Should Marijuana be legalized in the United States?

[Ikerous]

I don't think it's appropriate to drive under the influence of anything. I think there's a few drink-drivers who would say that they were well aware of the alcoholic affects on them, and they compensate whilst driving.

I think driving under the influence of anything risks lives. Dangerous driving doesn't only affect yourself, it affects pedestrains, other road users etc, and if anyone lost their lives due to dulled reaction times, that would be very unfortunate and unnecessary indeed.

I personally find it more disorientating to drive with new shose on than to drive high
I think most people that have driven high will tell you it really isn't all that complicated
(Of course I'm not advocating it, it's clearly not the best idea. I'm just saying it's nowhere near as bad as people think...)

Now driving drunk is hard and something i never do

 

[the_lone_wolf]

For people who are genetically predisposed to it. I dont think anyone here is saying kids with a family history of mental illness should toke.

erm, no, the follow up study to the swedish conscript study concluded that:

Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation. This association is not explained by use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits relating to social integration.

What this study adds
Self reported cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation

This association is not explained by sociability personality traits...

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...1b10e88dd4e9c84bce067b43&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Tobacco is so dangerous because of how its grown, in radioactive soil. Thats why it causes cancer.

errrm, yeah, are you high right now? It's tar that contains the carcinogens (which cause cancer). not being grown in "radioactive soil"

@OCybrManO - Sorry for the late reply, i was out all day and only just got back, you said:

It's not an effective use of the limited resource. There are a lot of factors to consider. If there were enough livers there would be no need for a list. Everyone could get one. In the case of medicines, most can be produced in large enough capacities to serve everyone that needs them. So, the only limiting factor is profit

OK, so the liver example was a bad one..

limitless resources is not something that would appear to apply to the NHS over here, it's in a mess and doesn't have the resources in terms of doctors, nurses, money and beds to treat everybody who needs it adequately. now call me crazy but would it not be better to have a system where those people who actually did their best to remain healthy and not burden the health system (ate well, exercised etc) were rewarded by cheaper medical care when something unexpected gets them? i'm not saying that they should get prefferential treatment after involvement in a car accident, but let's say you have the limited resources to perform one life saving heart surgery (assuming the cost, in time and money, is the only factor for now for the sake of the example) - would you give the limited surgeon's time and limited health system money to someone who has taken care of their body and looks set to continue to do so if given the second chance, or someone who's obese and will likely just have another heart attack? if people want to abuse themselves through drink/drugs then the same should apply, should a lifetime non smoker have to pay the same amount for an operation to remove/treat a cancerous growth in the lung/throat as a long term smoker who *knew* about the risks of cancer yet continued to smoke for decades for whatever reason?

if you answer yes to that then there's going to be little point in us carrying on, as our views on what we find ethically and morally right and wrong are fundamentally different

@brink's - I'm not trying to discredit Macleans as a magazine, i'm sure it's perfectly reputable, but you missed the point that the study which shows a causal link between smoking cannabis and developing schizophrenia concludes that the most noticable effects only occur in children smoking cannabis when below the age of 18 and are far more pronounced under the age of 16, after the age of 18 the link is practically non existant, however:

Smoking pure marijuana is at least as harmful to lungs as smoking tobacco, a report from the British Lung Foundation concludes. And in some key ways, it may be more dangerous.

For example, the BLF's review of previous research highlights that just three marijuana joints a day causes the same damage to the lung's airways as 20 cigarettes, mainly because of the way joints are smoked.

Individually, cannabis and tobacco produce the same constituents and quantities of chemicals known to be toxic to respiratory tissue, other than nicotine, the report says. But when cannabis and tobacco are smoked together, the health effects are worse.

"These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief it is safer for them," says Mark Britton, chairman of the BLF. A UK survey conducted earlier in 2002 found that 79 per cent of children believed cannabis to be 'safe'.

...

• Tar from cannabis cigarettes contains up to 50 per cent higher concentrations of carcinogens benzathracenes and benzpyrenes than tobacco smoke

• THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, decreases the function of immune system cells that help protect the lungs from infection

• The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocanabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient. Today[2002], it may contain 150 mg.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3039

//steps into his flame retardant jacket for a second time in one day:cheese:

 

[baxter]

I do not use drugs and personally do not see the appeal. Having said that I believe firmly in each to their own.
In the ideal world we would all be in perfect heath, with perfect levels of intellect and the world would be utopia.

This world doesn't exist and each and every one of us seeks ways to forget, ways out of the everyday. Alcohol, drugs, tobacco, it's a way out.

Drugs will never be eradicated anymore than alcohol, cigarettes will be and as such I believe drugs should be legalised. They should be state controlled in the same other legalised drugs are.

I personally would prefer to see my children never to come into contact with any of these, but they will.

With is acceptance I would also prefer to know drugs were being produced under strict and controlled guide lines rather than some back street lab and dealt out by sleazy drug pushers

 

[Dog--]

I think Denver is an example of how the general public is starting to realize all of those facts (They just recently voted to legalize it).
We really just need to get it on some state ballots so people can vote on it.

Personally, I really want to see it legalized mostly because 280-300 bucks for an ounce is rediculous

280-300 Bucks an ounce??!?! And thats american money! I'm from Canada and I don't even smoke it, and I would be able to get an ounce for like $30, and it's not fake or anything like that, my friend is a stoner.

 

[Ikerous]

280-300 Bucks an ounce??!?! And thats american money! I'm from Canada and I don't even smoke it, and I would be able to get an ounce for like $30, and it's not fake or anything like that, my friend is a stoner.

The lowest i've seen an ounce go for is 220 XD
::moves to canada::

Theres no way it could be that cheap... even if an ounce was 80 bucks thats only 10 bucks an eigth!

 

[Que-Ever]

Just looking at my school, I don't think it would make much of a difference if they legalized it anyway.

 

[Dog--]

The lowest i've seen an ounce go for is 220 XD
::moves to canada::

Theres no way it could be that cheap... even if an ounce was 80 bucks thats only 10 bucks an eigth!

Man, I'm not kidding, I was exagerating (spelling?) when I said $30, maybe about 50-70 though.

Also In my school it wouldn't matter

 

[Glirk Dient]

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

 

[Ikerous]

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

What are some of the immediate effects of smoking marijuana?
Some immediate physical effects of marijuana include a faster heartbeat and pulse rate, bloodshot eyes, and a dry mouth and throat. No scientific evidence indicates that marijuana improves hearing, eyesight, and skin sensitivity. Studies of marijuana's mental effects show that the drug can impair or reduce short-term memory, alter sense of time, and reduce ability to do things which require concentration, swift reactions, and coordination, such as driving a car or operating machinery.

Yea, if it didn't have inebriating effects, we wouldnt smoke it...

Are there any other adverse reactions to marijuana?
A common bad reaction to marijuana is the "acute panic anxiety reaction." People describe this reaction as an extreme fear of "losing control," which causes panic. The symptoms usually disappear in a few hours.

People who have reactions like that generally dont continue smoking so it's not exactly a problem...

What about psychological dependence on marijuana?
Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives.

So basically marijuana is just like anything else that people enjoy?

What are the dangers for young people?
One major concern about marijuana is its possible effects on young people as they grow up. Research shows that the earlier people start using drugs, the more likely they are to go on to experiment with other drugs. In addition, when young people start using marijuana regularly, they often lose interest and are not motivated to do their schoolwork. The effects of marijuana can interfere with learning by impairing thinking, reading comprehension, and verbal and mathematical skills. Research shows that students do not remember what they have learned when they are "high".

Lmao, ya think? Thats why you don't study high, just like you don't study when you're half asleep.

How does marijuana affect driving ability?
Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road.

1.) It's illegal to drive inebriated.
2.) Complete bullshit.

Does marijuana affect the human reproductive system?
Some research studies suggest that the use of marijuana during pregnancy may result in premature babies and in low birth weights. Studies of men and women may have a temporary loss of fertility. These findings suggest that marijuana may be especially harmful during adolescence, a period of rapid physical and sexual development.

Couldn't care less...

How does marijuana affect the heart?
Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does.

People with heart problems shouldn't do a lot of things.. which apparently includes smoking pot. And?

How does marijuana affect the lungs?
Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same ingredients in tobacco smoke that can cause emphysema and cancer. In addition, many marijuana users also smoke cigarettes; the combined effects of smoking these two substances creates an increased health risk.

Don't smoke it.

Can marijuana cause cancer?
Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years.

Don't smoke it.

Those aren't even good points and none of them address the subject of this thread: legalization.

 

[Danimal]

That research was in done in 1984, woudn't you think they would of done further research between then and now with different results?

 

[Glirk Dient]

That was the first thing I found on google.

The answer of well just don't do this and that won't work because people are stupid and will do those things.

 

[Ikerous]

The answer of well just don't do this and that won't work because people are stupid and will do those things.

How does that change anything?

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Don't smoke it.

that's the most sensible thing you're said so far

It's funny, if a little sad, how when people are confronted with evidence that what they are doing is harming them they just seem to say "i don't care"

@shadow6899 - you've completely missed the point, i'm not advocating refusal of treatment to people who chose to do damaging things to themselves, a public healthcare system should treat everyone who needs it, i just don't see why the people who do give a flying f... about how they live should foot the collective bill for those who lay about on the dole eating crap and smoking (and most likely watching trisha). perhaps it's cause i'm one of the ones who actually gives a flying f... and not some loser destined to a life working for that second star at mcdonalds

 

[Teh Pwned]

It's funny, if a little sad, how when people are confronted with evidence that what they are doing is harming them they just seem to say "i don't care"

So are we not allowed to do something because "we don't care?" I guess, in your opinion, that its sad how people eat fast food, or even having a freakin candy bar once in a while is pretty sad, knowing that it hurts us, and yet we don't care?

Human rights should not be governed by a persons health. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the the constitution state that every person has the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? So, isn't this kind of running against it?

And finally, yet we may be destined to a life of serving fried foods, you still remain destined to a life of endless internet forum chats.

 

[Ennui]

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

Don't you just love how the pro or neutral drug fact sheets tell ALL of the effects, while the anti ones act like there are only negative ones?

 

[kirovman]

Don't you just love how the pro or neutral drug fact sheets tell ALL of the effects, while the anti ones act like there are only negative ones?

Meh, just goes to show.

Other people's opinions suck.

 

[Teh Pwned]

Meh, just goes to show.

Other people's opinions suck.

Haha, yes, this is true.

 

[Que-Ever]

that's the most sensible thing you're said so far

there's other ways of using pot besides smoking it, you know. It's jsut... the ay you said it made it sound final, like he had said "don't do it" or sommat.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

So are we not allowed to do something because "we don't care?" I guess, in your opinion, that its sad how people eat fast food, or even having a freakin candy bar once in a while is pretty sad, knowing that it hurts us, and yet we don't care?

LMAO, superb alanogy there:upstare: - the slight difference being that the occasional maccy d's and a bit of chocolate and a beer isn't going to make you psychotic or give you lung cancer:cheers:

Que-ever - it's called irony, but don't worry about it:thumbs:

 

[Reaktor4]

erm, no

Read the stuff at the bottom of the page, this 'study' is bunk.

errrm, yeah, are you high right now?

errrm, no.

It's tar that contains the carcinogens (which cause cancer). not being grown in "radioactive soil"

errrm, no.
Youre just another ten a penny hypocritical anti drug idiot, arent you?

 

[brink's]

LMAO, superb alanogy there:upstare: - the slight difference being that the occasional maccy d's and a bit of chocolate and a beer isn't going to make you psychotic or give you lung cancer:cheers:

What are you talking about? Thousands apon thousands of people smoke marjuana from all corners of the world, and a very very very small amount of them will never even have to think about getting schizophrenia, yet your acting like the two go hand in hand. Most people who smoke MJ do it in such small amounts (like once a week, a couple times a month) that lung cancer is at the very most an after thought. No ones smoking 2 pacs of Marryjane a day.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

errrm, no.
Youre just another ten a penny hypocritical anti drug idiot, arent you?

well you could have remained mature and chosen a rational reply with sound reasoning and facts but you chose not to, if you actually want to debate a subject and not simply force your own opinions on other people you will need to change your attitude.

was there meant to be anything useful in that link? perhaps an impartial view? as opposed to things like this:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/

"oh noes, it's teh radi0active soil!!!" lol

perhaps you should ask google what "cigarette smoke contains" instead of entering three words that you desperately want to be linked to find obscure random conjecture?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=en&q=how+do+cigarettes+cause+cancer&spell=1

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/tobus_us.htm

Researchers have identified more than 4,800 chemical compounds in tobacco smoke; of these, at least 69 cause cancer in humans and animals

@brink's - no, i'm saying that there is evidence of a causal link between the two, perhaps i should have said "the slight difference being that the occasional maccy d's and a bit of chocolate and a beer hasn't been scientifically investigated and linked to psychosis or lung cancer":dozey:

 

[Ikerous]

THOUSANDS of more people die every year because of McDonald's than because of pot smoking...
Ban McDonalds? No. Obviously that'd be stupid. I really don't see what, if any, point you're trying to make about it being 'unhealthy'

 

[the_lone_wolf]

THOUSANDS of more people die every year because of McDonald's than because of pot smoking...

Source? Has any scientific study shown that eating Macdonalds has a causal link with premature death?

Couple of other articles from the BMJ:

"Cannabis and mental health"

The evidence in relation to depression is growing. A 15 year follow up of an adult community sample of 1920 participants in the United States showed that use of cannabis increased the risk of major depression at follow up fourfold. Use of cannabis was specifically associated with an increase in suicidal ideation and anhedonia. Similar findings in an Australian study reported in this issue (p 1195) show a dose-effect relation between the use of cannabis and anxiety or depression in a large cohort of 14-15 year olds followed for seven years. This is reflected in higher rates of anxiety or depression according to the frequency with which cannabis was used.

"Cannabis Use and Psychosis: A Longitudinal Population-based Study"

Results confirm previous suggestions that cannabis use increases the risk of both the incidence of psychosis in psychosis-free persons and a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychotic disorder

"Comparing cannabis with tobacco"

Although the active ingredients of the cannabis plant differ from those of the tobacco plant, each produces about 4000 chemicals when smoked and these are largely identical....

 

[Ikerous]

This is why i hate debating online, people feel the need for me to cite everything isntead of just thinking about it logically.

Apparently, "obesity is responsible for at least 300,000 deaths each year." link

How do people get that fat? Eating McDonalds. (I obviously don't mean McDonalds alone, but the entire fast food franchise it represents)

How many people die a year from smoking pot? Every statistic i've ever read says zero. Do i think thats true? Probably not. Hell, plastic bags kill like 50 people a year. But if it was even a remotely serious problem thered be a whole lot more documented cases of people dying because of it. And I can't find any.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

This is why i hate debating online, people feel the need for me to cite everything isntead of just thinking about it logically.

sorry, i'm not trying to be condescending but i come from a background of scientific study where if you make a statement you are expected to back it up with references or your own research

so ok, lets do this logically:

the primary cause of death in the US is heart desease

obesity gives an increased risk of heart desease, obesity can be caused by excessive consumption of fast food, however it's not the only cause. ironically enough a major cause of heart disease is smoking, about 23 percent of [American] adults age 18 and older smoke[1] (and many many more endure passive smoke), 31 percent (although probably more now) of adults 20 years of age and over are classified as obese[2]

i don't know which one, smoking or obesity, is more likely to result in heart desease (i suspect obesity is a greater risk factor) but i'm sure that whilst it's certainly a major factor, it's not just fast food that's giving Americans problems with their tickers...

1. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4731
2. 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

[Ikerous]

Lol, why are we argueing? Okay. Excessive smoking for long periods of time leads to death (Although the key word being excessive.). Even marijuana smoking. It's kind of odd to assume otherwise. I'll admit that.
(Btw, that's simply my opinion and i'm sure others may disagree)

Even if smoking killed as many people a year as bad food, it wouldn't make sense to ban it. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who thinks banning fast food is a good idea. Why? Because most people believe that adults have the right to do w/e the hell they want to themselves

And, the great thing about weed is that you don't have to smoke it to get high. Weed itself isn't going to kill anyone (Well, not anymore than plastic bags ) So this whole conversation about health issues is fairly unnecessary because one, its really not that unhealthy if you don't smoke it and two, being unhealthy doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

but when you say smoking your talking about tobacco figures, i know plenty of people, young to old to very old who smoke. None of them have gotten any illnesses from smoking marijuana, only cig's.

so they've been smoking both, but they know that their illnesses were caused by *just* the cigarette smoke?

http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.htm

according to that reasearch by the Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Health, Washington,D.C. cannabis contains more of the following carcinogens:

Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Dimethylnitrosamine

and more of the following harmful/toxic substances

Toluene (Tri-Nitro Toluene = TNT)
Ammonia
Hydrogen Cyanide

as well as comparable levels of the carcinogen methylethylnitrosamine

Other research by Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, et al: On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: VC Runeckles, ed, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York. Plenum, 1975. suggests that "marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke"

 

[Reaktor4]

well you could have remained mature and chosen a rational reply with sound reasoning and facts but you chose not to, if you actually want to debate a subject and not simply force your own opinions on other people you will need to change your attitude.

You say this after these comments:
" the slight difference being that the occasional maccy d's and a bit of chocolate and a beer isn't going to make you psychotic or give you lung cancer"
So, the occasional joint is going to give you lung cancer or make you psychotic?
"are you high right now?"
Sorry, but you are an utter ****tard.

was there meant to be anything useful in that link? perhaps an impartial view? as opposed to things like this:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/

"oh noes, it's teh radi0active soil!!!" lol

Yeah, pick the one that looks the most biased out of the 78000 links and disregard everything else. Nobody will notice. Real sharp, you are.
I actually thought you might have the intelligence and initiative to look through some of the links and find the reason why weed doesnt cause cancer but tobacco, even low tar tobacco, does. Clearly you have no interest in anything that goes against your preconceived notions about drugs.
For those care, i have picked out a few relevant links:

link/link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link

Now, let me get this straight. Do radioactive elements not damage dna and cause cancer, or are they not present in significant amounts (or any amount) in tobacco smoke?

 

[Ikerous]

Some researchers suggest that the degree of carcinogenicity of these radioactive elements is sufficient to account for most, if not all, cases of lung cancer related to smoking.

Wow, i never knew anything about any of that.
Pretty interesting

 

[the_lone_wolf]

you are an utter ****tard.

right... how old are you?.. 14?.. 15?.. or has all that pot retarded your mental age to around that level

of course radioativity causes mutations which lead to cancer, but the "research" that these few people are citing as proof of the radioactivity of cigarettes causing cancer concludes that it is a result of the use of phosphatic fertiliser, which is used extensively outside of the tobacco industry, why is it that it would appear to only contaminate the tobacco that makes it's way into cigarettes and not everything else? it certainly gives an inviting alternative to having the ~70 known carcinogens in cigarette and cannabis smoke actually cause cancer when introduced to the human body don't you think?

 

[OCybrManO]

Well, the_lone_wolf is completely ignoring the scientific research into the anti-cancer properties of marijuana in favor of focusing on the number of potential carcinogens. Several recent studies suggest that (despite the carcinogens) it can be used to fight existing cancers (including leukemia), glaucoma, depression, etc*... and possibly even spur growth of new brain cells. On the other hand... cigarettes are physically addictive, a well-known major cause of cancer, they seriously **** up your lungs, they have practically zero medicinal value... and yet, of the two, cigarettes are the legal substance. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? Still, this all means nothing because if I'm saying something in favor of it I must be a pothead... even though I've never touched it. Oh well, ignore it if you want. I don't really care whether or not it gets legalized. I won't use it either way.

* There's a reason it was known for its medicinal value thousands of years ago. Some even suggest that the "miracles" performed by Jesus (including their religious visions) were actually the result of a concoction of various psychoactive drugs, including marijuana, used in the annointing processes of contemporary religion(s).

 

[Sulkdodds]

OCybermanO = win. Every damn time.

LMAO, superb alanogy there - the slight difference being that the occasional maccy d's and a bit of chocolate and a beer isn't going to make you psychotic or give you lung cancer

The occasional joint isn't going to do that either, now is it?

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Several recent studies suggest that (despite the carcinogens) it can be used to fight existing cancers

so can chemo, and we all know that's good for you with no downsides:

it's becoming obvious you can't stand in the middle of a room of alcoholics and tell them they're more likely to get liver disease, so how about this:

i'll just say to you that pot obviously has no downsides, only good sides, there are no consequences to smoking it and it should be 100% legalised and encouraged, you keep on smoking it for the obvious health benefits and ignore any research that links it with mental health problems because that research doesn't agree with your point of view

keep on :smoking: - might clean up the gene pool a little:cheese:

 

[Sulkdodds]

i'll just say to you that pot obviously has no downsides, only good sides, there are no consequences to smoking it and it should be 100% legalised and encouraged, you keep on smoking it for the obvious health benefits and ignore any research that links it with mental health problems because that research doesn't agree with your point of view

Nobody is suggesting anything like that. I'm not susually so brazen in my disdain but I suggest you stop being an arse/stupid.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Nobody is suggesting anything like that. I'm not susually so brazen in my disdain but I suggest you stop being an arse/stupid.

you misunderstand me, i really do think it's great, in fact we should be giving it to our kids as there's no downsides, it's fine:smoking:

 

[Sulkdodds]

well you could have remained mature and chosen a rational reply with sound reasoning and facts but you chose not to, if you actually want to debate a subject and not simply force your own opinions on other people you will need to change your attitude.

\o\ /o\ /o/

 

[the_lone_wolf]

what else is there to try when sound reasoning fails, you guys are obviously so convinced that your cannabis is fine and there's no possibiity of it having any downsides, might as well be talking to a wall

 

[Sulkdodds]

'Our' cannabis? I smoked a joint once. I didn't like it. Anyway - I don't see anyone at all claiming that there's no possibility of cannabis having any downsides at all. Rather, people are claiming it has far less downsides than most people think, or that it has far less downsides than many other things that are currently legal. Or they're claiming that they have a right to use it despite the downsides...freedom and civil liberty and all of that. You're casting yourself as the only logical person in this entire debate..."what e;se is there to try when sound reasoning fails?" you ask. Well, I'm sure many of your opponents in this thread are asking the same question.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

...people are claiming it has far less downsides than most people think, or that it has far less downsides than many other things that are currently legal.

the fact that people have tried scaremongering tactics before like saying it'll make you infertile or it suppresses the immune system, or that there are other more damaging things out there which are legal is a moot point, in the end you'll have to weigh up your own personal ups and downs and make a choice... i've simply got better things to spend my money on and the links to mental health problems are far too great when compared to any benifits i might get from smoking it. again it's a decision up to the individual but i wouldn't start ingesting, inhaling or injecting known cancer causing chemicals into my body through choice, whether the effects they have are proven or not.