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.
I disagree with your assertion that only stupid people do weed. A large portion of modern music an art has been inspired by marijuana. These people were intelligent and creative and marijuana allowed helped them reach there potential as artists. I also know plenty of very intelligent people who currently use or have used the drug.
i guess joke isn't in your vocabulary, but since you decided to go about it... lets refute some of this.
most of the artists did waaaaay more than weed. weed is not the most inspirational type of drug, all it does is relax your brain so you stop thinking at all. LSD, on the other hand, has actually been apart of the music industry waaaay more than weed. and still, i wouldn't call most artists intelligent at all. creative, sure, but intelligent???
i never said that ONLY stupid people do weed, but at least all the stupid people who do (cause i know way more stupid people who do than smart people) will just be at home instead of wasting my time with their protests.
"weed is not the most inspirational type of drug, all it does is relax your brain so you stop thinking at all"
Have you ever smoked weed? A lot of the arguments I'm seeing on here tend to revolve around the equation weed = crack. Weed does not equal crack, no matter how much the bullshit anti-weed propagandists wish it were so. I've smoked a ton of weed and it blows me away every time. I get amazing ideas, have awesome realizations about myself and people around me, and they still seem awesome later on..even when I'm not high.
"....(cause i know way more stupid people who do than smart people)"
Maybe that's because you just know mostly stupid people in general. Could be a biased sample.
Bill Maher, Mayor Bloomberg, Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize winning physicist), Carl Sagan (Cosmos), Friedrich Nietzsche, guess what? All potheads.
Weed used to be the US's largest crop. I've heard speculation that the founding fathers smoked it. Certainly seems like our country's been awfully fucked up since it was illegalized.
not saying a smart person becomes dumb when smoking weed. but chemically it can't make you smarter or "more inspirational". the problem is that many people might be too stressed to come up with good ideas, and weed makes you fucked up enough to not care. Even potheads will vouche for that.
and like i said, i want it to be legal, so that dumb people will be less motivated to mess with me.
Look up Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Cognitive horsepower isn't the only measure.
And LSD has not had as big of an influence. Read about its history. It didn't influence music until the Grateful Dead's acid phase. Weed has been an influence on American music for at least a century. One of the original reasons for its bad rap was that black jazz musicians used it.
so you're saying that if the jazz musicians didn't use it... they wouldn't make as good music?
especially since weed isn't a hallucinogenic drug or any of that, it's hard to believe that it can actually create good ideas. what it does is reduce stress levels at a max. those who are less stress MIGHT be able to think better.
it mainly has to do with the fact that many musicians just like to do weed and other drugs. look at Ray Charles. do you think heroin actually helped him make his music? he did a shit load of it.
First, have you smoked weed? Have you done acid? Do you play an instrument? Scholarly resources can only tell you so much about the drugs and how they affect people.
I'm saying that during jazz's first creative explosion, weed was a major factor in the community. And yes, lowered stress is an excellent way to make better music. I'm assuming you haven't smoked weed before; it becomes pretty easy to imagine complete composition of a song in your head, compared to sobriety. While the effect of acid is more extreme in its increase of creativity, it's effect was narrow and short-lived on the music industry as a whole. Weed is the only drug done by every single segment of society.
Heroin is heroin. If anything, it held him back. I wasn't arguing for Ray Charles.
so, basically, i HAVE to do drugs in order to know how great they are...
i do play instruments, and i do just find without drugs.
so i guess straight edge bands would be better if they weren't straight edge... they're actually limiting themselves by staying clean. you seem to act as if weed is smoked by EVERY musician. maybe weed is just a fun, harmless drug and that's why so many musicians do it compared to hard drugs. but what about the creative geniuses who don't do them? are they just holding themselves back?
or are you willing to say that they're strong enough to not need drugs in order to further their creative process.
I reeeeeallly hate when you put words in my mouth. I didn't say a single thing you attributed to me in this rebuttal. I hope this is the product of tangential thought, and not a conscious effort to shift the discussion away from what you can no longer defend.
In response: When you're making assertions about their effects on musicians, firsthand experience goes a long way. Especially in discussions of (as yet) qualitative distinctions between two modes of creative catalysis.
I'm not saying musicians who don't do drugs are better. I do know that the greatest innovators have almost all been drug users.
I couldn't tell you whether abstainers are holding themselves back, I'm not fucking psychic. Drugs have different effects on everyone. If I had to guess, I would say yes, they probably would be a tiny bit more creative if they tried certain drugs. Note that this belief is not mutually exclusive with the idea that drugs aren't needed to be creative.
You know, if it sounds too stupid for someone to have argued it, why don't you read back over it and see if they really did? I'm still in utter disbelief that you think I said all of that BS.
I was aware that you were for the most part joking, I just get a little annoyed when people say that people who do weed are stupid (not that this is what you said).
As for music, I can give you a whole list of artists and songs that were influenced by marijuana. My favorite example would be Bob Marley but there are many others.
I would say that the reason you know more stupid people than smart people that do weed is probably because there are more stupid people in in the world than smart people, but then again I don't know who you hang out with so I can't make a judgment.
If you look at most collages, especially liberal ones, you will find a significant portion of the student body either has tried or regularly uses marijuana. What this says to me is that there are a significant amount of intelligent people who do use the drug.
I have always felt that it should be DECRIMINALIZED. Some states (like Texas) treat it as bad as homicide. At worst, it should be a fine for quantities over a few ounces.
I know better than to presume it would ever be "legal" but certainly we waste boatloads of tax dollars worrying about this silly drug when we should be concerned about rapists, crack dealers, and corrupt politicians.
I support legalizing marijuana, because those countries that have marijuana legal have less problems with schedule 1 drugs. What happens in the US is that those who do smoke marijuana get caught with it and get put on probation. While they are on probation that start using Schedule 1 drugs like Cocaine, which exits your system in no more than 72hrs. This is why marijuana is a gateway drug. For those who do not smoke marijuana, I don't think that making it legal would make much of a difference. Marijuana is like cigarettes being so easy to come by that if you wanted to smoke it you would go get you some. By legalizing marijuana maybe some of our tax money used to keep those in prison for having marijuana could go towards something better, like education.
1. Weed is not physiologically addictive, as opposed to say..tobacco
2. You can't OD on weed like you can with alcohol - you have to eat like four pounds of it or something.
3. It has little to no long term negative effects (decreases in short term memory + attention span for people smoking once a day for like 30 years)
4. Although Obama recently dismissed the idea, weed would be good for the economy - You tax it, people buy it, the government makes bank.
5. Weed helps you think in new ways. What's wrong with that?
6. Mexico is imploding right now because of drug cartels whose main cash crop is weed.
One of the best arguments I've heard made is that weed is no worse than alcohol or tobacco. No matter what else, if that's true, then there is no reason for weed not to also be legal.
Sure people can become psychologically addicted to weed, but they can get addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, gambling just as easily. All of which are already legal.
Lung cells have a part of their DNA that serves as a self-destruct mechanism, so new ones can grow in. Tobacco destroys this sequence, so cells will keep replicating without self-destructing. Marijuana just kills the cell outright instead of messing up its DNA, so it's not only less harmful, it can prevent a bit of the damage tobacco does. Cuts tumor growth by half in mice.
My Spring semester of my freshman year in college was when I discovered weed. This semester I pulled 3 A's and a B, successfully worked out five days a week despite "the munchies" and held a steady job. I was not late for class or the job, and thus disproved that pot smokers are unproductive members of society. At my peak I was smoking once every day. Statistics also show that no one has died as a result of weed, nor gotten addicted, nor gotten a "hangover" the morning after, and alcohol has led me to do more things I regretted, disproving that weed is the true "gateway" drug. Weed has also been scientifically proven to NOT directly cause lung cancer as cigarettes do, and if legalized, the revenue will soar sky high. Legalize it!
Isn't that funny...I don't think your question had anything to do with HEMP being useful. I used to be a weed smoker in the 60's, 70's and 80's along with other things offered along the way. I never really drank so pot was a miracle to me. I've thought about it for many years and today we know a great deal about what we inhale or ingest than we did back then.
After all that wonderful thinking I came to the conclusion that weed should not be legalized because of the abuse factor and not for any other reason. If I was still out there partying like I did years ago, I'd probably enjoy a few tokes for a nice buzz and although marijuana itself does NOT lead to other drugs, in the wrong hands a person with an addictive mindset/personality WILL go past the joint or two over the week-end. Pot laced with what have you will send you reeling and there is plenty of stuff out there to lace it with. For the safety of all, I would say no, don't legalize it with the exception of those who are terminally ill and have been prescribed it to calm them and take away some of the pain.
The reason that we find weed laced with other, more dangerous drugs is because it is sold by drug dealers. If instead it were legal then those people who sold it could be held responsible for how they grow their marijuana and what, if anything, they add to it. As it is, most people aren't willing to ask to many questions when it comes to where their weed is from.
Also, if marijuana was legal then people would use it as a substitute for other substances like cigarettes or alcohol. This would be a positive effect because medically speaking, marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or cigarettes.
Finally, I believe that legalizing marijuana could lead to a decrease in those who smoke it (I know this sounds ridiculous but hear me out). 42% of U.S. citizens admit to having smoked marijuana once, whereas in the Netherlands where the substance is legal, only 20% have tried it. Clearly there is a mental aspect involving marijuana's prohibition that gives it a greater appeal.
I both favor and oppose because I agree with some and not other portions of your post. Indecisive? Not I..lol!
You're right that not many people ask where their stuff is from but even the dealer has a duty to the buyer to expose a heavy additive. There is such a thing as honor among thieves you know!!! In my time if we found weed laced with angel dust or whatever the buyer would go back and beat that dealer to a pulp. A bad dealer gets no customers and word goes around like wildfire. If you found a good one you'd usually stay with him depending on seed and unsmokable content. If MJ were sold legally and those who bought it wanted it laced, they'd do it themselves. I don't know if people would use it as a substitute for tobacco or alcohol though. It's an entirely different feeling and effect. You're absolutely on target with the medical aspects though.
I agree also with the taboo/illegal factor. The mental aspect is there and always has been. It's not unlike anything else that has not be legalized. I'm not sure I believe the statistics here or abroad. I'd have to see how, what, and whom they asked. I'd like to think they would give a great deal of weight to a certain age group.
I spent all weekend pulling weeds and spraying Round-Up and laying plastic down to keep the weeds from coming up again, etc. If I had my druthers I would ban weeds so fast it would make your head spin and further more I would..... wait..... we're not talking the same thing, are we?
It is proven that pots and other related substances can do harm not for just one self but for the society as a whole. And if we want this to be legalize, then we will try to legalize too some harmful substances again soon after. This is not the solution to the problem. And the Bureau of Food and Drugs wouldn't set it illegal for nothing.
Weed is already legal in other countries. If you don't agree with this policy of American law, then GTFO and go somewhere that suits your needs better. The reason most people want to live in America is because we have amazing policies and laws that not many other countries have. So if you are going to make a fuss over a stupid thing like this, then just GTFO of America and move to somewhere in Europe, South America, or Mexico.
Seriously! Who the hell would vote this down?! It is human nature to bitch and moan about what they don't like about where they are/live. Plus it is pointless to start a revolution about something banned for a reason! The reason mexicans are migrating to America is because we fucking rule! So like Altarion said: "If you don't agree with American law, then GTFO" OR STFU!
Revolutions have happened and have been successful in the past, but honestly, who is going to support a revolution to legalize a drug like Pot to be used when it was banned for our protection? And don't even say "We revolted against the ban of alcohol." because it is quite obvious that Pot does far more damage to yourself and those around you than alcohol does. The fact that we can revolt against something doesn't mean we should. If we legalize something that makes people stop caring about their lives and only want to get "high" then we are pretty much setting a course for our downfall as a civilization.
Altarion I have never and plan never to smoke pot, but I know plenty of people that do smoke pot.
Weed is not physically addictive like cigarettes are, pot does not make people stop caring about their lives at all. Drugs like meth can do things like that as well as heroine or cocaine but not marijuana. Jane can be considered a gateway drug and in a lot of cases jane is a lot less harmful that alcohol is to our bodies. Pot does not do anywhere near as much damage to those around us than what alcohol does, getting high is just like a boost for the day. I know students that are in the top of my sophomore class that smoke pot regularly and are within top 20 out of a 600 student class.
The only thing I see that could come out of legalizing weed would be that since Americans already spend their money on weed now why not tax the shit and bring the US gov some extra pocket change?
I'd love to see where your facts come from, because every medical journal i've ever read (including the British government) have said that pot is LESS HARMFUL than alcohol.
Just do a google search and you'll find plenty of proof to show that.
It's also obvious you've never smoked pot. I know plenty of potheads, and none of them "stopped caring about their lives and only wanted to get high".
You are obviously confusing pot or crack or heroin.
