Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can someone...

iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:24:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
...be against Medical Marijuana? I did a search for those who were listed as CON and looked for comments on the profiles of almost everyone in the first two pages, but no one listed a reason other than untitled_entity, who just said "slippery slope," which makes no sense.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:25:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 3:24:08 PM, iamadragon wrote:
...be against Medical Marijuana? I did a search for those who were listed as CON and looked for comments on the profiles of almost everyone in the first two pages, but no one listed a reason other than untitled_entity, who just said "slippery slope," which makes no sense.

I assume "slippery slope" means that once we allow it medically, it will be more acceptable recreationally.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:34:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 3:33:29 PM, iamadragon wrote:
Yeah, that's probably what it means. I hope others have better reasons than that.

I used to be against it on those grounds. That's it really.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:48:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm undecided on the grounds that I don't believe there is enough studies on the subject. I am pro-legalization of small amounts as a first step, but full legalization I will not support until every single study from a respectable source says that it has no side affects.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:49:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 3:48:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm undecided on the grounds that I don't believe there is enough studies on the subject. I am pro-legalization of small amounts as a first step, but full legalization I will not support until every single study from a respectable source says that it has no side affects.

Let me rephrase - I am pro decriminalization of small amounts. Legalization wasn't the right word.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:52:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Whether it works or not is irrelevant. If you legalize it for medical purposes, it can still only be used medically. Any regulation would only restrict potential benefits.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 3:55:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 3:52:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Whether it works or not is irrelevant. If you legalize it for medical purposes, it can still only be used medically. Any regulation would only restrict potential benefits.

Regulation would also stop any potential negative affects. Plus, wouldn't legalization of marijuana go against another's personal liberties not to have such smoke forced into their lungs? I'm talking about out in public of course - private property would be a different matter.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anyone who is against Marijuana needs a slap in the face and needs to be reeducated. Number one, Marijuana GROWS NATURALLY FROM THE EARTH. Number two, it's no one's business as to what goes into your own body. Number three, even if Marijuana had side-effects which it doesn't, it makes no difference. Look at what they're selling on T.V. Those drugs, which by the way, are unnatural, have extremely dangerous side-effects. But guess what, it's your body and the government can't tell you what you can and can't put into your own body. End of story. End of debate.

"Here is my final point, oh thank you God. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography, whatever that is. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? And for those of you out there who're having a little moral dilemma in your head about how to answer that question, I'll answer it for you - none of your f***ing business. Take that to the bank, cash it, and go f***ing on a vacation out of my life." - Bill Hicks

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:01:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 3:55:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/12/2009 3:52:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Whether it works or not is irrelevant. If you legalize it for medical purposes, it can still only be used medically. Any regulation would only restrict potential benefits.

Regulation would also stop any potential negative affects.

You think government could understand negative effects that medical doctors yet cannot?
Regualtion wouldn't really be necessary as long as there is a court to work out liability issues. It would regulate itself.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:15:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:01:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
You think government could understand negative effects that medical doctors yet cannot?

Better safe than sorry, eh. I don't know enough about the situation to clearly say whether or not marijuana is positive or negative - I don't do drugs, I never want to do drugs, etc. But, one of the leading advocates within my political party says that more research should be done on the long-term effects before any full legalization is done. I'll stick with that.

In response to Geo's "it grows from the Earth!" comment - so do poppies. We all know what that turns in to.

Regualtion wouldn't really be necessary as long as there is a court to work out liability issues. It would regulate itself.

I don't think it would, especially because marijuana these days is laced with a lot of other things. If legalization were ready, you would need some oversight to make sure people don't get cocaine - a substance that I don't think anyone can deny is harmful - isn't laced with the marijuana.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:33:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 3:48:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm undecided on the grounds that I don't believe there is enough studies on the subject. I am pro-legalization of small amounts as a first step, but full legalization I will not support until every single study from a respectable source says that it has no side affects.

I assume, then, that you're against most over-the-counter drugs? And Advil, as well?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:40:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:33:30 PM, patsox834 wrote:
I assume, then, that you're against most over-the-counter drugs? And Advil, as well?

If they're shown to be harmful to the majority with long-term effects that can potentially damage a person, absolutely. If Advil or any drug is shown to have more negative aspects than positive, I believe it would be the government's and the company's responsibility to take it off the market ASAP, or at least regulate it to such an extent that only those that need it and can use it without harm to themselves have use of the drug.

That being said, I have faith in most science surrounding most pharmaceuticals. There is always a few bad apples, though.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:47:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:15:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
In response to Geo's "it grows from the Earth!" comment - so do poppies. We all know what that turns in to.

Again, I don't see a problem. You also failed to address my other points. You think that the government has rights over a persons body? I don't know about you, but I own my body, not the government.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:51:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:47:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/12/2009 4:15:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
In response to Geo's "it grows from the Earth!" comment - so do poppies. We all know what that turns in to.

Again, I don't see a problem. You also failed to address my other points. You think that the government has rights over a persons body? I don't know about you, but I own my body, not the government.

.

Freedom of choice =/= right to self-harm.

Freedom does have its limits.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 4:55:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:47:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Again, I don't see a problem. You also failed to address my other points. You think that the government has rights over a persons body? I don't know about you, but I

I think that people have a right to their own body, but that regardless, narcotics are not something that is desirable in society. This is because people become very, very unreasonable - almost insane - when on certain drugs, and that is a danger to society at large.

How many times have we heard of police needing to pile on one person that is using cocaine? How many times have we heard of mothers, addicted to drugs, selling off their children in order to get another hit? How often do people ruin their lives by becoming addicted, and the lives of others?

No - narcotics are a danger to society at large. If there were no such problems with casual use, I would say that it was fine. Marijuana, under casual use, does not have the same effects as other narcotics, which is why I support it to a point - long-term studies pending.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:05:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:55:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/12/2009 4:47:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Again, I don't see a problem. You also failed to address my other points. You think that the government has rights over a persons body? I don't know about you, but I

I think that people have a right to their own body, but that regardless, narcotics are not something that is desirable in society. This is because people become very, very unreasonable - almost insane - when on certain drugs, and that is a danger to society at large.

How many times have we heard of police needing to pile on one person that is using cocaine? How many times have we heard of mothers, addicted to drugs, selling off their children in order to get another hit? How often do people ruin their lives by becoming addicted, and the lives of others?

No - narcotics are a danger to society at large. If there were no such problems with casual use, I would say that it was fine. Marijuana, under casual use, does not have the same effects as other narcotics, which is why I support it to a point - long-term studies pending.

You can use just about any drug to cause self-harm though. I do agree with you that dangerous drugs such as meth, cocaine, extacy, heroine, should be outlawed though. They are unnatural and deadly. The thing is, people tend to generalize and group natural safe drugs like marijuana, shrooms, salvia, etc. with dangerous ones. People need to learn that they are not all the same thing. People wrongly and ignorantly frown upon marijuana as they do cocaine.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:11:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 5:05:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You can use just about any drug to cause self-harm though. I do agree with you that dangerous drugs such as meth, cocaine, extacy, heroine, should be outlawed though. They are unnatural and deadly. The thing is, people tend to generalize and group natural safe drugs like marijuana, shrooms, salvia, etc. with dangerous ones. People need to learn that they are not all the same thing. People wrongly and ignorantly frown upon marijuana as they do cocaine.

That is because it was apart of the "hippie" movement. No one likes hippies.

As I said, I'm always open to allowing people to do certain things if it won't cause a danger to society, and I'd prefer not a danger to themselves, but the latter I always have a hard time reconciling. Myself, I would never do drugs - I'm too cool for that stuff.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:18:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Everything has potential side effects including Marijuana. A side effect is just a different effect than the one you were taking it to achieve.

If you take marijuana for medical reasons, a side effect may be getting stoned.
If you take it for recreational reasons, a side-effect may be pain relief.

All over-the-counter and prescription drugs tend to list a vast array of potentially hideous side effects, just look at a packet of headache pills.

I don't think it's a valid reason to be against a substance if you admit it has benefits.

Hippies are cool.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:22:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 5:18:27 PM, feverish wrote:
Everything has potential side effects including Marijuana. A side effect is just a different effect than the one you were taking it to achieve.

If you take marijuana for medical reasons, a side effect may be getting stoned.
If you take it for recreational reasons, a side-effect may be pain relief.

All over-the-counter and prescription drugs tend to list a vast array of potentially hideous side effects, just look at a packet of headache pills.

I don't think it's a valid reason to be against a substance if you admit it has benefits.

Difference is that most prescription drugs are tested majorly beforehand, and that any ones found to have negative long-term effects or ones that could possibly cause serious harm/injury is taken off the market.

Marijuana, while a substance that has generally been found to be inert and mostly harmless, is untested and long-term effects are pending.

Plus, even if it was found that marijuana was perfectly fine, I wouldn't allow it on public property - there is some people that might be adversely affected, and because someone is forced to breathe it in no matter what.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:27:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:40:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/12/2009 4:33:30 PM, patsox834 wrote:
I assume, then, that you're against most over-the-counter drugs? And Advil, as well?

If they're shown to be harmful to the majority with long-term effects that can potentially damage a person, absolutely. If Advil or any drug is shown to have more negative aspects than positive, I believe it would be the government's and the company's responsibility to take it off the market ASAP, or at least regulate it to such an extent that only those that need it and can use it without harm to themselves have use of the drug.

That being said, I have faith in most science surrounding most pharmaceuticals. There is always a few bad apples, though.

I dunno -- it just seems like your standards aren't consistent. You initially said that you won't support legalization if weed has *any* negative side effects -- but with other "drugs," they can be legal if the positive outweighs the negative.

Even if weed ends up having a few negative side effects, I really don't see why that should necessarily make it illegal, because there are drugs that are readily available to the public that likely have significantly worse effects than weed might have.

And maybe it's the weed smoker in me speaking, but I'd actually prefer it if everyone lit up every once in a while. Well, unless they have excessive paranoia, or something along those lines.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:28:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This topic is about medical marijuana, but there's been one real counter-argument in the thread and the rest is about marijuana in general, or on public property, or cocaine, or stuff that is just completely irrelevant.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:32:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 5:18:27 PM, feverish wrote:
Everything has potential side effects including Marijuana. A side effect is just a different effect than the one you were taking it to achieve.

If you take marijuana for medical reasons, a side effect may be getting stoned.
If you take it for recreational reasons, a side-effect may be pain relief.

All over-the-counter and prescription drugs tend to list a vast array of potentially hideous side effects, just look at a packet of headache pills.

I don't think it's a valid reason to be against a substance if you admit it has benefits.

Hippies are cool.

I actually find that when I smoke, and for a while after, I'm so relieved. I'm annoyed really, really easily, but smoking really lessens that. Furthermore, while you're high, things just get better -- music, food, comedy, etc. Obviously some mightn't find it the same way, but that's always how it has been when I've smoked.

As for hippies, I once knew a guy who I considered one -- he's a good guy.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:35:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 5:27:43 PM, patsox834 wrote:
I dunno -- it just seems like your standards aren't consistent. You initially said that you won't support legalization if weed has *any* negative side effects -- but with other "drugs," they can be legal if the positive outweighs the negative.

Maybe I should clarify then. I believe that if marijuana is shown to have long-term negative side-affects that affect a majority of the populace, or could possibly result in danger to the public at large as cocaine or heroin does, that it should not be legalized.

If marijuana is shown to have more positive or neutral affects than negative, I would probably legalize it. That being said, there is many different factors to consider.

Even if weed ends up having a few negative side effects, I really don't see why that should necessarily make it illegal, because there are drugs that are readily available to the public that likely have significantly worse effects than weed might have.

The difference is that most of those drugs are prescription and under the supervision of a doctor or trained pharmacist - marijuana isn't, or wouldn't be, with complete legalization.

And maybe it's the weed smoker in me speaking, but I'd actually prefer it if everyone lit up every once in a while. Well, unless they have excessive paranoia, or something along those lines.

In private, not public - you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public, as people will be forced to breathe in the smoke, which will affect them in ways they may not want.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:36:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 5:28:14 PM, iamadragon wrote:
This topic is about medical marijuana, but there's been one real counter-argument in the thread and the rest is about marijuana in general, or on public property, or cocaine, or stuff that is just completely irrelevant.

Medical marijuana is fine under doctor supervision - and only under doctor supervision.

I understand why some people may be against it. It can lead to greater legalization, and some are against that.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 5:48:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 4:00:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anyone who is against Marijuana needs a slap in the face and needs to be reeducated. Number one, Marijuana GROWS NATURALLY FROM THE EARTH. Number two, it's no one's business as to what goes into your own body. Number three, even if Marijuana had side-effects which it doesn't, it makes no difference. Look at what they're selling on T.V. Those drugs, which by the way, are unnatural, have extremely dangerous side-effects. But guess what, it's your body and the government can't tell you what you can and can't put into your own body. End of story. End of debate.

I agree you about legalizing marijuana, but don't use such fallacious arguments like "it's natural".
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 6:00:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 5:48:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 7/12/2009 4:00:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anyone who is against Marijuana needs a slap in the face and needs to be reeducated. Number one, Marijuana GROWS NATURALLY FROM THE EARTH. Number two, it's no one's business as to what goes into your own body. Number three, even if Marijuana had side-effects which it doesn't, it makes no difference. Look at what they're selling on T.V. Those drugs, which by the way, are unnatural, have extremely dangerous side-effects. But guess what, it's your body and the government can't tell you what you can and can't put into your own body. End of story. End of debate.

I agree you about legalizing marijuana, but don't use such fallacious arguments like "it's natural".

You can't make the earth illegal or anything that grows from it. It's when humans concoct and manipulate chemicals that a substance becomes harmful. I think that the natural argument is completely valid. Do you honestly agree that the plants that grow naturally from the earth should enable a government to give unfair punishment for people who simply use what the earth gave them?

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 6:10:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Don't argue with GeoLaureate.
All he does is in a corrie sit.
He's also sharp, so always his quarry he'll hit.
Relentless, he'll never say sorry and quit.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 6:11:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/12/2009 6:10:08 PM, iamadragon wrote:
Don't argue with GeoLaureate.
All he does is in a corrie sit.
He's also sharp, so always his quarry he'll hit.
Relentless, he'll never say sorry and quit.

Are you high?
untitled_entity
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2009 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sorry that I'm against medicinal marijuana?
I do believe it is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to recreational use. However, I will say that I am not totally against it, we just need a system that actually works. Like regulation, that would be the optimum choice.