I see your post breakdown and I raise you another.
So basically, not much actual damage occurs to cannabis users due to inhaling smoke. I think you've made my case pretty well for me. Or not, given the fact that bioaccumulation of tar from smoked cannabis is equal to or greater than that of cigarette-smokers due to practice. That, and the fact that the brain's area with large to moderate numbers of cannabinoid receptors get majorly fucked with (e.g. cerebellum, hypothalamus, cerebral cortex). I'm not sure if you're familiar with the biological concept of inhibition, but basically these cannabinoids inhibit these receptors specifically in the basal ganglia (relating to control of motion) and the cerebellum (coordination), where neural transmission is adulterated. Cannabis doesn't just give you a high, it lowers your body's motor control - I can't see why anyone would want to put themselves in that situation recreationally. Cannabis has also been demonstrated to have an effect on short-term memory.
Pretty simple solution, simply regulate where people are allowed to smoke. Washington and Colorado legalised cannabis (yes, it's still illegal under Federal law, but it's not being enforced against users) but they have stricter restrictions than we do on where you can smoke. Pretty much nowhere outside a private residence. Yeah, I'd be fine with people not smoking anything in public.
You're somehow trying to draw a non-existing distinction between alcohol and cannabis. Cannabis is less physically harmful than alcohol. Alcohol doesn't just magically disappear, it fucks over your liver. Alcohol has a far greater adverse physical effect than cannabis, that's quite simply a fact which you can't spin. Alcohol doesn't exactly "fuck over your liver" - the liver does what it's supposed to do; it metabolises the toxins (ethanol etc) and prevents them from doing damage to the body. An
excess of alcohol is obviously going to overwhelm the liver and cause some damage, but it's still going to be less that with a substance that the body can't metabolise
at all , such as inhaled smoke. That's going to fuck up more than just your liver - personally I'd be pretty uncomfortable with aggregated CO2 floating around my ruptured alveolar sacs. Maybe you're okay with that, but for the life of me I can't imagine why.
Saying something like "cannabis is probably less dangerous than paracetamol or ibuprofen" is pretty dumb IMO. But true[citation needed]. There's no way to properly qualify or quantify this, as a far larger number of people use (and are therefore susceptible to adverse reactions to) ibuprofen and paracetamol than cannabis. That isn't to say that cannabis, especially smoked, isn't going to have serious negative physiological effects.
That was convincing VIDEO
Why not? If one's recreational use of drugs generates net utility, then it really doesn't make a difference the exact reason why they're using it. It really doesn't matter if it's to treat a back pain or to relax oneself and therefore ease other sorts of pains. Whether something is medicinal or recreational is really just an arbitrary definition - how is xanax medical and cannabis recreational, for example? But in any case, benefit is benefit, and I don't care whether it's some supposedly medical reason or recreationally. They both serve to make someone's life better, I really don't see the difference. Utility should absolutely not be a factor in drug use. If one needs to relax, there are far better, safer, less physiologically detrimental ways to do so, such as medication and exercise - these probably aren't going to lead to neurological impairment or bioaccumulation of shit in the lungs. Last time I checked, Xanax is pretty heavily controlled. Why? Because it can be dangerous when it's misused, and it certainly is misused. So what exactly is your point here - it just goes to further my argument that recreactional usage of medicinal and/or illicit drugs is a fairly poor idea.
To make a broad, sweeping statement such as "They both serve to make someone's life better" is incorrect. You're choosing to neglect the considerable damage, both physiologically, socially (conflict with family/friends/significant others due to dependence) and economically (wasted man-hours due to infamous stoner non-productivity) that cannabis consumption can cause. Sure, there might be some therapeutic benefit for some people with chronic pain - but that doesn't mean we should decriminalise this substance across the board just because a minority group might derive some non-critical benefit from it. That's an exceedingly poor notion.
Possibly (even though there is evidence to suggest the decision to ban cannabis was to protect the paper industry from hemp, but that's another story). That doesn't mean it was the right decision. Yeah, the paper industry did a really good job protecting itself from tablet computers too, hey. Hemp has plenty of practical uses other than paper, and it's not actually illegal at all. There is a house in North Carolina made out of hemp-derived building material. The reason hemp isn't used for paper is that costs a lot more than regular wood-pulp paper to process.
Because: 1) Yeah it is. Re: detrimental health effects mentioned in this and other posts, severe negative effect on driving ability, severe potential adverse reactions in those predisposed to schizophrenia, anxiety, etc and the list goes on. It's wrong to outright label it as 'harmless'.
2) Not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion? Pls explain further?
3) This is actually a fair point, but slippery slope and all that.
4)Or, you know, users don't have to buy it at all... if someone wants a substance badly enough to buy it from 'outlets' linked to organised crime, then they clearly have dependence issues. See point 1.
We haven't actually said "it's okay to buy" at all - hence criminalisation of the substance itself. Plenty of people are arrested for possession of cannabis.
Sure, let's do it that way. Coca Cola is very addictive. Coca Cola also contributes to our obesity epidemic. Therefore, we should ban Coca Cola. I can extend this argument to fast-food too, if you'd like. Actually, I'm pretty sure that cannabis is less dangerous than both of them. You're taking a very wild, knee-jerk interpretation (and a false one, at that) as to what addiction means. Sure, coca-cola and fast food are associated with bad lifestyle habits relation to repetition and other common forms of sedentary lifestyle. However, this does not make them addictive. THC in cannabis is specifically linked to addiction and dependence, rather than simply associated with other lifestyle conditions. This is a very important distinction to make, and the reason why your argument is flawed.
EDIT: You made a whole new post and got rid of the other one? I'll get to any points I haven't addressed in your new post when I'm more awake.
Home
Help
Search
Login
