Smoking weed crosses party lines. Only people who have a problem with it are generally complete idiots with a total lack of knowledge on the issue
I’m aware of it and I’m actually for the legalization of weed.
^ It was still funny though.
Wow, everyone was so worried about the “violent Trump revolutionaries”, we didn’t think about the violent liberal fascists from Seattle.
^ I mean you would have been dealing with these nutjobs who love to play GI joe if HRC won
here is a nice selection from it:
“This is the last chance to save America from ruin,” Mr Hill said. “I’m surprised I was able to survive or suffer through eight years of Obama without literally going insane, but Hillary is going to be more of the same.”
so really, anyone complaining about libs overreacting is forgetting the last 8 years (and the 8 before that, and the 12 before that) it literally is just a pendulum of the craziest 10% on each side acting like the world is over.
Strong post.
Side note but in these times of trouble it warms my heart to know that the one thing that will always bring us together is the desire for full legalization of the halfling’s leaf.
And the violence is here.
I would disagree. A good amount of the medical community (physicians involved with research) are hesitant in most cases to side in favor of using marijuana. There is a consensus about a small number of instances where marijuana or its derivatives are thought to have a potential benefit, and these are usually extenuating circumstances (and there is just a suspicion of a benefit). The general public touts a list a mile long of the “benefits” of marijuana while denying many associated risks (not even discussing the people who use the “natural=good” argument… Atropa belladona is natural, too…). Most of the chatter is based on low quality evidence (anecdotal evidence), with the exception of some decent quality evidence that might favor a few uses of MJ at this time. As a result, many major medical organizations and physicians don’t back the use for medicine until more evidence comes out (and they do encourage more studies). Not sure if you were taking it in this direction, but people usually try to make pro-mj arguments from the side of supposed “evidence of [medical] benefits,” the likes of which are poorly supported.
If I’m not mistaken, you might’ve plagiarized a bit from someone else’s anti-liberal creativity that surfaced on the internet shortly after the election… 
(either that, or it’s you!)
https://onsizzle.com/i/the-rude-pundit-rudepundit-if-trump-starts-a-war-l-5387178
What are their opinions on the medical benefits of alcohol and tobacco use?
…ahead of schedule. look for more escalation and then a police crackdown. where it goes from there will be interesting to see.
ding ding ding. its certainly not without harm all together, but like everything else in the world its relative. I cut back my drinking by smoking, dropped some weight, feel better all around. Drinking is significantly worse than pot. Im not one of those people that thinks pot is the cure to all the worlds ills (althought I have seen what it can do for Parkinsons patients and it certainly has uses) but the fact that its a class A substance is an absolute mockery of the intelligence of the american people and at the heart of the problem with the war on drugs.
Benefits of alcohol are often overblown by the misinterpreting media, but in certain circumstances, limited alcohol has shown to provide some benefit (in an associative manner, not causal), but over all it’s something that is probably worth limiting or avoiding.
Tobacco has shown some weird links (far from causality) with lower incidence of some diseases but overall it’s recommended to stay away from because the downside is far too great and agreed upon with much more certainty than potential benefits.
The problem is that most of the information we have is from observational studies (not particularly ethical to randomize people to smoke or not smoke). I’m not trying to make a statement on behalf of the medical community (I don’t have the authority or the expertise). The main part of my post was that people who are against it aren’t simply uninformed morons. My guess is that your question was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek to illustrate that those things are legal yet assumed to be bad for you. As I said earlier, the evidence that does exist is sparse and weakly supportive of a few benefits in comparison to the laundry list of “great benefits” the public espouses (and that the medical community is all for studies to get more reliable data on medical MJ because we don’t know much about it).
See my post above. His point was a rather poor one. Legality of something doesn’t really change what the evidence says or what the lack of evidence can’t say. Your statement earlier implied there’s [good] evidence to support many benefits, which just isn’t true. It’s not like MJ has many well documented benefits from high quality studies and there are a few bad side effects we’re just going to trade off (again, the issue is lack of rigorous scientific evidence). Personal stories and anecdotal evidence are the bulk of evidence floating around at this point, which doesn’t mean much in the scientific community (too many confounders to say anything but a possible link exits, far from causal). As you mention the drug classification, there is some interest in the medical community to have MJ moved off the DEA schedule 1 list (to a lower schedule, but not for any reason other than research). This move would make it easier to run clinical trials and get data for the risk/benefit profile.
In any case, sufficient medical benefits wouldn’t be a reason to make it legal to the general public (non-medical use); I don’t think you’re advocating that we make more antibiotics (very few OTC currently), pain killers, and depression meds available OTC and legal without prescription because of documented medical benefits.
Your comment about making a mockery of the intelligence levels of people was somewhat hypocritical given your statement earlier (which we’ve seen just isn’t true, and possibly that you’ve attempted to make a mockery of the intelligence of people actually involved in the research and clinical implementation of the substance):
" Only people who have a problem with it are generally complete idiots with a total lack of knowledge on the issue."
Its completely reasonable to equate it to alcohol & tobacco because those are certainly competing goods that the govt has deemed available for consumption and just advises against. MJ has been used regularly for well over 50 years by the general american public and all the fearful stories used to make it illegal havent come to fruition. To ban a substance shouldnt the govt have to present factual proof of harm? They used racially based scare tactics to push it through to begin with.
Im not saying its a miracle drug, im saying people want to use it to escape from reality much like booze. This is why booze & pharma industries are lobbying so heavily to keep it from happening. Follow the money and youll usually see the motives. Look at how good the DEA & Pharma industry is at taking care of americans with your own example of pain killers. Its a complete joke. It should be available for purchase by anyone over 21, same as alcohol. Id imagine youll see a down tick in minors smoking as well because when i was in HS it was far easier to get bud than beer (and most people agree)
^you two get a room. this thread is about the hi-larious violence being initiated by limp-wristed betas.
While the original methods were scare tactics, we do know today that there is a lack of evidence to support use (and people aren’t really using these same scare tactics anymore). If you believe that a substance should be legal until proven harmful, why do we have to have new medications go through many layers of research before being cautiously approved for use? I think it’s quite the opposite for things like this. If you claim their are few risks and enough benefits to justify use and legalization, you should provide the evidence, not the other way around. You don’t tell your boss he shouldn’t give you a raise unless he can prove you don’t deserve it.
True, but people also use pain killers to escape reality, but that doesn’t mean it should be legal. I don’t think anyone should be taking advice from alcohol or tobacco companies with regards to legalizing anything. These substances need to be independently and rigorously evaluated. I also never mentioned lobbying in my responses, just what you can find in terms of medical research for medical marijuana. These are largely observational studies, there’s not likely an influence from people with ulterior motives. The evidence isn’t there for benefits, but we do understand some of the physiologic response that mj and certain derivatives have in the body, not all of which are good. There are studies that indicate long-term use does have repercussions on people. If it were publicly legal, I agree with you that 21 should be a minimum age threshold.
The whole point I was making, before we stole the thread, was that you claimed people against it are uninformed morons-- which isn’t further from the truth. A great number of those people understand what does and doesn’t constitute evidence and are saying they’re against it broadly because the jury is still out. If you can find me numerous credible studies (science is about replication and reproducibility) that show a good understanding of the risk and benefit profile, I’d love to see them (no articles of someone reporting about a part of a study, please).
And, I’d like to be clear: are you saying that because there is a painkiller problem, despite the legality, we should make it legal? My point of mentioning those was that most people will agree they’re beneficial if used judiciously in the appropriate circumstances but can be pretty bad otherwise (unlike the debate on MJ), but they’re still illegal without a prescription and not available for OTC consumption.
Why so hung up on the medical aspect? How about legalizing it because it’s just the right thing to do?
Yes, unless you own prison stocks. Ain’t no business like the prison business because the prison business is prisons!
And mass murders in Mexico. Those suck too.
Because most of the arguments I hear for legalizing surround “great medical benefits”, therefore, “it’s good for us,” and because Yayywork made an unfounded statement about the opposition to legalization (in essence, my reply was to say that these people are very informed on what’s out there, yet they disagree due to lack of supporting data).
I’d be happy to hear other arguments than the long list of supposed benefits for which there is no scientifically rigorous evidence.
I think incarceration and taxation are good places to start when having a debate rather than anecdotal claims.
It might be worth a new thread (if someone creates it), but could you tell us why it’s the right thing to do? I’m open to hearing ideas…
So you’re just debating for the sake of arguing. Okay, I’ll just add this to your previous medical debate. Marijuana (and its derivatives) do have proven medical benefits. Feel free to check into what it’s done for children with epilepsy. However, because it’s a Schedule I drug, there aren’t supposed to be any clinical trials going on. Makes it hard to test the validity of beneficial claims when the DEA just reinforced their stance that it has “absolutely no medical benefits.”
I’m sure a few gigantic pharma companies had nothing to do with that…