HenryDavidThoreau

No it is not legal, medical marijuana is legal but possesion of marijuana without a doctor's recommendation is still illegal but only a misdemeanor. And the DEA does raid the medical marijuana clinics frequently. Denver successfully passed a legalization bill that would make possesion by an adult 21+ perfectly legal w/ out fines or punishment but police do not obey the local proposition. In fact arrests rose to record numbers as if the police were trying to make a statement...

Locke9-05

What you don't understand is that because of the way this government is set up, administrative decision is left up to those educated individuals who are given the responsibility to preserve the rights of law-abiding citizens. The rights of marijuana users are not of importance here, because they're petty criminals and they senselessly endanger the safety and well-being of non-users purely for the sake of their own selfish indulging desires.
The truth is that it was right in front of you, and it's been repeated numerous (as in at least 10-30 times) throughout the course of your membership. If you haven't noticed it, it's simply a failure to do so on your part because of just that--some sort of failure on your part... Like I've already said--correlation to something like schizophrenia/psychosis is all the government (in this case state governments) need/s to make that administrative decision to outlaw/legally discourage a substance (selfish indulgence) that presents an unnecessary threat to the safety/health of non-users and law-abiding citizens. That's all it takes, sorry. What part of that don't you get exactly?

__________________
"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
___________________

Locke9-05

Shiva_TD in Blue

Locke9-05 in Green

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.
What exactly don't you understand here? You continue to ignore my arguments, substituting this outrageous strawman bullshit in between (repeating yourself over and over again). Marijuana users are not important, Shiva. They are not society's concern here. The concern the government has is the safety of those innocent law-abiding, non-users that is at unnecessary risk by the idiotic selfish personal indulging actions of marijuana users.

Those law-abiding citizens are the people who the government has to protect--those are the people who matter here. The people who choose to take life as it comes at them--problems and all-- rather than cower from their problems with some unnatural shit drug that helps them "escape" for a few worthless minutes at the expense of those around them are the people that society and the government are worried about. That's why the drug laws are in place. Because those people are the people who take precedence as law-abiding citizens, they're the ones who matter most, and they have full rights, including the right to a reasonably safe/healthy way of life. State governments recognize that recreational marijuana is an unnecessary risk to those citizens and only heightens the chances for impediment upon that right of those law-abiding citizens to a reasonable safe/healthy way of life. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to discourage it via legal action.

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.
Are you kidding me? Talk about a sob story... Life is a series of choices... Don't give me that marijuana smokers shouldn't be held accountable for their actions bullshit. You want the government to treat 'em like little kids? Maybe they should. It might fit better, as a matter of fact... It's a matter of choice, it's not a hard choice to decide not to smoke marijuana, given that it's a completely voluntary thing and it's a mindless indulgence that's unnecessary for any aspect of human life whatsoever. I've already explained to you why it's illegal--how it affects the lives of those who face their problems head on, who aren't stupid/cowardly, who face their problems head on, who follow the easiest most logical rules of society and who do not break the laws, who have their rights as citizens--and who are therefore protected by the government because of it. That's how the real world works, my friend. Why don't you join us in it?

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.
What you're missing here, is that I didn't make the first claim regarding how "rare" the side effects were, you did. According to standard debate procedures, you're required to back that claim up. I simply showed the side effects, you posted afterward, with some opinionated rant, telling me that they were "rare" side effects. You made the first claim, I called you on it. I don't have to back up anything in the case of this particular argument--you do. Learn how to debate or don't debate at all.


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

(Provided 2 "studies")

Interesting, very interesting. Nice work, I'd almost have congratulated you, had you covered all angles. You can ask your fellow pro-drug legalization advocate Thoreau about this concept, however, as he's pointed this out to me before--in relation to several of the studies I've used: those articles are completely outdated and cannot logically be applied to this decade, sorry. Nice try though, really... it was. Information changes, and the studies I've provided (namely this link: Blackwell Synergy - Cookie Absent) are up to date and are legitimate.


Once again, allegations without support.
Don't even go there, my friend. I just completely showed everyone how the only time you've posted a shred of evidence it's been outdated by an entire century. I've posted numerous pages of evidence covering much of this debate, you've posted a minuscule amount that isn't even valid anymore because it's outdated.

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.No it hasn't. You've provided no legitimate studies that counter the up-to-date professionally done unbiased studies I've presented. Sorry, but you haven't been able to do it yet. This is the study that you haven't been able to touch:

• Blackwell Synergy - Cookie Absent

Quote:

Originally Posted by University of Auckland New Zealand Researchers This population-based case–control study suggests that habitual marijuana use is associated with a 10-fold increase in the risk of car crash injury

There you have it, a 2005 study that shows a probable increase in the risk of car crash and injury associated with marijuana by 10-fold. It's right there, my friend. And that's really all the government needs. That along with any of the other studies I've shown are more than enough reason for the government to criminalize marijuana for the unnecessary risk to the safety and health of law-abiding citizens that it is.

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.
[color="Green"]Uhh, yeah, cannabis psychosis is a correlation between cannabis and psychosis... It doesn't get a whole lot clearer than that. It's a correlation. It really doesn't matter if there isn't a concretely establishd causation, because recreational marijuana is a selfish indulgence, and it serves a selfish individual purpose anyway, so if there's even the slightest of chance that it could be a factor in inducing a psychosis like condition, game over. That's what you don't quite seem to get.

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.
Really? Well huh... Maybe that person should decide to make the easy choice and not break the law then? Doesn't that seem like the easy thing to do? Yeah. It does. Don't do marijuana and you won't have the police knocking at your door. You don't need marijuana to survive. You don't need marijuana for any aspect of human life, even comfort... Get over it...

Your right, I added that but I am pleased to see that you also discount DEA propaganda because it distorts the real facts.
Well I'm not so pleased to see that you were lying about something as if I said it when you knew damn well that I didn't. That's borderline slander and it's not ethical and can even get you in a lot of trouble. Don't ever do that again. I hope you see how much that sort of thing hurts your credibility as a debater.

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.

No, you're right, scientists and/or researchers would probably agree with the dictionary definition of "drug abuse." Allow me to enlighten you:

drug abuse - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary Habitual use of drugs to alter one's mood, emotion, or state of consciousness.

There you have it--proved wrong by the dictionary. Drug abuse equates recreational marijuana use. Hmmm, imagine that...



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

Marijuana Uses, DSAMH
Now there's a slight problem with you using that source, my friend... Do you realize what it is? You should be able to after all that's been said and done throughout this debate. Look carefully at the list of sources from the site itself--Utah Department of Human Services. The actual statistics came from the NIDA (or the National Institute on Drug Abuse), a source which you told me is full of biased propaganda and cannot be trusted as a legitimate source either way. Sorry, no can do. I don't care how close you thought you were to squeezing that one by, try again. What's that called again... You know--that term that's used to describe when someone is guilty of what they're constantly badgering/accusing others for? It's a 4-syllable word, I think it begins with an "H." I'm sure I'll remember it sooner or later. Start meeting your own damn argument standards, Shiva...

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 your arguments are incredibly extensive in opinion and practically non-existent in factual supported allegations. You seem to be awfully quick to shoot off these double-standard statements lately, Shiva, I'd watch it with those, if I were you. The only two real articles you've posted so far were completely outdated.


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.
Not at all, my references remain concrete. Your references are based on strawman suppositions, double-standards, you've even completely lied about things you claimed that I said, etc. It's entirely obvious that in general your position is not a reliable one at all. Not only that, but the sources you provided were outdated from a decade ago whereas the sources I provided where current and untouched

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).
You provided two quotes, Shiva... They weren't even links. I couldn't even find where you got them, because you didn't actually physically link up the paths like you should have. Your debating style is inconsistent and unreliable at best, you didn't link your "quotes," those "quotes" were completely outdated and illegitimate as Thoreau could tell you from his experience from me, all together your sources equate nothing so far.

__________________
"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
___________________

Locke9-05

Too bad... What you don't get here is that marijuana was still a part of that statistic and that's all it needed to be. It's a mindless indulgence and it's not necessary for any aspect of human life. It's what's at the heart of this issue, and it only needed to be a slight part of the stat to become an issue. It's all about pros versus cons. Marijuana has no pros, and its completely harmful unnecessary cons clearly outweigh those non-existent pros


What studies? Studies such as? Where? Link? No? Then don't mention it... It's that simple. If you're going to provide the link, fine. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

Case dismissed.

Hello? They have a direct statistic based on research... Allow me to repeat the quote that you must have been completely oblivious to:

Yeah, that's not an opinion, that's a statistic from the study, sorry. It's a factual statistic. Case not dismissed, Shiva. Nice try, though.

__________________
"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
___________________

Locke9-05

Are you kidding? That source isn't diluted... Do you even know what the definition of a "diluted source" is? It would seem that the answer to that question is apparent. I didn't make any suppositions, by the way. I made a correlation that I left up for individual interpretation. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do in this scenario, you'd know that if you were familiar with debate. I was conveying a message that can't be proven through direct stats via correlation, but I guess you just misinterpreted that (surprise, surprise...)



Here's what a logical person would say in that scenario then: Nothing... Lord almighty, Counterpointing... If you don't know what to say to something, doesn't it make the most sense to not say anything at all...? One would tend to think so... One would hope so anyway...

There's plenty left of my argument, I've continued going back and forth with other debaters while you've interjected what I would call smaller"one-liner" arguments here and there contributing somewhat less to the actual material of this debate. While that's fine and good, it certainly doesn't give you license to tell me "there's nothing left of my argument," considering how little you've actually contributed in the scheme of things.

That's not the point... God, what is it with people like you and the Libertarian? This isn't about the Nazis... That's the biggest freakin' strawman I've ever seen in my life. This isn't about society being right, it's about recreational marijuana being wrong... Get over it... Jesus God... What you don't get here is that the Nazis were an oppressive society, they were making people suffer. Guess what the difference is? Actually the difference there is ironic. Selfish drug users are the ones making people suffer in this case and society's completely just in punishing them for their idiotic and selfish choices. I would advise to never compare this society with Nazi Germany in any way ever again, though, Counterpointing.

What you didn't seem to get is that the Constitution gives the government the responsibility to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. That's pretty much self-explanatory... Recreational marijuana, as I've explained causes the user to become an unnecessary risk to the safety and health of law-abiding citizens and society/the government must make an administrative decision to discourage such a destructive substance to discourage the impediment upon that very important right of law-abiding citizens to a reasonably safe/healthy way of life. game over.

__________________
"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
___________________

Kazikli Bey

OK, so what issues about the decriminilization of marijuana haven't you guys talked about?, We're nearing on a probably world record 1200 posts here, so i'm just wondering what you guys haven't talked about.

__________________

Shiva_TD

Yes, it is a statistic but is it a meaningful statistic? Here are the questions a person must ask.

Did the 7% test positive for marijuana use or is this statistic based upon historical use of marijuana? If we assume that they tested positive (which would be most accurate measurement) then it reflects the fact that they had used marijuana within 4 weeks prior to the accident (it stays in the system that long and will provided a positive result). The marijuana high only lasts about 4 hours so the fact that someone has used marijuana within the last 28 days does not imply that they were under the influence at the time of the accident.

Was the person that used marijuana within the last 28 days responsible for the accident? I can only relate that the only accident I have had in 41 years was when I was stopped in a left turn lane and was rear-ended. Obviously I could have been drop-down drunk (I wasn't nor was I high at the time but had smoked pot within 28 days) and the accident still wouldn't have been my fault. So this is a very relevant question.

Did the actual use of marijuana contribute to the cause of the accident? The studies I have posted clearly established that marijuana users compensate for any negative effects of marijuana when they drive typically by slowing down and paying more attention to their driving. The two major causes of fatal accidents are excessive speed and alcohol use according to the NTSB. Excessive speed is not a common trait amoung marijuana users that drive.

As for 7% of the drivers having used marijuana and being involved in an accident is it even a relevant? What percentage of drivers that are involved in fatal accidents are coffee drinkers? Coffee amps you up and is more likely to result in someone driving recklessly than someone who smokes pot and slows down.

So yes, a number was provided but it doesn't establish that the use actually contributed as a cause to the accident so it is a virtually meaningless statistic from which no conclusions can be made by a logical person that asks any questions related to it.

NORML New Zealand - MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE

Shiva_TD

For Oregon Elephant:

In Thread 3 you asked people to contribute personal experiences and insight into marijuana use and I am honest enough to share mine with you.

I first started smoking pot in 1966 (not surprising, many did) in a limited amount while in high school. I maintained a 3.2 GPA.

I really became a "heavy" user in 1968-69 while in Vietnam. The vast majority of soldiers in Vietnam smoked pot and it did not negatively effect our performance of our duties at all. It was common for the average soldier to smoke about 19 marijuana cigerettes per day (a lot) but these were "regular" cigerettes where the tobacco had been removed and replaced - no rolling papers in Vietnam and the Vietnamese made these but only 19 could be put back in the package. They were also filtered which reduced the intake slightly but 19 "joints" a day is still a lot.

After discharge from the Army I went back to college and continued smoking marijuana albeit at a reduced level. I maintained a 3.6 GPA in college.

Later I passed the MENSA test after smoking marijuana prior to the test. If you are familiar with the test or MENSA then you know that only 2% of the population can pass this test. So yes, I have a very high IQ but any impairment in logical reasoning would have lead to me failing the test. I passed so apparently my cognitive skills were not diminished to any noticable extent.

I learned how to fly and got my pilots license while high. I did this intentionally because I wanted to enjoy the experience of flight while high. It made flying more enjoyable. No, I did not smoke excessively prior to my flight lessons but I did get high. I had no recognizable impairments in my mental or physical abilities when learning to fly.

I have been a successful engineer for the last 30+ years and have been married twice (we often make one mistake) and just celebrated my 24th annivesary last month. I would personally state that smoking marijuana has, to a minor degree, helped keep my wife and I together. We don't typically argue and work out any problems we might have together, generally after smoking a couple of bowls.

I continue to smoke marijuana today. I may indulge in a couple of bong hits after work and then maybe one more before going to bed. Total this might equal smoking 1/2 a joint and I would say this is common among most marijauna smokers today. In the rare instances where I drive to the market or something after I have smoked my small amount of marijuana I have experienced NO adverse effects on my driving. I'm simply not that high for it to have any effect.

You asked about "what if someone smoked more" and I can only respond that people typically don't smoke more. The marijuana high is one where you seek a certain level of intoxication and are satisfied with that. Once you reach the level of intoxication that you want you simply don't smoke anymore. This is unlike the use of alcohol where the intoxication tends to make the individual drink more and more. With pot once you get "where you want to be" an individual typically stops smoking anymore. There is no reason to smoke more so they don't.

There were a few comments on "reverse tolerance" levels where someone put forward the proposition that the more someone smoked over time the more it effected them. I seriously doubt that although I smoke far less than I did 20-30 years ago. I would attribute that to better quality today. Once again, if the individual seeks a certain "high" and that high is reached with less marijuana then they will smoke until they reach the high and then stop. With stronger marijuana that means that they consume less.

On a final note, I am in excellent health with no mental problems. I am very successful in my professional career and I'm highly politically active. I am responsible for my actions. I have had one traffic accident in my life (rear-ended while stopped in a left turn lane) and only two tickets (unrelated to marijuana use) in over 40 years of driving. I certainly don't consider myself a danger to society nor have I ever experienced any negative effects related to my marijuana use. If I did I would quit.

That's pretty much a summary and because it is only one individual's story it has no bearing on the bigger picture but you asked. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask.

Peace

Shiva_TD

Let's accurately quote the study as opposed to misrepresenting its conclusions.

Blackwell Synergy - Cookie Absent

Acute marijuana use is defined as use within (3) hours prior to the accident whereas habitual marijuana use was defined as use within the last year.

This study states that acute use, you know, the time period when a person could be considered under the influence of marijuana, presented no significant findings (i.e. when under the influence the subjects were no more likely to be involved in an accident causing injury or death than the control group) but habitual users showed a signification risk. This would tend to indicated that the actual use of marijuana is not responsible for an increased risk but that those that take unnecessary driving risks seem to be more prone using marijuana.

One could logically conclude that "risk takers" are more likely to smoke marijuana based upon this study. That is not surprising. What is really surprising is that when these same risk takers apparently become 10-fold safer drivers when they actually smoke pot based upon this study.

Once again your allegations that marijuana use contributes to dangerous driving is unsupported. What you have provided is a study that shows that people who are risky drivers are more likely to smoke marijuana and that their driving significantly improves when they do because they take fewer risks while under the influence.

While you can apparently find studies you seem to fail to either read them with comprehension or are deceitfully selective in your quotes. This has been true of every reference link you have provided so far. They do not support your arguments if a person takes the time to read and understand what is actually being said in the reports. In many cases, such as this one, it actually contradicts your allegations.

Shiva_TD

Let's see what else falls into this catagory: Coffee, tea, Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Mountian Dew, alcoholic beverages, and chocolate plus a huge number of prescription drugs would all fall into a classification of mood altering products that people habitually use (yes, chocolate does effect the brain).

Of course marijuana is not generally habit forming and its certainly not adictive. Sometimes dictionary definitions present over-simplified definitions that could be applied to many common products that we would not generally include.

But yes, almost any substance (drug) that people use which alters mood or emotions, whether legal or not, can be abused. So, what's your point?