 days ago could have been rear-ended while stopped and yet they are still a statistic.

This link does not support a cause and effect of marijuana use and driving accidents. It has also been disputed by studies where other factors were considered.

Next Locke Link:

9&10 News: Deadly Car Accident Sentence

Gee. like piss pour driving conditions and a woman towing a trailer (probably not real familiar with pulling a trailer) didn't play a major in the accident. As noted no conclusion was presented as to the effect of use of marijuana played in the accident.

Case dismissed.

Last Locke Link:

Smoking Pot Doubles Risk of Fatal Accident

[/quote=]A study by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research published in the British Medical Journal found that seven percent of drivers involved in a fatal highway crash used marijuana.[/quote]

But were they under the influence at the time? Remember you can test positive for three weeks but the high only lasts less than 4 hours. And who's fault was the accident? The use of alcohol was considered to a limited degree but road conditions and other factors were not.

This study is also contradicted by studies that showed no significant increase in accident rates when people smoked marijuana and other factors were eliminated so it would seem to indicate that this study failed to address other factors.

Dispite the opinions of the researchers they provided no conclusive evidence to support the allegation that smoking marijuana increases the probability of the driver being involved in an accident.