Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should marijuana be legalised?

550 replies to this topic
AnthMUFC-Champs
  • AnthMUFC-Champs

    MUFC-CHAMPS

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#61

Posted 17 May 2011 - 03:51 PM

I can honestly say i dont smoke the stuff but in my opion i think it should, there is allot worse stuff out there and at the end of the day it is down to the person if they want to smoke the sh*t or not.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#62

Posted 17 May 2011 - 03:57 PM Edited by Melchior, 17 May 2011 - 04:05 PM.

QUOTE (TheCacti @ May 18 2011, 01:40)
There are grounds for a tax. It's a multi billion dollar industry and the more commerce it generates, the more society could benefit from even the smallest of taxes (e.g. schools, teachers' wages, parks, repairing roads, reducing the deficit, etc etc..)

And why is this our responsibility, specifically? If you feel that more money needs to be raised through taxation, then increase the sales tax, don't expect one group to pay disproportionate taxes.

QUOTE
Are you also anti-taxation of clothing and electronics, and perhaps every other commodity being sold at present? Can you tell me how their respective taxes are "interfering with supply/demand?"

If you're for legalising marijuana with tax, then you're for a marijuana tax on top of the sales tax. If you're just talking about sales tax, you don't need to explicitly state that you're in favour of it, all transactions require sales tax and weed would be no exception. I'm for treating it like a normal commodity.

QUOTE
Comedian David Cross had a very funny bit in one of his stand-up routines about this very subject, and he did a great impersonation of a surgeon hitting a bong before he began an operation on someone; and his whole point was that such a ludicrous situation should never be legally possible.

Well that relates to a specific workplace. Should it be illegal for a surgeon to get baked before going to work? Yes, but those aren't restrictions that would be apart of any bill for legalisation, it's something for hospital authorities to work out - a bill for legalisation wouldn't explicitly list everywhere it's okay to get high at. For a parallel, listening to music is 100% legal, but cops can't walk down the street with headphones in, that's a rule of their job, not a law.

Saying you're for legalising weed with restrictions implies that you're in favour of it not being allowed in public, or only allowing certain companies to produce it, or only letting individuals buy a certain amount at a time or some other arbitrary measures that do nothing positive. Legalise it without restrictions and the appropriate restrictions will appear where necessary, just like with literally everything else.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#63

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10)
Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things.

Dear God, why?

Several reasons
1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.
2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care.
3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

A J
  • A J

    Use your Illusion

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2009
  • Wales
  • Best Event 2012 [Gang Wars]

#64

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 16:03)
QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10)
Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things.

Dear God, why?

Several reasons
1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.
2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care.
3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

icon14.gif Wise words.

to answer the question, personally I don't care, the laws in Holland seem a lot more relaxed, does it cause any harm there?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#65

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 18 2011, 02:03)
People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.

And what are these negative effects, pray tell? Warlord already went over this, but weed has never been linked to lung cancer or schizophrenia as people love to claim.

But even if you were right, since when do we tax everything that's potentially harmful? I'm not aware of any special taxes for people with high stress jobs or poor diets (who are more prone to medical problems). I'm pretty relaxed, I'm not running the risk of a heart attack, so why should my tax dollars go towards the medical care of a stock broker who has a stoke because of stress, but knew his job was stressful when he took it? I never eat McDonalds, why should I pay to help someone who inhales Big Macs and gets a heart attack?

QUOTE
As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial.

The government needs money, yah. But why is it my responsibility as a weed user to pay more than any other group?

QUOTE
Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

I want it legalised so I can pay the market price, and get it whenever I want. If I'm not paying market price because of tax, and if the sale is restricted in any way, I'm better off continuing to go to a criminal.

QUOTE
Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

I've already addressed this: neither of these examples are parliament's responsibilities. A bill for legalisation wouldn't explicitly list everything it's ok to do while stoned, there are safety authorities who are responsible for people who operate machinery, and I imagine they already have regulations regarding intoxication. Same with driving: if it's a condition of driving on a public road that you be sober, that's got nothing to do with the legalisation debate.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#66

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:25 PM Edited by Warlord., 17 May 2011 - 04:28 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 21:33)
QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10)
Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things.

Dear God, why?


1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.
2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care.
3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

Studies have and are continuing to prove the harmless nature of ganja.

Anti-ganja organisations said ganja kills brain cells, now it's proven it causes neurogenesis, anti-ganja organisations said it causes cancer, today ganja is used to cure all types of cancer and prevent cancers, anti-ganja organisations said it causes schizophrenia, today it's used as a very effective medicine for schizophrenics with great results.

Ganja is harmless, this is a fact of the real world.

Oh and regarding the accidents you spoke of, there hasn't been a single driving accident or work related accident to this date by anyone who has had only ganja in their system. Not one.

Oh and btw Melchior, it's good to see another person who knows the truth about ganja around here. icon14.gif

coin-god
  • coin-god

    High Roller

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2007
  • None

#67

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:30 PM

Be it weed, alcohol, or whatever. If it is a drug that affects your state of mind, you shouldnt do anything potentionally dangerous while you are affected by say drug.

But this goes to alcohol and other sustances aswell. So it's not a reason to keep weed ilegal.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#68

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:38 PM Edited by Warlord., 17 May 2011 - 04:40 PM.

QUOTE (goin-god @ May 17 2011, 22:00)
Be it weed, alcohol, or whatever. If it is a drug that affects your state of mind, you shouldnt do anything potentionally dangerous while you are affected by say drug.

But this goes to alcohol and other sustances aswell. So it's not a reason to keep weed ilegal.

The problem is that people seem to think that just because alcohol impairs one's mind, all substances that change the state of one's mind must do the same.

This cannot be further from the truth.

Tell me, are your senses not elevated when you smoke ganja? Do you not have a better sense of sight, taste, touch, hearing and smell?

How is this impairment?

There are countless people around the world who go about their daily lives stoned. When was the last time you heard of someone accidentally falling off a building because he/she was stoned, getting into a car accident with only ganja in their system or running over people because they were stoned?

rhyn
  • rhyn

    SRS BSNS

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2008

#69

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:54 PM

There are different strains of weed. If you get a high Indica strain you are gonna feel groggy and reflexes will inevitably be reduced. I don't think driving stoned should be legal and I smoke weed almost every day.

Mikeol1987
  • Mikeol1987

    Lord of the Thighs

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2003
  • United-Kingdom

#70

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:05 PM

I think there are long term mental effects in different people if you smoke it alot, this is why I don't think they want it be legalized.
From smoking a hell of a lot back in the day, I can totally understand how weed could make someone completely flip out, I almost did, simply putting out there for ANYONE to pick up stores is very dangerous, so yes and no I think it should/shouldn't be legalized.

I think the doctors prescription legalization should be implemented everywhere,
BUT I don't think it should be legalized for commercial use, we'd have a generation of kids that don't do anything but sit on their arse too high to function.

darthYENIK
  • darthYENIK

    Scuse me, while I kiss this guy.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2002
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Movies & TV] 2013

#71

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:05 PM

Yeah, I know I've smoked weed, that has completely immobilized me. Driving while high on any substance is not a good idea.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#72

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:06 PM Edited by sivispacem, 17 May 2011 - 05:18 PM.

Warlord- we've discussed this before, and from memory it was just a list of claim and counter claim. I know you're a great fan of the stuff but having tried the stuff before (many times) in my student days, did my senses feel heightened? Not a chance. As for the "you don't crash when stoned" comment, well have a look at this peer-review report suggesting quite the opposite. I have absolutely no objection to people using it, I would be an utter hypocrite if I did, but there's a distinction between doing something and accepting risk, and totally denying the possibility that there is any...
Okay then.

Causing cancer (not just lung)-
This one
This one indicates it's a higher risk than tobacco
One on Reuters
Another one here

Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses-
Casual but tangible relationship in "vulnerable minority"
One here (though a smaller study
Another one


Vast majority of those are from legitimate peer-review journals.

Jake
  • Jake

    Vagina Mine

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2003

#73

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (TUBBSthezombie @ May 17 2011, 02:01)
Legalize it and tax it.

Its a $130 billion a year business (estimated of course). Tax it just 10% (sales tax in Washington state is 9%) and theres $13 billion a year profit. Plus the government is better at weeding (lol pun) out the laced stuff.


Use similar rules as alcohol.

You would think it should be that simple. We all know how f*cking retarded the Government really is though.


And yes, my state gets taxed way too much. icon13.gif

Darrel
  • Darrel

    Reported!

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2007

#74

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:40 PM Edited by Darrel, 17 May 2011 - 05:43 PM.

I cant think of any reason what so ever for it to be legalized. Its going to create more problems on top of problems

Moral - Not everyone who smokes marijuana will become a drug addict, but every drug addict has smoked marijuana before.

Its just asking for problems, period.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#75

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:49 PM Edited by Warlord., 17 May 2011 - 05:56 PM.

QUOTE (Wipex President Mike @ May 17 2011, 22:35)
I think there are long term mental effects in different people if you smoke it alot, this is why I don't think they want it be legalized.

Ganja has been proven to have no changes in brain structure, even with frequent use.

@sivispacem, Indeed we have, but as I told you the last time, don't just take studies for granted without looking at the experiences of people who smoke ganja. This goes for anything.

For example, during the early part of the 20th century there were a lot of 'studies' which claimed how ganja causes brain damage, etc and now independent studies have disproven all of these lies.

There has not been a single person who has developed schizophrenia, cancer or any mental illness because of ganja.

Even if we're going by studies alone, why is it that there are much more studies which speak of how ganja cures and prevents cancer as opposed to causing cancer and how ganja cures mental illnesses as opposed to causing them? Some examples:

How ganja cures all types of cancers:

Breast cancer:

1

2

3

Cervical cancer:

1

Colon cancer:

1

2

3

Brain cancer:

1

2

3

Leukaemia:

1

2

3

Lung cancer:

1

2

3

Smoking ganja does not increase risk of lung cancer:

1

Lymphoma:

1

2

Melanoma:

1

There are studies on testicular, prostate, skin and oral cancer as well. Let me know if you want to see them and I'll post them up.

Ganja is very effective at treating schizophrenia:

1

As for vehicle accidents, please name a single accident caused by a stoned driver. Remember, the person can only have ganja in his/her system.

Oh and everyone I know who smokes reports elevated senses when stoned.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#76

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:02 PM Edited by sivispacem, 17 May 2011 - 06:07 PM.

There's much focus on THC, which, yes, is the active ingredient in Cannabis. But it's not the only chemical in it. The idea that it speeds up cell death cycles and therefore prevents cancer spread is one that's been studied a lot, and does appear to be true, but if you read many of those reports carefully, they're discussing "cannaboid-related" or "cannaboid derived" substances rather than THC itself. There's a huge distinction between a study that shows that smoking cannabis is good for you, and one that shows THC-derived chemicals can have a positive effect.

One of the reports I posted goes into some depth about cannaboids ability to suppress production of the chemical that discourages the formation of tumours. So it's by no means a scientific consensus.

I do base my views on the experiences of people I know who have used it regularly for prolonged periods of time. In the vast majority of cases, they've had no more serious consequences than smokers such as myself. But similarly, they've not experienced any tangible benefit from it, either. Others have experienced serious side effects such as paranoia, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, Parkinson-esque jitters and other mental issues- in fact a friend of mine killed themselves in Berkshire a few years ago, having been in an out of various hospitals and organisations, with paranoia and psychosis that not only doctors, but also the sufferer, were convinced was from prolonged cannabis use in their youth.

See the report I posted for examples of elevated risk of car accidents.

Oddly, I don't know a single person who experiences heightened senses when stoned. Interestingly, in the UK, there was a fashion a few years back for regular cannabis users to indulge in disassociative anaesthetics like Ketamine on a regular basis. I can certainly see similarities in the experience, especially at non-anaesthetic doses. Personally, I think you'd struggle to argue that either has any positive effect on the senses- but then again, a perception of heightened senses is very different to the reality.

Mike Tequeli
  • Mike Tequeli

    American non-Voter at Heart

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2004

#77

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:06 PM Edited by Mike Tequeli, 17 May 2011 - 06:09 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 17:06)
Warlord- we've discussed this before, and from memory it was just a list of claim and counter claim. I know you're a great fan of the stuff but having tried the stuff before (many times) in my student days, did my senses feel heightened? Not a chance. As for the "you don't crash when stoned" comment, well have a look at this peer-review report suggesting quite the opposite. I have absolutely no objection to people using it, I would be an utter hypocrite if I did, but there's a distinction between doing something and accepting risk, and totally denying the possibility that there is any...
Okay then.

Causing cancer (not just lung)-
This one
This one indicates it's a higher risk than tobacco
One on Reuters
Another one here

Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses-
Casual but tangible relationship in "vulnerable minority"
One here (though a smaller study
Another one


Vast majority of those are from legitimate peer-review journals.

I will be the first to admit that burnt plant matter in the lungs is not good for you, although there is nothing inherently carcinogenic about THC, which I believe most of those studies state anyway, the first study indicates there is nothing mutagenic about THC. I've always had trouble with the whole joint = x amount of cigarettes nonsense because the number always changes, the amount of joints consumed is usually dramatically less than that of a cigarette smoker and any data on actual lung cancer being caused is often absent. The only study of yours that addresses actual marijuana induced lung cancer involves a very small sample size.

The jury is still out on whether there is a definite cancer risk and if so how much (if anything) this actually costs the government in terms of health care costs. The discrepancy between the anticipated cancer risk and the relatively little data showing people actually getting cancer from marijuana use might have something to do with anti-cancerous properties of THC itself.

There are lots of studies
Many of them contradictory
All of them peer reviewed
Too many to link, all saying the same thing.

Don't pretend your data is definite, I won't.

Use of a vaporizer could mitigate any potential risk anyway.

EDIT: Well it appears I've been beaten to the punch, but if you look at the studies you'll see some on THC as well as CBD and other cannabinoids.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#78

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:13 PM

QUOTE (Mike Tequeli @ May 17 2011, 19:06)
I will be the first to admit that burnt plant matter in the lungs is not good for you, although there is nothing inherently carcinogenic about THC, which I believe most of those studies state anyway, the first study indicates there is nothing mutagenic about THC. I've always had trouble with the whole joint = x amount of cigarettes nonsense because the number always changes, the amount of joints consumed is usually dramatically less than that of a cigarette smoker and any data on actual lung cancer being caused is often absent. The only study of yours that addresses actual marijuana induced lung cancer involves a very small sample size.

The jury is still out on whether there is a definite cancer risk and if so how much (if anything) this actually costs the government in terms of health care costs. The discrepancy between the anticipated cancer risk and the relatively little data showing people actually getting cancer from marijuana use might have something to do with anti-cancerous properties of THC itself.

There are lots of studies
Many of them contradictory
All of them peer reviewed
Too many to link, all saying the same thing.

Don't pretend your data is definite, I won't.

Use of a vaporizer could mitigate any potential risk anyway.

I'm not saying "SMOKE WEED AND YOU'LL GET CANCER". I accept that there are lots of other contributing factors, that the jury is still out and that due to the nature of the drug and the topography of its users its very difficult to do effective control group comparisons. My point was more that people can't just say "there's no risk of cancer/mental illness" because there's evidence suggesting they do have quite serious side effects...encouraging people to do their research and accept that there is a risk rather than point-blank denying it...

Mutagen =/ Carcinogen. Usually similar, but not necessarily the same. Alcohol is a carcinogen, but not a mutagen. Some of the dioxin-like compounds are among the most dangerous carcinogenic substances in the world, but aren't necessarily mutagens.

Mike Tequeli
  • Mike Tequeli

    American non-Voter at Heart

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2004

#79

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:18 PM

You are saying that anything that has associated health costs should be taxed to cover the cost. The issue is that we haven't quite figured out what, if anything, is the nature of the long term health problems associated with marijuana use. Therefore any attempt to calculate the cost to governments like they have with tobacco would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. They're going to tax cannabis because they need the money, but I'm not going to accept any arguments that they are merely recouping money lost to the health problems associated with it.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#80

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:25 PM

QUOTE (Mike Tequeli @ May 17 2011, 19:18)
You are saying that anything that has associated health costs should be taxed to cover the cost. The issue is that we haven't quite figured out what, if anything, is the nature of the long term health problems associated with marijuana use. Therefore any attempt to calculate the cost to governments like they have with tobacco would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. They're going to tax cannabis because they need the money, but I'm not going to accept any arguments that they are merely recouping money lost to the health problems associated with it.

True, but any negative health effects from cannabis use are much more likely to be discovered and understood in the event of legalisation. Even if the number of users does not rise, it's quite tangible that further effort is going to be put into detailed examination of the side effects if it is legalised. There are also the potential increases in cancers and other illnesses from people who smoke it in combination with tobacco, as the majority of cannabis smokers mix the two and many of that number do not smoke cigarettes on the side.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#81

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:27 PM Edited by Warlord., 17 May 2011 - 06:53 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 23:32)
There's much focus on THC, which, yes, is the active ingredient in Cannabis. But it's not the only chemical in it. The idea that it speeds up cell death cycles and therefore prevents cancer spread is one that's been studied a lot, and does appear to be true, but if you read many of those reports carefully, they're discussing "cannaboid-related" or "cannaboid derived" substances rather than THC itself. There's a huge distinction between a study that shows that smoking cannabis is good for you, and one that shows THC-derived chemicals can have a positive effect.

One of the reports I posted goes into some depth about cannaboids ability to suppress production of the chemical that discourages the formation of tumours. So it's by no means a scientific consensus.

I do base my views on the experiences of people I know who have used it regularly for prolonged periods of time. In the vast majority of cases, they've had no more serious consequences than smokers such as myself. But similarly, they've not experienced any tangible benefit from it, either. Others have experienced serious side effects such as paranoia, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, Parkinson-esque jitters and other mental issues- in fact a friend of mine killed themselves in Berkshire a few years ago, having been in an out of various hospitals and organisations, with paranoia and psychosis that not only doctors, but also the sufferer, were convinced was from prolonged cannabis use in their youth.

See the report I posted for examples of elevated risk of car accidents.

Oddly, I don't know a single person who experiences heightened senses when stoned. Interestingly, in the UK, there was a fashion a few years back for regular cannabis users to indulge in disassociative anaesthetics like Ketamine on a regular basis. I can certainly see similarities in the experience, especially at non-anaesthetic doses. Personally, I think you'd struggle to argue that either has any positive effect on the senses- but then again, a perception of heightened senses is very different to the reality.

Ganja has many cannabinoids other than THC, such as CBD, so it doesn't matter whether a study addresses THC or any other compound in ganja.

Paranoia, sleeping difficulties and anxiety can be cured with a high CBD strain of ganja.

Do you have proof that these people are experiencing these things because of ganja? While there are strains out there which can cause paranoia and anxiety (these strains are those developed by irresponsible breeders, i.e those who simply jack up the THC levels without realising the importance of other cannabinoids), but the paranoia and anxiety only lasts for as long as the person is high. It does not persist when the person is sober, this is something that anyone who smokes ganja can tell you.

I addressed the issue about your friend the last time we spoke about ganja. Ganja does not cause psychosis. It's proven. If your doctor or friend thinks it's ganja that caused the psychosis, they're simply wrong.

As for the car accidents, putting the report aside for a moment, can you mention some car accidents which involved stoned drivers? Like in this alcohol related driving accident?

Regarding the heightened senses, that is odd. Since heightened senses is a key property of a ganja high.

Edit:

QUOTE
as the majority of cannabis smokers mix the two and many of that number do not smoke cigarettes on the side.


Where are you getting these stats from? Mixing ganja with tobacco is something that is only practiced in certain areas of the world. For example, in the US the majority of ganja smokers don't mix tobacco with ganja.

Ganja proven to not impair driving

This is exactly why people need to stop assuming that just because alcohol impairs one's mind, all substances that alter one's state of mind must also do the same. This is not the case.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#82

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:59 PM

QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 19:27)
I addressed the issue about your friend the last time we spoke about ganja. Ganja does not cause psychosis. It's proven. If your doctor or friend thinks it's ganja that caused the psychosis, they're simply wrong.

As for the car accidents, putting the report aside for a moment, can you mention some car accidents which involved stoned drivers? Like in this alcohol related driving accident?

Regarding the heightened senses, that is odd. Since heightened senses is a key property of a ganja high.

Ganja proven to not impair driving

This is exactly why people need to stop assuming that just because alcohol impairs one's mind, all substances that alter one's state of mind must also do the same. This is not the case.

I'm sorry, but you really need to dig deeper into that report you posted. Here are some direct quotes from it's sources. Here's a direct quote from one of the articles it claims suggests that cannabis has no effect on driving ability or safety.

QUOTE (Effects of THC on driving performance @ physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol)

Both levels of THC cigarettes significantly affected the subjects in a dose-dependent manner. The moderate dose of alcohol and the low THC dose were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities, with some differences between the two drugs. THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition, while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition. No THC effects were observed after 24 h on any of the measures.


Source, as referenced in the article you posted

I've already posted several articles that indicate cannabis can cause psychosis. What makes the article you posted so superior to mine that it is categorically right, and mine is categorically wrong?
Care to find me a single study that indicates use of cannabis gives greater sensory input and makes you more aware?

gtafreak102
  • gtafreak102

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2011

#83

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:07 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 16:03)
QUOTE (Melchior @ May 17 2011, 14:33)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 20:10)
Still, I side with the "legalise (with heavy restrictions) and tax" side of things.

Dear God, why?

Several reasons
1) Similarly to alcohol and tobacco, to cover the costs of the increased burden on the public healthcare system. People can bang on all they want about how cannabis has no negative health-related side effects but it simply isn't the case in the real world.
2) As others have said, it's a massive, multi-billion dollar/pound industry, and taxation on that industry could be highly beneficial. Nigh-on everything that's commercially available is taxed- to the tune of 20% in the UK. The price of a pint of beer is 68% tax. You just have to live with the fact that if something can potentially do harm, it will be taxed extensively. The only alternative is forcing people who require care because of aliments caused by the use of said substance to pay the full, unsubsidised cost of any care.
3) Do you really, honestly, imagine that those who produce and distribute it now sell it at cost price? At the end of the day, if I was a user, I'd rather some of the money was going to government, than all of it going to an industry with intrinsic connections to organised crime.

Restrictions always need to be put in place to deal with the lowest common denominator- the kind of person who goes to work in a machine shop stoned out of their mind and ends up loosing a limb. But IMHO, personal responsibility lies with the user, and if you're stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of situation you deserve whatever you get, without recompense. That said, there's potential for harming others as well. Take the example someone used earlier- driving whilst stoned. Just because you reaction times (the focus of the experiment) aren't as inhibited by THC as they are by alcohol doesn't mean it's okay to drive stoned. Put someone blazed out of their skin in a dangerous situation where they need to make a rational snap judgement, and you're likely to end up with a disaster.

cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif Nice words.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#84

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:03 PM Edited by Warlord., 17 May 2011 - 09:25 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 18 2011, 01:29)
QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 19:27)
I addressed the issue about your friend the last time we spoke about ganja. Ganja does not cause psychosis. It's proven. If your doctor or friend thinks it's ganja that caused the psychosis, they're simply wrong.

As for the car accidents, putting the report aside for a moment, can you mention some car accidents which involved stoned drivers? Like in this alcohol related driving accident?

Regarding the heightened senses, that is odd. Since heightened senses is a key property of a ganja high.

Ganja proven to not impair driving

This is exactly why people need to stop assuming that just because alcohol impairs one's mind, all substances that alter one's state of mind must also do the same. This is not the case.

I'm sorry, but you really need to dig deeper into that report you posted. Here are some direct quotes from it's sources. Here's a direct quote from one of the articles it claims suggests that cannabis has no effect on driving ability or safety.

QUOTE (Effects of THC on driving performance @ physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol)

Both levels of THC cigarettes significantly affected the subjects in a dose-dependent manner. The moderate dose of alcohol and the low THC dose were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities, with some differences between the two drugs. THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition, while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition. No THC effects were observed after 24 h on any of the measures.


Source, as referenced in the article you posted

I've already posted several articles that indicate cannabis can cause psychosis. What makes the article you posted so superior to mine that it is categorically right, and mine is categorically wrong?
Care to find me a single study that indicates use of cannabis gives greater sensory input and makes you more aware?

Perhaps you should read the excerpt of the study you quoted again:

QUOTE
THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition, while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition.


Tell me now, how is elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort going to cause a car crash or make someone who's stoned run over people?

It also shows that people drive slower while stoned.

Basically, the people are aware of what's going on. They may not like driving while stoned, but this is subjective as I myself know many people who find driving while stoned to be really fun and don't experience any of this 'elevation in physical effort' or 'physical discomfort'.

Ganja doesn't cause psychosis or any mental illness. If you had any knowledge on the cannabinoids contained in the ganja plant and the properties of these cannabinoids you'd know this.

If you had gone through this study which I posted earlier, you would've seen this:

QUOTE
Despite the controversy surrounding the possible causal link between cannabis use and the onset of schizophrenia (SZ), data seeking to elucidate the effect of cannabis use disorders (CUDs) on the clinical presentation of SZ have produced mixed results. Although several studies have suggested that CUD in patients with SZ may be associated with variation in cognitive function, clinical presentation and course of illness, the effects have been inconsistent.


The aim of these researchers was to conduct a study free of inconsistencies on the effect of ganja on schizophrenia. What did they find out? Ganja really helped schizophrenics.

Tell me, how many people who smoke ganja have schizophrenia? Does anyone in the OFS have schizophrenia? What about Tommy Chong? Snoop Dogg? Wiz Khalifa? Jack Herer? Richard Lee? Ed Rosenthal? The list goes on and on.

These people are heavy smokers and have been smoking for the majority of their lives. How come they aren't displaying psychotic symptoms?

As for the elevation of senses, it's more of something you experience when you smoke ganja yourself. It's something almost everyone who smokes ganja experiences, so it's odd you didn't experience it.

On another note, take a look at this:



That's the power of ganja right there. Just imagine how many lives could be saved if ganja was legal? Are the government not basically killing people by keeping ganja illegal?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#85

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:24 PM

QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 22:03)
Tell me now, how is elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort going to cause a car crash or make someone who's stoned run over people?

It also shows that people drive slower while stoned.

Ganja doesn't cause psychosis or any mental illness. If you had any knowledge on the cannabinoids contained in the ganja plant and the properties of these cannabinoids you'd know this.

Only 4% of road accidents are caused solely by excessive speed. Besides, are you trying to imply that somehow elevated levels of physical effort, or discomfort, are beneficial to driving? Because they're not, their detrimental. That was what my principal point was- and it is demonstrated by the sources on the article you posted. "Low THC dose were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities". There we are.

Your evidence is no more compelling than mine. I'm not going to believe you just because your more insistent about it. Again, you seem to be presenting it as if every heavy cannabis user develops schizophrenia. I've never said that it was guaranteed to cause mental illness, I never even implied it. I merely stated that according to the sources I had linked to, cannabis is responsible for drastically increasing the chances that certain people from certain backgrounds will develop mental illnesses- generally those with genetic history of mental illness.

Again, as I've said before, I'm always open to new evidence. I understand how much dispute there is around the issue, how many different contradictory reports and papers there are, and how difficult it is to establish effective test and control groups. However, I don't point-blank deny that there is a chance that cannabis could be essentially harmless. You can post as many studies as you like to support your case, as could I- though I've said all I'm going to on the subject. But I'd be more inclined to continue discussing if you didn't point-blank refute every point I was making, it makes it seem a little pointless to continue...

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#86

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:38 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 18 2011, 02:54)
QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 22:03)
Tell me now, how is elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort going to cause a car crash or make someone who's stoned run over people?

It also shows that people drive slower while stoned.

Ganja doesn't cause psychosis or any mental illness. If you had any knowledge on the cannabinoids contained in the ganja plant and the properties of these cannabinoids you'd know this.

Only 4% of road accidents are caused solely by excessive speed. Besides, are you trying to imply that somehow elevated levels of physical effort, or discomfort, are beneficial to driving? Because they're not, their detrimental. That was what my principal point was- and it is demonstrated by the sources on the article you posted. "Low THC dose were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities". There we are.

Your evidence is no more compelling than mine. I'm not going to believe you just because your more insistent about it. Again, you seem to be presenting it as if every heavy cannabis user develops schizophrenia. I've never said that it was guaranteed to cause mental illness, I never even implied it. I merely stated that according to the sources I had linked to, cannabis is responsible for drastically increasing the chances that certain people from certain backgrounds will develop mental illnesses- generally those with genetic history of mental illness.

Again, as I've said before, I'm always open to new evidence. I understand how much dispute there is around the issue, how many different contradictory reports and papers there are, and how difficult it is to establish effective test and control groups. However, I don't point-blank deny that there is a chance that cannabis could be essentially harmless. You can post as many studies as you like to support your case, as could I- though I've said all I'm going to on the subject. But I'd be more inclined to continue discussing if you didn't point-blank refute every point I was making, it makes it seem a little pointless to continue...

'Elevation in physical effort' and 'physical discomfort' isn't beneficial to driving, where did I say this?

But it's certainly not going to cause any car accidents. For example, if you're sober and your head starts itching while driving are you gonna drive into a tree?

Any experienced ganja smoker will tell you that 'elevation in physical effort' and 'physical discomfort' one might experience when stoned is negligible.

Like I've said numerous times now, there are countless studies which show that ganja does not cause any mental illnesses/psychosis:

First study

QUOTE
These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis


Second study from the UK

QUOTE
In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.


Ganja also proven to really help schizophrenia.

Ganja is harmless. This is a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you however.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#87

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 22:38)
Like I've said numerous times now, there are countless studies which show that ganja does not cause any mental illnesses/psychosis:

First study

QUOTE
These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis


Second study from the UK

QUOTE
In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.


Ganja also proven to really help schizophrenia.

Ganja is harmless. This is a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you however.

And like I've said numerous times, there are just as many that indicates that they do cause mental illnesses. Like the ones I've posted previously

Look, there's really no point continuing this. You're going to keep insisting that somehow your reports are better than mine, I'm going to keep telling you that unlike you, I'm open to the idea of possibly being wrong and willing to consider other views. But just answer this- don't you feel you're being very closed-minded in denying the evidence that does exist according to some reports, and focusing only on the positive ones rather than those that do portray it as having a negative effect? Isn't that just as senseless as those who argue that "cannabis kills, full stop" when there's a wealth of evidence to suggest it doesn't?

Like I've said, my problem isn't the presentation of the reports suggesting cannabis is harmless or even beneficial. It's the way you portray everything you post as being 100% factually correct, when even the scientists who compose the papers you reference from accept that there's a degree of contention around the issue.

*MURDOC*
  • *MURDOC*

    Relevant jorts intensify.

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2004
  • None

#88

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:59 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 17 2011, 16:48)
QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 22:38)
Like I've said numerous times now, there are countless studies which show that ganja does not cause any mental illnesses/psychosis:

First study

QUOTE
These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis


Second study from the UK

QUOTE
In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.


Ganja also proven to really help schizophrenia.

Ganja is harmless. This is a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you however.

And like I've said numerous times, there are just as many that indicates that they do cause mental illnesses. Like the ones I've posted previously

Look, there's really no point continuing this. You're going to keep insisting that somehow your reports are better than mine, I'm going to keep telling you that unlike you, I'm open to the idea of possibly being wrong and willing to consider other views. But just answer this- don't you feel you're being very closed-minded in denying the evidence that does exist according to some reports, and focusing only on the positive ones rather than those that do portray it as having a negative effect? Isn't that just as senseless as those who argue that "cannabis kills, full stop" when there's a wealth of evidence to suggest it doesn't?

Like I've said, my problem isn't the presentation of the reports suggesting cannabis is harmless or even beneficial. It's the way you portray everything you post as being 100% factually correct, when even the scientists who compose the papers you reference from accept that there's a degree of contention around the issue.

Extremely well-said, although I'm sure Warlord will just dismiss it as usual.

Warlord.
  • Warlord.

    :O

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2004

#89

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:01 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 18 2011, 03:18)
QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 22:38)
Like I've said numerous times now, there are countless studies which show that ganja does not cause any mental illnesses/psychosis:

First study

QUOTE
These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis


Second study from the UK

QUOTE
In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.


Ganja also proven to really help schizophrenia.

Ganja is harmless. This is a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you however.

And like I've said numerous times, there are just as many that indicates that they do cause mental illnesses. Like the ones I've posted previously

Look, there's really no point continuing this. You're going to keep insisting that somehow your reports are better than mine, I'm going to keep telling you that unlike you, I'm open to the idea of possibly being wrong and willing to consider other views. But just answer this- don't you feel you're being very closed-minded in denying the evidence that does exist according to some reports, and focusing only on the positive ones rather than those that do portray it as having a negative effect? Isn't that just as senseless as those who argue that "cannabis kills, full stop" when there's a wealth of evidence to suggest it doesn't?

Like I've said, my problem isn't the presentation of the reports suggesting cannabis is harmless or even beneficial. It's the way you portray everything you post as being 100% factually correct, when even the scientists who compose the papers you reference from accept that there's a degree of contention around the issue.

Like I said before, you're free to believe what you wish. smile.gif

*MURDOC*
  • *MURDOC*

    Relevant jorts intensify.

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2004
  • None

#90

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:04 PM

QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 17:01)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ May 18 2011, 03:18)
QUOTE (Warlord. @ May 17 2011, 22:38)
Like I've said numerous times now, there are countless studies which show that ganja does not cause any mental illnesses/psychosis:

First study

QUOTE
These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis


Second study from the UK

QUOTE
In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.


Ganja also proven to really help schizophrenia.

Ganja is harmless. This is a fact. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you however.

And like I've said numerous times, there are just as many that indicates that they do cause mental illnesses. Like the ones I've posted previously

Look, there's really no point continuing this. You're going to keep insisting that somehow your reports are better than mine, I'm going to keep telling you that unlike you, I'm open to the idea of possibly being wrong and willing to consider other views. But just answer this- don't you feel you're being very closed-minded in denying the evidence that does exist according to some reports, and focusing only on the positive ones rather than those that do portray it as having a negative effect? Isn't that just as senseless as those who argue that "cannabis kills, full stop" when there's a wealth of evidence to suggest it doesn't?

Like I've said, my problem isn't the presentation of the reports suggesting cannabis is harmless or even beneficial. It's the way you portray everything you post as being 100% factually correct, when even the scientists who compose the papers you reference from accept that there's a degree of contention around the issue.

Like I said before, you're free to believe what you wish. smile.gif

So can you apparently.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users