[ccubed]

333OnlyHalfEvil, on 9 Dec, 2009 - 08:22 PM, said:

Are you googletards serious right now? You're basing your opinions that marijuana shouldn't be legalized based on those sources?

Oh I'm sorry. Should we trust the obviously biased Marijuana agency? Or trust the national health experts? Show us better sources of information then.

[333OnlyHalfEvil]

Sure, here's one.
JCI

It's a study taken from the Journal of Clinical Investigation's 115th volume. It's a tad bit more informative than an answer taken from an FAQ titled marijuana for teens.

[modi123_1]

333OnlyHalfEvil, on 9 Dec, 2009 - 06:03 PM, said:

Choscura, on 7 Dec, 2009 - 01:15 PM, said:

333OnlyHalfEvil, on 4 Dec, 2009 - 04:25 PM, said:

Choscura, on 19 Nov, 2009 - 10:30 PM, said:

to be fast:

1) the "Marijuana has no effect" argument only applies to adults (ie, those who's brains are no longer under active development by growth horomones associated with youth- basically, anybody over 22-23 years old). to those under this age threshold, THC severely impacts the developement of the pre-frontal lobe- the part of your brain that controls logical thought.

Uh, I think that statement needs a scientific study reference to back it up.

Don't be a googletard.

Don't be a googletard? I'm not going to do your research for you.

And Amen Clinics? That doesn't sound the least bit biased.....

Let's refer back to my post here for a decent source.
http://www.dreaminco...h...979&st=140#

Also the Amen clinic is named after the founder Dr. Dan Amen.. read the 'about us' sometime.

[ccubed]

333OnlyHalfEvil, on 10 Dec, 2009 - 07:42 PM, said:

Sure, here's one.
JCI

It's a study taken from the Journal of Clinical Investigation's 115th volume. It's a tad bit more informative than an answer taken from an FAQ titled marijuana for teens.

A health study published in 05. No, that's not outdated at all.

[WolfCoder]

333OnlyHalfEvil, on 10 Dec, 2009 - 08:42 PM, said:

Sure, here's one.
JCI

It's a study taken from the Journal of Clinical Investigation's 115th volume. It's a tad bit more informative than an answer taken from an FAQ titled marijuana for teens.

But is it a peer-reviewed scientific journal publication!!?

EDIT:

WHY YES it is!



ccubed, if you're going to waste your time trying to use evidence to attempt to win an argument on teh internet, you might as well do it right and go to your campus library! Took me a moment of my spare time to look this one up from my university.

ccubed, on 10 Dec, 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

...
A health study published in 05. No, that's not outdated at all.

Nope, you're completely right, it's not even slightly outdated. Quite recent and also insightful I would say. I might actually read this.



Come on! You're not going to have an exception in your head just because you're faced with a document that has actual research in it are you?

This post has been edited by WolfCoder: 11 December 2009 - 07:06 AM

[ccubed]

3 years is a LONG time in any science field Wolf.

Barring that, a quick search through PubMed, Academic One File and my library's collections all reveal titles that don't seem to be about the 'non-existant effects of marijuana on the brain.'

Now come on, I'll give you that there are real medical conditions that can be treated using the drug, but to make it 'legal' implies allowing everyone to have it and not everyone needs it.

However, if you're seriously trying to say that marijuana has NO NEGATIVE EFFECT, then I don't even need to waste my time with you.

[KYA]

ccubed, they're just a bunch of potheads trying to rationalize their drug usage.


No point in posting anymore.

[WolfCoder]

Actually, I don't care about what you're arguing about, I'm just pointing out the fact that despite how easy it is to get papers to support your argument and at least pretend any of this has meaning, you've not really given anything like it yourself.

Personally I hate all forms of recreational drugs.

[Choscura]

333OnlyHalfEvil, on 9 Dec, 2009 - 08:22 PM, said:

Are you googletards serious right now? You're basing your opinions that marijuana shouldn't be legalized based on those sources?

I support full legalization. However, I'm not dumb enough to think it has no ill effects. I could rant endlessly about this, but the gist of it comes down to this: weed is for idiots. you're not stupid because you use the weed, you're stupid because you want to. However, I'm a capitalist: I'm all for people being able to make a legitimate buck off of idiots, and among other things, being able to tax the idiots for their stupidity while at the same time giving organized crime a right good kick in the coin purse seems like an incredibly good idea.

[0xFF]

Just a few quick points on 'the way i see it'

People will smoke whether or not the laws. They even had a heavy ban on booze in the 20s, what happened? To think making it illegal will stop it is absurd.

Okay, so we can't stop it, regardless of the $X we spend on it.

So where's it come from? People grow it indoors, but a good chunk of it comes from crime rings, who use the $Y generated to fund themselves.

So lets look here, we waste $x, and allow criminals to get $y.

"Moral" or not, this is irresponsible.

If it were legal, income would be removed from crime rings, and added to the GDP. Money could then be used for "moral" things such as Mothers Against Stoned Stoners, or some other group that tries to make changes organically in society, rather than draconian movements telling people they can't.

[VulcanDesign]

Oh wow - the legalizing-Marijuana debate again; brings to mind memories of high-school debating...
If this helps anyone, I have this link, which shows the background and the arguments for both sides. Worth reading if you have little or no idea what this debate involves or even which side to take.

KYA, on 11 Dec, 2009 - 04:49 PM, said:

ccubed, they're just a bunch of potheads trying to rationalize their drug usage.


No point in posting anymore.

Gee, that's a rather narrow view point, it definitely has completely valid arguments on both sides...

[ccubed]

VulcanDesign, on 12 Dec, 2009 - 07:29 PM, said:

Oh wow - the legalizing-Marijuana debate again; brings to mind memories of high-school debating...
If this helps anyone, I have this link, which shows the background and the arguments for both sides. Worth reading if you have little or no idea what this debate involves or even which side to take.

KYA, on 11 Dec, 2009 - 04:49 PM, said:

ccubed, they're just a bunch of potheads trying to rationalize their drug usage.


No point in posting anymore.

Gee, that's a rather narrow view point, it definitely has completely valid arguments on both sides...

That link is more biased than my right foot.

Regardless of that, I'm not denying the medical uses. I'm denying the 'give it to everyone' mentality.

@0xFF - No. Just no. Just because making it illegal didn't stop it doesn't mean we should make it legal. Also, if you think that making it legal puts money into the American pocket, then I have one word for you: LOL.

[VulcanDesign]

I definitely don't adopt the "give it to everyone" attitude. I think there are valid arguments on both sides, none of which should include large distribution. I also didn't say anything about putting more money into anyone's pockets. I was just giving a webpage I thought validly represented the basic arguments of both sides.

[ccubed]

VulcanDesign, on 12 Dec, 2009 - 09:44 PM, said:

I definitely don't adopt the "give it to everyone" attitude. I think there are valid arguments on both sides, none of which should include large distribution. I also didn't say anything about putting more money into anyone's pockets. I was just giving a webpage I thought validly represented the basic arguments of both sides.

Oh, the last part was for 0xFF.

As for the website, I agree that both sides have a viewpoint, i was just pointing out that the website you gave tends to be a little biased.

[VulcanDesign]

Point taken. Yeah, I see the biased parts. At the time, I just found it and didn't read it that closely.