Fair enough.

__________________
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

I believe that marijuana should be the National Plant.

I see. Do we even have a national plant? Or do you think we should just make it so...? I will politely disagree, but I got a good chuckle from the idea.

__________________
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

that can be said about A LOT of thing, like nicer clothing, expensive sneakers, lobster, most of television, etc etc etc - but we will do want them and have an option to consume them, purchase them, and do what we want with them. you could argue that watching to much TV is worse then pot. It is bad for your eyes, your back, your weight, your fitness levels, your heart due to inactivity and on and on and one. Add it all up and you have way more negative damage to society then pot, but we still sell TV's, pay taxes on them etc etc.

__________________
Political Disgust

Television isn't directly harmful or even potentially hazardous to anyone but those who choose to watch it. That's the idea here. People should be able to make their own decisions and do what they want as long as their choices and actions are not harmful or risky to those around them. Television is certainly not harmful or risky to those around the individuals choosing to watch it, and there's no evidence that indicates otherwise. It's an absurd theory. Marijuana is a completely different story--inducing side-effects that are potentially hazardous and risky, side effects that are outwardly unhealthy and unpleasant, etc.

__________________
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

Just like marijuana. That's the idea here. Your neighbor lights up a joint or watches TV in the privacy of his own home and neither activity effects you in ANY way. Exactly what about the whole violence on TV leads to real life violence argument? My argument for marijuana decrim./legalization that punish those that harm others could apply here to, if someone harms another it was there conscious decision to do so and they will be punished for it.
There is no evidence that these side effects that effect a minority of users and effect a user for the deration of the high, will cause someone to murder or cause harm to their family or friends, it just is not going to happen. Despite what reefer-madness sensational yellow journalism of the 1930s may say.

__________________
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell

There is evidence that marijuana use causes psychosis, impaired cognitive abilities, hallucinations, and even schizophrenia-like symptoms, and new research is becoming conclusively more and more negative in that mental aspect of the drug. That information doesn't come from "Reefer Madness," there are many legitimate points of reference that I've used throughout this debate for those side-effects (and you know this as much as I do). Television doesn't cause anything like that. At best, there are some people who have theorized that violent television might have some effect on what you're suggesting. But the most that comes out of that are theories. No real evidence or conclusive details.

Medical diagnoses, stats, charts, etc. on the other hand show marijuana as capable of inducing severely unstable, unpredictable mental side-effects, and that's added to the fact that it's inherently unpleasant and unhealthy to the user and those around the user without the side effects anyway. It's a selfish worthless indulgence yet it also impedes upon the rights of nonusers. The indulgence itself is fine. But part two of that equation crosses the line. It's no different with the speeding example.

Speeding can be seen as a "victimless crime" by the same damn logic. Someone speeds in a car is anyone getting hurt when they're speeding? No, but what's happening at the same time? There's a major increase in stopping distance and the vehicle they're driving becomes much harder to control. Unnecessary risk and potential hazard to those around them because of a selfish idiotic thing they chose to do. Someone smokes pot, is anyone getting hurt? Maybe not at the moment, but what's happening? God only knows what's going on in their brains. We haven't even mapped the whole human brain yet, so there's an additional factor to consider. What we do know is that it induces unstable and unpredictable side-effects such as psychosis, hallucinations, paranoia, impaired cognitive abilities, and even schizophrenia-like symptoms. Unnecessary risk and potential hazard to those around the user because of a selfish idiotic thing the user chose to do.

So in those cases is society going to wait for there to be a victim? No. Why not? Because that's ridiculous. Both scenarios are initiated by selfish, foolish actions--by people who don't seem to care about the consequences.

__________________
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

There is evidence that marijuana can induce psychosis and other mental problems, that is true. Though it is only for those with a genetic predisposition, this does represent a threat to society and members of it in many ways.

But this is true of any drug. Caffeine can induce psychosis in the exact same way. Same as alcohol, or even anti-depressants. Many forms of legal behavior do as well, those who are genetically predisposed are at risk of psychosis from violent imagery as well as addictive behaviors such as gambling.

You cannot attempt to protect the minds of free citizens, at least not without revoking their constitutionally held freedoms through due process.

Is schizophrenia illegal? No, we admit that we do not know what is the best for a persons psyche, so we allow those who wish to indulge in insanity to go unmedicated despite the inherit risk involved.

If we did not we would be wrong, we would be forcing addictive drugs into people system for no other reason than because it pacifies them, making them less of a risk to others. We have the freedom to be mentally unstable if we chose, because if we didn't all it would take to control someone is to declare them mentally unstable.

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. 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? 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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

__________________
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 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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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?


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?

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.