<p>Allmusic: “Some of these medications are more dangerous than a little marijuana, and are used to escape problems. But people consider big pharm meds safe and legitimate, and frown at marijuana, even though it may be technically safer in the long run.”</p>
<p>You might be correct. I don’t “frown” at marijuana, BTW. I just think it is important that people know the facts. It is very addictive, and it does destroy lives. In my opinion, doctors should be able to prescribe it for medical reasons, but it should never be legal.</p>
<p>emeraldkity4: ""One more thing…People with really healthy minds do not have to escape reality.</p>
<p>judgemental much?</p>
<p>Ever hear of a vacation?"</p>
<p>Read much? The point I made had to do with using SUBSTANCES to escape reality. I think it is great to debate, but if you aren’t going to read carefully, why bother?</p>
<p>cartera45: “Spidey, you are right that self medicating is not healthy and using substances to escape reality is not so healthy, but that is not the standard for making things illegal,…We have limited resources and spending them on prosecution and incarceration just isn’t helping.”</p>
<p>I agree with your last point. I do think that pot should stay illegal, however. Perhaps the consequences should change. Putting someone behind bars for drugs (particularly pot) seems ridiculous, since usually what offenders need is treatment. Treatment would be more effective, and less expensive for society.</p>
<p>spideygirl: Why should you decide for others? Clearly, you disapprove of grass. Don’t smoke it. I have no desire to either, but still wish it were legal.</p>
<p>As for the argument that people drink for the taste: are ya kiddin? People work hard to acquire a taste for alcohol or bury under the strongest mixers they can because I don’t think the taste is the appeal. I’m pretty sure the relaxation of inhibitions or even the buzz is the appeal, even for people who don’t drink to excess and don’t drink to get drunk.</p>
<p>I am as entitled to my opinion as the next CCer - we’re all here giving out $.02 on pot. If you want to legalize it, then you want to make decisions for others as well (yes, people can choose for themselves whether or not to use it, but your decision would make it readily available and structure laws and society in a way which suits your viewpoint). You can’t have a political opinion that doesn’t “decide for others”.</p>
<p>I never argued that “people drink for the taste”. Go back and read my posts. I stated that I thought it was OK if people drink because they like the taste with or without food, but that it was not healthy if they were consuming alcohol to get buzzed (and therefore were using it as a substance to escape reality).</p>
<p>I would not say that I “disapprove” of grass. I wouldn’t choose those words to describe my feelings. I certainly am comfortable with it being illegal, because I have seen the devastation it can cause in people’s lives, in families, and in society. I believe studies which show that it impacts brain function in a negative way. Yes, I know it is entirely possible to find studies which show the opposite. You can find studies to justify almost anything. But I have seen, with my own eyes, that pot can be addictive and destructive. </p>
<p>Because it is a natural substance, I think it would be great if doctors had it in their arsenal to offer patients who suffer from certain health problems such as anxiety, eating disorders, and chronic pain (among others). It certainly has to be better than things cooked up in a pharmaceutical lab. But I do want that doctor involved, because pot can be very dangerous (and its use should be monitored by a health professional).</p>
<p>BTW - I love the taste of wine. I know many people who feel the same way. I do not drink it to get buzzed.</p>
<p>From Webster: Substance: 2.[Object] Syn. matter, material, being, object, item, person, animal, something, element; see also thing </p>
<p>Aka – A Book, A movie, a vacation…all of which are substances. Read English much? </p>
<p>Oh, I know, you mean drugs/stimulants/mood-altering pharmaceutical <em>compounds</em>. Try saying drugs instead of ‘substances’ and maybe you’ll be a little clearer in your judgemental pronouncements. </p>
<p>By the way – I don’t smoke pot, gotten drunk, or take much of anything including aspirin. Never have and doubt I ever will. I still think much of America’s anti-illegal drug policy is assinine, wasteful, and counter-productive. In the countries where pot is available, cheap and legal, do they have tons of drug addicts causing trouble? Uh…Nope.</p>
<p>bethievt: “EK’s endorphin point is well taken”</p>
<p>I think emeraldkitty’s endorphin point supports my argument. If we are pleasure seeking creatures, why make even more things readily available which can be taken to excess? We have municipalities and states doing things like banning saturated fats (something that many here would consider a “nanny state” thing to do) and second hand smoke in public places. </p>
<p>Why go in the opposite direction of this movement towards promoting what is good for people by legalizing weed?</p>
<p>novelisto: “From Webster: Substance: 2.[Object] — Syn. matter, material, being, object, item, person, animal, something, element; see also thing Aka – A Book, A movie, a vacation…all of which are substances. Read English much?”…“Oh, I know, you mean drugs/stimulants/mood-altering pharmaceutical <em>compounds</em>. Try saying drugs instead of ‘substances’ and maybe you’ll be a little clearer in your judgemental pronouncements”</p>
<p>Context, novelisto. Put down the dictionary and focus. Before you do, though, look up the word “judgemental”. Then go back and read my posts and (after you’ve mastered the definition) see if you can find a a place where I got into a discussion on morality.</p>
<p>Study the industry vocabulary if you want to have an informed discussion on this thread. The word “substances” is accurate and is the commonly used term in the context in which I was operating. “Substance”, to help you out a bit, does not only include drugs. It can include inhalants (i.e. glue, hairspray, or the gas inside of a whipped cream canister) and alcohol, for example. Substance abuse is a huge problem for our society. You should educate yourself. </p>
<p>Nothing I have said has anything to do with “judgements”.</p>
<p>Jumping into the frey, because I couldn’t let this assertion go unchallenged:</p>
<p>A friends’ son was flunking out his freshman year at college, so they brought him home to figure out what was wrong. Turns out he was staying up all night playing video games on the computer and sleeping all day! He was addicted. They had to physically remove the computer from their home to get him to stop.</p>
<p>Overeating addiction- the limitations and obstacles in life caused by obesity do not need to be enumerated. (Not judging here - so don’t anyone take offense - just stating a fact for many people). Sports, travel, clothing choices, relationships - many valuable things.</p>
<p>Cellphones, Ipods - very isolating, antisocial habits. Conversation with or even acknowledgement of those around you ceases.</p>
<p>Pot worse than these addictions? I don’t see it.</p>
<p>Pretty much everyone I knew in college in the 70s smoked pot. I can only think of one pothead who ended up dead (but it was AIDS from a gay relationship, not drugs that killed him, sadly).</p>
<p>Marijuana is probably a healthier alternative than alcohol. So much money and resources wasted on keeping it illegal. Regulating it like alcohol makes more sense, imo.</p>
<p>I have to agree with your point about video games and obesity (I am not sure that they work as rapidly as pot, however). I DON’T think you are being judgemental (and I am very overweight myself). Objectively discussing facts and opinions about what is actually going on with people and society has nothing to do with being judgemental. </p>
<p>I still don’t think that because those problems exist, we should legalize another thing which has been proven to be harmful.</p>
<p>The pot that is around today is a COMPLETELY different drug than what was available a generation ago. Treatment centers are overflowing with people addicted to pot.</p>
<p>spideygirl: First, I’d like to apologize for the dolt comment. I was feeling a little bit irritated by your continuing subtle insults “Smoking pot can negatively effect reading comprehension” and so forth.</p>
<p>On that note, would you please stop? They don’t add anything to the discussion, and frankly make it a little bit aggravating to engage you. I don’t know if that’s what you’re going for, but if it is it’s a little bit immature.</p>
<p>Now, on to the meat of the debate:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The health detriments of pot have been repeatedly proved by peer-reviewed studies to not exist, with the exception of a 2% increase in risk of mental psychosis such as schizophrenia. In fact, marijuana use has been linked to a number of health benefits, including cancer-fighting properties and protection against neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.</p>
<p>But that wasn’t really what you were arguing, I don’t think (and if it was it was a bad argument). I think your main argument was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and that is the moral judgment. How is it unhealthy to affect one’s mind and escape reality in some measure? Who gets to make that determination? While you did use the word “unhealthy”, what you really meant was “immoral”, unless you’re prepared to show some kind of actual physical- or mental-health related argument (such as an aggregate demonstration of decreased health on the part of everyone over prolonged use of every drug). Since you haven’t done that (and in the case of pot, can’t, as such arguments have been disproven), you’re just making judgmental pronouncements. Simple enough?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It destroys lives? Prove it. Well, actually, that’s inane, since everything can destroy lives. Allow me to rephrase: prove that it destroys lives more than any other substance or potentially addictive activity (like video games). I’ll wait on your proof of that, since I think it’s unlikely to be forthcoming. If you can’t prove it, then your argument has no basis.</p>
<p>As for its addiction, I’m going to keep saying this until you acknowledge that you’re wrong: doctors, whose job it is to study these things have concluded overwhelmingly that marijuana is not physically addictive to any significant extent. It can be psychologically addictive, absolutely, but so can anything else, and as drugs go marijuana isn’t even bad with regards to psychological addiction, since its effects are relatively long-lasting and the high isn’t particularly intense, unlike cocaine, the exemplar of a psychologically addictive drug.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is one of the most interesting and completely absurd arguments I’ve ever seen. Here’s how decision making works. If you ban pot, you make a decision for me that I cannot smoke it (we have to assume that laws are enforced absolutely, otherwise this discussion is inane). However, if I legalize pot, I do not force you to smoke it. The “laws change to suit your viewpoint” argument isn’t valid, because if you don’t smoke pot, those changed laws don’t affect you, and since I’m not forcing you to smoke… you get my point, I assume.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Produce those studies. Show me a study which shows mental decline over long-term pot use. I’m not talking about mental decline while high, because I think it’s pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that people who are high are less mentally capable than those who aren’t.</p>
<p>I suspect you won’t find any such studies. But if you do, I will show you a number of others who vehemently disagree. I am incredibly surprised you’re still arguing this point, when even the DEA doesn’t agree with you! I guess you must be a doctor doing some kind of original and insightful research in the field… or are you just a layperson like the rest of us, who happens to think that you know better than the medical establishment who have studied exactly this issue and found results in diametric opposition to your prejudices?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t support the bans on saturated fats as a matter of principle. As for secondhand smoke, I’m surprised you don’t understand that that issue is entirely different. Public smoking is banned not because it is bad for the person producing it, but rather because when a person smokes in public, they are negatively affecting the health of those around them, without their consent. It’s an issue of infringement upon rights, and as a society we infringe upon smokers’ rights so that they cannot infringe on others’.</p>
<p>Legalizing weed would not be going in the opposite of this movement because it does not negatively impact health! If you smoke weed for a lifetime, the only detrimental effect it has is a 2% increased risk of psychosis. It’s easy to argue that the benefits (protection against neurodegeneration, cancer prevention, and so forth) easily outweigh that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect. Pot with similar THC levels was available just as widely 40 years ago as it is today. In fact, the only really “different” strains of weed are those now being bred for coffeehouses in the Netherlands, which have about 20% THC content, as opposed to most others strains of pot, which have (and have always had) between 6% and 15% THC content.</p>
<p>So, spideygirl, summary and final thoughts:</p>
<p>1) Prove pot is unhealthy without selectively picking the vast minority of studies that say it is. If you can show a meta-analysis in which even a small majority of studies agree that pot smoking is unhealthy, I will agree with you.</p>
<p>2) Prove that pot is as addictive as you claim, because all studies so far point to the contrary.</p>
<p>Thank you for apologizing for the “dolt” comment, but it was one of many (Should I consider it an apology for all of the namecalling?). </p>
<p>Frankly, it didn’t bother me, because once someone stoops to that level I begin to ignore them (there are so many fabulous thinkers and debaters here on CC that it is easy to look past the inappropriate ones). Namecalling, personal attacks, and taking things personally (accusing others of being judgemental just because you disagree with their opinion), are all extremely immature. You should consider stopping the name calling, on this thread and elsewhere. I am all for heated debate and verbal sparring, but let’s leave the name calling on the Kindergarten playground.</p>
<p>On the health argument: You’re wrong. I am not going to spend my time researching studies and posting them, so you can post others, and so on. There have been studies which show that pot smoke is bad for your lungs and heart. There have been studies which demonstrate negative brain health effects with regular use. And a 2% increase in the possibility of schizophrenia? That is a huge increase.</p>
<p>1of4: “or are you just a layperson like the rest of us, who happens to think that you know better than the medical establishment who have studied exactly this issue and found results in diametric opposition to your prejudices”</p>
<p>The medical establishment does not condone smoking marijuana for recreational use. Which medical establishment are you considering here? I have no “prejudices” – I have seen with my own eyes many individuals and families seriously hurt by pot.</p>
<p>1of4: “It’s an issue of infringement upon rights, and as a society we infringe upon smokers’ rights so that they cannot infringe on others’.”</p>
<p>When people are high, and they raise their children high, or drive high, or operate machinery high, or cause society to pay for their drug treatment, they infringe upon the rights of others.</p>
<p>1of4: “Pot with similar THC levels was available just as widely 40 years ago as it is today”
You are wrong on this as well.</p>
<p>“All of the studies” do not support you. If I get the urge, and have the time, I will start creating a huge research report for you. Another option would be for you to just go to a few treatment centers and talk to the experts.</p>
<p>One more thing…People with really healthy minds do not have to escape reality.</p>
<p>Taking a break- is taking a break- we all need that.</p>
<p>If you want to convince yourself you drink wine for the * taste*
then go ahead.
We do things because we like to.
If a glass or two of wine, can help you relax after a long day- then it is beneficial, but I doubt you are drinking it for the taste- although you probably have taught yourself to associate the taste with the feeling you get after drinking some.
Even sugar is eaten for the energy rush. ( wine also effects glucose levels)</p>
<p>I can’t take a vacation when I need to, and even if I could, the effects don’t last nearly long enough.</p>
<p>I don’t smoke pot- but I do have some wine or a drink about once a week, and while I don’t drink anything that is distasteful, I don’t try and fool myself that I would drink the same thing without the alcohol or effect on my blood sugar.</p>
<p>I also think it is hypocritical for alcohol consumers to label those who smoke marijuana as “addicts”.
People who get easily chemically addicted whether to pot or alcohol or gambling, need intervention, but that doesn’t mean that most of us who do not react that way need societal restrictions</p>
<p>If both were equal in accessiblity - which one would cause more accidents- more fatalities more problems?</p>
<p>Even in the far right agrees that the war on drugs and presumably marijuana is futile. The National Review issued this editorial about ten years ago and they call for legalization. They practically call the U.S. a police state in their editorial. Here’s an excerpt:</p>
<p>"We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs. But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed. </p>
<p>Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that ``NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.‘’ We don’t; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far. </p>
<p>We are joined in our judgment by Ethan A. Nadelmann, a scholar and researcher; Kurt Schmoke, a mayor and former prosecutor; Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief; Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge and former prosecutor; Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist; and Steven B. Duke, a law professor. Each has his own emphases, as one might expect. All agree that the celebrated war has failed, and that it is time to go home, and to mobilize fresh thought on the drug problem in the context of a free society. This symposium is our contribution to such thought."</p>
<p>Back your assertions up. I have yet to see a reputable study that shows mental decline with long-term marijuana use. I have seen a study that shows a very, very slight increase in lung cancer incidence among regular users, but most often this is thought to be a result of tobacco being mixed in with marijuana. Other lung diseases like COPD and emphysema do not occur, because of marijuana’s bronchodilating effects. This is well known. As for the heart, again, show me that study, because I have yet to see any that point to those effects.</p>
<p>A 2% increase in the risk of schizophrenia is tiny. If my risk of schizophrenia was 1%, a 2% increase in that risk is 0.02%. Does that seem like a huge number to you? It doesn’t to me, and I was probably overstating the risks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You minisinterpreted what I said. The medical establishment does not agree with you regarding pot’s ill health effects or addictive potential. It doesn’t yet condone recreational use, but certainly isn’t against it for the reasons you say you are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why driving high, operating machinery high, and the neglect caused by raising children as a druggie are illegal. As for health costs, if you want to make that argument we must also ban tobacco, alcohol and fatty foods, since all 3 cause far more health care costs than marijuana. Far more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove it. The sinsemilla breeding technique of producing potent marijuana has been used for centuries in India, and potent “Thai sticks” (a form of marijuana) were widely available 40 years ago. Show me a study which shows a statistically significant change in THC content of marijuana over 40 years (or even over a shorter time period if you wish).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, all of the studies support my claim that pot is not more than slightly physically addictive at most. They don’t all support my claims regarding health, you’re right - but the vast majority do, and the ones that don’t find barely-significant detrimental health effects.</p>
<p>I’ll wait on that research report, because until then you’re just spouting hot air.</p>
<p>emeraldkitty: "I also think it is hypocritical for alcohol consumers to label those who smoke marijuana as “addicts”.</p>
<p>I only consider someone an addict if they are addicted.</p>
<p>And as for why I drink wine, unless you live inside my brain, I think I am a better judge of whether or not I like the taste than you are. I don’t think you should apply your own taste experiences to me - you are you, and I am me. Maybe you don’t like the taste. I do. Even in sauces where most of the alcohol is burned off, but the flavor remains. Taste is a very personal thing.</p>
<p>1of42: “I’ll wait on that research report, because until then you’re just spouting hot air.”</p>
<p>Don’t wait too long. The odds of me compiling a research report to convice you of things which are truly common sense? Very low. A better use of your time would be to take my suggestion to heart and go visit some treatment centers. Go and speak to the experts, the people who see this problem every day. Pot isn’t crack, meth, or heroin, but it can still be very dangerous.</p>
<p>Until you are willing to go to the front lines, speak to experts, and hear the truth, you will be the one doomed to spouting nothing more than hot air.</p>
<p>I have. One of my mother’s best friends is a clinical psychologist, who has worked in addiction centers, and who currently runs a private practice as well as working as an addiction psychologist part time. I asked her about this issue and her response was that marijuana rarely causes problems itself, but can be an issue in people predisposed to addiction to substances, in the same way that almost any substance is a problem for those people. She also said that normally those people present with much more serious issues related to other, harder substance abuse. This seems to tally with what I’ve been saying. Unfortunately, since Princeton is too small a town to have any significant addiction centers handy, I might have to wait a bit to take up your suggestion to visit. Maybe you can direct me to a couple that I could question over email?</p>
<p>More convincingly, though, please look at the following article:</p>
<p>Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. “Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse” The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053.</p>
<p>It contains aggregate assessments by the very professionals you reference of the harmfulness of various drugs. It probably doesn’t surprise anyone intelligent that cannabis is rated as very innocuous in terms of its potentials for addiction and harm.</p>
<p>I’ll wait for you to read that article, and then we’ll see what your response is.</p>