I ask AGAIN, please cite the journal that this study conclusion was published in, since this appears to be the second time you've made this claim.
Marijuana a "victimless crime"?????????
- Thread starter Darkmind
- Start date
- Status
The most dangerous thing about many illegal drugs is that they are illegal. I’ve even seen PSAs broadcast to this effect. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Castle doctrine
I may have missed it but it is possible if the deceased parents had had home defense plans/equipment in place it might have been a mere example of suicide by break in.
I may have missed it but it is possible if the deceased parents had had home defense plans/equipment in place it might have been a mere example of suicide by break in.
Old Dog
Member
Sindawe, I'm assuming you have available the same resources I do, the internet and a public library. There are hundreds of these studies, and even, should you desire to downplay the ill effects of pot smoking, several studies out there concluding that smoking marijuana is not all that harmful. I personally don't care which side of the fence vis a vis the pot issue you fall on; I've already stated that I support decriminalization of the drug. But for anyone who desires to toke up even occasionally, they should check out the research on the physiological effects of cannabis. If you're at all educated, it's not something you'll want your children smoking.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
So what? By this reasoning, alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, fatty foods, lead ammunition and firearms with an audible report above 90 Decibels should all be regulated. After all, do these not cause one harm?
Old Dog, I'm sorry, but this is not only a cop-out, it is also extremely poor form. Saying something like this would get you laughed out of a middle school debate competition. You are the one who made the claim, therefore the burden of proof to back up your statement lies with you.
Old Dog
Member
Sheesh, of course ... I agree!
Originally, the ONLY point I was attempting to counter was the statement that marijuana was "a harmless weed." The only point I was attempting to make was that, yes, there are harmful effects associated with regular marijuana smoking, and that many of these effects are well-documented.
Oh, for heaven's sake. I could easily provide links to about 469,000 websites that discuss research on the harms of marijuana, the use of marijuana in medicine and marijuana law reform. However, one tap on the Google search button for "marijuana harm" will get you those 469,000 links. As I'm presently not at the library, I can't quote chapter and verse of some of the more esoteric research published in, among others, the Journal of the AMA and numerous, respected scientific and medical publications.
If people want to deny there are any harmful effects of pot smoking, or tout the wonderful benefits to society of pot smoking, that's fine by me; go for it. But debating whether or not there exists actual medical and scientific evidence possibly documenting harmful effects of marijuana, and expecting me to "prove" this is something I simply don't have time for today.
Here's one good link:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html
Also, one should check out the seminal study done on medical marijuana use, Marijuana and Medicine, 1999, Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson Jr, John A. Benson Jr, Editors, Institute of Medicine; available from the National Academy Press (http://books.nap.edu)
Let's see 'em.
You made the claim, now support your argument or retract your claim.
Oh, and make sure that research comes from peer-reviewed medical journals and not from "Reefer Madness" websites.
Sawdust
I think we can stipulate that smoking marijuana, tobacco, or dandelions will have similar deleterious effects on the human respiratory system. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
If I had children, *I'D* be the one smoking it.
Yes, I have access to the Internet and libraries, but all too often I've heard and read of the dangers of marijuana, and when I am able to follow up on the actual reports, the issue is overblown and spun to reflect the writers views and not at all what the actual study conclusion states. Such as the citation by RileyMC in this thread, which claimed that six young adults had died of cardiovasculater failure after smoking marijuana. The actual study had much different data and conclusion than the fear mongering that RileyMC's orginal citation had.
Smoking anything as a regular practice is 'prolly not a good idea, as Gordon Fink has observed.
We need a graphic of a dog chasing it's tail to go with the one of the horse being beaten. 
ANY mind altering chemical has the potential to do harm. The debate isn't (or shouldn't be) about that, but about the relative amount of harm to society between drugs and the attempt to regulate them.
Now we pretty much have the worst of both worlds.
A point to ponder: You can't be free unless you are willing to let the other guy be free, even when he does something you consider completely stupid. Demanding that the govt use it's power to regulate his behavior lets the govt do the same thing to you.
ANY mind altering chemical has the potential to do harm. The debate isn't (or shouldn't be) about that, but about the relative amount of harm to society between drugs and the attempt to regulate them.
Now we pretty much have the worst of both worlds.
A point to ponder: You can't be free unless you are willing to let the other guy be free, even when he does something you consider completely stupid. Demanding that the govt use it's power to regulate his behavior lets the govt do the same thing to you.
TRULY SAD -
the bogus comparisions here can be applied to alcohol, guns , and just about anything you ever spent money on.
PS- i too am opposed to imported, gang controlled weed-
BUT= vast amounts are grown and sold in the US by folks wh owould have NOTHING to do with the things you speak of.
just like some companies support one idea or anther, same goes for this.
OTHer drugs such as cocaine or heroin that cannot be produced in the US, i concur, you buy them, you are going to be sopporting all kinds of NASTY stuff like murder and oppression, as long as it is illegal.
BUT= to say weed caused murders etc. NO WAY.
the problems come from $$$$$$.
no fiend is mugging for weed.
Alcohol and nicotine are statistically worse for health.
the bogus comparisions here can be applied to alcohol, guns , and just about anything you ever spent money on.
PS- i too am opposed to imported, gang controlled weed-
BUT= vast amounts are grown and sold in the US by folks wh owould have NOTHING to do with the things you speak of.
just like some companies support one idea or anther, same goes for this.
OTHer drugs such as cocaine or heroin that cannot be produced in the US, i concur, you buy them, you are going to be sopporting all kinds of NASTY stuff like murder and oppression, as long as it is illegal.
BUT= to say weed caused murders etc. NO WAY.
the problems come from $$$$$$.
no fiend is mugging for weed.
Alcohol and nicotine are statistically worse for health.
No offense but.....
I like the part about the 13 year old pot heads that make less money than similarly situated kids that don't smoke pot ......I believe that goes in the ,"Duh" category 
! If a 13 year old was smoking pot, shooting up heroine, taking steroids, having sex,listening to $o.50 CENT,or doing anything else young kids shouldn't be doing, I would expect it to have no less of a disasterous effect on that childs growth, development, and future status(read as: earning potential)......Where are the parents of this 13 year old might I ask 
?!!! Adults don't require extra supervision, kids and criminals do!. Adults only require the facts(not someone elses' moral reasoning ) and for people to not interfere as they either ,"live or die", or ,"sink or fly", by their choices .
I like the part about the 13 year old pot heads that make less money than similarly situated kids that don't smoke pot
......I believe that goes in the ,"Duh" category ! If a 13 year old was smoking pot, shooting up heroine, taking steroids, having sex,listening to $o.50 CENT,or doing anything else young kids shouldn't be doing, I would expect it to have no less of a disasterous effect on that childs growth, development, and future status(read as: earning potential)......Where are the parents of this 13 year old might I ask ?!!! Adults don't require extra supervision, kids and criminals do!. Adults only require the facts(not someone elses' moral reasoning ) and for people to not interfere as they either ,"live or die", or ,"sink or fly", by their choices .Come on, you should know better than that. The Constitution was written to delimit the powers of the Federal government, not to define the rights of the people. Which is exactly why many of the Founders opposed including the Bill of Rights; it gives people the false impression that the Constitution delimits the rights of the people, when in fact it merely (and redundantly) affirms the pre-existing and natural rights that the framers felt were most important to the success of the Republic.
kids are irrelevant to these discussions if we are to be practical.
the argument is against legalization.
HEY GUESS WHAT> as long as it is illegal, it wil;l be VERY easy for kids to get weed. IN FACT= a person under 18 will have a much easier time going to a dealer hang out and scoring than a 35 will. the kid is less likely a cop, duh.
IF IT WERE legal> kids would be restricted as they are form alcohol, and we would be doing a better job of keeping it away from them, there would be no reason for street dealers.
SO> illegal means you rather kids get it than adults .
might as well with the kind of backwards logic i am seeing here
the argument is against legalization.
HEY GUESS WHAT> as long as it is illegal, it wil;l be VERY easy for kids to get weed. IN FACT= a person under 18 will have a much easier time going to a dealer hang out and scoring than a 35 will. the kid is less likely a cop, duh.
IF IT WERE legal> kids would be restricted as they are form alcohol, and we would be doing a better job of keeping it away from them, there would be no reason for street dealers.
SO> illegal means you rather kids get it than adults .
might as well with the kind of backwards logic i am seeing here
If this awful event was a consequence of people spending money, it was a consequence of the government spending tax money on the war on drugs. If pot wasn't illegal, this cretin wouldn't have had a motive for whacking that family to keep from getting turned in to the cops.
Does this remind anyone of how prohibition led to a massive increase in mob violence? People drank before, during, and after prohibition, but it was the prohibition that led to motorized gangsters blowing people away en masse with tommy guns to protect their illicit business. Funny how we haven't seen any Miller Brewing Company employees blow away entire families to protect their brewing turf.
To conclude: this story proves the exact opposite point that the person who posted it thinks it does.
I do not smoke pot, but I do believe it to be unconstitutional for the federal government to ban it.
So, does by buying/using pot mean one is "aiding and abetting" crimes committed by the growers/dealers? I suppose, if stretched to barely less than the point of breaking, one could make such an arguement.
So then could the same arguement be made for people who buy fossil fuels and products made from them? Would such a person possibly be contributing to the funding of terrorists/terrorism?
What about shopping at Wally World? Is one "aiding and abetting" Wally World when the employ illegal aliens?
And how many criminals, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, pimps, etc. are receiving some kind of state/federal aid (medical, welfare, housing, etc.) when they commit their crimes? Then aren't the taxpayers "aiding and abetting" those criminals too?
Like I said, you really have to strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch to make such an arguement (or hold such a position) IMO.
So, does by buying/using pot mean one is "aiding and abetting" crimes committed by the growers/dealers? I suppose, if stretched to barely less than the point of breaking, one could make such an arguement.
So then could the same arguement be made for people who buy fossil fuels and products made from them? Would such a person possibly be contributing to the funding of terrorists/terrorism?
What about shopping at Wally World? Is one "aiding and abetting" Wally World when the employ illegal aliens?
And how many criminals, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, pimps, etc. are receiving some kind of state/federal aid (medical, welfare, housing, etc.) when they commit their crimes? Then aren't the taxpayers "aiding and abetting" those criminals too?
Like I said, you really have to strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch to make such an arguement (or hold such a position) IMO.
- Status
