Page 13 of 50 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 1243

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

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zeppelin Rules!
    Posts
    2,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    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".
    By "ignoring medical evidence" I was referring to your initial decision to post solely in response to The_Panda's aside about drug dealers. Which was most certainly what occurred. It wasn't a dismissal. It was ignoring it, by which I mean you acknowledged it in no way, shape, or form.

    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.
    Granted, I don't think that you, specifically, did this, but any time anybody tries to argue that marijuana should be legal on the basis that alcohol is, even though it's more dangerous, this is the exact kind of argument they're making. It was a general statement, to a general argument.

    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.
    Those exact possibilities are why I described the transmission rate as "effectively 0". It's low, but there is a minute chance that there will be exceptions. My point was, that when you KNOW you're exposing yourself to that risk, you won't take it, not that you'll only expose yourself to it when you KNOW you WON'T. Positive versus negative affirmation.

    Let me rephrase then. They're completely incomparable in terms of being a reliable and/or worthwhile stat in this debate.
    When you try to apply it directly to this debate (or any other that isn't about transmission rates of HIV), yes. When you take it as it was intended, as an example asking, "You don't ignore something just because it's uncommon, do you?", no.

    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.
    That's just the difference between individual and population analysis, there. Obviously, that wasn't the level the example was intended to be looked at in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about rates.

    Lol.
    Well, at least this affirms my suspicion that you can't look at these things objectively.

    The reason being that it hurt his argument.
    An argument he wasn't making. All he did was compare two specific statistics, for the sake of example. That example, again, was, "Don't ignore risks because they're unlikely." Not, "If risk X is more likely than risk Y, it is bad," as you seem to be interpreting it.

    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.
    No, it still was stupid, because you were creating an argument which simply wasn't there, in saying that he made any kind of judgement call based on the riskiness of any activity. True, there was no way to disprove your logic, but I didn't need to, since you created it out of thin air.

    And again, you're not looking at it from an objective, one-dimensional angle, as it was intended. Nobody's comparing the diseases themselves. All that's been compared is the likelihood of contracting them. It's comparing numbers, and nothing more. The fact that those numbers had implications attached to them was to (hypothetically) get you to understand the reason behind listing the numbers.

    Yes. So? Doesn't mean I agree with them/associate myself with them.
    Fair enough. But again, it was a general statement directed at a general argument, not a direct reply to anything you said.

    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.
    If I had intended it to be the be-all-end-all of the economic argument behind marijuana legalization, you'd have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't. It is one extremely specific argument. It has nothing to do with criminalization of users, because that has nothing to do with tax-spending nor the prison system. Yes, to say that criminalization has no impact on economics at all would be wrong. But I didn't.

    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).
    I should hope not. But it is common among other, less distinguished marijuana proponents. Looking back, it was in direct reply to ironknight42, who said that legallization would "reduce traffic into prisons". Even though this one did have a context, it's another one of those "general statement to a general argument" things.

    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.
    This is the only part I agree with, partially. Even though I think they ought to be labeled somehow, calling a casual drug user a "criminal" isn't the way. Still, I think that distinction exists; if you get rejected for a job because of drug use, they knew you were a drug user, not just a criminal in general.

    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.
    Being something like a teacher or a doctor carries a much heavier responsibility on it than most professions, though. I doubt an alcohol offender would have a much easier time getting jobs in those fields than a marijuana offender. Teaching carries with it the responsibility of setting an ideal role model to students, which generally rules out drugs of any sort at all. Will they use in front of children? Doubtful, but it seems like a possibility that is best eliminated in its entirety (in the US, it's illegal to have tobacco products anywhere within 100 yards of school property, for instance). More relevantly, they're federal employees, who are expected to obey any and all federal laws at all times (I don't know if this is the case in the UK at all or not). Is that a good reason? Maybe not necessarily, but federal employees play by entirely different sets of rules in just about every regard, so if the government doesn't want to allow drug use as part of their screening process, as an employer, that is their right (of course, none of this applies to private school teachers, nor to teacher licensure in general, even though that's a government-controlled thing)(of course, I'm talking about the US, and it's probably totally different in the UK, I don't know). And anybody who goes into any sort of medical field can't be a drug-offender, for the simple reason that they are prescribing and dispensing drugs all the time, and need to be as low-risk as possible, considering the high potential for abuse (no, someone who smokes weed casually isn't going to steal prescription drugs, but it's a risk factor in a field that needs to be as stringently controlled as possible).

    Basically, it's industry-specific, and not a general trend. If these professions don't want to hire drug users, they'll find ways to avoid them, criminal record or no.

    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.
    I'm not quite visualizing the jump from "completely qualified, but unable to be a doctor" straight down to "unemployment".

    Hence the use of the phrase "short-sighted". Not facetious, not particularly rude, you simply chose to interpret it that way.
    I didn't interpret it as rude or mean or anything, just the whole part where you were reading into me saying things I wasn't even addressing.

    An aside which contributed nothing.
    Except his opinion. Really, there was no need to attempt to refute it in the first place, except maybe asking, "You don't mean every single person who's ever sold any drug to anyone ever, do you?" for clarification.

    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.
    Unless you mean something specific by "shopkeepers" that I don't, I was rephrasing the same thing, since grocery stores do sell tobacco and alcohol. And clerks are shopkeepers of sorts, right?

    Yet it is one that society could deal with in a way which would benefit society as a whole.
    True. But if we're going to worry about things like labels and hiring policies at large, there are much better places to start than with drug offenders.

    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.
    Assuming they hadn't harmed anybody. I'm trying to glean whether the problems those with drug charges face are specific to them, or other petty criminals in general (or whatever you want to call people who've committed crimes that aren't "bad").

    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.
    Well, there's no evidence suggesting anything about turning marijuana from illegal to legal, because it hasn't been done. The closest thing I can think of is when certain states in the US legalized it for medical use, where, yes, few people took advantage. Until the federal government declared that they would no longer uphold federal law by superceding state laws, at which point the number of licenses positively exploded. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean anything, since it doesn't account at all for the many more who use regardless of whether or not they have a license allowing them to, but it does allude to the general idea that legality is preventing many from using.

    I agree with the part about treating them, though. It's definitely true, and more importantly, scientists need to be able to run actual studies on this stuff, since all we have so far are limited and ghetto-rigged experiments, that may or may not actually be significant.

    Drinking is legal, smoking is legal, driving is legal (and harms those other than the person taking the risk), unprotected sex is legal.
    But (I assume) we both know the boons to driving and sex. As for drinking and smoking, search me. But just because something is less dangerous doesn't make it okay. They're pretty bad barometers for that sort of thing. You can just as easily read it as meaning that they should be illegal as well.

    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.
    Yeah, it's a bit much, but nothing more than you'd pay for the most hackneyed, unimportant studies. Or the most groundbreaking ones, for that matter. See, no one study is ever going to prove much, and so when dozens of others come up with the same thing, it's more or less accepted, and then people can read about it (in general, not the specific study, necessarily). As it stands, most people are unable to differentiate between good science and bad, relevant and irrelevant, etc. If you throw every pertinent study at them in a row, and they believe each one, their opinions on the matter are going to swing back and forth, for no reason other than that nothing is yet conclusive, and they don't understand what is actually happening. Take the recent fiasco with neutrinos exceeding the speed of light; every person who hears about it is formulating their own, completely baseless, opinions on whether or not it's right, despite those who performed the experiment stating repeatedly, "Whoa, don't get your panties in a bunch, this is just one study, and we need to see if it holds up." I don't know whether or not this explanation justifies the price, necessarily, but I do believe it justifies not throwing each study at people and saying, "OH MY GOD, LOOK AT THIS, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING!"

    And, even if the university where the study is conducted is publicly funded, publishing something is entirely in its own category. As is the case with the particular journal this one was published in (Journal of Pharmocology, for the record).

    Where?
    Okay, it seems I was wrong about being able to find it normally. I guess I just thought that since you can usually find full-text studies around the internet, it meant that they were somewhere, and not just certain ones are (as is the case, obviously). Anywho, I found it because my college subscribes to various scientific databases, and allow students access. I had thought that you were a university student, too? (I also assumed that every school does this sort of thing, and I'm just now realizing that they may not)

    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
    No, but going back to the smoking/cancer example, it's like saying, "Well, only 4% [or whatever] of smokers aged 18-55 have lung cancer, so it's not the cause." Which, of course, is bogus, because people almost always get cancer later in life. Doing it that way, you're not only cutting out a fair share of those who are likeliest to be affected, you're also drowning out the numbers of those who are by using such a gigantic parameter, with people who are unlikely to exhibit anything.

    And you're absolutely right, because no study should ever attempt to do more than a little bit at once. It's just part of what exhibits this paper as not being very scientifically strong. Actually, having looked back on it, it both reads and is actually presented more from a sociological standpoint.

    P.S.- Did you miss something you were writing there, or...?

    So?
    Nothing explicitly wrong with it, but it doesn't exactly help your credibility to cite your own work rather than that of others. Especially since it was part of his conclusion, it's essentially stating that the conclusion is true because he said it was. Also, the first study was, again, pretty scientifically void, and criticized, and a large part of the reason Dr. Nutt was fired in the first place (from what I read, anywho). It was just he and other people in his committee (didn't say how many, even; also, there were two who weren't part of the committee) assigning scores to drugs, based on 16 factors (there is much to be argued in terms of objectivity and relevance, here, as you can see). That's where the "alcohol is 5 times more dangerous to others and twice as dangerous to the user as marijuana" numbers come from (it's called "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis", if you wanna take a shot at finding this one; since I do have access to all these things, I can't actually tell if someone who doesn't can read them or not).

    Also, even though I'm undermining it as much as I can, there's nothing strictly wrong with the way they're going about it. It's just that, since this is only one small study, it should be taken as such. For example, you aren't going to take the drug ratings they came up with to be objectively true, right? After all, it was only twenty or fewer people who said that, after they were averaged out (I got that because there were 18 people listed on his committee's website, plus 2. This may have gone up or down since, or maybe not everybody participated, I really don't know). Twenty people who can be called experts, granted, but still. It's just such a minute thing in the scheme of things, and that's why I have a problem with that UKCIA website throwing it in peoples' faces, as if it's more relevant, than, well, anything else.

    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.
    I'll admit that it's far less terrible than most of those sorts of resources I've been thrown to over the years. But you're still putting far too much veracity into what they're saying. It's easy to find a scientific experiment that disproves something, because it's just some amount of data. But unless it's accepted as the opinion of the community at large, as a result of lots of thorough experimentation, it doesn't amount to much, generally speaking.

    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.
    Obviously. The fact that they're trying to do so just proves that they are biased, as does the fact that you're saying "BS" and "scaremongering anti-drugs brigade". You both are coming at the issue with some slant, some purpose. Which isn't wrong, because you're not going to set up an informational resource without a purpose. My point was, that they alternatingly buy into disproving scientific studies (easy to do, as I said) and dismiss proving ones (less easy to do). I don't actually care whether or not they're biased, but they're biasing the science, and misleading people into thinking that it's okay.

    Just for clarity, what I mean by "disproving" study is a study that finds no links between things. Unless it's conducted many times, in the same way, and virtually all find no links, can it be considered valid. On the other hand, a "proving" study would be one that finds a link between things. If a link is found, it is only disproven by conducting the experiment many more times, with them overwhelmingly finding no link. The number is more than 19 disproving incidences to every one proving one. This is because it's unlikely for a coincidence to show up any more than very rarely (I don't know why it's a 95% confidence interval, it just is; it's some statistics thing. Anywho, this xkcd comic explains the idea pretty well, bearing in mind that there really haven't been adequate numbers of studies to prove the weed/schizo link one way or another (and if you try to say there are, it goes in favor of there being a link, anyway), and the comic's entire point about taking any one study too seriously).

    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.
    GOOD LORD. It's almost as if I used the most obtuse example possible for the sake of illustrating my exact point, isn't it? (if you look carefully, you'll also notice that at no point did I compare the two in any sense beyond both having correlations to things; I could have used anything besides smoking)

    And holy hell, my posts just keep getting longer. ****ing debates.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Amid vast pastures.
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Schizophrenia can't be that bad anyway. When I'm old and ugly and live in my rocking chair, I personally don't think I'd mind seeing monkeys.

    I'll concede to GrizzlyB that marijuana can be potentially dangerous, but I can't really reconcile it's illegality when other things that are legal can and do cause arguably worse things. A drug that can cause schizophrenia? Absolutely not! Something that causes cancer? Yeah, we're cool with that. I don't get it to be honest.

    I'll also have to disagree with Snorunt Conservationist about marijuana not being addictive. While my argument is only anecdotal (So really, you can just skip over reading this if you like) many of my friends that have smoked weed for a long time get the shakes, sweats, and experience severe anxiety when they don't have it.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Everywhere I'm not .
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Just enetering the thread so I'm not really sure how much was covered in the discussion but... I believe it should be legalized . The medical benefits far outway the detriment it MAY have on your health . It's no where near as destructive as a drug as alcohol or tobacco and the way I see it , we as humans have been using the plant medicinally and recreationally since the early Greeks and even before that , why stop now , because some lumber company is scared they'll go out of business ? Marijuana is better for the environment and can be extremely beneficial to the economy .

    [QUOTE=I'll also have to disagree with Snorunt Conservationist about marijuana not being addictive. While my argument is only anecdotal (So really, you can just skip over reading this if you like) many of my friends that have smoked weed for a long time get the shakes, sweats, and experience severe anxiety when they don't have it.[/QUOTE]

    Well , I'm gunna' have to say your wrong sir . I , personally , have never had any physical symptoms of marijuana withdrawl (mainly because those symptoms don't exist) . If your friends are shaking and sweating , it sounds like they may be using crack or other physically addictive substances . Marijuana has no PHYSICALLY addictive factors , but there are some mental withdrawls (i.e. slight depression , hightened temper , boredom <-- joke)
    iLostTheGame

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iLostTheGame View Post
    The medical benefits far outway the detriment it MAY have on your health . It's no where near as destructive as a drug as alcohol or tobacco and the way I see it , we as humans have been using the plant medicinally and recreationally since the early Greeks and even before that , why stop now , because some lumber company is scared they'll go out of business ? Marijuana is better for the environment and can be extremely beneficial to the economy .
    yea if only people who need it medically are only smoking it. i think it should be legalize so that the government can set standards to people dont get bad weed.

    Quote Originally Posted by iLostTheGame View Post
    Well , I'm gunna' have to say your wrong sir . I , personally , have never had any physical symptoms of marijuana withdrawl (mainly because those symptoms don't exist) . If your friends are shaking and sweating , it sounds like they may be using crack or other physically addictive substances . Marijuana has no PHYSICALLY addictive factors , but there are some mental withdrawls (i.e. slight depression , hightened temper , boredom <-- joke)
    it may not be addictive itself, but for 1/5 people(think its 1/5, maybe 1/4), it becomes addictive cuz of a person's biology. also the withdrawal effects make it hard to quit. so even if a person doesnt have the biology for addiction, the depression and anxiety from being sober is a strong swaying factor for people to go back smoking

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Amid vast pastures.
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Well , I'm gunna' have to say your wrong sir . I , personally , have never had any physical symptoms of marijuana withdrawl (mainly because those symptoms don't exist) . If your friends are shaking and sweating , it sounds like they may be using crack or other physically addictive substances . Marijuana has no PHYSICALLY addictive factors , but there are some mental withdrawls (i.e. slight depression , hightened temper , boredom <-- joke)
    Well, clearly the effects vary from person to person. There was a period in time where I smoked nearly everyday, and I never had any physical withdrawal symptoms either. I'm simply saying that I have observed and heard firsthand, friends of mine that encounter physical withdrawal symptoms when they don't smoke. In addition, I think I'd be aware of what other drugs they were using if we all lived in an apartment together for a long period of time. We also need to consider that marijuana hasn't been extensively studied like other drugs. There are no chemicals that cause physical withdrawal symptoms that we're currently aware of. Despite scientific evidence suggesting marijuana causes no physical withdrawal symptoms, I still have to disagree based on my own first hand experiences with the drug and how it's affected others.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrizzlyB View Post
    Semantics
    Really don't see the point for either of us to keep on going back and forth debating the minutiae. Here are the reasons I dismissed the link as irrelevant, put a final response to this and we'll leave it at that.

    1. I feel linking a non-fatal disease with a fatal disease which has ravaged a continent and killed tens of millions is at best irresponsible and at worst irresponsible, devious and laced with malice.

    2. The comparison itself is irrelevant because it suggests that just because something is more likely (ala homosexual HIV) it is subsequently a worse action to undertake.

    3. The causes which can lead one to get the diseases are completely different and as cannot be simply explained by saying that you have "more chance" of getting one than the other.

    4. He did not back up his claim with evidence

    5. If he had done, this evidence would (I imagine) have been very limited. Try telling me that getting scizophrenia from weed is more likely than getting heterosexual aids in sub-saharan Africa or the like. It means nothing without a proper contextualisation.

    6. The possibility of contracting either disease (in the western world) is incredibly minute in the grand scheme of things.








    If I had intended it to be the be-all-end-all of the economic argument behind marijuana legalization, you'd have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't. It is one extremely specific argument. It has nothing to do with criminalization of users, because that has nothing to do with tax-spending nor the prison system. Yes, to say that criminalization has no impact on economics at all would be wrong. But I didn't.
    If you make a point on any economic point on an issue such as this, where the pennies and pounds are a vital part of the discussion, then you should expect to have it broadened and placed in a wider context.


    This is the only part I agree with, partially. Even though I think they ought to be labeled somehow, calling a casual drug user a "criminal" isn't the way. Still, I think that distinction exists; if you get rejected for a job because of drug use, they knew you were a drug user, not just a criminal in general.
    A lot of companies simply won't hire cons.

    Being something like a teacher or a doctor carries a much heavier responsibility on it than most professions, though.
    This point is not pertinent unless the person in question is abusing the substance and that it is affecting his or her work. What he/she does outside of work is no business of the state unless he or she is causing harm to another.

    Teaching carries with it the responsibility of setting an ideal role model to students, which generally rules out drugs of any sort at all.
    Depends whether you consider substance use a bad character trait, which I don't. What about humpers and dumpers? That smacks of far baser morals than someone who gets high once in a while after work.

    Will they use in front of children? Doubtful, but it seems like a possibility that is best eliminated in its entirety (in the US, it's illegal to have tobacco products anywhere within 100 yards of school property, for instance).
    Keeping it illegal doesn't do much to stop this.

    More relevantly, they're federal employees, who are expected to obey any and all federal laws at all times
    I wonder if every single one of them stays under the driving limit every moment of every day? I wonder if they've ever jay-walked?

    And anybody who goes into any sort of medical field can't be a drug-offender, for the simple reason that they are prescribing and dispensing drugs all the time, and need to be as low-risk as possible, considering the high potential for abuse (no, someone who smokes weed casually isn't going to steal prescription drugs, but it's a risk factor in a field that needs to be as stringently controlled as possible).
    I'm not making this as a point, but you'd be surprised how many substance abusers there are in the medical profession.


    I'm not quite visualizing the jump from "completely qualified, but unable to be a doctor" straight down to "unemployment".
    In the same way that companies won't employ under-qualified people, they often won't employ over-qualified people (believe me, I have been rejected from jobs for precisely this reason). I also explained this rather messily in the sense that even if the over-qual person gets the job, then someone with minimal quals may very well miss out on a job altogether. I'm labouring the point, but it just makes little sense to non-violent drug users.

    I didn't interpret it as rude or mean or anything, just the whole part where you were reading into me saying things I wasn't even addressing.
    Explained above.


    True. But if we're going to worry about things like labels and hiring policies at large, there are much better places to start than with drug offenders.
    Not really. The war on drugs drains so much money and talent (and I am extending this to drugs in general) it seems a great place to start.

    Assuming they hadn't harmed anybody. I'm trying to glean whether the problems those with drug charges face are specific to them, or other petty criminals in general (or whatever you want to call people who've committed crimes that aren't "bad").
    All non-violent criminals should IMO be spared jail and unless they are persistent offenders get off with a fine and no mark on their criminal record.

    Well, there's no evidence suggesting anything about turning marijuana from illegal to legal, because it hasn't been done.
    http://www.thefix.com/content/decrim...en-years-later

    http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html

    Decriminalisation not legalisation, my bad.



    You can just as easily read it as meaning that they should be illegal as well.
    Not if you value personal freedom as any democratic and open society should.

    Yeah, it's a bit much,
    Understatement.

    See, no one study is ever going to prove much,
    On the origins of species anyone? Of course they can/do.

    "Whoa, don't get your panties in a bunch, this is just one study, and we need to see if it holds up." I don't know whether or not this explanation justifies the price, necessarily, but I do believe it justifies not throwing each study at people and saying, "OH MY GOD, LOOK AT THIS, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING!"
    I don't think they were particularly claiming that (title of the article was poorly worded I guess), it was more a continuation of the evidence which suggets cannabis is of minimal harm.

    And, even if the university where the study is conducted is publicly funded, publishing something is entirely in its own category. As is the case with the particular journal this one was published in (Journal of Pharmocology, for the record).
    Something separate, don't see the point arguing this in this thread because it could just go round and round. What I shall say though is that I think it's a bad thing that such journals aren't more widely available to the general public (I mean that for all disciplines).

    Anywho, I found it because my college subscribes to various scientific databases, and allow students access. I had thought that you were a university student, too?
    Graduated a few months ago.

    No, but going back to the smoking/cancer example, it's like saying, "Well, only 4% [or whatever] of smokers aged 18-55 have lung cancer, so it's not the cause." Which, of course, is bogus, because people almost always get cancer later in life. Doing it that way, you're not only cutting out a fair share of those who are likeliest to be affected, you're also drowning out the numbers of those who are by using such a gigantic parameter, with people who are unlikely to exhibit anything.

    And you're absolutely right, because no study should ever attempt to do more than a little bit at once. It's just part of what exhibits this paper as not being very scientifically strong. Actually, having looked back on it, it both reads and is actually presented more from a sociological standpoint.



    Nothing explicitly wrong with it, but it doesn't exactly help your credibility to cite your own work rather than that of others. Especially since it was part of his conclusion, it's essentially stating that the conclusion is true because he said it was. Also, the first study was, again, pretty scientifically void, and criticized, and a large part of the reason Dr. Nutt was fired in the first place (from what I read, anywho). It was just he and other people in his committee (didn't say how many, even; also, there were two who weren't part of the committee) assigning scores to drugs, based on 16 factors (there is much to be argued in terms of objectivity and relevance, here, as you can see). That's where the "alcohol is 5 times more dangerous to others and twice as dangerous to the user as marijuana" numbers come from (it's called "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis", if you wanna take a shot at finding this one; since I do have access to all these things, I can't actually tell if someone who doesn't can read them or not).

    Also, even though I'm undermining it as much as I can, there's nothing strictly wrong with the way they're going about it. It's just that, since this is only one small study, it should be taken as such. For example, you aren't going to take the drug ratings they came up with to be objectively true, right? After all, it was only twenty or fewer people who said that, after they were averaged out (I got that because there were 18 people listed on his committee's website, plus 2. This may have gone up or down since, or maybe not everybody participated, I really don't know). Twenty people who can be called experts, granted, but still. It's just such a minute thing in the scheme of things, and that's why I have a problem with that UKCIA website throwing it in peoples' faces, as if it's more relevant, than, well, anything else.



    I'll admit that it's far less terrible than most of those sorts of resources I've been thrown to over the years. But you're still putting far too much veracity into what they're saying. It's easy to find a scientific experiment that disproves something, because it's just some amount of data. But unless it's accepted as the opinion of the community at large, as a result of lots of thorough experimentation, it doesn't amount to much, generally speaking.



    Obviously. The fact that they're trying to do so just proves that they are biased, as does the fact that you're saying "BS" and "scaremongering anti-drugs brigade". You both are coming at the issue with some slant, some purpose. Which isn't wrong, because you're not going to set up an informational resource without a purpose. My point was, that they alternatingly buy into disproving scientific studies (easy to do, as I said) and dismiss proving ones (less easy to do). I don't actually care whether or not they're biased, but they're biasing the science, and misleading people into thinking that it's okay.

    Just for clarity, what I mean by "disproving" study is a study that finds no links between things. Unless it's conducted many times, in the same way, and virtually all find no links, can it be considered valid. On the other hand, a "proving" study would be one that finds a link between things. If a link is found, it is only disproven by conducting the experiment many more times, with them overwhelmingly finding no link. The number is more than 19 disproving incidences to every one proving one. This is because it's unlikely for a coincidence to show up any more than very rarely (I don't know why it's a 95% confidence interval, it just is; it's some statistics thing. Anywho, this xkcd comic explains the idea pretty well, bearing in mind that there really haven't been adequate numbers of studies to prove the weed/schizo link one way or another (and if you try to say there are, it goes in favor of there being a link, anyway), and the comic's entire point about taking any one study too seriously).



    GOOD LORD. It's almost as if I used the most obtuse example possible for the sake of illustrating my exact point, isn't it? (if you look carefully, you'll also notice that at no point did I compare the two in any sense beyond both having correlations to things; I could have used anything besides smoking)

    And holy hell, my posts just keep getting longer. ****ing debates.[/QUOTE]

    Will add to in due course. Oh, and Gergovia, your friends are attention seeking/ lying. Nothing more. There is no physical dependency from weed.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 14th November 2011 at 8:20 PM.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Annwn
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Legal. I dont give a **** about if it's good for the economy or good for your grandparents with cancer or whatever, it should be legal because there isn't a valid reason for it not to be. Making something people want that isn't a threat to their saftey (isn't above the govs current safety atandards anyway, if you compare it to other things they deem safe) for fiscal or other purposes is abusing the power of law (which is abuse in itself already..) It should only be illegal if it's going to kill us. And hey, even if it does, we also legalize cool things like guns, tobbacco, booze, computer dustoff and fireworks, right kids?

    Plus, the bad for the economy pile of junk completely ignores all the VERY efficient and easily produced things that can be made from hemp. Fuel, paper, and alot of other stuff can be made from hemp alot cheaper and environmentally freindly than the things we currently use. Cool random fact, the declaration of independance was made on hemp paper.
    Last edited by krakket; 20th November 2011 at 12:38 AM.
    [IMG]http://i44.*******.com/msdvlg.png[/IMG]
    where is my mind?
    Heart Gold Freindcode: 3654-3989-9565
    Current Team: Tess Lizzy Slayer Wacko Farrow
    Gym Badges: 8


  8. #308
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Default

    meh, just leave it as it is, saves getting all those anti-dope people getting their knickers in a twist, and pestering the govt to re-illegalise it etc. I mean, those who smoke weed are going to smoke it (and do, might i add) wether its legal or not. What we really should be worrying about is **** like salvia (and i heard in the states you have crap called bath salts or something?). After doing salvia several times, it makes me wonder why is salvia legal and weed illegal? i mean, salvia has made me trip sooo much harder than both LSD and mushooms, and if you were to do a high enough strength of the stuff, you could potentially cause harm to yourself. Why is that crap sold behind the counter, and weed you have to ¨sneak¨ around to get. 'Tis quite a strange world we live in is it not?
    [IMG]http://i51.*******.com/2lwb2x1.gif[/IMG]
    [IMG]http://i55.*******.com/2q827h3.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i56.*******.com/23t47k0.gif[/IMG]
    [IMG]http://i54.*******.com/2vnq2a9.png[/IMG]
        Spoiler:- Credit:

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    435

    Default

    It should be legal for said reasons, but a) people have been conditioned that drugs will destroy society b) its in the corporations best interest to keep down natural alternatives.

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Ive seen marijuana used as a gateway drug constantly. We'll just keep slipping if we legalize it. Next itll be cocaine.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mesarin View Post
    Ive seen marijuana used as a gateway drug constantly. We'll just keep slipping if we legalize it. Next itll be cocaine.
    "Gateway drug" is a meme, it has no real basis in reality. People with addictive personalities will do whatever, but they are not the majority of people.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Annwn
    Posts
    46

    Default

    meh, just leave it as it is, saves getting all those anti-dope people getting their knickers in a twist, and pestering the govt to re-illegalise it etc. I mean, those who smoke weed are going to smoke it (and do, might i add) wether its legal or not. What we really should be worrying about is **** like salvia (and i heard in the states you have crap called bath salts or something?). After doing salvia several times, it makes me wonder why is salvia legal and weed illegal? i mean, salvia has made me trip sooo much harder than both LSD and mushooms, and if you were to do a high enough strength of the stuff, you could potentially cause harm to yourself. Why is that crap sold behind the counter, and weed you have to ¨sneak¨ around to get. 'Tis quite a strange world we live in is it not?
    Spice, anybody? That stuff is horrible. There's so many different kinds you never know what you're getting, I've seen people FREAK OUT on it and think they were dying. I smoked some once and laid down in the woods behind my freinds house thinking the woods were prehistoric and if I laid very still the pterodactyls wouldn't see me. I HATE the stuff, but I used to smoke it whenever freinds had it. People who like smoking weed end up buying spice when they're on probation for smoking weed. And it's so much worse for you. Some random chemical that they spray on dried out cabbage... Gross. But legal yaaaaaaay.....not...

    A different kind also made me go temporarily blind whenevrer I walked around. i would sweat and get dizzy and not be able to see AT ALL after standing or walking for too long because it lowered my blood pressure so drastically. People have heart attacks. Spice would COMPLETELY dissapear if they would just take the stick out of their *** and legalize weed. I think they're too embarrassed to admit that the goverment made a mistake and lied to everybody, partially.. so they just keep acting like they're right..
    Last edited by krakket; 21st November 2011 at 3:18 AM.
    [IMG]http://i44.*******.com/msdvlg.png[/IMG]
    where is my mind?
    Heart Gold Freindcode: 3654-3989-9565
    Current Team: Tess Lizzy Slayer Wacko Farrow
    Gym Badges: 8


  13. #313
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SPARTATATATA!
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Does anyone want to hear a Darwin award on the topic?
    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!

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,241

    Default

    Yes, it should. If for no other reason, it should be legalized so 13 year olds can no longer act all hardcore because they're breaking a law and learn to talk about something other than smoking 24/7.

    Have you been around these little hipster douches these days? Wow. And I thought my generation was pretentious and had incredibly stupid values.

    If you think the Sinnoh saga has been the best saga of the whole show, copy and paste this into your signature! (started by FlameRose)

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    631

    Default

    My girlfriend had a debate topic on this one time, and she tells me EVERYTHING she researches (fml..)


    Anyway she researched that in the Netherlands, where it is legal, a much lower percentage of the population uses marijuana. So it is very possible that legalizing in in the United States could cause people to stop caring about it so much, and thus use it less. Plus if the government taxed its sale this nation would make a fortune.
    My Y Team:

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pokémon Daycare
    Posts
    6,408

    Default

    Like underage drinking, most do it because it's illegal, as some form of rebellion, I know I have. I agree that it should be legalized, it's seriously impossible to control anyway, and tax payer money could be put to better use to control the rapist population.

    People who claim that if marijuana is legal, why isn't cocaine, when the fact is, marijuana is a natural plant, cocaine doesn't grow on trees. It is a LOT easier for some bum off the street to grow his own weed, than it is for him to make his own cocaine.
    Last edited by foxyman1167; 16th December 2011 at 6:11 AM.
    Laurence | Rock
    3325-1721-6092
    Onix | Shuckle | Nosepass

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Beyond the Wall.
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderblade12 View Post
    Yes, it should. If for no other reason, it should be legalized so 13 year olds can no longer act all hardcore because they're breaking a law and learn to talk about something other than smoking 24/7.

    Have you been around these little hipster douches these days? Wow. And I thought my generation was pretentious and had incredibly stupid values.
    I'd really appreciate it if you didn't judge all 13 year olds by some asshole "jocks", thank you. >.>

    On the topic itself, why are we talking about marijuana being addictive? You know what else is addictive? The internet. Hell, even masturbation can be addictive, how about we ban that?

    But in any case. It has been proven that marijuana has major health benefits(it fights cancer, dammit!). It's not a drug that people get wildly aggressive on. While maybe driving under the influence should be banned, it in itself should be legalised.
    THIS DAY IS GOING TO BE PERFECT
    Because love's in bloom~

    "After all this time?"
    "Always", said Snape.

    Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pokémon Daycare
    Posts
    6,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rangeet View Post
    But in any case. It has been proven that marijuana has major health benefits(it fights cancer, dammit!). It's not a drug that people get wildly aggressive on. While maybe driving under the influence should be banned, it in itself should be legalised.
    For the sake of example, take cell phone usage. Cell phones themselves are legal, driving while using it is not, but that doesn't stop people from using them.

    I'd need to find the study that proves my point (not doing it now, too tired), but I remember reading a study that shows marijuana is less destructive than alcohol abuse on the human body.
    Laurence | Rock
    3325-1721-6092
    Onix | Shuckle | Nosepass

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rangeet View Post
    I'd really appreciate it if you didn't judge all 13 year olds by some asshole "jocks", thank you. >.>

    On the topic itself, why are we talking about marijuana being addictive? You know what else is addictive? The internet. Hell, even masturbation can be addictive, how about we ban that?

    But in any case. It has been proven that marijuana has major health benefits(it fights cancer, dammit!). It's not a drug that people get wildly aggressive on. While maybe driving under the influence should be banned, it in itself should be legalised.
    Unless "jocks" is slang for something else where you're from I don't think I did 0_o

    If you think the Sinnoh saga has been the best saga of the whole show, copy and paste this into your signature! (started by FlameRose)

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Beyond the Wall.
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foxyman1167 View Post
    For the sake of example, take cell phone usage. Cell phones themselves are legal, driving while using it is not, but that doesn't stop people from using them.

    I'd need to find the study that proves my point (not doing it now, too tired), but I remember reading a study that shows marijuana is less destructive than alcohol abuse on the human body.
    This is good enough, methinks.

    Simple google searches like "marijuana vs alcohol/smoking/heroin" etc etc reveal that marijuana is pretty low on the list of dangerous drugs. Now, I'm the first to admit people shouldn't be expected to do others' research, but if you have a bit of time google it; you shouldn't have to go through many unreliable sources or such.
    THIS DAY IS GOING TO BE PERFECT
    Because love's in bloom~

    "After all this time?"
    "Always", said Snape.

    Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL (grr)
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    I don't particularly think we need potheads creeping anybody not on drugs out. Besides, while smoking is already on the verge of being outlawed by a lot of states, why do we need marijuana free to the public? I see that as a danger to those who are "normal" and "sober" or whatever from the drugs. If we have those drugs, think of the side affects. Maybe they're not as big as regular pills that you get in pharmacies, but still, I don't believe we need them in cities.

    credit: Thunderstrike Graphics Shop for the userbar
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatino95 View Post
    My cat walks around at night and I'm fairly sure that she's stalking me.

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Beyond the Wall.
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Marijuana can be thought of as a drug that would be PERFECTLY LEGAL to the public because it has NO PROVED SIDE EFFECTS and PROVED MEDICAL BENEFITS and the "high" on it actually makes the person LESS AGGRESSIVE if anything. It is not even like smoking where if he's smoking next to you at the bus stop you feel uncomfortable from the smoke. Iirc, water bongs don't release any smoke. Definitely it's not going to do anything like second-hand smoke.
    THIS DAY IS GOING TO BE PERFECT
    Because love's in bloom~

    "After all this time?"
    "Always", said Snape.

    Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL (grr)
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoruaruler View Post
    Leave it illegal the world would be a whole lot better without all those drugies.
    I agree with this; the druggies are probably more dangerous than the drugs themself, I mean, listen to the news and listen to people who were intoxicated earlier, they sound very.. uh.. dangerous. Because the body is so vulnerable to drug's affects and shutdown of main parts of the body, they are unable to operate and unable to understand what causes pain and what doesn't... Therefore they are more dangerous. The drug sure is dangerous too, so it's pretty even, but my point stands for debate

    credit: Thunderstrike Graphics Shop for the userbar
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatino95 View Post
    My cat walks around at night and I'm fairly sure that she's stalking me.

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL (grr)
    Posts
    1,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rangeet View Post
    Marijuana can be thought of as a drug that would be PERFECTLY LEGAL to the public because it has NO PROVED SIDE EFFECTS and PROVED MEDICAL BENEFITS and the "high" on it actually makes the person LESS AGGRESSIVE if anything. It is not even like smoking where if he's smoking next to you at the bus stop you feel uncomfortable from the smoke. .
    It does to me. They creep me out.

    credit: Thunderstrike Graphics Shop for the userbar
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatino95 View Post
    My cat walks around at night and I'm fairly sure that she's stalking me.

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Beyond the Wall.
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    That is absolutely zero grounds for banning it. Cats creep me out, let's kill every single cat in the world.
    THIS DAY IS GOING TO BE PERFECT
    Because love's in bloom~

    "After all this time?"
    "Always", said Snape.

    Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

Page 13 of 50 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... 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
  •