DeletedUser
Bad analogies for $500 please, Alex.
- Status
Bad analogies for $500 please, Alex.
DeletedUser
Just a reminder:
You can debate legalization, but you can't endorse the use of substances that are currently illegal in most countries, whether they should be or not.
You can debate legalization, but you can't endorse the use of substances that are currently illegal in most countries, whether they should be or not.
DeletedUser
A person who contributes nothing but still runs their mouth.
[spoil]Who is Adelei Niska?[/spoil]
That's correct!
DeletedUser
He's right. Comparing criminalization of marijuana with criminalization of McDonald's is that same slippery slope fallacy that conservatives commit so frequently.
DeletedUser
I was speaking facetiously. Of course it's a silly comparison -- that's the point. Thing is, I'm waiting for someone to speak out against legalizing marijuana. Until then, I'm allowed to throw out all the ridiculous comparisons I choose.
DeletedUser
Funny, you can't usually swing a dead cat without hitting a conservative until you actually need one.
Note: I'm not actually endorsing swinging dead cats.
DeletedUser
1. It's no more a gateway drug than alcohol
2. In regards to pain therapy, I'd rather take it than Vicadin, Dilaudid, chemicals, etc.
3. The tax dollars we spend on defeating it is appalling
4. Tax the hell out of it!
2. In regards to pain therapy, I'd rather take it than Vicadin, Dilaudid, chemicals, etc.
3. The tax dollars we spend on defeating it is appalling
4. Tax the hell out of it!
DeletedUser
I definitely wouldn't call marijuana a pain killer, as a matter of fact, I'd call it a pain enhancer.
Other than that, solid.
Other than that, solid.
DeletedUser
The point is that it's a silly comparison that can easily be dismissed...
The only point I see is at the top of your dunce cap.
DeletedUser
Boys, its a debate and discussion section. Not a peeing contest. Let's keep it civil...everyone.
It should be legal. All the arguments about how bad mary is are based in fallacy and propaganda. Now see? Isn't it much nicer when we all get along.
It should be legal. All the arguments about how bad mary is are based in fallacy and propaganda. Now see? Isn't it much nicer when we all get along.
DeletedUser
Actually, Divest, it allows those dealing with pain (chronic or acute) to better concentrate on the pain and learning to compartmentalize it. A learning tool, of sorts.
DeletedUser
Very true. When my brother was dying he had a prescription for it. For pain and for appetite.
DeletedUser
Bureau Official: Here is an example: A fifteen-year-old lad apprehended in the act of staging a holdup - fifteen years old and a marijuana addict. Here is a most tragic case.
Dr. Carroll: Yes. I remember. Just a young boy... under the influence of drugs... who killed his entire family with an axe.
Dr. Carroll: Yes. I remember. Just a young boy... under the influence of drugs... who killed his entire family with an axe.
DeletedUser
In that case I wouldn't know anything about that, but I'm glad to hear it.
All's I know is: Don't stub your toe or get a tattoo or piercing while you're high.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I'm all for legalising cannibis, provided there are age restrictions, health warnings/education campaigns and hefty taxes, just like for tobacco and alcohol.
Unfortunately I also think that all the misinformation that was once spread about the dangers of cannibis use has led to a popular denial now about the real problems this drug can cause:
If I had known that, perhaps I would not have smoked so much in my teenage years, especially after my uncle was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Unfortunately I also think that all the misinformation that was once spread about the dangers of cannibis use has led to a popular denial now about the real problems this drug can cause:
If I had known that, perhaps I would not have smoked so much in my teenage years, especially after my uncle was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
DeletedUser
George, I always have issues with those sorts of studies, primarily because in the end they exploit the "chicken or the egg." What I mean is, there are no sociologic, nor psychological, studies regarding whether marijuana creates those problems, or whether those with the propensity for such problems are more motivated to take marijuana. Those sorts of studies would be biochemical studies, and there is no debate about these because they are definitive. However, the gross lack of such studies undermines the veracity of "chicken or the egg" motive-based psychosociological studies. What I mean is, they aren't really studies, but shortcut answers based on pure laziness. They haven't made enough research into the subject, just speculations, and in an effort to substantiate their very existence, they pose a conclusion. Or, more aptly, a causation. It doesn't really matter whether they're right or wrong, it matters that they serve their particular purpose in the scheme of pro/con arguments.
DeletedUser
I agree that causation is very difficult to determine, but the text I quoted actually raises the issues of causation and possible self medication.
This came from the Royal Society of Psychiatrists, and my personal experiences would lead me to trust their assesment. I smoked pot every day from age 15 to age 21, and I have had problems with anxiety and depression for my entire adult life. To dismiss all the studies that have been made as "speculation" and "pure laziness" is a great discredit to mental health professionals and scientists who are attempting to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, various illnesses. Your argument is an old one that some of these studies were actually attempting to address, to some degree.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Trust me, if I had more time, I would readily discredit the mental health profession. I worked in that field for sometime and have little respect for their largely unscientific approach to research, in that they, failing controlled studies and failing sufficient information, preemptively jump to conclusions. Also, while there is a huge difference between psychology and psychiatry, both fields unfortunately commit similarly flawed studies.
That little line you quoted bothers me on a multitude of levels. There is no indication as to whether these previously diagnosed children were receiving treatment, whether medical or counsel, and thus had no need to self-medicate; there is no indication as to how many children fell into this little "sample;" there is nothing to indicate these children had more or less accessibility to cannabis.
These sorts of studies are based on behavior which, by default, are not controllable. I.e., you cannot readily perform controlled studies on behavior of humans, at least not without breaking a plethora of laws and being labeled as a human rights violator. No, behavioral studies are simply not reliable, and the samplings of these studies are so grossly limited as to make these sorts of studies a mere feeding for doctoral dissertations on psychology/sociology, and not otherwise reliable, nor viable except as dinner table banter.
Far more reliable studies can be performed with long-term, blind research on the influences of drugs on the brain and body, which can more readily be performed, in a controlled environment, on animals, using utilities such as MRIs, chemical samplings, and biopsies. Such studies are not, however, what you are discussing. No, what you're discussing are little more than masturbative studies on causal contrivance.
That little line you quoted bothers me on a multitude of levels. There is no indication as to whether these previously diagnosed children were receiving treatment, whether medical or counsel, and thus had no need to self-medicate; there is no indication as to how many children fell into this little "sample;" there is nothing to indicate these children had more or less accessibility to cannabis.
These sorts of studies are based on behavior which, by default, are not controllable. I.e., you cannot readily perform controlled studies on behavior of humans, at least not without breaking a plethora of laws and being labeled as a human rights violator. No, behavioral studies are simply not reliable, and the samplings of these studies are so grossly limited as to make these sorts of studies a mere feeding for doctoral dissertations on psychology/sociology, and not otherwise reliable, nor viable except as dinner table banter.
Far more reliable studies can be performed with long-term, blind research on the influences of drugs on the brain and body, which can more readily be performed, in a controlled environment, on animals, using utilities such as MRIs, chemical samplings, and biopsies. Such studies are not, however, what you are discussing. No, what you're discussing are little more than masturbative studies on causal contrivance.
DeletedUser
impossible
recent studies have show that its 100% impossible to get addicted to the drug itself. i think that there been so much
h its bad for you it makes you dilusianal BLAHBLAHBLAHpeople make them selves addicted to the drug so its your whack job of a brain thats causing you to be addicted.ive seen people do it but they made them selves addicted.heck you can get addicted to anything!
im addicted to mountain dew my friend is addicted to sleeping even
recent studies have show that its 100% impossible to get addicted to the drug itself. i think that there been so much
h its bad for you it makes you dilusianal BLAHBLAHBLAHpeople make them selves addicted to the drug so its your whack job of a brain thats causing you to be addicted.ive seen people do it but they made them selves addicted.heck you can get addicted to anything!im addicted to mountain dew my friend is addicted to sleeping evenDeletedUser
I don't think you really know what addiction is. That is part of the problem. People are addicted to everything nowadays even though it isn't clinically an addiction.
addiction - the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
You may really like Mountain Dew and it is your beverage of choice but you aren't going to steal and lie to get one. Nor will you have physical withdrawal symptoms should you go a day or even a week without it.
addiction - the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
You may really like Mountain Dew and it is your beverage of choice but you aren't going to steal and lie to get one. Nor will you have physical withdrawal symptoms should you go a day or even a week without it.
- Status