1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Your opinion of making marijuana legal

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by JamestheFreak, Jun 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. deliaonfire

    deliaonfire New Member

    I don't believe it should be legalized.
    No, the effects aren't as bad as the effects of alcohol or tobacco for the most part. But there are more carcinogens in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke.
    Yes, there are medical benefits, but the active ingredient THC is available in pill form. Some patients actually do receive marijuana from the government as medication as well. It may be difficult to get marijuana prescribed to someone who wants it as medication, but it is possible.
    Hardly anyone caught with marijuana ends up with jail time. The majority of people in jail for marijuana are in jail for distribution.
    The financial costs of marijuana are already high in society for medical problems and accidents, and jail time of distributors. If it is de facto legalized, the costs will rise because usage rates will rise. Even if it is taxed like alcohol or tobacco, the money generated will not cover the societal costs if alcohol is any example.
    If marijuana is legalized, tobacco companies will jump on it as soon as they can. It's not difficult to produce. But of course tobacco companies will add "harmless ingredients" to stretch the product further, the same "harmless ingredients" that cause many health problems in tobacco. The government will also regulate marijuana more strictly, making companies get liscenses to grow and sell marijuana. People caught in possession of marijuana at that time would probably be more harshly punished than people who possess it right now. People wouldn't be able to grow their own marijuana, they would have to use marijuana full of additives from companies.
    Marijuana users are probably better off taking the small fine they may be charged with if caught than pushing for legal pot.

    I don't use marijuana and I don't plan on it, but this is why I don't believe marijuana should be legalized.
  2. MewMan

    MewMan Spikeshell Trainer

    You haven't addressed any of the points I've mentioned in my last two previous posts regarding the legalisation of marijuana at all, or given any further points for why marijuana should be kept illegal. When I referred to prescriptions in my last post I was just using the example provided by vaporeon4ever. Are you suggesting that marijuana should be sold at pharmacies but you can only take them on the premises?
  3. BlueMew7

    BlueMew7 what up daddy in the house

    Oh my gosh. Has this debate not moved at all for the last twenty pages? If you can't back up your points or give sources, just don't even bother posting. For the people that are for the legalization of marijuana, most of you have failed to give sources and whenever you do give sources, they're usually from blogs or forums, which is extrememly unreliable, unless those blogs/forums have sources within them.

    Bottomline, I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere unless the opposing side(those that are for the legalization of marijuana) has legitemate sources.
  4. chuboy

    chuboy <- It was THIS big!

    Yes, I am for the legalisation of marijuana and other currently illicit drugs.

    Marijuana is generally considered to be a soft recreational drug so I personally would see no problem in selling it to people to smoke in their own houses. The example of only being able to take drugs on the premises was more of an example of how a system could be extended to include all currently illegal drugs, thereby stamping out all drug-dealing related crime.
  5. MewMan

    MewMan Spikeshell Trainer

    What? From what I've seen the anti-legalization tends to make far more unreliable claims like "marijuana will lead to violence" or "marijuana will have high costs to society". The one time I did provide sources (none of which were from blogs, either) I was told that posting sources would lead nowhere. But if you want an example of credible sources being used by the pro-legalization team, then I'll show you whilst I address this post.

    The primary reason tobacco is carcinogenic is due to the tobacco plant's natural tendency to pull up the ingredients of the fertilizer. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest this is the reason that tobacco kills (source and
    source). In contrast to this, it has long been believed that the chemical in marijuana that causes the high also may even be ANTI-carcinogenic. (Source and source).So it's no surprise that with human studies, no connection between marijuana and cancer has yet been found (Source).

    Alcohol and marijuana are different drugs. What medical problems and accidents do you refer to when you mention the "societal costs" of marijuana? Just because alcohol has a high cost to society doesn't mean marijuana automatically will as well. And surely, you can see that the money spent on jail time for distributors wouldn't be a problem if it was legalized?

    You make a lot of assumptions here. First, you assume that tobacco companies will add chemicals that will cause health problems, but even if this did happen, the rules of supply and demand still apply. If tobacco companies add chemicals to make it more addictive or less healthy, than other companies that don't add these will get a lot more business, and so corporations would learn quite quickly not to do this kind of thing. Yes, the government may make companies get licenses to sell marijuana, but I don't see why they wouldn't let people grow their own. If you want to grow your own tobacco, you are free to do so. Why would it be any different with marijuana? No matter how you look at it, legalization is much better, not only for marijuana smokers but for society as a whole as well.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
  6. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    That article does indeed mention that, in that study, there was no connection established between marijuana usage and increased risk of cancer, but it fails to convince me of marijuana's harmlessness whatsoever.

    First of all, I don't find the experiment itself entirely practical (granted, I am not any sort of skilled experimenter, so my doubts may be ill-informed) - it seems that they chose a random sampling of subjects, nearly half diagnosed with cancer and half not, and simply questioned them about their marijuana use habits. There could be pre-existing causes for the cancer group, or the cancer-stricken half of the study could have, on average or even overall, simply smoked less marijuana than the cancerless half, just off the top of my head. Also, they limited the study's subjects to a certain age bracket, possibly cutting additionally informative results out of the matter. It seems a pretty fallible way to research cause and effect, and leaves open many doors for error and misconstrued findings.

    And even without the doubts of a novice scientist about that professional experiment, the article also says that the experimenter himself continues to believe marijuana is a harmful substance. Apparently, much of his previous work has already been instrumental in making the case against marijuana for its potential harming effects. Not a very strong source for claiming marijuana isn't unhealthy, honestly.
  7. MewMan

    MewMan Spikeshell Trainer

    First of all, they didn't cut out an age bracket that could yield informative results. They had no participants over 60 because they would not of been exposed to marijuana in their youth, seems like a practical decision to me.

    It doesn't say the experimenter continues to believe marijuana is a harmful substance.

    You can question the validity of the experiment, but it's the largest human study to date so at the moment it's the best piece of research that we currently have to work with. And yes, other variables could always be a factor, but it states that they tried to control these best they could. Along side this, most other human studies have failed to show a link between marijuana and cancer, even though it should technically be present due to the higher number of carcinogens in marijuana smoke. And I would say the fact that he performed the experiment expecting to find a link and didn't find one would be a strength rather than a weakness...
  8. GrizzlyB

    GrizzlyB Confused and Dazed

    I was slightly inclined to agree with you on this point at first, but then after a very brief search, I stumbled upon this article, which states that 74% of cancer cases (in the UK) occur in people aged 60 or over. Most of my other finds said the same thing. So really, they choose what is probably the worst fair age sample possible.

    And tell me, why is it that marijuana prevents cancer? Because the only reasoning behind it that I've been able to find indicates that it kills cells before they even have the chance to become cancerous. I mean, I'm no oncologist or anything, but that definitely does not seem like a sound way to prevent cancer, nor even a good alternative. Because I'm guessing that once all of your lung cells are dead, so are you.
  9. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    Splitting hairs, really, but okay. Conceded.

    I doubt it's "best piece of research"-ness precisely because of the questionable methodology and the many weaknesses in the experiment. Even if it's the biggest boat you have, a boat peppered with holes isn't going to be reliable out on the sea.

    And carcinogens are dangerous, unhealthy chemicals, plain and simple - they cause cancer. With such a high number of them existing in marijuana smoke, there's hardly a good reason to smile at unexpected and unexplained results and say, "It's okay folks, smoke up!"

    Carbonation causes fizz in your soda. If someone hands you a drink and says it is half again as carbonated as regular soda and yet there's fizz missing from the drink, that's reason for extreme suspicion and closer inspection. And tying carbonation to carcinogens in this little analogy, you surely wouldn't gulp down the paradoxical drink, believing the huge amount of carbonation is harmless just because the fizz wasn't found so far.

    Well, you're right that it's not a weakness (unless the experiment really was as poorly-devised as it is unconvincing), but I would say it's a sign that something isn't adding up rather than any kind of strength...
  10. MewMan

    MewMan Spikeshell Trainer

    I understand if you're saying the study is good enough for the pulmonologist of the University of California but not good enough for you. It just seems like an odd stand to take, especially since you yourself have said that you aren't a research scientist.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
  11. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    I don't remember sounding quite that full of myself when I raised my doubts. ^_^;

    If I came across as self-important rather than self-deprecating, I take full blame for the miscommunication and I apologize. Still, even if I happen to be plagued by the most disabling case of hubris mankind has ever seen, we'd do well to question the arguments here and not the person presenting them, don't you think?

    So, the experiment was good enough for the pulmonologist, okay. He still was quoted saying, in effect, it did nothing to dissuade his belief that marijuana is potentially :))) harmful. To me, that means there is more to be discovered; that the message from this experiment is not conclusive.
  12. Vaporeon4evr

    Vaporeon4evr Cyndakill

    I don't know where you got the idea that perscription acne medication is more harmful than marijuana. Yeah, it could potentially be abused and end up harming the person taking it, but then again so could marijuana. Both have the possibility of abuse. Marijuana is not harmless, and you know it. It's dangers may be overplayed and exaggerated, but it is not a "safe" substance by any means. Which means that complete legalization will cause a detrimental health concern that we as a society don't want ourselves burdened with.

    And as to the source-citing war between you and Profesco... I'm afraid to say that at this point in the debate there are too many sources for each side for us to really get anywhere. But for the sake of argument, I will proceed anyway. You found a source that says marijuana doesn't cause cancer. That's lovely. I bet it also doesn't cause tuberculosis, or lead to an AIDS infection, am I right? You crossed cancer off the list, but that still doesn't make marijuana safe. There are plenty of studies that show marijuana is harmful and detrimental, proof that cannot be denied.

    As to the whole alcohol vs. marrijuana debate (I'm not even sure we're still going at that topic, but...), I would venture to say that alcohol is legal for cultural reasons, rather than logical ones. But just because it is legal doesn't warrant that everything less harmful than it should be legal too. For one thing, the harmfulness of something is largely subjective, and for us to put alcohol at a higher echilon of harm because of X and Y observed reasons doesn't account for the fact that marijuana's harmfulness may reside in qualities it doesn't share with alcohol. Just food for thought.
  13. MewMan

    MewMan Spikeshell Trainer

    Not considering any sources is ridiculous in any debate. This allows you to make uncited statements like "Marijuana is harmful and would have a detrimental effect on society" without having to provide any evidence for it and barring me from arguing against it because you can just state that its "an undeniable fact". Funny how I said that marijuana's prohibition is indefensible, I was told to back up my statements and then when I begin to provide sources I'm told providing sources won't get us anywhere. Thus far in our debate, you've just repeated that marijuana is detrimental to society without providing any specific problems. Would you care to provide some?

    If the argument that alcohol is more detrimental to your health isn't a valid one, then allow to me provide some more.

    1. There is a huge amount of money spent on marijuana prohibition, this is undeniable. Despite the increasingly ludicrous amounts spent on marijuana, and drug prohibition in general, marijuana isn't becoming any less accessible. Prohibition fails to control the production of marijuana. It has been illegal for almost a century now, and yet has failed to reduce the supply. The "Monitor the future" reports that 85% of high school seniors say that marijuana is easy to obtain. The figure has remained unchanged since 1975, despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, and has never dropped below 82%. The huge amount of wasted money with no results should be reason enough to legalize it.

    2. Some health dangers of marijuana could actually be reduced by legalization. Adding sand or glass particles to add to the weight or appearance of marijuana, whilst not a common practice, could be entirely eliminated by legalization.

    3. Prohibition of marijuana means that the sale of marijuana is totally unrestricted in terms of who can buy it. Most dealers do not care who they sell to, so children and younger adolescents (who are most at risk from the health problems caused by marijuana) could be lured into buying it, or at least easily have the option. Many surveys have said it is easier for American teenagers to obtain marijuana than alcohol, and indeed, the same was true for me back in high school. Legalizing marijuana would allow for the government to control who accesses marijuana, and since prohibition is clearly not working for eliminating the market entirely, controlling it somewhat seems a much more viable alternative.

    4. Stigmatizing marijuana and making the users criminals does more harm to users who continue to try and be productive members of society (which the vast majority are), and are instead made into criminals and even arrested for causing harm to nobody but themselves.

    5. Marijuana gives a huge source of income to crime and terrorism. Legalization would remove this source of revenue, and instead create revenue for the government, who could put it into health services, schools e.t.c

    6. Ultimately, what right do the government have over what people want to do with their own bodies? We are free to do damage ourselves in many, many other ways - why should marijuana be the exception? Why should normal people be made into criminals for harming nobody but themselves?
  14. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    Acne medication worse than marijuana...? Any prescription medicine has the possibility of killing you. However, typical medication to treat acne like tetracycline or to a lesser extent, cephalexin don't kill people on a regular basis. The only medication that even has a remote chance of seriously harming your health is Accutane.
  15. Krake

    Krake Flabebe's Kids

    First of all, neither does the anti-legalization side for the most part.

    Second, some of these statements can be off of personal experience. some of the posts I've made were.

    How can you get an AIDS infection from weed?
  16. MewMan

    MewMan Spikeshell Trainer

    Nobody has ever overdosed on marijuana, ever.
  17. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    Okay? Just because no one has overdosed on marijuana does not mean it's safer than prescription drugs.
  18. tyranitar90

    tyranitar90 UP THE IRONS

    weed should be legal. hey if you want to smoke it, you should be able to. all the people against it bring up their sources that i dont care about. people who smoke it are normal and use it for recreational purposes. besides obesity costs more. it costs billions for diabetes, and we have people wanting to ban a herb...
  19. Ash-kid

    Ash-kid Ash-kid

    Marijuana shouldn't be legal. it can hurt people and make their life to a terrible in a while. I don't saying no one can use it, but kids and teenagers could be hurt by this.
  20. Lorde

    Lorde Banned

    Well, it's illegal now, and it's still available to kids and teens. So even if it was legal, nothing would change.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page