Great sources you provided. The first is from the Drug industry which has a long standing anti-marijuana bias (they can't make a profit from something you can grow at home) and then one from the official news agency of the British Government.

Do you have any independent studies that support the allegations being made by these sources?

Have you ever considered that naturally aggressive people might be more mellow (less aggressive) when they smoke pot and then when they don't smoke pot they become aggressive? DUH!!!

Please provide independent sources and not industry and government sources which are highly suspect of bias. They generally start with a conclusion and then build a case to support their preconcieved ideas.

How about a real report on the medical benefits of marijuana?

http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/ReviewofHumanStudies.pdf

Do you have any independent studies that support the allegations being made by these sources?

Sure:

Marijuana and Aggression - Independent Study Journal

Marijuana Withdrawal - Independent Study Journal

Read the conclusion of each study.

Have you ever considered that people using substances that have been increasingly correlated with--and have been shown to yield--major mental instability such as psychosis and schizophrenia are certainly not less aggressive?

Neuropsychopharmacology - Abstract of article: Cannabinoids Influence Lipid-Arachidonic Acid Pathways in Schizophrenia

When you make such statements--"have you ever considered... ... DUH!!!"--it only furthers the idea that you're talking merely from your own perspective, which is not relevant to this debate without support.

How about staying on topic? For the 4th time, have you read any of the debate prior to this? Have you gone back at all to read any of the context of this debate? You need to do so if you expect to be able to contribute anything worthwhile. We've been over this so many times now, you only appear uninformed and somewhat oblivious when you veer off of the topic (which is illegal recreational marijuana), to talk about medical marijuana, when it's been clearly discussed prior to this that medical marijuana is not relevant to this debate.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

You're missing the point behind the correlation, though. Marijuana is a mindless self-indulgence. It has no societal value. So if people are already somewhat susceptible to mental conditions, any correlation between marijuana and mental instability (psychosis, schizophrenia, etc.) is more than enough reason to discourage the use of said substance with legal action. Recreational marijuana is nothing but an indulgence, and when that risk factor comes into play, it's over.

That's the whole point. So you can try to weasel out of the facts all you like, but the idea isn't that "people are already susceptible to it." The idea is that it's an indulgence, and that it furthers that susceptibility factor and creates an unnecessary risk to law-abiding citizens--those who are smart enough to recognize that with so many humans who have that pre-disposition to mental condition, the obvious choice is to not use marijuana... That's how the real world works. It's individual choice, my friend.

That's absurd... Marijuana has never once proven to combat psychosis, but like we just saw, it's been correlated with an increase in psychosis-like symptoms/behavior. It's illogical to say then, that you think marijuana legalization would help overall... marijuana has already shown to be the opposite case of that--and it's not even legal. Also, once again, it's not about "combating" psychosis, it's about discouraging a selfish indulgence that poses an unnecessary threat and risk to nonusers/law-abiding citizens.

Sure there is. Someone experiencing psychosis/schizophrenia induced by a selfish indulgence is by any and every standard an irresponsible person based on the knowledgeable choice they made to use the substance in the first place. Diabetics are discouraged from eating sugar, but it's not a legal issue, because it's a matter of their own personal health. It doesn't affect those around them like marijuana does. Marijuana distorts perception, impairs cognition, is correlated with psychosis, schizophrenia, irritability, paranoia, hallucinations, etc. The government is more than justified in discouraging such a selfish indulgence that can--and often does--cause all that (putting the health and safety of people around the user at risk).

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

Regardless of being paranoid, aggressive, anxious, or even if you are schizophrenic you are still accountable for your actions. If someone developes schizophrenia after using cannabis it was something they were going to have to deal with in the future. It could be triggered from anything such as alcohol or stress. Unfortunately schizophrenics tend to have high rates of substance abuse to deal with illness at its begining stages. Which furthers doubt in my mind about cannabis/mental illness finds, where do you find a schizoprenic that just abuses one drug? Yes cannabis can further a condition like schizophrenia but it certainly does not happen over night. It is not a single puff, then you go crazy. The truth is the legality of cannabis is not going to effect the amount of cases of mental illness, it just wont. Austrlia, UK, and other countries where cannabis use is on the rise are not seeing an increase of mental illness cases and countries with decreasing cannabis usage are also not seeing the expected decline in mental illness cases.

There is no reason, however--no logical reason to allow that substance to be fully accessible. It doesn't make sense by any logical standard. There is enough evidence that shows the negative effects of marijuana far outweigh the positives. The negative effects are on a greater scale than the positives as well, and society will not have it. The evidence raised in studies, in lab tests, surveys, etc. is enough for society to make a decision for the greater good and discourage the use of a selfish indulgence--marijuana--that has a negative effect on law-abiding non-users.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

First of all I am proposing that it be tightly regulated with restrictions on age. Second, I said time and time again that paranoia, anxiety, and other side effects are rare and have a reason for them. Whether the reason is the users age, irresponsible dose or the users family history. The majority of the users will not get these effects and the ones that do will not harms others and if they do they are accountable for their actions. The activity is going on regardless of its legality. Also we really do not know what the societal effects are but as I said earlier, cannabis was legal in this country at some time during the turn of the century and the police did not find a problem with the jazz clubs where cannabis was smoked.

That is not the case. Those are the more common side-effects. Psychosis, schizophrenia, and hallucinations were the only side-effects that were actually specified in relation to higher dosage levels, predispositions, etc. The other side-effects still pose a threat to the safety and health of people around the user, and for that reason, it's illogical to simply allow it to be readily accessible. Society has every reason to discourage an activity that can lead to the irresponsible harming of an innocent life, that's pure and simple morality. People are held responsible for their actions, they're allowed the choice. If they make the wrong choice--when it's an easy choice to make in the first place--they're dealt with accordingly.

Yes, the activity is going on regardless. That gives society more of a reason to persist. Drug users want legalization, yet they continue to senselessly and purposelessly defy easy-to-follow rules set in place by society for the greater good of law-abiding citizens. That's not the way to get the the results one desires, and society's not about to give in to the demands of people like that--especially when at the same time--those drug users are only contributing to the overall crime rate. It doesn't work like that.

Thoreau, you know better than to try and apply a reference from 100 years ago to present day. You criticized me for that at one point in time--and the reference I had used wasn't even that far back in time. Of course things were different in the early 1900s. Science changes over time, as does general knowledge. We know much more about marijuana today than we did in the early 1900s. Much more. I doubt we really knew anything about it then.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

They are also rare which is what makes them side effects and not primary effects. Then are you for decriminalization? Legalization makes it a legal product to sell decriminalization makes it a legal product to possess. Just because a person has a mental illness does not make them a violent person. The cannabis surfaces a dormant condition over time, how is this a threat to non-users?

ever heard of civil disobedience? Also many non-users are tired of their tax dollars going to irraticate a plant. It is the only time cannabis was not criminalized. Which brings up the fact that cannabis has been used by humans for thousands of years but only in this century has it been prohibited. If cannabis made non-users live such a hell as you claimed earlier then why was it not prohibited earlier? And no the claims made to make it illegal in the 1930s were not based on science.

The least this country should do is have scientists review cannabis scientifically and come up with a conclusion on how we should approach this issue. Oh wait we already did, the infamous schaeffer report that was buried by Nixon, the report recomended that marijuana not be criminalized.

I know I've told you about the use of cannabis here where I live. I just want to make the point again about how the people here have been using the wild product that grows here naturally since they first came here about 600 to 700 years ago. The authorities have tried unsuccessfully to stop it and selling it is still a crime but when something grows wild, and is indigeneous to the region, it is very difficult to contain the growth of it.
The point I want to make is that the employers here say that they allow the use of it because it makes the workers more relaxed, they don't have as many fights among the workers if they let them use it and it also keeps them focussed on what would otherwise be extremely tedious work (try cutting sugar cane all day) The problems arise when they mix it with alcohol, which is another huge problem here. It would be interesting to see a study conducted here between the people who use it and the people who don't. I think that would give a far more valid picture than one taken of people you use it socially or recreationally. The use of it here is like cigarettes, in the same way that people used to grow tobacco and roll their own cigarettes, men here crush their own grass that grows everywhere here and smoke it as much as they would a cigarette, there's no sitting with a drink and passing a joint between two fingers as you see it done in the movies, a guy will roll his joint lick the paper to seal it, light it and hang it in his lips then get on with his job. The next time he stops for a cup of tea or his lunch or something, he'll start another. Just like you would with a cigarette. And there's no crazy people running around here, just nice, mellow, friendly chilled out people.

No, I said they are common... They can't be both common and rare. Irritability, paranoia, anxiety, impaired cognition and distorted perception are all common side effects of marijuana, as listed in the many sources I've provided. The symptoms/side-effects listed as resulting from heavier doses or certain other factors such as predisposition are psychosis schizophrenia, hallucinations, etc.

Don't resort to strawman arguments Thoreau, I know you better than that. A substance--used for nothing more than recreational selfish indulgence--that unnaturally induces a mental illness--is not right. It's not logical to allow something like that to remain easily accessible, no. Society has every reason to discourage the use of a substance that manipulates human brain chemistry in a way that induces mental instability--in both short term and long term degrees.


Yeah, I've heard of civil disobedience. I've also heard of logic. Protesting the drug ban is illogical. It's not oppression, it's about the furthest thing away from oppression. The drug laws are completely reasonable. Recreational drugs are obviously not needed for any aspect of human life whatsoever. It's been proven time and time again that they cause more damage than good. There are scenarios that call for civil disobedience and this, my friend, is not one of them.

Your rights are not being infringed. You are not being oppressed by any human, moral, or constitutional standards. That's the only problem with the "civil disobedience" theory. Guess who's to blame for tax dollars going to the drug effort? Drug users. There you have it. Drug users are to blame for that little factor, they're the ones who fail to make the very easy choice in the first place I find it ironic that you'd somehow try to blame that on society.

It's just like the whole cigarette industry story. No one knew that cigarettes were poisonous. Smokers probably figured that they were coughing from the cigarettes, but non-smokers probably didn't have much of a clue. There was little to no information in circulation in the media about what was actually in cigarettes when they first came out. No one knew about secondhand smoke. There were no big bright surgeon general warning labels pasted to cigarette cartons. Then, after word got out, after studies were done, people found out. It's the same way with marijuana. People probably experienced it, but they most likely wouldn't have known what caused it.


That doesn't really prove anything. One scientist said "lets legalize marijuana." That never makes a difference in a nation anyway. That's not an argument. The opinion of one man wouldn't end up getting that kind of drug legislation passed. Hell, nothing would, as our politicians are much too sensible to give in to that garbage.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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