Page 12 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 1243

Thread: Duuuddee... Pass the blunt...

  1. #276
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nowwhere and everywhere
    Posts
    941

    Default

    As has been pointed out before smokeign marijuana is a choice. Now how good or bad that choice is it is a choice.

    Smoking is a choice, (regular tobacco I mean) and not a very good one, but thousands of people do it anyway.

    Drinking is a choice, slightly better for you than smoking, but not by much, and thousands of people do it anyway....So while smoking weed is a choice, that is a choice that people are alound to make, not some goverment organization. Such is somewhat the principle of America.
    Take a moment to consider just how nothing nothing really is....If you understand this, then you just solved the universe.

    The truth that each person...each soul...is a book. And when we lay our feelings out in the open...and we give them no name...and we give them no author....and we give them no description.....who will actually read them..........?"

    Credit to Eevee for the amazing banner.
    Current fanfiction project: Pokemon: Absolution

  2. #277
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Disney World
    Posts
    1,341

    Default

    No, because if it is allowed, then the taxes will eventually get to high, causing a riot of drunk people who use the Marijuana, then they'll just make it illegals it again.
    Signiture Underconstruction

  3. #278
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Possibly there are people who don't like smoking cigarettes or drinking, but would enjoy marijuana. That would mean more people addicted to bad, unhealthy things.

  4. #279
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Whether or not Marijuana is good for you, smoking...putting smoke in your lungs in general is bad since it denies oxygen to your cells.

    But anyway, I don't care what people do. I do me, you do you. You like weed? Go ahead and use it, I'm not judging you. Have fun.

    Do keep in mind that buying weed does fund drug cartels and that those cartels are the bad people. The drug dealers are just trying to make a living doing what they can. The people buying the weed, etc. are just looking for a good time. It's really an inadvertent problem but not everyone knows/thinks about the cartels and their cruelty so you can't blame people for invincible ignorance.

    The government would have to start growing its own marijuana or have companies in the U.S. with no affiliation to said cartels if weed were legal. Imagine how much chemical would be put into it? Not to mention, half the fun of scoring a bag would be lost because the thrill of avoiding the cops would be gone.
    I am I, and I wish I weren't. -Aldous Huxley

  5. #280
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    9,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manifesto
    Imagine how much chemical would be put into it?
    Imagine how much chemicals are in a government regulated product vs. something off the street?

    Yeah, imagine that.

    No, because if it is allowed, then the taxes will eventually get to high, causing a riot of drunk people who use the Marijuana, then they'll just make it illegals it again.
    Hasn't happened with alcohol or cigarettes so far.
    [IMG]http://i51.*******.com/dheavp.png[/IMG]
    Credit to Nuit

    Quote Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
    Quick, someone get the scientific community onto this one! A truly brilliant hypothesis that would have been insofar overlooked by every researcher who has contributed to this field of science. And it's only 8th grade stuff!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Zero
    I roam Johto with my partner Pokemon, Rattata, who knows Hyper Fang, Sunny Day, Rock Smash and Cut. Anyone who runs with more than one Pokemon or evolves their Pokemon takes the game way too seriously.

  6. #281
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nowwhere and everywhere
    Posts
    941

    Default

    To whomever GhostAnime quoted in the second quote I have to ask exactly would that happen? Taxes don't just jump thrity percent every week or something like that.
    Take a moment to consider just how nothing nothing really is....If you understand this, then you just solved the universe.

    The truth that each person...each soul...is a book. And when we lay our feelings out in the open...and we give them no name...and we give them no author....and we give them no description.....who will actually read them..........?"

    Credit to Eevee for the amazing banner.
    Current fanfiction project: Pokemon: Absolution

  7. #282
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zeppelin Rules!
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    That's one way of ducking the point. However, it really isn't. You claim that drug dealers are the scum of the earth on the basis that they sell narcotic substances that can be harmful when abused to people who may very well abuse them (though of course many don't in any way whatsoever making your argument somewhat irrelevant. Anyway, moving on.) On that basis you should hate shopkeepers and bar-owners who do very much the same thing.

    I'll state it once more so you can try again. You must hate shopkeepers and bar-owners.



    Irrelevant.



    Irrelevant.



    It's been fine for me thanks.



    Because it's awesome?



    Ignoring the cynical insinuation made at this point, I'll instead quote a rather poignant verse.

    Laying in bed tonight I was thinking
    And listening to all the dogs
    And the sirens and the shots
    And how a careful man tries
    To dodge the bullets
    While a happy man takes a walk
    Best debater, or best debater? Hey this is the best debater rite here guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostAnime View Post
    Imagine how much chemicals are in a government regulated product vs. something off the street?

    Yeah, imagine that.
    Almost a fair point, but once companies start dumping addictive carcinogenic chemicals into pot, pretty much every argument along the lines of "its better than cigarettes/alcohol SO WHY ILLEGAL" goes down the toilet.

    Furthermore, if you're stupid enough to buy laced drugs off the street, then you deserve every toke of fiberglass you get.

  8. #283
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    9,030

    Default

    but once companies start dumping addictive carcinogenic chemicals into pot,
    What makes you so sure they will?

    Furthermore, if you're stupid enough to buy laced drugs off the street, then you deserve every toke of fiberglass you get.
    What if it was the only weed available?
    [IMG]http://i51.*******.com/dheavp.png[/IMG]
    Credit to Nuit

    Quote Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
    Quick, someone get the scientific community onto this one! A truly brilliant hypothesis that would have been insofar overlooked by every researcher who has contributed to this field of science. And it's only 8th grade stuff!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Zero
    I roam Johto with my partner Pokemon, Rattata, who knows Hyper Fang, Sunny Day, Rock Smash and Cut. Anyone who runs with more than one Pokemon or evolves their Pokemon takes the game way too seriously.

  9. #284
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zeppelin Rules!
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostAnime
    What makes you so sure they will?
    The same reasons tobacco companies currently do so, I suppose?

    What if it was the only weed available?
    I'm going to hazard a hypothetical guess here and say you shouldn't be smoking it in that case.

  10. #285
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    That's one way of ducking the point. However, it really isn't. You claim that drug dealers are the scum of the earth on the basis that they sell narcotic substances that can be harmful when abused to people who may very well abuse them (though of course many don't in any way whatsoever making your argument somewhat irrelevant. Anyway, moving on.) On that basis you should hate shopkeepers and bar-owners who do very much the same thing.

    I'll state it once more so you can try again. You must hate shopkeepers and bar-owners.
    There is an obvious difference between the bikies who sell the mixtures of heroin and I know not what to the patients who come to the emergency ward in the hospital I work at and normal shopkeepers and bar owners. The difference is not just in magnitude but in general associated malice; the organised crime rings that control narcotics supplies have essentially an entire array of machinery built for sucking out every last cent from people who are in many cases completely helpless in exchange for poisoning them even further. Evidently it's different when you're talking about someone offering their friend some marijuana, or when a bartender sells someone a drink.

    Because it's awesome?
    There's no way I can argue with this. In response to that piece of verse, I'd rather take care to avoid the bullets if those bullets are psychotic illnesses. I imagine most people who get hit by them would think the same.

  11. #286
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    At the Grand Galloping Gala!
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Weed.
    Govrement gets money and is happy, and can control if it's 'too much' whatever goes in weed that makes it so awesome that we have, like, fingers.

    People get to smoke it AND they pay money for it. As well as the fact we'll be taxing it. They're happy... unless they get sucked in, but most people would do it even if it was illegal that would do it if it's legal.

    Not the best argument, but in most countries, if weed is illegal, it's used more then if it's legal. Not sure why, I should research it.

    Noob debater, ready to be hanged and fired at.
    TODAY I DRANK PICKLE JUICE.
    It was pretty good.

  12. #287
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrizzlyB View Post
    Best debater, or best debater? Hey this is the best debater rite here guys.
    Feel free to counter any of my points whilst you're at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Panda View Post
    There is an obvious difference between the bikies who sell the mixtures of heroin and I know not what to the patients who come to the emergency ward in the hospital I work at and normal shopkeepers and bar owners. The difference is not just in magnitude but in general associated malice; the organised crime rings that control narcotics supplies have essentially an entire array of machinery built for sucking out every last cent from people who are in many cases completely helpless in exchange for poisoning them even further. Evidently it's different when you're talking about someone offering their friend some marijuana, or when a bartender sells someone a drink.
    Yeah because all drug dealers fall into the category you describe. Drug dealing as a transaction (very important distinction) is amoral, just like cigarettes and alcohol. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. External factors such as the ones you describe are circumstantial and not inevitable.


    There's no way I can argue with this. In response to that piece of verse, I'd rather take care to avoid the bullets if those bullets are psychotic illnesses. I imagine most people who get hit by them would think the same.
    There's a degree of risk in most of the fun things in life (though the risks of weed are minimal when placed in percentages). All of my friends have suffered some kind of broken bone/long term muscle injury playing football. Maybe we should stop because of the risks?

    http://www.ukcia.org/

    http://www.ukcia.org/culture/effects/mh.php

    A nice read for those seeking to realise that the dangers are all relative and (generally) pretty minimal.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 25th October 2011 at 12:08 PM.

  13. #288
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zeppelin Rules!
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    Feel free to counter any of my points whilst you're at it.
    Sorry, I'll be explicit. The reason I quoted your post was to demonstrate the manner in which you shucked off someone else's points (including medical evidence) as irrelevant, and then posted some song lyrics or something as your own counter-evidence, and also answered a call to objectivity with, "Because it's awesome?". Which wouldn't be that big of a deal if I didn't know that you consider yourself the best, or at least one of the best, debaters on this forum, and clearly think that you are somehow refuting The_Panda and winning the argument.

    The reason I didn't address any of your points is because, as evidenced by both when I posted a while ago on this thread and what you're doing now, I figured I'd just skip the step where you misread and disregard my post in favor of substituting in your own perceived partial, malformed arguments. More importantly, you don't even have any points, other than "hey, you said drug dealers are bad and I'm currently entrapping you in arguing over an offhand statement", "well, I like it", and "everything comes with its own relative risks". That last one is, of course, an absurdly unfocused argument which can be used to justify any known harmful activity.

    Oh, and then you posted some links to a pro-cannabis site that doesn't actually explicitly discuss anything of relevance and doesn't even truly deny the link between schizophrenia and marijuana, which is kind of cool I guess. But for the hell of it, I think I'm just going to go ahead and say it's irrelevant anyway.
    Last edited by GrizzlyB; 26th October 2011 at 12:44 AM.

  14. #289
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,524

    Default

    I think it best for it to be illegal.

  15. #290
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pacific Time Zone
    Posts
    220

    Default

    I say keep it illegal.
    While I have no problem with people smoking it (I don't do it myself, feel free to ask why if your interested), I do not want the government to profit off something that people should be able to enjoy free of charge.
    Let them burn in the debt they created. They spent the money, why should we pay it.
    I'm for legalizing it if its tax free, otherwise just keep doing it illegally.

  16. #291
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrizzlyB View Post
    Sorry, I'll be explicit.
    Don't worry I knew what you meant.

    The reason I quoted your post was to demonstrate the manner in which you shucked off someone else's points (including medical evidence) as irrelevant and then posted some song lyrics or something as your own counter-evidence
    The medical evidence was pointless though. Picking out two random ways of contracting a disease (and I think comparing HIV to scizophrenia is pretty poor form personally) and saying one is higher than the other is irrelevant (especially as scizophrenia is not "caused" by cannabis in the same way that HIV is contracted through ****ing, nor did she specify the geographic limitations (or whether they existed) of her "evidence"). It is totally irrelevant in the form in which she posted it, as I think confirmed by the fact she didn't labour the point when I dismissed them as irrelevant.

    I could also highlight the fact that the poster was highlighting the relative dangers of heterosexual intercourse in relation to cannabis/scizo. Theoretically if hetero has less chance of HIV to Sciz, surely that means Homo has more. Therefore, if the OP was implying that weed is bad because you have more of a chance of getting scizo from weed than you do getting HIV from heteror, then she must also think homosexuality is bad, because you have more of a chance of contracting HIV. This is the kind of logic than can be achieved through points like that. It assists nothing.

    and also answered a call to objectivity with, "Because it's awesome?". Which wouldn't be that big of a deal if I didn't know that you consider yourself the best, or at least one of the best, debaters on this forum, and clearly think that you are somehow refuting The_Panda and winning the argument.
    Well I'll grant you I was being overtly facetious here, but I stand by my point, because she's once again using facetious logic. "I've worked in a psych ward so I can't see how weed can be considered good". I've seen someone die so I can't see how life can be considered worthwhile. Same logic, same pointless argument. You make an objective decision the same way you make other objective decisions, by contextualising.


    The reason I didn't address any of your points is because, as evidenced by both when I posted a while ago on this thread and what you're doing now, I figured I'd just skip the step where you misread and disregard my post in favor of substituting in your own perceived partial, malformed arguments.
    Except that this is complete ********, as anyone who can read pages 9 and 10 of this thread can see. You're being far more facetious than me at that point.

    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthr...=535830&page=9

    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthr...535830&page=10

    More importantly, you don't even have any points, other than "hey, you said drug dealers are bad and I'm currently entrapping you in arguing over an offhand statement",
    I have a major problem with people pigeonholing "drug dealers" into one synonymous group. That's not a "non-argument", it's a perfectly legitimate one. It also stems from the panda's original post, which managed to contradict itself in its approach to drugs/dealers. There's no entrapment necessary here. If you make the connection between drug dealers and "bad people", you should expect to have to justify your points. I'm also more likely to argue on these points with TP because of the fact she indicated that she felt weed should be at least decriminalised, making any arguments we have on legalisation pretty much defunct. Now, if you want to come back at the points I made regarding criminality and the worthlessness associated with tying people down for not actually causing people direct harm, I'll be happy to change tact.

    "well, I like it", and "everything comes with its own relative risks". That last one is, of course, an absurdly unfocused argument which can be used to justify any known harmful activity.
    Any self-harmful activity.

    Oh, and then you posted some links to a pro-cannabis site that doesn't actually explicitly discuss anything of relevance
    It really does. There are plenty of worthwhile articles on there. In addition to that, one of the blog posts also explains how some evidence is essentially being kept from the public eye due to price.

    and doesn't even truly deny the link between schizophrenia and marijuana,
    Which I've never attempted to deny.

    But for the hell of it, I think I'm just going to go ahead and say it's irrelevant anyway.
    Yawn.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 26th October 2011 at 12:37 PM.

  17. #292
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Inna House... With Cable!!!
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
    Do keep in mind that buying weed does fund drug cartels and that those cartels are the bad people. The drug dealers are just trying to make a living doing what they can. The people buying the weed, etc. are just looking for a good time. It's really an inadvertent problem but not everyone knows/thinks about the cartels and their cruelty so you can't blame people for invincible ignorance.
    Yeah but not all pot comes outta the cartels. Most of what my family and friends have smoked over the years came out of basement hydro gardens and such. Plenty of seeds and shake in every baggy full, grow your own & cut out the cartels.

    So true!

  18. #293
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    9,030

    Default

    Let them burn in the debt they created. They spent the money, why should we pay it.
    I really don't think you should keep something illegal just because you hate the governmen that much...
    [IMG]http://i51.*******.com/dheavp.png[/IMG]
    Credit to Nuit

    Quote Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
    Quick, someone get the scientific community onto this one! A truly brilliant hypothesis that would have been insofar overlooked by every researcher who has contributed to this field of science. And it's only 8th grade stuff!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Zero
    I roam Johto with my partner Pokemon, Rattata, who knows Hyper Fang, Sunny Day, Rock Smash and Cut. Anyone who runs with more than one Pokemon or evolves their Pokemon takes the game way too seriously.

  19. #294
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SPARTATATATA!
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChedWick View Post
    What has 'grass' being illegal accomplished aside from waste millions of tax dollars on trying and putting away non-violent offenders?
    Putting away non-violent offenders.

    Smarter than you... Wait what?

    Okay. I fail.
    What do these pokemon have in common? Put it in your own siggy if you know. Created by Power464646.




    I claim Balla da li n00bs!
    I claim Kabutops!

  20. #295
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pacific Time Zone
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostAnime View Post
    I really don't think you should keep something illegal just because you hate the governmen that much...
    I don't think we should legalize something just to put more cash in the corrupt politician's pockets.

    Your able to do it now. Don't get caught and enjoy it. I will NEVER report someone for smoking weed.

  21. #296
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thebattleforntierash View Post
    Let it stay illegal we don't need it.
    Marijuana can aid in fighting some diseases and conditions, but most people don't need to be smoking since they don't have conditions and it is currently against the law (in most places)



    [IMG]http://i53.*******.com/35kppqp.gif[/IMG]
    [IMG]http://i41.*******.com/iwsxlc.gif[/IMG]


    Credit to Sarah and Neo Pikachu for artwork

  22. #297
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zeppelin Rules!
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    The medical evidence was pointless though. Picking out two random ways of contracting a disease (and I think comparing HIV to scizophrenia is pretty poor form personally) and saying one is higher than the other is irrelevant (especially as scizophrenia is not "caused" by cannabis in the same way that HIV is contracted through ****ing, nor did she specify the geographic limitations (or whether they existed) of her "evidence"). It is totally irrelevant in the form in which she posted it, as I think confirmed by the fact she didn't labour the point when I dismissed them as irrelevant.
    That wasn't really the specific medical evidence to which I was referring, but either way, that was just a comparison to highlight the relativity of risks. HIV transmission rate might not be very high, but that's still not a risk you're going to knowingly expose yourself to, is it? The process by which you contract it might be fun, but if you do get HIV, your life is going to change forever for the worse. In those stripped-down terms, it's no different than marijuana/schizophrenia (or any other similar risk/consequence situation, I guess), aside from what you can wind up with in the end. And even if you are willing to write off schizophrenia as inconsequential next to AIDS, I don't think The_Panda is, which is why his psych ward experience isn't irrelevant as you made it out to be.

    I could also highlight the fact that the poster was highlighting the relative dangers of heterosexual intercourse in relation to cannabis/scizo. Theoretically if hetero has less chance of HIV to Sciz, surely that means Homo has more. Therefore, if the OP was implying that weed is bad because you have more of a chance of getting scizo from weed than you do getting HIV from heteror, then she must also think homosexuality is bad, because you have more of a chance of contracting HIV. This is the kind of logic than can be achieved through points like that. It assists nothing.
    I know you're making a point here, but the fact that you even notice non-sequitur distinctions such as this is quite vexing, apart from the fact that he both made no possible allusion to homosexual HIV transmittance nor any sort of statement by which you could infer that the rate is either higher or lower than that of heterosexual intercourse, and the fact that HIV is a risk you take, or avoid; it's not inherently tied into sex (hetero or homo) the way most risk factors are.

    I suppose that, in the strictest sense, I can't disagree with your logic on this, but if ye olde debate nerds were still around, I believe that this is what they would call a "slippery slope".

    Well I'll grant you I was being overtly facetious here, but I stand by my point, because she's once again using facetious logic. "I've worked in a psych ward so I can't see how weed can be considered good". I've seen someone die so I can't see how life can be considered worthwhile. Same logic, same pointless argument. You make an objective decision the same way you make other objective decisions, by contextualising.
    As I mentioned, it's relevant because he has worked with and presumably treated many people who have schizophrenia, which is not something that most people can say (I know I can't; can you?), and so better understands what the disease truly entails. 100% objective? Perhaps not, but so few things in the world are, so nitpicking for them isn't doing anybody any favors (and there's certainly no absolute objectivity backing pro-marijuana arguments).

    Additionally, he seemed, to me, to be disparaging the notion that weed is harmless, or even beneficial, which, as you know, is often touted as a reason for "why not?" marijuana legalization. Saying you've seen/not seen something once isn't really an argument. Dealing with it day in and day out as your profession... well, that just might. Slippery slopes and all that good stuff. Or "contextualising", as you prefer.

    Except that this is complete ********, as anyone who can read pages 9 and 10 of this thread can see. You're being far more facetious than me at that point.

    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthr...=535830&page=9

    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthr...535830&page=10
    I'll just paraphrase my favorite little exchange out of the bunch:

    Me: "The argument that marijuana offenders are filling up and draining the resources of prisons is false, as very few are actually incarcerated."

    You (in direct reply): "Non-violent offenders [such as drug possession] should not be criminalized on that basis, preventing them from getting certain jobs, etc."

    Maybe not an entirely unfair point to argue, but as you can see, it bears little to no relevance to mine, even though it was presented as a direct counterpoint. Hence, "you misread and disregard my post in favor of substituting in your own perceived partial, malformed arguments".

    I have a major problem with people pigeonholing "drug dealers" into one synonymous group. That's not a "non-argument", it's a perfectly legitimate one. It also stems from the panda's original post, which managed to contradict itself in its approach to drugs/dealers. There's no entrapment necessary here. If you make the connection between drug dealers and "bad people", you should expect to have to justify your points. I'm also more likely to argue on these points with TP because of the fact she indicated that she felt weed should be at least decriminalised, making any arguments we have on legalisation pretty much defunct. Now, if you want to come back at the points I made regarding criminality and the worthlessness associated with tying people down for not actually causing people direct harm, I'll be happy to change tact.
    We must be reading different posts, because it seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to predatory, malignant sorts of drug dealers. You know, the sort who get people hooked on heroin, etc. and then extort them and their addictions. Just because he didn't detail that aspect explicitly doesn't mean that suddenly all bets were off and you could interpret it however you wanted. And yes, it's a non-argument because you took one sentence where he expressed his opinion as some sort of nullification of the rest of his points. And kept arguing it, to the point where he suddenly hates grocery stores or something. The slippery slope and all that (my, that term keeps coming up, doesn't it?).

    Besides, decriminalizing weed doesn't mean you can buy/sell it, either. My state has just that, where if you have a license, you're allowed to have/smoke/grow weed, but you still can't buy or sell it. Legally, anyway. That right there is a fully legal distinction between dealing and decriminalizing, which makes arguing it not-defunct. ASIDE from the fact that both decriminalizing it and disliking dealers were, as The_Panda said, his opinion.

    And if you're talking about non-violent offenders' criminal records again, I'll just point out that it's at the discretion of whoever is doing the hiring whether or not they want to hire somebody with a criminal record, non-violent or otherwise. Even if it wasn't a crime anymore, a company that wanted to avoid hiring drug users can simply subject them to drug tests and not hire you that way, same as they can ignore drug-use records if they don't care about it now. And other than hiring, what distinctions are there between drug and other nonviolent offenders?

    Any self-harmful activity.
    Sorry, I didn't realize the man was worrying about dodging bullets he was shooting at himself in your metaphor.

    It really does. There are plenty of worthwhile articles on there. In addition to that, one of the blog posts also explains how some evidence is essentially being kept from the public eye due to price.
    And what evidence might that be, exactly? Is it "essentially" kept from the public eye, or is it? That's what I meant by "explicit".

    I'm also not going to comb through biased articles looking for little partial arguments against my own case. Although the specific section you did link to was a good indicator of why I said "explicit": they feigned explaining how marijuana works and what it does in scientific terms and wound up saying, "Well, it looks like you smoke a bunch of chemicals and then they affect your brain." They also attempted to downplay/dismiss the schizophrenia aspect (which, I assume, is why you linked to that section in the first place) of marijuana by labeling it as a correlation/risk factor. Which is technically true, but saying smoking causes cancer is just a correlation between smoking and cancer, but people don't typically try to dismiss a link between the two on that basis.

  23. #298
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    that wasn't really the specific medical evidence to which I was referring
    Can't see any others he/she used.

    Either way, that was just a comparison to highlight the relativity of risks.
    WHich sucked for the reasons I just explained.

    HIV transmission rate might not be very high, but that's still not a risk you're going to knowingly expose yourself to, is it?
    Condoms can break. That's a risk right there. You're exposing yourself by having sex. You're exposing yourself getting a BJ. You're exposing yourself regardless.

    And even if you are willing to write off schizophrenia as inconsequential next to AIDS, I don't think The_Panda is, which is why his psych ward experience isn't irrelevant as you made it out to be.
    They're completely incomparable. To compare them is ridiculous. One has killed millions and millions of people, the other hasn't.

    Also worth highlighting again that there is a massive flaw in the ways in which HIV/AIDS and scizo are "contracted". One if proven to occur through sex, one may occur through prolonged abuse of weed.

    I know you're making a point here, but the fact that you even notice non-sequitur distinctions such as this is quite vexing,
    The fact it's non-sequitur is precisely the point, because it highlights the flawed nature of that particular comparison.

    nor any sort of statement by which you could infer that the rate is either higher or lower than that of heterosexual intercourse,
    Well he/she clearly did by specifying heterosexual intercourse had less of a chance blah blah blah. Of course you can infer that by it. What other sexual acts were taken into account? Bestiality rates? The AIDS to necrophilia ratio?

    I suppose that, in the strictest sense, I can't disagree with your logic on this, but if ye olde debate nerds were still around, I believe that this is what they would call a "slippery slope".
    Bollocks they would. It's a vital flaw in the comparison. The whole reason I highlighted it was to shine a light on the ridiculous nature of comparing those two diseases in that context. I'm glad that you acknowledge I'm right though.

    As I mentioned, it's relevant because he has worked with and presumably treated many people who have schizophrenia, which is not something that most people can say (I know I can't; can you?), and so better understands what the disease truly entails.

    100% objective? Perhaps not, but so few things in the world are, so nitpicking for them isn't doing anybody any favors (and there's certainly no absolute objectivity backing pro-marijuana arguments).
    So it wasn't objective? Good good. TBH in the context of the debate I couldn't care less that he/she has worked in scizophrenia. It does nothing to strengthen his/her point.

    As for there being no such thing as 100% objective pro-marijuana arguments, this would be bs. Plenty of non marijuana smokers believe in legalisation.

    Additionally, he seemed, to me, to be disparaging the notion that weed is harmless, or even beneficial, which, as you know, is often touted as a reason for "why not?" marijuana legalization. Saying you've seen/not seen something once isn't really an argument. Dealing with it day in and day out as your profession... well, that just might. Slippery slopes and all that good stuff. Or "contextualising", as you prefer.
    Stating that "weed isn't harmless" is like stating the sky is blue.



    I'll just paraphrase my favorite little exchange out of the bunch:

    Me: "The argument that marijuana offenders are filling up and draining the resources of prisons is false, as very few are actually incarcerated."

    You (in direct reply): "Non-violent offenders [such as drug possession] should not be criminalized on that basis, preventing them from getting certain jobs, etc."

    Maybe not an entirely unfair point to argue, but as you can see, it bears little to no relevance to mine, even though it was presented as a direct counterpoint. Hence, "you misread and disregard my post in favor of substituting in your own perceived partial, malformed arguments".
    How can it be my direct reply if you're paraphrasing? Paraphrasing is the key word here, because it doesn't make any attempt to fully contextualise. Firstly, I acknowledged that your point may very well be true. However, I then made it clear that the issue is far bigger than this. A seperate point. A new point.

    The point was that just because a marijuana user does not go to prison, that does not mean he or she does not get a criminal record. My point was stating that doing such things is pointless because it criminalises a group of people who aren't directly harming anyone but (potentially and rarely) themselves,and harms society far more than it hinders it.


    We must be reading different posts, because it seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to predatory, malignant sorts of drug dealers.
    A distinction was never made. That's a very basic error.

    You know, the sort who get people hooked on heroin, etc. and then extort them and their addictions.
    So a miniscule number of drug dealers then? Brilliant. What a contribution.

    This person is in the wrong debate anyway, because that's physically impossible with marijuana. It's not an addictive substance. If you go back as well, there were some clear contradictions being made at that point also.

    Just because he didn't detail that aspect explicitly doesn't mean that suddenly all bets were off and you could interpret it however you wanted.
    No attempt at a distinction was made.

    And kept arguing it, to the point where he suddenly hates grocery stores or something.
    A point that still remains unanswered. I assume the grocery point is you being facetious.

    The slippery slope and all that (my, that term keeps coming up, doesn't it?).
    You keep using it certainly.

    Besides, decriminalizing weed doesn't mean you can buy/sell it, either.
    No but it does mean that a lot of arguments about the logic of criminalising users etc. are null and void. We never raised the ecnomic point together so I wasn't going to comment on that (and it's not my major concern anyway. Also if he/she believes in decrim then he/she is not going to believe in making money from it). The points he/she made stemmed from the risks and rights and wrongs of selling. I wasn't going to make the points about criminal records etc because they weren't what we were discussing.

    And if you're talking about non-violent offenders' criminal records again, I'll just point out that it's at the discretion of whoever is doing the hiring whether or not they want to hire somebody with a criminal record, non-violent or otherwise. Even if it wasn't a crime anymore, a company that wanted to avoid hiring drug users can simply subject them to drug tests and not hire you that way, same as they can ignore drug-use records if they don't care about it now.
    I can only assume that you are either not intelligent enough or are purposely being too obtuse to work out the unfair nature of criminalising non-violent drug users.

    And other than hiring, what distinctions are there between drug and other nonviolent offenders?
    Don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

    Sorry, I didn't realize the man was worrying about dodging bullets he was shooting at himself in your metaphor.
    Well tbh I was originally going to argue that point on the basis that the OP had implicitly stated that anyone who uses drugs is essentially a waster, but I thought better of it, and decided to post something uplifting. What I was trying to say is that life is too short to worry about every single little thing, and the minimal risks involved with something like toking. Yes, if you abuse a substance, something may happen, but the very likely thing is that it won't.

    Also worth noting that at that point I was responding to your own response of the initial quote, not E's beautiful poetry.


    And what evidence might that be, exactly? Is it "essentially" kept from the public eye, or is it? That's what I meant by "explicit".
    http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=918

    I'm also not going to comb through biased articles
    They're actually pretty even handed, and it's pretty much all evidence based, so that's a pretty stupid outlook to take.

    They also attempted to downplay/dismiss the schizophrenia aspect
    No they don't. Just because it's not using the same scaremongering rhetoric of anti-drug protesters/groups, doesn't mean it's dismissed. Quite the opposite.

    of marijuana by labeling it as a correlation/risk factor. Which is technically true,
    Glad you agree. Makes your previous point defunct. Nice one.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 29th October 2011 at 1:24 AM.

  24. #299
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zeppelin Rules!
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    Can't see any others he/she used.
    I was originally talking about the marijuana/schizophrenia correlation in general, not the fact that he compared the risk rate to HIV.

    WHich sucked for the reasons I just explained.
    And yet, marijuana advocates use that exact train of thought ALL THE TIME. As you are no doubt aware.

    Condoms can break. That's a risk right there. You're exposing yourself by having sex. You're exposing yourself getting a BJ. You're exposing yourself regardless.
    I was talking about the fact that you can avoid the risk by not having sexual contact with someone who is infected, in which case the rate of transmission is effectively 0. In other words, avoidable.

    I mean, I don't know anybody who's going to shack up with an HIV+ person, but maybe I'm in the wrong, here.

    They're completely incomparable. To compare them is ridiculous. One has killed millions and millions of people, the other hasn't.

    Also worth highlighting again that there is a massive flaw in the ways in which HIV/AIDS and scizo are "contracted". One if proven to occur through sex, one may occur through prolonged abuse of weed.
    ... you just compared them.

    You have half a point about them being different, in that intimate contact is just about the only way to contract HIV, whereas schizophrenia can be brought on by a number of causes, but looking at it one-dimensionally, in that smoking weed at a specific rate is more likely to give you schizophrenia than heterosexual sex at that same rate is to give you HIV, it's not wrong to compare them. Granted, we'd be better off with a different example, but all it was originally for was to illustrate that you can't write off something as irrelevant just because it's unlikely (hence, using something nobody would write off, like AIDS).

    Well he/she clearly did by specifying heterosexual intercourse had less of a chance blah blah blah. Of course you can infer that by it. What other sexual acts were taken into account? Bestiality rates? The AIDS to necrophilia ratio?
    Doesn't mean it had to be higher. It could've been lower. Could've been a plethora of other (normal) sex acts. Could've been having sex with an AIDS-ridden patient on their death bed. Just because other comparisons are possible, doesn't mean that you should go and attempt them all as it benefits you. Since he didn't say it, it was probably for a reason.

    Bollocks they would. It's a vital flaw in the comparison. The whole reason I highlighted it was to shine a light on the ridiculous nature of comparing those two diseases in that context. I'm glad that you acknowledge I'm right though.
    I wasn't acknowledging that you're right, I'm acknowledging that it was an incredibly stupid argument that never should have been made, much less thought. "Slippery slope" is just a nicer way of phrasing that.

    So it wasn't objective? Good good. TBH in the context of the debate I couldn't care less that he/she has worked in scizophrenia. It does nothing to strengthen his/her point.

    As for there being no such thing as 100% objective pro-marijuana arguments, this would be bs. Plenty of non marijuana smokers believe in legalisation.
    You seem to not understand what I mean when I say "objectivity". Seeing dozens of patients whose lives have been ruined by schizophrenia is not objective in the sense that saying their lives are ruined is an objective truth. Much the same way you can't objectively say that marijuana is a fun thing to to, because there's no inherent universal truth to it.

    And I specifically said "arguments", while you're talking about "arguers". I really shouldn't be surprised that you grasped at that, but I guess I have only myself to blame for not speaking in generalizations, because I honestly thought that you would understand, even if I didn't.

    Stating that "weed isn't harmless" is like stating the sky is blue.
    Therefore, many marijuana proponents HAVE stated that the sky is not blue, non?

    How can it be my direct reply if you're paraphrasing? Paraphrasing is the key word here, because it doesn't make any attempt to fully contextualise. Firstly, I acknowledged that your point may very well be true. However, I then made it clear that the issue is far bigger than this. A seperate point. A new point.

    The point was that just because a marijuana user does not go to prison, that does not mean he or she does not get a criminal record. My point was stating that doing such things is pointless because it criminalises a group of people who aren't directly harming anyone but (potentially and rarely) themselves,and harms society far more than it hinders it.
    As in, a reply directed at my point, and not something I took out of context (such as if I had made my paraphrased statement something from the beginning of the posts, and yours something from the end). Again, sorry for not making things explicit, so here's your actual reply:

    Quote Originally Posted by You View Post
    Immediate problem with this argument is that it's very short sighted, and ties into a general problem with criminalising any drug user.

    It may be true that the prisons do not have many people incarcerated for marijuana possession/use/dealing. However, just because you're not in prison doesn't mean you can't have a criminal record. A criminal record can mess up even the most capable candidate from getting any kind of good job, or working with children. Why? Because they enjoy smoking weed in the privacy of their own home. In what way is criminalising non violent self-users of a drug a productive policy?

    Likewise extend this to other drugs. So many non-violent offenders in prison, for what?
    You called my argument about prisons not actually being occupied (and therefore consuming resources in holding and caring for prisoners; this is a common argument for marijuana legalization, even though it's false) by people whose sole offenses were marijuana use/possession "short sighted". Which, in terms of YOUR argument, it may have been, because they do indeed have criminal records, but my point was that, since marijuana offenders are not being held in and paid for by prisons, that general argument was wrong. Notice: no mention of criminal records anywhere, because they don't have to do with this specific argument; it's strictly an economical one.

    Once more, with feeling: since prisons do not hold people whose sole offense is marijuana use/possession, they do not spend money to care for such criminals within the prison system, nor do they occupy prison space. These are both typical arguments to make for legalizing marijuana. Whether or not prisons are using resources to hold marijuana offenders has nothing to do with the existence of their criminal records; the two points are unrelated.

    I sincerely hope that helps to clear things up. Now, back to our regularly scheduled post.

    A distinction was never made. That's a very basic error.
    When talking to you (or many debaters), apparently. Most people will make that distinction themselves.

    This person is in the wrong debate anyway, because that's physically impossible with marijuana. It's not an addictive substance. If you go back as well, there were some clear contradictions being made at that point also.
    Which, I can only presume, is the reason he presented it as an aside.

    I assume the grocery point is you being facetious.
    Mostly, but definitely no more than it was of you to say that he hates shopkeepers and bar-owners.

    I can only assume that you are either not intelligent enough or are purposely being too obtuse to work out the unfair nature of criminalising non-violent drug users.
    I agree with not criminalizing drug users to a very certain extent, as in they should be distinguished from other sorts of offenders, but as far as I'm aware, this is already the case. Again, what are the exact detriments to being labeled a non-violent drug user? The only example I've got is about hiring people, which, again, is at the discretion of whoever's hiring. If it's about the unfair nature of labels at large, well, that sucks, because it's just one of many that can follow you around forever.

    Don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
    Person A is a convicted marijuana offender. Person B is a convicted traffic offender. What distinctions exist between these two non-violent offenders, and how are they each affected?

    Well tbh I was originally going to argue that point on the basis that the OP had implicitly stated that anyone who uses drugs is essentially a waster, but I thought better of it, and decided to post something uplifting. What I was trying to say is that life is too short to worry about every single little thing, and the minimal risks involved with something like toking. Yes, if you abuse a substance, something may happen, but the very likely thing is that it won't.
    At the individual level, this might be more or less true, but at the population level, shouldn't these risks be curbed? When there is enough of a low-risk activity going on, the consequence of it is sure to occur. By saying that the activity is okay, you are saying that the consequence is also okay.

    Note that I (we?) am speaking generally, and this doesn't inherently apply to marijuana.

    At least this proves my point. That article was not kept from the public eye any more than any other journal article ever. Perhaps if this blog had ever read journal articles, they would know that they're not free? In any case, I was able to find and read the article in question; it wasn't very good. For example, the data used to show little/no increase in schizophrenia prevalence between 1996 and 2005 used an age range of 16-59 years and relied on 10,000 patient years of exposure, even though it is known that the prevalence is greatest in late teens-early twenties. Further, the study cited stating that alcohol was five times more dangerous than marijuana, which he used to draw his conclusion, was his own study from three years prior. And those are just two things that stick out at me. If you want, chances are that you'll be able to find it, too, but I'd just skip it, personally. Talk about much ado about nothing.

    They're actually pretty even handed, and it's pretty much all evidence based, so that's a pretty stupid outlook to take.
    But not entirely. So, bias. Even if I hadn't read anything (even though I most certainly did), it's just good sense that something called "The UK Cannabis Internet Activist" will have some sort of slant to it.

    No they don't. Just because it's not using the same scaremongering rhetoric of anti-drug protesters/groups, doesn't mean it's dismissed. Quite the opposite.
    They're using technicalities to undermine scientific studies. Observe:

    Quote Originally Posted by UKCIA
    But this is a hot potato of a question because it depends on what's meant by "cause". There are no specific causes as no single cause has been identified.
    Downplay.

    Quote Originally Posted by UKCIA
    One large study carried out in Denmark in 2008 seems to show that people who react badly to cannabis with psychotic symptoms may be likely to develop the illness anyway.
    Downplay/dismissal.

    Quote Originally Posted by UKCIA
    In other words, a bad reaction to cannabis might be an early warning that a person is likely to develop schizophrenia
    Dismissal.

    While all of what they're saying is, in the strictest sense, true, scientific findings don't rely on things "in the strictest sense". Does smoking cause lung cancer? Not in the strictest sense, because not every incidence of it was related to smoking and not every incidence of smoking led to cancer. It's just a correlation. But if a correlation is strong enough, it's accepted as a fact. Hence, the fact that smoking causes lung cancer, even if it's not an inherit universal truth. Your article makes no small issue out of labeling a link between marijuana and schizophrenia a correlation. Technically true, but a fastidious and erroneous way of describing it.

    Glad you agree. Makes your previous point defunct. Nice one.
    Just in case you still don't get it, pointing out the technicality that a correlation is a correlation doesn't make it any less of a fact if it is strong enough. Which it is. So: no u

  25. #300
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrizzlyB View Post
    I was originally talking about the marijuana/schizophrenia correlation in general, not the fact that he compared the risk rate to HIV.
    Hmm well I've looked through the thread and at no point have I completely dismissed the (potential) links between marijuana and scizophrenia. I really cannot see any medical evidence I've "ignored".

    And yet, marijuana advocates use that exact train of thought ALL THE TIME. As you are no doubt aware.
    Well first of all I don't think they do use them overtly (or at least the more educated advocates). Secondly, I can't see any period I have, making this argument somewhat defunct.

    I was talking about the fact that you can avoid the risk by not having sexual contact with someone who is infected, in which case the rate of transmission is effectively 0. In other words, avoidable.

    I mean, I don't know anybody who's going to shack up with an HIV+ person, but maybe I'm in the wrong, here.
    There is literally no way to be sure the girl/guy you're ****ing is clean unless you follow them to the clinic before you test yourselves, make sure they carry out the test, use maximum protection every time, follow their sexual history back through both themselves and their partners and then have someone follow your partner at all times to make sure that they are not ****ing someone else whilst they are seeing you. That is the only way to be 100% sure.

    Before you dismiss this as irrelevant because the chances are so minute, don't. The point I'm making is an extreme one because it highlights just how hard it is to entirely eliminate risk.


    ... you just compared them.
    Let me rephrase then. They're completely incomparable in terms of being a reliable and/or worthwhile stat in this debate.

    You have half a point about them being different, in that intimate contact is just about the only way to contract HIV, whereas schizophrenia can be brought on by a number of causes, but looking at it one-dimensionally, in that smoking weed at a specific rate is more likely to give you schizophrenia than heterosexual sex at that same rate is to give you HIV, it's not wrong to compare them.
    Prolonged abuse of a substance in a person with predisposed tendencies to develop mental issues vs one instance of sexual intercourse. Yeah, they're pretty incomparable.


    Doesn't mean it had to be higher. It could've been lower.
    Lol.

    Since he didn't say it, it was probably for a reason.
    The reason being that it hurt his argument.

    I wasn't acknowledging that you're right, I'm acknowledging that it was an incredibly stupid argument that never should have been made, much less thought. "Slippery slope" is just a nicer way of phrasing that.
    Except it's not at all stupid if we follow my original logic. If you think it's stupid because of the examples used, that was kind of the point.

    I must say, the more I think about this comparison, the worse it becomes. To compare a fatal disease which has destroyed tens if not hundreds of millions of lives with a non-fatal disease which may not even be caused by the drug in question is really very poor form. Shame on the OP for making the point and shame on you for defending it.

    And I specifically said "arguments", while you're talking about "arguers". I really shouldn't be surprised that you grasped at that, but I guess I have only myself to blame for not speaking in generalizations, because I honestly thought that you would understand, even if I didn't.
    Fair enough.


    Therefore, many marijuana proponents HAVE stated that the sky is not blue, non?
    Yes. So? Doesn't mean I agree with them/associate myself with them.


    You called my argument about prisons not actually being occupied (and therefore consuming resources in holding and caring for prisoners; this is a common argument for marijuana legalization, even though it's false) by people whose sole offenses were marijuana use/possession "short sighted". Which, in terms of YOUR argument, it may have been, because they do indeed have criminal records, but my point was that, since marijuana offenders are not being held in and paid for by prisons, that general argument was wrong. Notice: no mention of criminal records anywhere, because they don't have to do with this specific argument; it's strictly an economical one

    Once more, with feeling: since prisons do not hold people whose sole offense is marijuana use/possession, they do not spend money to care for such criminals within the prison system, nor do they occupy prison space. These are both typical arguments to make for legalizing marijuana. Whether or not prisons are using resources to hold marijuana offenders has nothing to do with the existence of their criminal records; the two points are unrelated.
    You see, the last sentence of paragraph 1 and the whole of paragraph 2 showcase exactly why I described your argument as "short-sighted".

    Firstly, the idea that people having criminal records and subsequently not being able to get jobs is somehow not linked to economic arguments is unbelievably ignorant. It really worries me that you missed this. Public money does not stop at the prison gates.

    Secondly, I don't think that the prisons point is made very often explicitly by experts/intelligent laymen/women when confined strictly to marijuana. It's linked to wider drug issues, but I think the vast majority would notice that prisons are not filled with marijuana "junkies" (oxymoron pretty much I know).

    Finally, a breakdown of my points re criminalisation of marijuana users (with a prior admission that much of what I say may only relate to the UK).

    1. A person is given a criminal record for posession/use/ even dealing cannabis. A crime which harms nobody directly other than the person who chooses to use it.

    2. Because of this criminal record, the user is excluded from a large part of the job market.

    3. This leads to two potential scenarios. Firstly, many talented people are excluded from jobs such as teaching/being a doctor/many other skilled professions. As such, many companies and infrastructures lose out on talented workers which could have helped improve the various fields in which they would have worked. For no other reason than they chose to use something in their own time.

    The other scenario is that many of these users simply cannot find a job. This obviously costs the government a significant amount of money in welfare benefits. A section of society are barred from helping the economy grow because of pointless draconian drug legislation.

    Hence the use of the phrase "short-sighted". Not facetious, not particularly rude, you simply chose to interpret it that way.

    When talking to you (or many debaters), apparently. Most people will make that distinction themselves.
    In a debate it's up to you to express yourself clearly. I've failed to do so a few times and you've picked up on it, I imagine you would expect me to do the same.

    Which, I can only presume, is the reason he presented it as an aside.
    An aside which contributed nothing.

    Mostly, but definitely no more than it was of you to say that he hates shopkeepers and bar-owners.
    Except that my point was clearly linked to his isolated and narrow-minded painting of what drug dealers do, and linking that to the very similar way in which shopkeepers and bar-owners operate.

    The only example I've got is about hiring people, which, again, is at the discretion of whoever's hiring. If it's about the unfair nature of labels at large, well, that sucks, because it's just one of many that can follow you around forever.
    Yet it is one that society could deal with in a way which would benefit society as a whole.

    Person A is a convicted marijuana offender. Person B is a convicted traffic offender. What distinctions exist between these two non-violent offenders, and how are they each affected?
    Well very few distinctions exist, other than the fact the traffic offender may very well have caused others harm/put others in danger through his/her actions.

    Still not sure what you're getting at here tbh, but I think the main issue relies on the way in which we identify non-violent offenders who do not cause/carry direct harm/threat to others.


    At the individual level, this might be more or less true, but at the population level, shouldn't these risks be curbed?
    There is no evidence to suggest that legalisation leads to a significant increase (if indeed there is any at all) in marijuana consumption over a long-term period. The risks as they are would remain, but would be easier to treat.

    When there is enough of a low-risk activity going on, the consequence of it is sure to occur. By saying that the activity is okay, you are saying that the consequence is also okay.
    Drinking is legal, smoking is legal, driving is legal (and harms those other than the person taking the risk), unprotected sex is legal.

    At least this proves my point. That article was not kept from the public eye any more than any other journal article ever. Perhaps if this blog had ever read journal articles, they would know that they're not free?
    20 pounds a day is pretty steep, especially for something which is in the interests of public health and from a british university system funded (in part) by the taxpayer.

    In any case, I was able to find and read the article in question;
    Where?

    For example, the data used to show little/no increase in schizophrenia prevalence between 1996 and 2005 used an age range of 16-59 years and relied on 10,000 patient years of exposure, even though it is known that the prevalence is greatest in late teens-early twenties.
    Just because it is most prevalent at that point doesn't discount the possibility of it in other years. Secondly, I don't think the article is trying to do everything at once, which is good. I'm sure a study on twenty somethings will come in time. Right now, the evidence

    Further, the study cited stating that alcohol was five times more dangerous than marijuana, which he used to draw his conclusion, was his own study from three years prior.
    So?


    But not entirely. So, bias. Even if I hadn't read anything (even though I most certainly did), it's just good sense that something called "The UK Cannabis Internet Activist" will have some sort of slant to it.
    It's far less biased than most, and uses scientific data for the vast majority of its claims. I don't know what else you expect.


    Downplay.
    Downplay/dismissal.
    Dismissal.
    You use these words in such a loaded context. The whole point of articles such as that are to downplay and rationalise some of the BS that comes from the scaremongering anti-drugs brigade.

    While all of what they're saying is, in the strictest sense, true, scientific findings don't rely on things "in the strictest sense". Does smoking cause lung cancer? Not in the strictest sense, because not every incidence of it was related to smoking and not every incidence of smoking led to cancer. It's just a correlation. But if a correlation is strong enough, it's accepted as a fact. Hence, the fact that smoking causes lung cancer, even if it's not an inherit universal truth. Your article makes no small issue out of labeling a link between marijuana and schizophrenia a correlation. Technically true, but a fastidious and erroneous way of describing it.
    Comparing a pastime which is linked at close to 90%+ of lung cancer cases with something which is not even close to being proven as a definitive factor in developing scizophrenia. Nice.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 2nd November 2011 at 10:55 AM.

Page 12 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •