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 use to be all for it being illegal, but after a while I started seeing it as a new type of tobacco; it would be much more cost effective to just legalize and regulate it. Besides, it's your own fault if you want to breath in a harmful substance.
There should be an easily accessible file somewhere so people can check if a question has recently been asked
Anyway four pages previously MrsGuido asked "Should marijuana be legalised
This is what I wrote:-
There comes a time when something is so commonplace in society that it becomes normalised.
When that happens the best we can do is to make sure we control the quality, manufacture, sale and ultimately the health of those involved.
There are variable qualities of marijuana and its synthetic form that need to be removed from marketplace because they are known to have adverse health effects.
However, providing legal amounts of a monitored quality product through a registered dealer should be the way to go.
Everyone benefits, the grower, seller, user and the government.
I would now also like to add to that, that smoking marijuana is just as harmful as tobacco and there are mental health implications for some users
I would now also like to add to that, that smoking marijuana is just as harmful as tobacco and there are mental health implications for some users
First, do you have a source for the claim that it is just as harmful?
And second, it only has mental health implications for those who already have mental health conditions. It has not been shown to cause mental health conditions in those who did not already have them.
Marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. I am referring to the pure forms. Nicotine seems to promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas THC seems to inhibit it. Marijuana has more tar and the inhalation method leads to higher tar deposition.
In the end, not much is known about long term marijuana use or non-commercial tobacco use. The focus of studies has generally been commercial tobacco use.
Firstly, any professional medical/health site regarding tobacco and cannabis smoking will give you information on the harms.
Check the NCPIC site on the respiratory effects of cannabis which states "Inhaling cannabis smoke in the long-term is likely to result in damage to the respiratory tract....harms appear to be additive for individuals who smoke tobacco and cannabis....cannabis smoke is carcinogenic" and the Healthline site "Is cannabis more harmful...? which states "... if one is to compare the health effects under typical use conditions, tobacco smoking is much more harmful to health. However, if one were to compare the effects on a “per smoke” basis then the two are likely of similar harmfulness, with cannabis having greater adverse psychological effects.The human body was not built to inhale smoke of any kind, and whether it’s the result of burning tobacco, cannabis or lettuce, inhalation will cause damage in proportion to the quantity inhaled.
Secondly as a mental health clinician I have been involved in the treatment of many people over the years for paranoid /psychotic illnesses brought on through marijuana use who did not have a pre-existing mental illness, however, we need to consider whether some people have what is considered to be a pre-disposition to a psychotic illness that is brought on by cannabis use.
There is a significant difference between pre-existing and pre-disposition and that is why I stated "there are mental health implications for some users". Check out the Sane website for info.
In only a few exceptions recovery occurred with treatment and cessation of marijuana use. However illness re-appeared when they returned to using.
It's one of the least harmful substances that people regularly put in their bodies. There is come correlation between smoke inhalation and lung damage, source. That being said, smoke damage is from cigarettes as well and even from fire damage, so we shouldn't demonize pot smoking while sparing cigarette smoking. On the plus side, marijuana can be introduced to your body in many ways. Tobacco can be introduced in two main ways: smoking and dipping. Both have heavy correlations with cancer of the lungs and mouth, respectively. Marijuana can be ingested by baking it into a product or by concentrating it and adding drops to a drink or food. Furthermore, it has shown many cases where it has positive medical effects.
Lastly, no one has ever overdosed on marijuana, ever. The threshold between feeling effects from the drug and the drug killing you is so vast for marijuana that it's virtually impossible for it to kill you. If it takes a certain amount of THC to get someone high, it would take 40,000 times that much THC to kill them. Alcohol, on the other hand, can kill you with as little as 5 to 10 times the amount that would get you drunk, source. Again, why demonize pot and spare alcohol consumption?
Pretty much, I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can sit back and allow tobacco and alcohol to be legal but fight against marijuana. It's hypocritical and asinine to still think marijuana is as terrible for us as we did 30 years ago, before the mountain of scientific evidence came about in support of pot usage, while still smoking cigarettes and drinking beer.
That wikipedia article said nothing about "adverse psychoactive effects." In fact, it states that the compound that THC becomes through hepatic routes is "subsequently metabolised further to 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, which is not psychoactive but might still play a role in the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis."
And I stand by the fact that pot is way less harmful than other drugs people regularly take. Compare deaths caused by marijuana with deaths caused by either alcohol abuse or tobacco. Show me numbers that prove people have ever overdosed on pot. Prove that it has absolutely no positive health effects. Give me a real reason why you think it should be illegal- this isn't just about whether or not you'd like to smoke it, this is about whether or not anybody can.
"In fact, three million Europeans use cannabis daily and 80% of them drive after use. A number of French studies since 1999 have underlined the high prevalence of cannabis found in the blood of injured or killed drivers. From medical or judicial observations, it is clear that cannabis use increases the risk of traffic accidents."
Crosses the blood-brain barrier more easily does not mean it's psychotropic. Just because things bass the barrier doesn't mean they are bad. Oxygen passes the barrier as well.
As for driving under the influence, I don't understand your logic. Because people are uninformed you want to make the drug illegal? People used to not fully understand the implications of drinking and driving, but through education and helpful information, not prohibition, the amount of people who drive drunk has decreased, just not by much. The problem of driving under the influence is a serious issue, but banning the substance will not deter people from using it and driving. Instead, education and social pressure are way more effective in preventing drivers from driving under any drugs.
I repeat: "11-OH-THC is more potent than THC and crosses the blood–brain barrier more easily."
As for driving under the influence, I don't understand your logic. Because people are uninformed you want to make the drug illegal?
And I stand by the fact that pot is way less harmful than other drugs people regularly take. Compare deaths caused by marijuana with deaths caused by either alcohol abuse or tobacco.
I was just disputing one of your points. Not "way less harmful". Pot smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. Pot smoke also contains more tar and inhalation methods also lead to heavier deposition.
Marijuana can be ingested by baking it into a product or by concentrating it and adding drops to a drink or food.
I already mentioned the increased risks of ingestion vs smoking. Ingestion also takes longer to metabolize which means a slower high. People tend to overcompensate and risk even more severe effects.
And yes, more potent but repeating the same sentence doesn't prove that the compounds themselves have psychoactive effects any more than, say, alcohol. As I discussed on the other side of this debate, it is possible for marijuana to be correlated with the onset of mental illnesses, but each of those patients has a genetic predisposition and you can't really throw all of the blame on one drug when the diseases are multifactorial and not well understood yet.
Now as for your stories about Denver and having more patients admitted to hospitals, I understand more people are going to hospitals after taking the drug, but even the doctor they interviewed said there was nothing he could do except wait for them to come down from the high. This sort of thing isn't even all that surprising with the recreational use in Colorado only recently being legalized. Now that it is legal, people across the state want to finally try the "forbidden fruit" and, like the one anonymous woman who was interviewed, will sometimes not follow dosages accurately. The vendor specifically told her to have the ear of a gummy bear and she ate the whole bear and, as is true for anything we can put into our bodies, moderation is key. She had too much, but it didn't kill her, it didn't injure her, and she looks back on the situation with a sense of humor.
Overindulgence is such a typical behavior with humans. Just look at alcohol- Most people in America, when they finally live on their own or go to college or go to a party in high school, binge drink because they finally have the freedom to do so. Part of the culture of this country is to demonize alcohol for everyone until you turn 21 and, in turn, it receives this connotation as a "forbidden fruit". The main difference here is that when someone drinks too much alcohol and is taken to a hospital, treatment is actually performed- they get an IV for fluids and their stomach pumped usually. So if marijuana is so bad for you, why wouldn't the hospital perform some sort of treatment for those people?
And on top of that, many of the compounds from cannabis are found to suppress many tumor types. So although the smoke itself can be damaging, the active drug has an opposite and positive effect.
From the article you just cited: "The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro [15]."
And yes, more potent but repeating the same sentence doesn't prove that the compounds themselves have psychoactive effects any more than, say, alcohol. As I discussed on the other side of this debate, it is possible for marijuana to be correlated with the onset of mental illnesses, but each of those patients has a genetic predisposition and you can't really throw all of the blame on one drug when the diseases are multifactorial and not well understood yet.
This is not about chronic toxicity, although that is also an issue. This is about acute psychoactive effects at higher doses from ingestion. You suggested ingestion as a safe method. The articles I cited showed an increase for ingestion related hospital visits. The point was not pot is dangerous, but that the ingestion of pot is.
The main difference here is that when someone drinks too much alcohol and is taken to a hospital, treatment is actually performed- they get an IV for fluids and their stomach pumped usually. So if marijuana is so bad for you, why wouldn't the hospital perform some sort of treatment for those people?
Because THC and its more potent metabolites have already crossed the blood brain barrier. If the individual is experiencing sever psychoactive effects, then THC and its metabolites have already crossed the blood brain barrier. There is no way to "pump" the brain as you would pump the stomach. That means with alcohol poisoning, you can physically remove the alcohol to stop further absorption. With THC related psychoactive effects, there is no way to remove the "poison" or stop the effects from compounding.
Show me a study where they stimulate the study of lung cancer cells in people. People are more complex than petri dishes.
The point was not pot is dangerous, but that the ingestion of pot is.
Ingesting the pot didn't lead to any new or noteworthy symptoms. Those people would have reacted the same way if they had smoked too much, it just would have taken more of the drug. A common side effect of taking too much pot is paranoia, which isn't the greatest thing in the world, but is better in my opinion than death, a side effect of drinking too much alcohol.
With THC related psychoactive effects, there is no way to remove the "poison" or stop the effects from increasing.
I understand how biology works, but you can still treat something that has started to take effect in the brain. A example is called Rimonabant (or SR141716) is known to block the cannabinoid receptors in your body, and there are even more where that came from. So if pot is such a "poison", why don't hospitals, especially in Colorado and Washington, carry a drug that can block the effects of it? Oh that's right- because it's not a poison.
At the end of the day, it seems like you are grasping for straws to find evidence that pot is bad and citing the same few sources. There is a wealth of information about the positive effects of pot and there are plenty of studies that depict the addiction rates and toxicity of every major non-prescription drug we regularly use- from alcohol to heroin to marijuana. The studies are consistent and show that marijuana is not as dangerous as other drugs (including prescription drugs) and is even less addicting than alcohol and nicotine.
I have consistently brought new sources to prove that marijuana isn't as bad as other legal drugs and I don't sit here and pretend it's 100% harmless while I do that. I acknowledge that there are downsides, but enough to keep it illegal? Hardly.
I firmly believe it is hypocritical to demonize marijuana and stay silent about the dangers of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco- all of which are abused and lead to much more dire health effects than a little dope.
Show me a study where they stimulate the study of lung cancer cells in people. People are more complex than petri dishes.
You do realize I am just quoting the same article that you cited? Many of its claims were made based on in vitro and rat experiments. Are you saying only the claim I quoted is invalid while the ones you quoted are valid?
Ingesting the pot didn't lead to any new or noteworthy symptoms. Those people would have reacted the same way if they had smoked too much, it just would have taken more of the drug.
That is the point. Things are classified as more dangerous and less dangerous based on the relative nature of their effects. If ingested metabolites cause more severe psychoactive effects and pass the blood brain barrier easier, then it is more dangerous.
That would be like saying sulfuric acid is the same as acetic acid. All you have to do is use a whole lot more acetic acid.
I understand how biology works, but you can still treat something that has started to take effect in the brain. A example is called Rimonabant (or SR141716) is known to block the cannabinoid receptors in your body, and there are even more where that came from. So if pot is such a "poison", why don't hospitals, especially in Colorado and Washington, carry a drug that can block the effects of it? Oh that's right- because it's not a poison.
Blocking cannabinoid receptors works when you inject the antagonists first. If you metabolize the THC first, then many of the receptor complexes have already formed and triggered NT production. It would only slow the absorption of the already ingested THC. It does not neutralize it. This is all besides the point.
You don't seem to understand what poison means. Almost every chemical substance is a poison and has a LD50. The LD50 of alcohol happens to be low enough for people to drink themselves to death. The LD50 of THC is not low enough for people to smoke/eat themselves to death. The point of pumping the stomach is to prevent alcohol poisoning. Patients are still monitored after being pumped because alcohol overdose can kill you. There is no risk of THC poisoning from recreational use. It takes orders of magnitudes greater than anything people can smoke/ingest. There would be no point injecting an antagonist to slow down the compounding effect.
Patients are instead monitored and/or restrained in order to prevent them from hurting themselves or others during their psychosis/impaired mental state.
At the end of the day, it seems like you are grasping for straws to find evidence that pot is bad and citing the same few sources. There is a wealth of information about the positive effects of pot and there are plenty of studies
There are plenty of positive effects with drinking alcohol too. That does not remove or negate the negative effects.
I have consistently brought new sources to prove that marijuana isn't as bad as other legal drugs and I don't sit here and pretend it's 100% harmless while I do that. I acknowledge that there are downsides, but enough to keep it illegal? Hardly.
You should probably read my comments again. I never said it should be illegal to smoke it. I was refuting your claim that ingestion is safe.
Also, you did not exactly provide a wealth of sources. Many of the sources you cited also acknowledge the dangers associated with smoking or ingesting marijuana. You just quoted the line that suited your argument. In fact, the only scientific study you quoted even acknowledged the biphasic nature of THC and the lack of studies regarding its effects.
I firmly believe it is hypocritical to demonize marijuana and stay silent about the dangers of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco- all of which are abused and lead to much more dire health effects than a little dope.
If ingested metabolites cause more severe psychoactive effects and pass the blood brain barrier easier, then it is more dangerous.
You're right, which is why dosage is so important. The main difference is that smoking it can introduce the carcinogens that damage lungs whereas ingesting it doesn't- that's what I was referring to.
Patients are instead monitored and/or restrained in order to prevent them from hurting themselves or others during their psychosis/impaired mental state.
And my mistake for saying "it's not a poison." You have a valid point there. I would like to replace those words with "it's not realistically toxic."
Based off your other argument, you want all three to be banned, whereas I prefer all three to remain legal. I admire that, I just feel the government should not decide what I do in my own home if it I'm not harming anyone in the process.
You're right, which is why dosage is so important. The main difference is that smoking it can introduce the carcinogens that damage lungs whereas ingesting it doesn't- that's what I was referring to.
I would argue that smoking be allowed, similarly to cigarettes if it is indeed legalized. As long as you only hurt yourself, it is a personal choice. The news articles I cited were about people who ingested marijuana and committed violent acts during their psychosis. There needs to be heavier regulations regarding more dangerous methods, similar to alcohol enemas.
While it's possible for some to have violent outbursts, the majority of people experience a sedating effect. Violence in anyone, including marijuana users, often has a multicausal explanation.
The increased psychoactive effects include hallucination, paranoia, and anxiety. You are talking about a normal high, not an "overdose" high.
Based off your other argument, you want all three to be banned, whereas I prefer all three to remain legal. I admire that, I just feel the government should not decide what I do in my own home if it I'm not harming anyone in the process.
I agree with your sentiment, I just don't believe people are great at self-regulation. It is just the difficulty in reducing DUIs. Cigarettes happen to be the safest of the bunch in regards to DUIs. Kind of weird. Even coffee has more dangerous psychoactive effects than nicotine at the recreational usage levels.
There needs to be heavier regulations regarding more dangerous methods, similar to alcohol enemas.
I don't know if outright banning other forms of using marijuana is a sound idea. If someone is using it for analgesic effects from a respiratory illness or cancer, they'd have to use an edible form. Or if a child is prescribed THC, obviously it's going to have to be oral because there's no way in hell anyone would ever recommend a child smoking something (which by the way the dosage for something like this is so low, the cannabis doesn't even affect the child as a high, but is only administered to help treat some pathology like seizures). There are even people who just can't tolerate smoke.
I agree people in general suck at self-regulation, but I think a better solution is to crack down on those who drive under the influence (or do anything wrong under the influence). Increasing jail time and fines for offenders, especially repeat offenders, is a better plan than prohibition.
As for the two people in the news articles who committed violent acts, one was self-inflicted and the other was directed at his wife. I can't say for sure, because I didn't know them, but I'm sure there's a good chance there was an underlying depression in the suicide and a history of aggression in the husband. The last link I posted even stated that seeing aggression is more common in people with histories of aggression.
I think as a "free" country, we need to give people the freedom to do what they want, but crack down and punish those who abuse their freedom and break the law. We need to stop hiding behind the defense of someone being too drunk or high to make the right decision.
I don't mean outright ban. Opiates are still used for medical treatment. I just mean for commercial sales. This provides more lobbying power and is a more dangerous form.
I agree people in general suck at self-regulation, but I think a better solution is to crack down on those who drive under the influence (or do anything wrong under the influence). Increasing jail time and fines for offenders, especially repeat offenders, is a better plan than prohibition.
Definitely. In all 50 US states, the first DUI is still a misdemeanor with only up to 6 months in jail.
As for the two people in the news articles who committed violent acts, one was self-inflicted and the other was directed at his wife. I can't say for sure, because I didn't know them, but I'm sure there's a good chance there was an underlying depression in the suicide and a history of aggression in the husband. The last link I posted even stated that seeing aggression is more common in people with histories of aggression.
The point wasn't to speculate on the specific cases. It was to point out what happens from high doses. The effects lead to violence. You also have to remember that people metabolize THC at different rates, just like alcohol.
"Psychological responses such as panic, anxiety, depression or psychosis. These effects may be described as ‘toxic’ in that they generally relate to excess consumption of the drug."
Instead of writing a new mini-story about why I believe marijuana should be legalized, I'll just copy and paste what I wrote on an earlier debate..
I have been an advocate for the legalization of marijuana for quite some time- that will not change as I fully believe this should happen. Uruguay has legalized cannabis for a couple years now I believe, so far, no issues. If anything it has helped Uruguay grow economically. I have not once heard on the news about people dying from cannabis down in Uruguay, or riots happening due to this drug, or elevated crime rate.
Colorado is another example of this. Granted, it is a US state however it is the same concept. It's grown economically, job rates have gone down as it has caused more jobs to open up for the unemployed.. there are more positives than negatives to legalizing marijuana.
We have alcohol and cigarettes, which kill millions of people each year, and yet we have all of these commercials talking about how dangerous it is for people to use. Well if it's dangerous, why have it legalized? Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? Marijuana is a herb, not a drug. I refuse to call it a drug as it is not true. If it grows in the ground, it is natural. Herbs grow naturally, marijuana is a herb.. not much more has to be said.
Sure, prolonged use or early exposure to marijuana is correlated with some prevalence of mental illness, but only when there is a predisposed risk to getting that illness in the first place. That's like outlawing bread because some people have a predisposed risk for developing celiac disease. I can't find a single study that states marijuana smoking causes mental illnesses, and even if I did, a mental illness is just that- an illness. People seem to freak out about mental disorders as if they aren't pathologies to the brain, but something else entirely. But if we're so worried about passing laws to ban things that "cause" illness, lets first ban alcohol because of liver disease and cigarettes because of lung cancer.
But if we're so worried about passing laws to ban things that "cause" illness, lets first ban alcohol because of liver disease and cigarettes because of lung cancer.
I wouldn't ban them, I would just say that people suffering ailments because of excessive drinking or smoking cannot get treated on the NHS and would have to pay for private. However you can't do that with mental illness in marijuana users because as you said they had a predisposed risk anyway so you can't tell if it was because of that, therefore the only way the government can take action on taxpayer money being spent on self-inflicted conditions of marijuana users, over than to abolish the NHS is to outlaw it.
Furthermore marijuana makes you lazy and unmotivated. Therefore lots of people who smoke it regularly are likely to take the piss out of the welfare state and just be unemployed, living off their benefits money at the expense of the tax payer.
You do realize there are people who smoke every day and never develop lung cancer and there are people who are alcoholics with only minimal liver damage. Every major disease we know about is multifactorial- caused by a mixture of your genes and the environment. There are plenty of genes that, if mutated, predispose someone to lung cancer- even if the never smoked a cigarette. Saying that smokers and alcoholics cause their ailments exclusively from their drugs of choice is erroneous.
Marijuana is a depressant, yes, but so is alcohol, which is actually far more addictive in nature than pot. And both are dwarfed by the addictive nature of nicotene. The truth is, alcohol and cigarettes cause way more deaths each year, are both more addictive, and have more adverse health effects and zero positive health effects than marijuana.
And I have read several articles that completely go against your claim that "people who smoke it regularly are likely to take the piss out of the welfare state and just be unemployed."The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. This brings about a whole new debate in reference to drug testing people on welfare and goverment assistance and its relation to the overall costs and morality of it, which I won't get into. But the point I'm driving home is that even though pot is a depressant, it's actually far less likely for a person who is recieving government assistance to be marijuana-dependent (really drug-dependent in general, for that matter).
It is not only limited to predispositions. The article you cited cites this study.
Its conclusion: "At the present time, the evidence indicates that cannabis may be a component cause in the emergence of psychosis, and this warrants serious consideration from the point of view of public health policy."
Noted factors: "Several factors appear to moderate these associations, including family history, genetic factors, history of childhood abuse, and the age at onset of cannabis use."
But if we're so worried about passing laws to ban things that "cause" illness, lets first ban alcohol because of liver disease and cigarettes because of lung cancer.
Recreational marijuana is already illegal in most states. It is difficult to ban alcohol or tobacco due to giant lobbies. If the marijuana industry ever gets established, it will mean one more giant lobby for a harmful substance. We should prevent the legalization of harmful substances and ban legal harmful substances.
The FDA regularly denies pharmaceuticals that have actual medical benefits while also exhibiting less adverse side effects than alcohol/tobacco. Lobbies are pretty powerful.
