TheKentuckian

Maybe pot has some very positive side effects that you don't consider like promoting the economy through increasing traffic to 7/11's, television upgrades, video game systems, supportting pizza franchises, increasing music purchases, movie viewership, and internet usage. Revenue is a positive, as well as the huge savings from not have enforcement, prison, and court resources tied up.

Pot also may have the benefit of being an excellent form of relaxation and a primer for creative and "out of the box" thinking. Many works of the various arts may have sprung from the mind of a "high" person.

There is also something to be said about it not being the state's job to decide what state of mind best suites any individual. For any behavior/action that a person takes that infringes on another has a law that can be enforced-DUI, theft, murder, manslughter, rape, to freaking jaywalking.

This means that inbibing substance or listening to any particulr music is not the source of the harm to another but the action. Yet, for purely selfish reasons-a seeming afront to your personal point of view you wish to have codefied punishment for substances and by inference nearly anything you deem to be less than edifying. This is proven by your assertion that you make no claim on any deterant value or that resources put into enforcement have any use other than punishing people for doing something you think is silly and or look down on.

We need no prohibitions whatsoever for pot or any substance, we need to worry about actions that damage others on their own merrits.

I feel as you are basicly espousing a goverment much closer to China's than anything America has ever supposed to have been about. I bet a communist goverment with a capitalist economy is your dream world.

Locke9-05

There was no interpretation to be made in the first place, the research is incredibly clear. I didn't "interpret" it at all, so there's no way in hell I "misinterpreted" it. The side-effects are listed clearly as the result of the research, I didn't interpret it, I simply laid out the sources that list those side-effects.
I don't see any supporting evidence backing any of that. Just your words. Your words are fine and good, but they really don't mean much without any supporting evidence.
Indeed it looks that way. The studies are not concrete, they have no confirmed results, but along the same lines as marijuana, there's no need for it such if the substance has no real overall benefit to society and the health and safety of those around the people who ingest/use the substance is at risk.
It's quite obvious then, that you don't see, nor do you understand the rules and policy of this forum. Personally abrasive attacks like that are against the rules here--discuss the issue, not the poster. I never said I was a fascist, if I had, that part of your post might even be considered somewhat legitimate. Since I didn't, however, it was nothing more than a personally offensive straw man supposition. Refrain from such comments in the future please.

Along the same lines, familiarizing oneself with terms thrown out in debate (especially terms used against other posters) is always a good thing. Fascism is defined as:
Laws against marijuana are not fascist. If they were, you would not be able to question them. I am not a fascist. If I was, you would be banned simply for disagreeing with me. I deplore fascism. What's more is that fascist regimes are often oppressive. Laws against marijuana are not oppressive. You do not need marijuana for any aspect of human life, you don't even need it for comfort. You have so many other natural and safe options besides it. It is insulting and degrading to those throughout history who actually have experienced true governmental oppression to try and label the laws against marijuana "oppressive."
This isn't an issue of control. People are still going to make choices and the government can't stop them from doing so. The government is encouraging people to stop par taking in an activity that is outwardly unhealthy, unpleasant, and hazardous to more people than just the user. The activity is a violation of the constitutional rights of those around the user to live reasonably safe lives in the pursuit of happiness. The government can't physically control people, that whole argument of yours acting as if it can and does is a major fallacy. People will continue to make choices. The government simply enforces consistent consequences for poor choices--in this case, choices that negatively affect the people around those who make the choices.
No that's not "all that matters." A psychiatrist is not the one who is charged with preserving the collective good of all the citizens. So while it may not matter to a psychiatrist (they still have a job to do, money to make), it matters to those with the responsibility of preserving the collective. Those who do not choose their ailments are assisted. It only makes sense. Society has no reason to help those who choose to induce such side-effects, conditions and ailments. They made a choice that put those around them at risk--it's a choice, the point of justice is to penalize poor choices (in this case, choices that put the collective at risk).
If this is ever actually proven, I would not oppose it. I've said this time and time and again, but it seems many on the pro-legalization side of this debate have an affinity for very selective reading/retaining. I have no problem with medical marijuana because it has a beneficial purpose and value to society that balances out with the negatives if regulated.
Those drugs have a purpose that is beneficial to society just like medical marijuana. They serve the collective if regulated and used correctly. Recreational marijuana does not serve the collective, it is an individualist pleasure. That's fine by itself, but when you add the negatives, you have a completely negative balance and society is right to enforce consequences against it.

Environmental cause of psychiatric disorders? Psychiatric disorders aren't caused by environmental factors. There are environmental triggers, but the disorders themselves are more complicated than that.
1 in 3 Americans will have Alzheimer's by the age of 70 years. Secondly, the correlation between aluminum and Alzheimer's is a very weak one. Lastly, it's literally impossible to eliminate contact with aluminum in one's environment, so that argument is a complete fallacy. As for those experiencing schizophrenia-like symptoms because of illegal drugs, no they shouldn't be forced to take anti-psychotics, they should be jailed... Repeat offenders should be forced to work to pay back their debt to society, rather than wasting our prison space, etc.
Here in the United States we have speed limits. If you speed--a legal term for driving faster than the speed limits--it is illegal. The labeled offense and consequence varies depending on exactly how much faster than the speed limit the offender was going.
If their behavior is a hazard to the right of others to live a reasonably safe life in the "pursuit of happiness," yes you can. This is not an anarchy, no matter how much you or anyone else might want it to be. People can not do whatever they want to do. Citizens have natural rights, but those do not include smoking marijuana and those natural rights don't entitle them to do whatever they want at the expense of those around them.
In those instances, nothing is physically manipulating brain chemistry, altering cognitive abilities (decision making capabilities), and inducing side-effects that are negative. There is no negative manipulation of the human mind or body in those conditions. Cognitive, mentally aware choice is still available to people who are not under the influence. Recreational drugs are different. They have no collective purpose, they serve only the selfish, anarchical individual. That's fine and good by itself. Then you add the negative outwardly healthy, unpleasant, and potentially hazardous effects of the drug, however, and you have a completely negative balance that infringes upon the rights of nonusers to live a reasonably safe, healthy life in the pursuit of happiness.
If they are illegal drugs, then yes. If the drugs they selfishly use induce unhealthy, unpleasant and potentially hazardous side-effects at the expense of those around them, then yes... They forfeit the rights they had as law-abiding citizens.
No we don't. We do not have the right to pursue happiness at the expense of those around us. That's what's known as anarchy. That doesn't work. That's why we have governments. We can not induce mental instability, as that is not necessary for happiness in the first place. And it's outwardly unhealthy, unpleasant and hazardous to others who's right to pursue happiness is then infringed upon because of such selfish idiocy. No, that's not a right we have. What an absurd idea.
One can say anything they want to, no matter if it's correct or not. What's clear is that none of those things physically manipulate human brain chemistry, inducing negative side-effects such as hallucinations, paranoia, impaired cognitive abilities, psychosis, and schizophrenia-like symptoms, etc. at the expense of others.
No. We're not generalizing about all activities that some people think can be attributed to mental conditions. We're talking specifically about one without any benefit or value to society. We're talking about a behavior that is selfish and anarchical by definition. It is individualistic and at the same time it's harmful. It has no place in society.

__________________
"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
___________________

Delta9

Which sources are those exactly?

If you have issue with something I say, ask me to source it. I'm not going to waste my time sourcing every point though, only the ones you hold in contention. I can only assume you take issue with psychosis being genetically linked so I'll source that.

Cannabis study finds gene linked to psychosis - 29 Apr 2005 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news



So you think that caffeine too should be illegal?

My apology. What I should have said was, your ideals are based upon fascism.

Thats a definition of fascism the system of government, not fascism the political ideology. Theres a big difference.

First of all, I was talking about prohibition of alcohol, not of marijuana. But is isn't as if that really matters.

You don't need the right to voice your opinion to live.. nor for comfort. You also don't need privacy to live. Is it not oppression to take away those basic rights?

How is it not an issue of control? When you jail someone for a crime you are attempting to control them, you are threatening them with harsh consequences in the hope of extinguishing disliked behavior.

Since when was there a constitutional right to 'reasonably safe' lives? That would be a very moronic amendment, seeing as the term 'reasonably safe' is entirely subjective. It would give far too much jurisdiction to the supreme court on many issues.


You completely shrugged off my point, not all conditions are completely involuntary. NOR is that necessary in order to prescribe drugs to a person.

Thats the point though isn't it, none of it's proven. There is no proof that anti-depressants cure depression. Nor is there proof marijuana can be used to treat depression. There are positive results that suggest it may be effective, but there will never be proof.

You cannot say that they are beneficial to society, that is entirely a matter of opinion. They have practical uses, but there is no evidence they are good for society. There is scientific proof that all of those drugs are addictive (medically addictive meaning they wear down the neuro-receptors, something THC does not), but none that they actually help people. In fact, one could argue they are just as much about comfort as marijuana.

Like perhaps the complicated disorder that makes one prone to psychosis? The same psychosis that is triggered by marijuana and other kinds of psychoactive drugs.

Jailed for what? Being schizophrenic?

It still isn't criminal unless you are proven to be driving recklessly to the point that you endanger the lives of others. At that point, your risk of killing someone is FAR higher than your risk of killing someone by smoking pot. Yet it is always a criminal offense to smoke pot..


The standard of deeming their behavior hazardous to the health of others is very high. Considering that very few (if any) deaths can be attributed to marijuana psychosis I would say it does not meet this standard at all. If you make marijuana illegal under those grounds than speeding at all should be made criminal, since speeding is proven to cause thousands of deaths.

Not just that, you would have to make many other things criminal. The use of a cellphone (particularly while driving), the ownership of a firearm, running a stop light, the burning of tires or other forms of pollution, overuse of antibiotics, not properly washing your hands, fasting for long periods of time even (can induce many of the same symptoms of marijuana), ect.

All of those pose a health risk to those around you, albeit small. But there is no evidence the health risk to those around marijuana smokers is any higher, in fact there is no evidence there is any health risk to those around marijuana smokers.

the risk [of being killed by a stranger with psychosis] is around the same as that of being killed by lightning - about 1 in 10 million*
Mental Health Care | Schizophrenia and psychosis | Violence and mental illness



Thats not true, in the case of schizophrenics, and those prone to psychosis (some argue they are one in the same), there are most definately manipulations in brain chemistry. Violence can induce psychosis, as well as sleep deprevation, stress, and nearly anything that can cause stress.

And in those who aren't prone to psychosis, 'cognitive, mentally aware choice' is still available.


It shouldn't matter if the drugs are illegal or not, thats dodging the real question. What if they are legal drugs? Like alcohol, or caffeine.

Yes we do as a matter of fact. We have the right to pursue happiness unless it violates another persons right. Smoking pot does not violate anyone else's rights unless you hurt them. Simply raising the likelihood that you may hurt someone does not infringe upon their rights.

It isn't at the expense of others until you actually harm them.

And actually, all of those things physically manipulate your brain chemistry. They modulate dopamine levels to say the least.

And what of pet ownership? Is that not always a risk to those around you?

schecter30

No. And yes I've smoked before.

Locke9-05

I've listed those sources numerous times throughout this debate. If you haven't read the progression of it, I'd recommend doing so, it's best to at least skim over some of the posts before requesting sources that have already been posted so many times. Otherwise, you can use the search tool. I've posted those sources way too many times to have someone join in the topic for the first time and simply ask me to re-post them because they don't feel like familiarizing themselves with the progression of the topic.
I have an issue with you rebutting my sources with nothing more than unbacked suppositions--which is what the portion I replied to consisted of. You were discussing scientific medical conditions as if you had some factual information on the topic, yet I saw no real factual information being presented to support any of the things you posted. I can rebut that with a source as well (one which ironically I've used time and time again, this will be at least the 5th time I've re-posted it):

Cannabis psychosis
Based on observations--as seen in Dr. Boettcher's studies--he states that there are cases of occurring cannabis psychosis in people without any family or personal history of psychiatric illness. So the "purely pre-disposition" defense really doesn't hold much water.
If studies show that the negatives outweigh the positives--enough so that there is a definite risk, then there's no reason to keep it around, so yes. I'm not about to preach hypocrisy against the very standards I've maintained for quite some time.
What you should have done is thought about what you were going to post before you posted it--and it seems as if you still haven't done that. Fascism in no way matches the argument against marijuana. That is absurd. That is about as partisan of a liberal jab as I've ever heard--right up there with "Orwellian" and "authoritarian." It is not fascism to encourage a safe society. It is not fascism to preserve the natural rights of those who would otherwise be negatively affected by the selfish behavior of individuals with no care for laws or order--near anarchists. That's what this nation is based on. Safety and natural rights for the collective. However, smoking pot is not a natural right. The right to live a reasonably safe, healthy life without the nuisance or worry of people choosing to impair their senses around you to the point of psychosis and schizophrenia is a natural right--living a reasonably safe, healthy life (if that is what one so chooses) is included in the pursuit of happiness. Marijuana and other recreational drugs are not necessary for happiness. They are unnecessary. That's fine and good by itself, but then you add the factor of proven unnecessary harm--observed induced psychosis, hallucinations, schizophrenia-like symptoms, etc. and you have a substance that has no place in this collective society.
No, there really isn't a "big" difference. You told me you used Wikipedia for your source for this. Perhaps you didn't notice this very important detail:
There was no reason to use the term "fascist." No reason at all. Your motives were quite obvious, you could very well have used the much more socially acceptable term "conservative," which is what my ideology can be considered, not "fascist." That partisan attack was absurd in so many ways.
No, but the right to voice your opinion is a right granted by the United States Constitution... So it's fairly obvious what the framers of our nation felt about that. As for privacy, privacy is an interesting matter. There's nowhere that explicitly grants the people "the right to privacy," but the 4th amendment to the Constitution protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures--requiring a warrant for such business, so that can be loosely interpreted as the right to privacy. As you can see, our natural rights, and those established by the framers are very clearly spelled out here. There is no right to "get stoned off your ass." There is no right to "induce crazy highs including psychotic symptoms..." There are no rights designating that the people can do whatever they want at the expense of those around them. In fact, that's when the law gets involved. When people have to endure unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous conditions/environments because of the selfish actions of selfish individualists who don't care about others, then those nonusers right to the pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon. We have the right to live a reasonably safe and healthy life, free of such unreasonable safety hazards, and the government is the only thing that can preserve that right.
Yet people still make those foolish choices, do they not? Despite the consequences they are well aware of, some still choose to break the law, using a substance sometimes at the expense of those around them merely for selfish individualistic gain. It's not control, because we always have a choice. Literally always. The government emphasizes the right choice by the standards of this society. In this case, the argument is that they're correct. The government may not always be correct in doing so, but this is fairly clear-cut.
It's part of the pursuit to happiness, which marijuana use (as you so absurdly tried to claim was as well) is not. I'll show you exactly why the government preserves the safety of the people:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article I Section VIII
Visit the link and click on the word "welfare." It links to "the Constitutional Dictionary" of the site in which it displays the definition of the word in the context of when the Constitution was drafted and signed:

"Welfare"
Health, happiness, prosperity. Congress has the power/responsibility to preserve that. And there you have it. That's why there are laws preventing selfish anarchical individualists from behaving in ways that may compromise the health, happiness, or prosperity of others. That's how this nation was founded, if you don't like it, take it up with the government. Good luck, though.
No I addressed the specific contextual examples you provided... Would you care to give me some examples of conditions that are involuntary? Real conditions?
There is proof that anti-depressants aid depression and the symptoms that come along with it. There is proof that they ease the pain of one suffering because of it, just like there is proof that marijuana induces side-effects such as psychosis, schizophrenia, etc. I've never seen proof of marijuana doing anything more than causing people to go into idiotic, selfish highs--sometimes at the expense of those around them, often at the expense of friends and family.

__________________
"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

(continued...)

No it's not an opinion. Recreational marijuana is by definition recreational. It's an individualistic indulgence. There is nothing of value to society that results from someone smoking a joint and getting high off their ass. That's fine and good, like I said, no benefit isn't a problem, but what is a problem is the negative and harmful side-effects that come along with that.
I don't know which drugs you're talking about now, you didn't specify. I assume you're talking about prescription anti-depressants, etc. and in that case, there is proof that they ease the symptoms of depression, therefore benefiting society.
I already refuted the "purely pre-disposition" defense. It's quite obvious that cannabis can induce psychosis all by itself. It's also quite obvious that cannabis has no beneficial value to society with which to balance out negatives such as the long list of harmful side-effects.
Jailed for choosing to use a selfish, illegal drug that induced schizophrenia-like symptoms. You forget, we're not talking about schizophrenia here, nor are we only talking about people with a record or pre-disposition of psychiatric illnesses. This is about a scenario in which a choice was made that induced a volatile and unstable mental condition. Yes, they should be jailed. Personal responsibility. I'd expect nothing less for myself if I were to do something that stupid.
They're both against the law... The difference is that motor vehicles are beneficial to society. They have a value to society that balances out the idiots that abuse the responsibility that comes with driving them. Recreational marijuana lacks that benefit, that value to society. So naturally, there's no reason to play around with "what ifs" when something is simply worthless and harmful at the same time.
The use of a cell phone while driving is a punishable offense in certain states/counties/etc. In some places, officers cannot pull you over for it, but if you're speeding and talking on a cell phone, they can write you up additionally for the cell phone. It's only reasonable. If I have to make a call while I'm driving, I pull over--into a neighborhood or parking lot for a moment. It's nothing but selfish egocentric idiocy to endanger the lives of others just so I can make a damn call. As for the fasting example, I see no source to support that and until I do, that remains nothing more than a supposition/unbacked theory. The ownership of a firearm is another right granted by the Constitution. That's enough in and of itself to refute that example. Secondly, guns don't physically alter brain chemistry, manipulating a person's mind in negative ways, etc. Burning tires is usually punishable by law. Not properly washing your hands is personal hygiene, there's nothing society can do there but encourage people to maintain good personal hygiene. Bacteria spreads much further from us simply talking, coughing, sneezing, etc. than physical contact with hands, so that negates that absurd theory.
Oh right, being around people using a substance that induces psychosis, hallucinations, impaired cognitive abilities, and schizophrenia-like symptoms isn't a health risk... No, it's a health risk and it's a safety risk. An unnecessary, unreasonable one. Secondhand smoke is unhealthy, and the side-effects are unstable and risky at best.
Are we talking about death, necessarily? No. And the fact that there's a risk is enough in the first place because we're discussing a substance with no beneficial value to society with which to balance out the negatives.
It's not available to those who smoke marijuana. Impaired cognitive abilities (decision making skills) is another side-effect. Those "environmental factors" are triggers, not causes. We've been over this before. Marijuana (more specifically THC) is a chemical that physically and fairly quickly (arguably immediately) aff