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.
As a psychiatrist, I will have to say "yes" to this. Most people are, in reality, going to be able to smoke a joint with no ill-effects. They'll get ripped. Have a giggle. And then rape the refrigerator. But there is a sizable portion of the population for whom THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, causes enduring symptoms of intoxication and psychosis. Whats more, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, cannabis does seem to be addictive to some people.
These effects seem somewhat age dependent, so the younger you are when you first begin to experiment with cannabis, the more likely you are of experience an adverse reaction.
Another factor that should be considered is that the THC content of cannabis plants has increased something in the order of 200% since the 1970's due to hydroponic cultivation techniques and selective breeding of the hemp stock. Thus the weed we were smoking in my generation is now far more powerful than ever before. In short, what you're smoking today cannot be compared with cannabis in the 70's because your cannabis is that much more potent.
Thank you doctor Taqwacore for your medical insight. Do you think peanuts should be classified as "harmful" as well? They do kill 100 times more people annually.
How about aspirin? Most people are going to be able to take aspirin without "ill-effects", but aspirin does kill 7,600 more people every year than marijuana does. What have you to say about that?
While I'm disputing you, I'm also going to upvote you because you've constructed a really good counter-argument. I'd really love it if more people could argue like you!
OK, I'm calling a logical fallacy on this one. You're talking about peanut deaths and comparing it to marijuana deaths. However, my previous argument was not at all concerned with marijuana deaths; but marijuana-induced psychotic states. There are no peanut-induced psychotic states that I am aware of. Therefore, your argument constitutes a false dichotomy.
Still, it was a good argument, I'll give you that!
I must point out that the argument that you appreciate was constructed by a brain containing large amounts of THC. One of the many positive aspects of using marijuana is creativity and many studies have shown this.
As for the strength of marijuana these days? You're right, but I don't think you even know the extent of it. The strains coming out these days are crazy. The really cool kids aren't even smoking weed anymore. The new wave is dabbing BHO's and ISO's, which are marijuana concentrates of those crazy potent new strains. If you take these oil extracts and superheat them quickly, (by heating a piece of metal or glass to red hot) you get a vapor that contains extreme amounts of THC.
Anyway, even with all these crazy new ways of getting massive amounts of THC to your brain, there is no marijuana induced psychosis here. Psychosis entails "a loss of contact with reality". I get straight A's at a university, run a small business, and I am constantly under the influence of marijuana. I am literally never sober and I do just fine.
I understand that some people don't handle marijuana well, but I feel the need to point out that some of us do and it helps us greatly with problems like anxiety. Not everyone is a typical stoner that gets the munchies and acts like a doof, some of us have shit to do.
I'm adding him as an ally. While I'm debating against him in this debate, I think I'm likely to find myself siding with him in most debates and I really like how he debates.
"I must point out that the argument that you appreciate was constructed by a brain containing large amounts of THC. One of the many positive aspects of using marijuana is creativity and many studies have shown this".
hahaha! Yes, certainly. As I pointed out, most people are not going to experience this (i.e. psychosis) level of adverse reaction. For most users, cannabis is relatively harmless. I don't advocate criminalizing marijuana use; but I do believe that it's harmful enough that people should be made aware of the possible harm and then be free to make their own decision about usage. But I would, were it up to me, forbid its use by anyone under the age of 16. Medically, it could be argued that people shouldn't be using it under the age of 18 - 21; but there seems to be a drop-off effect with the onset of usage post-16 years.
I think you can still trump me on this debate. While all that I'm arguing is that marijuana is harmful (one argument), I've also somewhat alluded to policing marijuana (second argument). Policing it or regulating it in some way might be even more harmful in a different way. You could argue that the societal and economic costs of regulating and policing cannabis use outweigh the societal and economic costs incurred by way of caring for those people with THC induced psychosis.
In other words, there are some holes in my argument that you could still exploit.
Whats more, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, cannabis does seem to be addictive to some people.
Everything can potentially be "addictive" to some people. I generally think of it more as habit forming. Some people can't sleep unless they read before bed. Some people get irritable if they don't get Chipotle for lunch. Some people compulsively pop tic-tacs. Does this mean reading, Chipotle, and mints are addictive?
Harmful compared to what. Everything is harmful in some way shape or form, if used incorrectly or even correctly.
I think as far as being able to kill you, it isn't and shouldn't be labeled as such.
The main argument I always see against marijuana is that inhaling smoke is bad for you no matter what, and that is an obvious statement. Though everyone that does marijuana don't always smoke it. It's sometimes cooked into foods and ingested.
If we called weed harmful (weed) be calling everything with the potential to hurt anyone harmful.
Pillows are harmful, because you can suffocate someone with them.
Pianos are harmful because they can be dropped on your head.
Weed isn't harmful it just has some dangerous potential, but what doesn't. I can say this, no one has ever died from taking in too much weed. Zero ODs.
No, marijuana doesn't kill brain cells. It simply blocks brain receptors which hold brain cells appearing as if those brain cells was destroyed. A blocked brain receptor can be unblocked by playing strategist games such as chess. Also all marijuana does is realese the natural chemical in your brain "tetra hydro cannabinol."
My statement is fallacy what so ever, look up the chemical that it realeses in your brain and how the effect of that chemical takes place in your prefrontal cortex and tell me what you think
No i just read a college psychology book and know the parts of the brain and how the chemical tetra hydro cannabinol would react in that specific are and the way it would impact the nervous system.
