|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 7, 2011 7:38:57 GMT -5
I think he makes some interesting points. I'd never looked at the alcohol and tobacco argument that way before.
EDIT: by sandman to make the clicky URL active.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 7, 2011 7:55:58 GMT -5
Oh hey. I went over number 5 on this very forum not too long ago. In different terms, but hey.
And the Sandman said this a while ago, too (not the whole thing, just the want to get high part). In the same thread I mentioned Number 5 in.
Succinctly stated.
ETA: Alcohol/tobacco argument- I've always been confused by it, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 7, 2011 8:34:14 GMT -5
5. proof that pot makes you bad at math. >.>
4. I love the notion that you need to legalise pot so people can get it for medical purposes. Because The only way I can get Celexa is if people can buy it on the street, MIRITE!!!!!
And, of course, ou can make hemp products that do not contain enough TCH to get high off of. You could smoke reams of hemp paper and not get a buzz. But like, we need to legalize it because dishonesty is awesome man....
3. Because using the same argument the tobacco industry used for DECADES will certainly help your cause. I mean, they were only lying because they're a big evil corporation. What could a bunch of stoners desperate to get high have as a reason to lie...Oh, right.
2. "You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving." XD
I've never got the "Two wrongs make a right" argument.
1. Well, it's not addictive! A bunch of guys who smoke like 9 pounds a day told me so! They can totally quit at any time...Just like tobacco smokers and alcoholics...MIRITE?
There seems to be quite a bit of evidence against it being physically addictive, but I did want to point out thatspecific irony...The fact that so many stoners use the exact same argument drunks and other addicts make. That they can quit at any time. I find this very amusing. And tragically sa.d
Me? I'm for the inalienable right of people to be complete morons. Keep it out of my lungs and we're cool. I don't want tobacco in them, either, so don't tell me I'm holding a double standard. However, as the article points out, THESE ARGUMENTS DON'T HELP THE CASE ANY.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 7, 2011 9:44:13 GMT -5
...why do I get the sudden urge to steal a couple of eggs and go make some brownies?
I love Cracked. At one point, I got lost in their website for a couple of days. Those damned little "related articles" links...just one more...one more article...one...more...
Random, but as someone who dislikes pot, alcohol, and tobacco, my mom's for them legalizing pot thanks to the alcohol/tobacco argument-- "either make them all illegal or make them all legal, and let's get on with the important issues dammit".
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 7, 2011 10:04:50 GMT -5
I've sometimes brought up the alcohol thing, but only to demonstrate the hypocrisy. If we, as a society, have deemed alcohol -- which is fairly easy to overdose on* -- safe enough to remain legal, then marijuana -- a substance for which there have been no documented cases of ODs* -- is safe enough as well. Conversely, if marijuana is too dangerous, then so is alcohol. Either ban alcohol or make weed legal.
I agree that the other arguments are lousy, though.
* I realize that there are other factors involved in the safety issue, but weed is generally the safer of the two for those as well (and, at worst, equally dangerous to alcohol).
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 7, 2011 10:18:50 GMT -5
Comparing one factor is heavily dishonest, though. It's like saying pot is more dangerous because it's far more likely to cause lung cancer than alcohol.
I mean, I don't know of a single study linking alcohol to lung cancer, do you?
(Yeah, I saw the asterisk...Still doesn't change the inherrent dishonesty thurrr. Also, not sure I buy the overall health effects being vastly " better" either....)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 7, 2011 10:46:10 GMT -5
Comparing one factor is heavily dishonest, though. It's like saying pot is more dangerous because it's far more likely to cause lung cancer than alcohol. I mean, I don't know of a single study linking alcohol to lung cancer, do you? (Yeah, I saw the asterisk...Still doesn't change the inherrent dishonesty thurrr. Also, not sure I buy the overall health effects being vastly " better" either....) I know. Hence, "but weed is generally the safer of the two for those as well." I was merely offering one example, and acknowledging that, if you compare everything, it's not entirely unreasonable to conclude that both are equally dangerous ("and, at worst, equally dangerous to alcohol"), being that there's conflicting research on the subject. I just didn't feel like writing an entire essay about it at 9am. If you want me to go through the rest, I will -- just give me some time to wake up first. The cancer thing is precisely why I didn't say marijuana is always the safer of the two. Both substances carry risks. I never said that the health effects are "vastly better." Hell, I agreed that the other arguments -- including the notion that alcohol being dangerous automatically means we should legalize weed, and the alleged health benefits -- are crap. |
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jul 7, 2011 10:59:21 GMT -5
To make that url work, you need to fix the end tag.  As a person who doesn't smoke pot, I advocate legalization because it should be a choice people make for themselves. I also advocate realistic and unbiased education on the effects, or at least as much education and freedom as people have in regards to cigarettes, alcohol, and deep-fat-fried junk food. I see it somewhat like the legalization of prostitution, in which the workers are encouraged to get regular tests done to make sure they're healthy. Regulation will help reduce the risk of dangerous additives in drugs that would otherwise be relatively safe to use. People are going to get high whether it's legal or not, might as well make it work for society instead of against it. And hemp, which is legal, and a totally different product, is freakin' awesome. It tastes good, makes great skin cream, and I have a hemp shirt that's about 10 years old now and except for a few cat-inflicted holes, it's in great shape. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 7, 2011 12:42:44 GMT -5
Comparing one factor is heavily dishonest, though. It's like saying pot is more dangerous because it's far more likely to cause lung cancer than alcohol. I mean, I don't know of a single study linking alcohol to lung cancer, do you? (Yeah, I saw the asterisk...Still doesn't change the inherrent dishonesty thurrr. Also, not sure I buy the overall health effects being vastly " better" either....) I know. Hence, "but weed is generally the safer of the two for those as well." I was merely offering one example, and acknowledging that, if you compare everything, it's not entirely unreasonable to conclude that both are equally dangerous ("and, at worst, equally dangerous to alcohol"), being that there's conflicting research on the subject. I just didn't feel like writing an entire essay about it at 9am. If you want me to go through the rest, I will -- just give me some time to wake up first. The cancer thing is precisely why I didn't say marijuana is always the safer of the two. Both substances carry risks. I never said that the health effects are "vastly better." Hell, I agreed that the other arguments -- including the notion that alcohol being dangerous automatically means we should legalize weed, and the alleged health benefits -- are crap. The point being that making that point regardless are dishonest, even with the aforementioned asterisk. The other point being one of semantics. You argued a significantly safer experience with pot (at least one worth mentioning, which really, shouldn't that equate to significant? If it's a trivial safety level, then why bring it up?), which I do not buy. Bitch about the wording all you want, I still don't buy the often cited, rarely effectively backed up argument that it's less harmful. Even with the disclaimer of " generally," which I already understood. I. Just. Don't. Buy. It. "Conflicting research" on the subject being one of the major problems here--these claims are hard to substantiate and are therefore rather dishonest to make as well. If the essay you're going to do details the conflicting research, you can save us both the time and not do it. I know there are conflicting claims, and that was the problem in the first place. If you are going to avail upon me only a single side, you can similarly save it. I'm well familiar with claims on both sides and the science, often " science" used to back it up on both sides. And while I do not believe that "it's dangerous" is sufficient argument to keep pot illegal, that has no bearing on whether or not these points are truthful or significantly worth putting forth as an argument. If the scientific community is out to lunch on the dangers, then no affirmative claim should be made, whereas you made one. Regardless of what other arguments you agreed with, I do not buy this argument, nor do I think pointing out the number of ODs is less dishonest solely because of an asterisk and disclaimer. I know some moron's going to come along and condemn me for actually trying to stick within the parameters of what I said, and not get distracted by arguments which get into things I either do not oppose or did not argue, but there you have it. When I said I didn't buy your argument, I did not mean I did not buy any argument, or that I think pot should be illegal, or that I think alcohol is harmless, or whatever else one might tack on to this argument solely because I disagreed on a simple issue of lack of viable facts. Facts which seem to be admittedly contested by you. Thing is, it kind of goes back to the article that spawned the thread: Regardless of your opinions on marijuana, it's a bad argument to make. It really does not help any. Even if you later say that one way or another, it should not be the point of the debate on the legality of such substances. Which is true, and probably why you shouldn't have bothered with it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jul 7, 2011 14:36:54 GMT -5
I do recall a claim that my parents believed: That moderate use of pot will negate its own ill effects by slightly irritating the lining of the lungs, making your body think they're damaged, and prompting the organs to heal themselves. And honestly, my father was a pack-a-day chain smoker for years who also smoked 1-3 joints a week, and his lungs were unusually healthy for his age and habits... so I believed it too. But there's been no real evidence for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 7, 2011 15:49:23 GMT -5
Upon re-reading my posts from earlier today, it's become rather obvious that I've done a shitty job of expressing myself thus far. For that, I apologize. In my defence, I've had less than three hours of sleep in the last 24 hours, and I was rather distracted at the time. At the risk of sounding like I'm backpedaling (I'm not; the wording of my original posts just sucked that much), allow me to attempt to clarify once again:
I understand that you disagree with the conclusion that marijuana is safer/less detrimental for society. That, however, is not the point I was trying to make (and, again, I can see why this would be unclear in my original posts). While I've concluded that weed is the less dangerous of the two (or, more accurately, that research tends towards that side of things), the meat of my argument is that none of it in any way indicates that weed, on the whole, is more dangerous or detrimental for society than alcohol.
I completely agree that this in no way proves that pot should be legal, or that alcohol should be illegal. What it does indicate, in my opinion, is that it's hypocritical to ban pot solely on the basis that it's too dangerous or detrimental for society, yet continue to support legalized alcohol. In other words, it's a criticism of the "it's too dangerous!" argument put forth by prohibition advocates (and you seem to agree that "it's too dangerous!" is a shitty argument), and an explanation for why I've brought up the alcohol thing when confronted with said arguments during prohibition debates. Nothing more, nothing less. Capische?
eta: Is it really necessarily to be so hostile and dismissive? I'm not trying to start shit here, but I'm a little bit irritated by the tone of your post.
I wasn't "bitching" about wording, I misunderstood what you were saying -- it came across as though you thought I had said that there are health benefits associated with marijuana (which is why I mentioned the "It's good for you!" argument later on). As such, I wanted to make it clear that I hadn't said that. Nothing I wrote was meant to come across as angry, or anything that resembles "bitching".
As for it being dishonest: It wasn't an attempt to deceive, it was merely shitty/lazy wording due to being half-awake. The post sucked, but there wasn't any dishonesty involved.
Finally, I really don't appreciate being told that I "shouldn't have bothered", or having my arguments rejected and belittled ("If the essay you're going to do details the conflicting research, you can save us both the time and not do it. I know there are conflicting claims, and that was the problem in the first place. If you are going to avail upon me only a single side, you can similarly save it.") before I even get a chance to make them. It's rude, dismissive, and completely unnecessary.
Perhaps I'm misreading it as more hostile than you intended. If so, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jul 7, 2011 20:43:13 GMT -5
I thought there were a few studies done by the WHO showing that marijuanna might reduce the risk of cancer? I heard they got rats high and they found it reduced the size of cancerous tumours by up to 60 percent.
I've also been on many medications to try and get myself to sleep at night. I have a condition called Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder. It's similar to insomnia but where insomniacs have a hard time getting to sleep and STAYING asleep (they usually wake up frequently) I have a hard time getting to sleep period. When I drop off into sleep, a bomb could go off in the room and I wouldn't even twitch. I've slept for as long as sixteen straight hours on weekends during hard times when I didn't have any marijuanna to get myself to sleep. I sometimes go to school with zero hours of sleep. Or at the most three. I usually drop off to sleep at around five or six in the morning so I get an hour or two.
In regards to the medications I've been on, for the sleeping pills, while they made me drowsy, I still would not drop off into sleep. They also made me hallucinate. There's nothing quite like watching a bottle sitting on your bedroom floor grow arms and legs and start pacing back and forth.
I was put on some antidepresants that the doctors thought might help me, too. The first pills made me feel like I was having a heart attack (seriously, my parents rushed me into the hospital because I screamed). The second pills made me severely hyperactive, which didn't help when I was trying to lay still. Then the third ones made me sick to my stomach all day, every day and I decided I had had enough.
Pot works, I'm sticking with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 7, 2011 20:50:38 GMT -5
That may be, but the guy with the dredlocks and cannibas leaf t-shirt beside you does not have your best interest in mind.
So while you may try and explain why it works for you no one can hear over his "She'll die without pot!"
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jul 7, 2011 20:59:39 GMT -5
That may be, but the guy with the dredlocks and cannibas leaf t-shirt beside you does not have your best interest in mind. So while you may try and explain why it works for you no one can hear over his "She'll die without pot!" Yeah, those loud ones annoy me. I understand and to a degree even appreciate what they're TRYING to do but... I'm the sort who tries to find a quiet corner away from people, quickly smoke it, run back into my home and ride the high until bedtime. I don't smoke it in public and I don't think we should have the right to unless the person is using it for medicinal purposes such as nausea or pain relief. And putting restrictions on marijuanna is a good idea. While there are differences between a drunk driver and a stoned driver (one analogy I heard is that while a drunk driver will run a red light, a stoned driver will sit at a stop sign waiting for it to turn green), the paranoia could potentially make them just as dangerous as someone who is impaired with alcohol. Just because the cases are rare, doesn't mean they don't exist. Even if I had a lisence, I still wouldn't drive high, though. The thought of getting behind the wheel after smoking up terrifies me. O.O |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jul 8, 2011 1:18:14 GMT -5
That cancer argument of theirs pisses me off.
As someone who has seen what cancer does to someone, I can tell you right now that pot is not the answer. There is a reason cancer patients get permanent morphine drips. Cancer is just that bad any kind of relief pot will provide will be negligible.
As for the economic argument, I was wondering just how stupid they think people are. If we assume that somehow magically the enforcement of marijuana becomes 0, how can you tax something that most people tend to grow themselves? Unless someone like the cigarette industry gets involved and actually makes some really nasty stuff, I doubt you will ever see quality controlled joints sold at the cigarette counter because there would just be no profit.
I personally agree with all 5 points listed in that article. those 5 arguments are often rolled out and are absolute crap. I admit I dont want it legal, but then I dont really want cigarettes legal either. Of course, what I want and what would be the net best for society is two different things.
|
|
