Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use?

[Elta]

 

[CaptainF]

If I were him I'd just tell them that I'm following my idol Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

[Berzerker]

And now for something completely different.

Lemme show y'all what real science is. Naturally, the claim that weed cures cancer popped up again. That's one of the toughest ones to handle, and I'm gonna tackle it and break its legs.

Shouldn't be too tough, you made the legs with straw. No one said pot cures cancer

Fact is, it's very possible weed can cure cancer--and here's how.

It's known that different plants absorb different amounts of minerals out of the soil. Radioactive strontium, for example, concentrates in beans but not in grains. Lettuce absorbs a lot of strontium; corn doesn't.

It's also known that certain radioactive elements such as gallium-67 concentrate in cancerous tissues when absorbed by the human body. (Francium has the same property, but with a half-life of 20 minutes it's almost impossible to produce a usable quantity of the stuff)​

Unless the German doctors were using black market pot, they were getting it from the govt (where they growing it?). While this theory is certainly valid in that plants do absorb nutrients and other stuff, there'd be inconsistency in the results - some pot plants have higher concentrations of radioactive stuff than other pot plants. That can be measured... That can be removed from the equation by people doing studies. Now, what does that do to your claim that pot causes cancer? It means yer wrong, the soil matters - the soil, the stuff in the soil is causing the cancer.

And there you have it. Marijuana could theoretically absorb more radioactive elements while it's growing, then deposit that radioactive crap in a tumor when you smoke it. Problem is, this doesn't make weed good for you. Because if you don't have cancer, there are no tumors for the radioactive crap to concentrate in, causing you to get cancer.

According to my link the German doctors are targeting cancer cells with some of pot's active ingredients, they'd know if the pot was radioactive before using it in their study because they're already processing it for the desired chemicals. And what they said is it appears the pot chemicals they're using (not strontium or whatever) may inhibit cancer growth. As for getting cancer, the other study I linked shows not even heavy users get cancer more than the general population. The guy who did that study said the pot may kill off older cells more prone to becoming cancerous.

Oh, and here's a little more real science for everybody: it's also known that plain old basic mercury cures cancer. Yes, the poisonous metal. An older and thankfully out-of-date method of curing cancer was, very simply, to slowly poison the patient with tiny but increasing doses of lethal crap. The theory was that cancer cells, being unsupported by the rest of the body, would die first. Generally it works. Modern chemotherapy methods use substances which prefer to attack cancer cells, but these substances still do a good deal of damage to healthy tissue in the process.

So yeah, marijuana could also reduce tumors that way. Doesn't mean the stuff is good for you.

I'd say reducing tumors is good for me. If it was between chemo and some future pot derivative I know which one I'd take. But you'd want that banned of course and you might just keep getting yer way. As to what is or is not good for ya, to each his own. I dont know what is good for you...

Leave it to the anti-weed nutcase to explain how your own pro-weed theories actually work.

You said pot causes cancer and now you're trying to take credit for explaining that pot doesn't really cause cancer? And how is it my pro weed theory? German doctors did the study and they have the theories as to why pot may inhibit certain forms of cancer.​

 

[Sharwood]

Damn pot probably sapped all the motivation out of him. How many medals could he have won?

10chars

 

[BasketCase]

All the time I just wanted to hear this from you. Maybe you're right in what you're saying (though you made it sound very reasonable), but I frankly don't care, even if weed would cause cancer. In my hypothetical scenario, I would be a regular stoner, even with the huge black mark, labeling marijuana as lethal. We both agreed on the main question of this thread and that's a good thing.

Uhhh.....about now I was thinking of doing that line "dude, were you stoned when you wrote that??" But I've done that joke 472 times already, and that's just in this one thread.

We definitely do NOT agree on the main question of the thread. You said "yes" (I checked the poll results) and while I didn't actually vote because I don't vote in public polls, I say "no". Weed should not be legalized for recreational use, or for any other reason.

Perhaps I should re-iterate. Wait. Strike that. Perhaps I should re-re-re-re-re-iterate. Yeah, that's better. Okay here goes: What I actually said a few days back was this: that weed would be very safe IF it was used responsibly. Note the word "if" in there. You see, this is the real world, and people cannot be relied on to use it responsibly because (here comes another re-re-re-re-re-iteration, because you people just don't listen) weed disables the part of your brain that's responsible for making responsible decisions.


"responsible for making responsible decisions". I like that one. Gonna save it for later use in further marijuana threads, which I am sure will be coming along soon or later--probably sooner.

 

[BasketCase]

And I end up having to re-re-re-re-re-iterate YET AGAIN.

However, in reality, there IS ample evidence that weed causes cancer--and you don't need specific examples to prove this.

Um, nope. There is not ample evidence, and what little there is is highly inconclusive and even contradictory.

I need say only one word to prove you wrong.

Wikipedia.

Go look in there and you'll see that benzene causes cancer--and that benzene is caused by burning.....paper. Plain old basic paper. Turns out benzene is produced by burning many different wood, paper, and plant products. And cannabis is.....A PLANT. Plus there's the fact that, when a person rolls a joint, they usually roll it in.....

......how about I just let you work that one out yourself.


Once again you completely ignore the evidence I do post, and you say "there's no ample evidence" when there very clearly is. I spelled it all out letter for letter.

There is ample evidence that weed causes cancer.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

And I end up having to re-re-re-re-re-iterate YET AGAIN.



I need say only one word to prove you wrong.

Wikipedia.

Go look in there and you'll see that benzene causes cancer--and that benzene is caused by burning.....paper. Plain old basic paper. Turns out benzene is produced by burning many different wood, paper, and plant products. And cannabis is.....A PLANT. Plus there's the fact that, when a person rolls a joint, they usually roll it in.....

......how about I just let you work that one out yourself.


Once again you completely ignore the evidence I do post, and you say "there's no ample evidence" when there very clearly is. I spelled it all out letter for letter.

There is ample evidence that weed causes cancer.

then cigarettes should be banned to, as there would be equal benzene amounts according to your facts.

also, vaporizer.

 

[BasketCase]

If cigs were banned, I'd be a happy camper. It's probably not gonna happen, though (boo friggin' hoo), and I'm not gonna cry over that. Though I'll probably have to change my contact lenses now and then to keep the smoke outta my eyes.

As for the vaporizer? Another re-re-re-re-re-re-iteration: very few stoners actually use vaporizers. Almost all weed users use it by setting it on fire. Don't believe me, go look it up somewhere else--mostly because that's the same way I found this out, by looking it up somewhere else.

Oh, and I should probably warn you all in advance--if your vaporizer contains any plastics? Other high-risk carcinogens such as hydrogen cyanide are produced by burning plastic (PVC is especially nasty here). As always: don't believe me, look it up. Wikipedia will do fine if you're as lazy as I am. You might wanna peek under the hood of that vaporizer and double-check the heating element......



Here I am, giving safety advice to potheads. There's some irony for ya.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

vaporizers dont use fire. they heat the weed to release THC. as long as one has a well maintained vaporizer, then there should be a negligible safety hazard. also, find one death contributed to marijuana and marijuana only. not marijuana+car, just marijuana.

either way, why should something that's dangerous be illegal? we need a nanny state to tell us what we can and can't do?

 

[BasketCase]

You said pot causes cancer and now you're trying to take credit for explaining that pot doesn't really cause cancer?

Well, you got the first half right, anyway. Swing and a miss on the second.

 

[Elta]

El OH EL

XCL.

 

[BasketCase]

vaporizers dont use fire. they heat the weed

Yeah, and you get the heat from precisely where? You know what I was saying, quit blubbering at me about tiny little details.

also, find one death contributed to marijuana and marijuana only.

I've posted four specific cases in past weed threads. Three were plain old basic cancer, and the fourth was heart problems (the last one was the guy who smoked 23,000 joints over 11 years).

But that was above the call of duty. I am not required to find cases of "weed ONLY". That's an arbitrary speed bump you tried to stick in front of me, and you had no right to do that.

Even if weed never killed anybody all by itself, deaths due to "weed plus cars/power tools/other stuff that can cause a fatal accident" are still sufficient to ban the stuff. Deaths from "weed only" are pointless to the debate. I am against weed for a total of THREE reasons. My two biggest reasons being, in order of decreasing importance: that weed messes up the brain, and that weed kills people besides the user. That weed causes cancer runs a distant third.

Charbroiled steak is known to cause cancer.....and GUESS what I'm eating right now? I'm not against charbroiled steak because it doesn't mess up the brain and doesn't kill people besides the user.

either way, why should something that's dangerous be illegal? we need a nanny state to tell us what we can and can't do?

Same reason you and a bunch of others are trying to do the nanny thing. When you and your cronies say "weed should be legalized", that's what you're doing: trying to tell three hundred million Americans they must accept stonage. Trying to dictate morality. Telling me what I can and cannot do.

 

[Sharwood]

Same reason you and a bunch of others are trying to do the nanny thing. When you and your cronies say "weed should be legalized", that's what you're doing: trying to tell three hundred million Americans they must accept stonage. Trying to dictate morality. Telling me what I can and cannot do.

LOLWUT?! That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of them, many from you. How is legalising weed forcing you to "accept stonage." Are potheads going to come to your house, force a bong into your mouth and light it up for you?

No, you are the one dictating morality, by telling people what they can and cannot do. You say they cannot smoke marijuana. Pro-marijuana activists give people the choice of smoking or not. They don't tell you that you have to smoke, or that you don't have to. They don't dictate morality. They present you with a choice.

 

[BasketCase]

How is legalising weed forcing you to "accept stonage."

Same way religious nutcases are trying to force you to accept religion in your local schools. You're probably no longer in school, so religion in the school will have no impact on YOU. Does that mean you should accept religion in our schools? Your answer to that is probably the same as mine: "no".

In fact, almost all of you in this thread will probably answer that same way. Those of you who are not in school, will not be affected by religion in the schools. Yet you still want religion out of the schools.

No, you're not trying to force ME to smoke weed. Does that mean I should accept the legalization of weed? No. Because legal weed poses a threat to me in other ways, and also because of the "messing up the brain" dealie.


You are dictating morality in the same way I am. Well, here's why my method actually works: what I do is I take a SINGLE set of basic moral rules and apply it to ALL situations (as you see above, that causes me to reach the same conclusion regarding weed and religion in the schools). What most of you knuckleheads do is constantly change the rules as I fire on you from different angles. If you change the rules, you lose the debate.

 

[CaptainF]

You are dictating morality.

Yeah, you are dictating morality...

For the record, are you in favor of medical marijuana? Or does that just "mess up the brain" too.

 

[BasketCase]

No, I'm not. Here's why.

Yes, you can make a good rope out of cannabis. But you can make a better one out of Spectra cord.

Yes, you can make good blue jeans out of cannabis. But you can make more durable and more comfy blue jeans out of cotton.

Yes, you can get decent medications from cannabis. But you can make better medications from other sources.


Now, note what I did there: I took ONE logical rule and applied it to SEVERAL situations to produce logically and morally consistent results.

 

[Sharwood]

Same way religious nutcases are trying to force you to accept religion in your local schools. You're probably no longer in school, so religion in the school will have no impact on YOU. Does that mean you should accept religion in our schools? Your answer to that is probably the same as mine: "no".

In fact, almost all of you in this thread will probably answer that same way. Those of you who are not in school, will not be affected by religion in the schools. Yet you still want religion out of the schools.

Wrong. Religious nutcases are trying to force people to pray in school. Pro-marijuana activists are not trying to force anyone to smoke. Argumentation fail.

No, you're not trying to force ME to smoke weed. Does that mean I should accept the legalization of weed? No. Because legal weed poses a threat to me in other ways, and also because of the "messing up the brain" dealie.

Weed is mostly harmless. While there are some, very small dangers involved, they are not enough to ban the substance. Weed does not pose a threat to anyone that is not actually smoking it, and even then it is rare. The odds of weed messing up a person's brain are extremely small. You are statistically more likely to die in a car crash than you are to develop schitzophrenia from marijuana use. In fact, you don't develop schitzophrenia from marijuana use, it just triggers latent skitzophrenia in some people who already have it.

Therefore, as I am not forcing you to do something which harms you, or allowing others to do something which harms you, there is absolutely no reason to make marijuana illegal.

You are dictating morality in the same way I am. Well, here's why my method actually works: what I do is I take a SINGLE set of basic moral rules and apply it to ALL situations (as you see above, that causes me to reach the same conclusion regarding weed and religion in the schools). What most of you knuckleheads do is constantly change the rules as I fire on you from different angles. If you change the rules, you lose the debate.

You know what I do?

I take a SINGLE set of basic moral rules and apply it to ALL situations

It is by doing this that I reach the conclusion that marijuana should be legal, even though I don't personally like the substance, and never have or will use it. You see, my stance is simple: if something does not harm others, it should not be illegal. Marijuana does not harm others, nor does it harm the user, except in exceedingly rare circumstances. Therefore, it should not be legal.

Show me where people change the rules in this debate? I remember in a previous thread you said that people who were for marijuana were against gun control, yet not one person in the thread fit that description. I'm sure there are people who do, and you know what they are? They're hypocrites. But that does not mean that "most of us knuckleheads" change the rules. We have been quite consistent. To your credit, so have you, although you've been wrong.

Your problem BC, is that you believe the crap you're spewing, despite the fact that it is contradictory, factually innaccurate, and unreliable. I've picked your arguments about marijuana causing cancer and car accidents apart in previous threads, and see no reason to continue doing so.

I don't believe you are a hypocrite. You don't change the goalposts, or alter your moral standards depending on what is being debated. you do however utterly refuse to accept that you are wrong, despite the myriad evidence to the contrary. That doesn't make you a hypocrite, as you accused "us knuckleheads" of being, but it does make you willfully ignorant, therefore a fool.

 

[CaptainF]

No, I'm not. Here's why.

Yes, you can make a good rope out of cannabis. But you can make a better one out of Spectra cord.

Show me the evidence.

Yes, you can make good blue jeans out of cannabis. But you can make more durable and more comfy blue jeans out of cotton.

Hmmm...how do you know this? Ever worn a pair of hemp jeans? I haven't, so I won't be so forward as to comment on how comfy they are...

Yes, you can get decent medications from cannabis. But you can make better medications from other sources.

Wrong.

 

[Sharwood]

No, I'm not. Here's why.

Yes, you can make a good rope out of cannabis. But you can make a better one out of Spectra cord.

Is it also cheaper? And just because you can make something better, does that mean you should ban the inferior version? If I can make a better sunscreen than previous brands, should we ban those brands?

Yes, you can make good blue jeans out of cannabis. But you can make more durable and more comfy blue jeans out of cotton.

Durable maybe, but comfort is subjective. I find my bed comfortable, others find it too soft, or too hard. So that's a subjective, therefore non-factual argument.

Yes, you can get decent medications from cannabis. But you can make better medications from other sources.

In some cases, not in others. Marijuana shows great potential in the treatment of multiple sclerosis for instance. Nothing else has proven useful.

Now, note what I did there: I took ONE logical rule and applied it to SEVERAL situations to produce logically and morally consistent results.

Perhaps, though I've pointed out problems in this argument. But, pray-tell brother BasketCase, what-if marijuana produced better medication? Would you then accept its legality? What if people decided they liked hemp jeans better than denim ones - and many do? Should we then allow the legalisation of hemp? Same with rope, and cotton, etc? If you say no, I retract my statement about you not being a hypocrite, as you will have proven to be one.

 

[BasketCase]

And, post number 1000 goes to ME!

Wrong. Religious nutcases are trying to force people to pray in school.

Some are. But then, I never said that. I said

religious nutcases are trying to force you to accept religion in your local schools.

You just moved the goalposts again.

There's no harm to you (or me) in allowing religious people to pray on the school campus or in the classrooms. Yet most of the people in this thread (including me) do not want people praying in the classrooms.

Weed does not pose a threat to anyone that is not actually smoking it

Yes it does, and I showed how.

You see, my stance is simple: if something does not harm others, it should not be illegal.

The problem with the above is this: marijuana harms very few people right now BECAUSE it's illegal.

I don't believe you are a hypocrite. You don't change the goalposts, or alter your moral standards depending on what is being debated. you do however utterly refuse to accept that you are wrong, despite the myriad evidence to the contrary.

Nope. That's you. But then, I already said that.