CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Use of marijuana has been recorded since 2737 BC, and yet not a single death has ever been officially attributed to marijuana. It is estimated that to overdose on marijuana you would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times what you would normally consume. Alcohol and Tobacco are both legal and yet 88,000 people die each year because of alcohol abuse and 480,000 deaths per year from tobacco. Alcohol can cause liver damage, irregular heartbeat, and high blood pressure. So far, no long term effects have been attributed to marijuana.
So far, no long term effects have been attributed to marijuana.
Do you honestly believe that or was it a mistake? Just so I know before quoting a number of sources that represent the commonly held knowledge that it does in fact cause long term harm.
For curiosity's sake, why not provide said sources?
Edit: And do make sure it isn't a source that shows that smoking has long term health effects, because of course it does. A proper study would analyze and compare the effects of smoking, edibles and vaporizing.
What you have proven with these links are two things that have never really be disputed: That THC and Cannabidiol are not healthy for developing individuals (much like countless other substances), and that smoking a substance is unhealthy. Neither of those things prove that Marijuana has any sort of inherent long term negative effects, regardless of method of consumption or age consumed.
My apologies for not clarifying that I was looking for something that was not dependent on the individual being fully grown, but seeing as how nobody wants to legalize it for adolescents, that research doesn't really provide justification for keeping it illegal.
If you read the summaries of the studies I provided you would see that the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease are independent of tobacco consumption. This is why I couldn't be arsed finding sources before because I knew no one would read them below. I will find studies for mental health with adults if you will read them.. :/
If you read the summaries of the studies I provided you would see that the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease are independent of tobacco consumption
No no, I did not say tobacco consumption, I said smoking as the method of consumption. There is little to no doubt that smoking Marijuana has harmful effects, but that does not mean that marijuana itself, regardless of method of consumption, has said effects. That is why, in my post before the previous one, I said it would be hard for me to find a study legitimate unless it analyzed multiple methods of consumption for said effects, particularly considering how vaporizing is becoming more and more popular.
As for the studies regarding mental health with adults, I would love to see studies that show long term negative psychological effects for otherwise healthy adults. To clarify, I mean adults that did not previously have psychological conditions, seeing as how it is well known that marijuana, like many substances, can trigger episodes in people who already had psychological conditions.
I don't see this as a reason to legalise it. We have established it is dangerous of adolescents (under 18s or under 21s?), pregnant women and anyone with a psychological problem. Who is to regulate this? How can we stop minors and pregnant women taking it? Who is going to do the psychological assessment to see if someone has psychological problems or not? How do I even know if I am predisposed to schizophrenia (for example)?
In a free society, you don't look for reasons to legalize something, you have to find justifications to make it illegal, and there simply aren't any legitimate ones.
We have established it is dangerous of adolescents (under 18s or under 21s?)
Which is why it would be a controlled substance, such as alcohol, another substance that is harmful for adolescents, pregnant women, and people with psychological conditions, along with many pharmaceuticals.
Who is to regulate this? How can we stop minors and pregnant women taking it?
The government, and the same way we do now. Legalizing it really wouldn't change that substantially. Access to marijuana is easy, whether you want it legalized or not. Hence why we should legalize and regulate it in a way to sufficiently minimize the black market, which allows more control on who gets their hands on it.
Marijuana is a psychoactive that affects neurotransmitter activity. There are long term effects associated with pretty much anything that affects neurotransmitter activity.
Whether it is worse than tobacco is hard to tell at this point. Even chewed tobacco causes cancer since tobacco already contains carcinogens. There has not been many studies done on long term marijuana, but marijuana does contain carcinogens as well (pretty much everything has carcinogens).
If you don't count the issues with smoking (smoking anything is generally bad), ingestion would probably be the worst way to use marijuana. It passes the blood brain barrier the easiest and it usually results in much higher doses.
There are long term effects associated with pretty much anything that affects neurotransmitter activity.
Do you have a citation for this as it pertains to Marijuana particularly?
Whether it is worse than tobacco is hard to tell at this point. Even chewed tobacco causes cancer since tobacco already contains carcinogens. There has not been many studies done on long term marijuana, but marijuana does contain carcinogens as well (pretty much everything has carcinogens).
Part of the reason that chewed tobacco is so bad is because it often contains very small bits of fiber glass meant to create micro incisions that allow said carcinogens from the tobacco to pass directly into the blood.
If you don't count the issues with smoking (smoking anything is generally bad), ingestion would probably be the worst way to use marijuana. It passes the blood brain barrier the easiest and it usually results in much higher doses.
But probably is not definitely, nor is it evidence.
Do you have a citation for this as it pertains to Marijuana particularly?
Don't need it for Marijuana specifically, since neurotransmitters work the same way (process, not result).
If you don't know about NTs, I am pretty lazy, so you will need to learn on your own. Just troll the databases here for specific studies or have a ~college-level understanding of biology. I consider this basic knowledge if you are going to argue the science of marijuana.
Part of the reason that chewed tobacco is so bad is because it often contains very small bits of fiber glass meant to create micro incisions that allow said carcinogens from the tobacco to pass directly into the blood.
Even less processed/fiberglass'd chewing tobacco causes cancer. The basic act of mastication and the enzymes in saliva break down substances for absorption (more complicated/specific than this). It is the literal purpose of these things.
Again, if you need a citation, go to wiki or take a college biology course.
But probably is not definitely, nor is it evidence.
The probably was used because it was an inference. The actual process of ingestion is based on evidence. It is known that ingestion will lead to higher ratios of certain THC metabolites that pass through the blood brain barrier easier. Through the increased activity, we can infer that ingestion will lead to the most short term and long term effects. Of course, each metabolite will have a slightly different overall effect as their binding properties will differ so this is assuming similar reaction rates once they cross the blood-brain barrier.
The prohibition lead to the rise of mafia families such as Al Capone, the war on drugs(especially marijuana) is just a case of history repeating itself
Thus we must legalise it and tax so it will benefit us economically speaking but also, the companies that will be created will render drug dealers useless as they will be unable to compete with the free market.
I just want to point out that "useless" may be a bit much. Large scale farming operations for fruits and vegetables have not rendered local grow ops useless, just more niche based, and the same applies to distribution (grocery stores vs farmers markets). I think the same thing will apply to marijuana.
There is absolutely no reason a plant that can do nothing but good, should be illegal. We could not only all chill the hell out.. we could use the plant to save forests by using the hemp for paper, wood and clothing, and of course there are many proven effective medicinal uses for the oils, and the effect marijuana has on the body.
Legalize marijuana and all the rest of the drugs for adult use. Thin the herd. Everyone says they are tired of supporting drug addicts, then let them have all they want at a reasonable price. I think we should neuter them first, so to cut the second generation of brain dead people from going through the same thing. It would solve the employment problems and the need for more tax money. too. We could turn the prisons into rooms for the addicts to live in and get them off the street, too. They could make all that junk we get from China and be paid in the drug of their choice. Haven't any of you ever seen the movie "Solient Green". Great movie, you should watch it.
Beware the amateur masquerading as an expert and presenting his/her unqualified opinion as fact. Here are just a few of the short and long term effects of marijuana. SHORT TERM;- Sensory distortion, Panic, Lowered reaction time, After the initial ''up'' the user feels sleepy and/or depressed, Increased heartbeat. Long them effects;- Reduced resistance to common illnesses such as the common cold, bronchitis etc, Suppression of the immune system, Growth disorders, Increase of abnormally structured cells in the body, reduction of the male sex hormone,( testosterone ) Rapid destruction of the lung fibres and lesions, ( injury) to the brain could be permanent, Study difficulty-reduced ability to learn and retain information, Personality and mood changes. Other than those few harmless side effects marijuana is perfectly harmless, ''eh''.
No, it would send out the wrong message to the pleasure seeking lotus eaters who cannot face up to life's harsh challenges without being in a drug induced stupor. The population of such useless low lives would explode and they would swamp the medical services with the inevitable ensuing tide of the various health issues, including split personality schizophrenia, and, as they have discovered in Holland where it is legal, an increase in violent crime. The dispensing of all drugs must remain in the hands of the medical experts.
