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.
Drugs' don't have morale qualities, the way people use drugs does. So weed isn't bad in and of it self. Is legalization good though? There's specific arguments for legalizing cannabis, and there's general arguments for legalization for all drugs.
Specific for weed
- It's harmless for the body (exclusive weed smokers don't get lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers, death from acute poisoning is impossible, there's no data suggesting that cannabis causes schizophrenia in individuals first exposed in adulthood.)
- It doesn't promote aggressive behavior like alcohol does
- It has a low addictive potential
- The incoherent nature of tobacco products and alcohol being legal while cannabis products aren't.
General arguments
- Drug enforcement wastes billions
- It creates crime and enriches criminals
- Drug enforcement is incredible ineffective.
All data suggests that drug enforcement doesn't solve the problem. People will use drugs regardless of the act being illegal. The only things drug laws changes is that make perfectly well-functioning members of society criminals.
I am in support of your whole argument except for this part.
"The incoherent nature of tobacco products and alcohol being legal while cannabis products aren't."
This isn't really an argument for legalization as much as it is an argument for making the other two illegal. It's a 'two wrongs don't make a right' sort of thing. Dangerous drugs, like cocaine and heroine, shouldn't be made legal just because other dangerous drugs, like Oxycontin and codeine, already are.
You are right, thanks for point that out. By itself such a statement doesn't amount to an argument that cannabis needs to be legalized, it only amounts to a statement that something needs to change. However, if we can argue that alcohol and nicotine shouldn't be illegal, it then becomes a good pro-cannabis justification. I think such an argument for alcohol is fairly easy, significantly harder for nicotine.
I disagree. It's not a 'two wrongs don't make a right' sort of thing, it's a 'we already tried this, multiple times, and it fails horribly and makes the "problem" worse every time' sort of thing.
We have such things as organized crime thanks to the Prohibition era. With the booze cash cow gone, most organized crime these days trafficking in illicit drugs and weapons. If tobacco were to be criminalized, or alcohol re-criminalized, it's just putting more money into the hands of criminals while draining funds from taxpayers.
Criminalization of marijuana causes nothing but problems, and carries no tangible benefit. Legalization of marijuana not only removes a cash source for organized criminals and gangs, it also removes a significant proportion of government spending; it should also be noted that ~50% of inmates in federal prisons are convicted on marijuana charges, and that the vast majority of DEA operations involve marijuana as well. All of this is at the expense of the taxpayers.
With marijuana illegal, the criminals win at the expense of the taxpayer and government.
With marijuana legal, the taxpayers and government win at the expense of the criminals.
You are arguing for good, but on the opposing side, and even disputing me who is also on the on the side of marijuana. My argument was pointing out a fallacy with one portion of nebeling's argument, not the idea entirely.
It's so common that statistics show most have used it at least once in their lives.
It's already being legalized in some states, and is legal in other countries.
I believe the reason it's so popular is because of the taboo of doing something illegal. If it were made legal that taboo would dissipate, leaving nothing but the drug itself that doesn't really have too bad an effect if ingested a way other than smoke.
The few negative side affects associated with marijuana only surface after extreme long-term habitual usage; just about ANYTHING taken to extreme levels has negative effects, including sugar and even water.
On the other hand, there are a number of benefits associated with marijuana, ranging from simple casual enjoyment to direct medical application.
Is there ANY case to label marijuana as bad? Objectively speaking, that is- I don't really care about your personal moral issues with a plant.
Note that issues related to smoking are irrelevant here, as those issues are shared with other smokables, such as salvia and tobacco; marijuana can be taken in a number of ways beyond smoking, and in fact smoking is the least efficient and effective way to use it- it's just also the easiest and most convenient.
The few negative side affects associated with marijuana only surface after extreme long-term habitual usage; just about ANYTHING taken to extreme levels has negative effects, including sugar and even water.
There are numerous negative long-term and short-term side effects.
On the other hand, there are a number of benefits associated with marijuana, ranging from simple casual enjoyment to direct medical application.
There are things that you can do for enjoyment that aren't as harmful as Marijuana. Also, the medical application argument is completely false. Marijuana only stops pain temporarily, then it causes even more.
Is there ANY case to label marijuana as bad? Objectively speaking, that is- I don't really care about your personal moral issues with a plant.
Long-term side affects are only present after extreme long-term habitual usage, just as there are long-term side affects with such when any substance is overindulged in.
Short-term side affects are transient, and not worth consideration except where they are notably dangerous; they aren't, in this case.
The medical application argument is not false at all. Marijuana is known to reduce the risk of alzheimer's, as well as slow or even stop the progression of alzheimer's. It is also effective in reducing the size of tumors through the process of autophagy. Additionally, cancer patients aren't given cannabis primarily as pain relief, but rather primarily for reduction of nausea and to stimulate the appetite- severe nausea and loss of appetite are among the most common side affects of cancer treatment.
Cannabis is not harmful to the physical body at all. Smoking cannabis is, but that is a factor of smoke, not a factor of cannabis; smoking is in fact the most wasteful and inefficient way to consume cannabis, and remains popular only due to ease and convenience.
Long-term side affects are only present after extreme long-term habitual usage, just as there are long-term side affects with such when any substance is overindulged in.
Short-term side affects are transient, and not worth consideration except where they are notably dangerous; they aren't, in this case.
Sources? From what I know, almost every professional organization on this topic says otherwise.
The medical application argument is not false at all. Marijuana is known to reduce the risk of alzheimer's, as well as slow or even stop the progression of alzheimer's. It is also effective in reducing the size of tumors through the process of autophagy. Additionally, cancer patients aren't given cannabis primarily as pain relief, but rather primarily for reduction of nausea and to stimulate the appetite- severe nausea and loss of appetite are among the most common side affects of cancer treatment.
Sources?
Cannabis is not harmful to the physical body at all. Smoking cannabis is, but that is a factor of smoke, not a factor of cannabis; smoking is in fact the most wasteful and inefficient way to consume cannabis, and remains popular only due to ease and convenience.
Have you even read a medical article on Marijuana that wasn't written by a druggie?
Haven't been able to locate sources in short order specific to the usage as an appetite stimulant in the context of cancer treatment, but I expect you were already aware of that?
I'll concede that cancer.gov and safeaccess.ca are both OBVIOUSLY run by druggies, but I ask you this- have you even read a medical article on Marijuana that is based on experimental data rather than regurgitated rhetoric?
1. Smoking weed is a waste of time because not much is accomplished while you are under it's influence.
Well, I would beg to differ on nothing getting done while you are under it's influence, but for the sake of argument, we'll say you are right. Now, marijuana is mostly (but not limited to) smoked for recreational purposes. Recreation is the act of leisure and enjoyment, so, why would it matter if someone used there own recreational time to not be productive? After all, most recreational activities aren't productive, because that's not the point of recreation. If your smoking weed on your own time for your own personal pleasure, what is so bad about it?
2. Weed is a gateway drug.
This idea seems plausible at first, especially when hard drug addicts share their stories and mention that they started on marijuana. Correlation isn't always the cause. Professional athletes most likely played sports while they attended school, but does that mean that because you played sports in high school you'll become a professional athlete? Of course not.
It's no worse for you than legal drugs like alchohol and nicotine, in fact its probably better as it is all natural and you can't overdose on it unlike alchohol and its good for all kinds of ailments and stick some tax on there help get the country out of the hole its in
Drugs' don't have morale qualities, the way people use drugs does. So weed isn't bad in and of it self. Is legalization good though? There's specific arguments for legalizing cannabis, and there's general arguments for legalization for all drugs.
Drugs' don't have morale qualities, the way people use drugs does. So weed isn't bad in and of it self. Is legalization good though? There's specific arguments for legalizing cannabis, and there's general arguments for legalization for all drugs.
I smoked weed for 30 or more years, pretty much from the minute I woke up in the morning until bedtime. My old lady used to say I smoked pot like others smoke crack.
Anyway. I quit about two years ago mostly because buying it just got to be a big expensive pain in the ass. But also for health reasons. COPD being my biggest concern.
I definitely feel better now that I don't smoke. However, I would probably use it again if A.) it became legal and B.) they come up with an e-joint type delivery system. I definitely no longer what to break the law--I already have several pot related arrests and fines on my record, And, smoking all that tar and stuff which makes you cough your lungs out is no longer my idea of a good time.
While nothing on the order of an e-joint seems to be available now, there are a number of products that allow you to vaporize the active ingredients, consuming a much higher percentage of the active ingredients and a much lower percentage of combustion by-products. At the upper end, with devices that use forced air with digitally controlled temperature (such as the Volcano line of products) combustion can be prevented altogether!
For something portable and akin to an e-joint, there are a few products available. One of them is actually made to look like an asthma inhaler, and is quite discrete. My brother actually used his with water-cured cannabis and walked right by a police officer and his dog without so much as a glance in his direction. I called him an idiot, but he wanted to test it...
Is this debate about weed itself being good or bad or the legalization of weed being good or bad? Well anyways... I say bad to both. Marijuana destroys your mind, and as such should remain illegal. Laws are put in place to protect people from harm. The legalization of Marijuana would (I feel) contradict the purpose of law.
There is zero evidence that marijuana destroys the mind. If you claim otherwise, please provide sources.
A ban on marijuana simply is unreasonable when such substances as alcohol and tobacco remain legal- both are significantly more damaging than marijuana, and have physically addictive qualities to boot.
If you're for banning marijuana, tobacco, AND alcohol, that would be a more consistent position, but history has already shown how futile that is.
A ban on marijuana simply is unreasonable when such substances as alcohol and tobacco remain legal- both are significantly more damaging than marijuana, and have physically addictive qualities to boot.
The only reason tobacco and alcohol remain legal is because governments collect so much money from taxes on them. Legalizing Marijuana would make the situation worse by having yet another harmful drug on the open market; but then I guess governments always do need more money (sarcasm).
If you're for banning marijuana, tobacco, AND alcohol, that would be a more consistent position, but history has already shown how futile that is.
Alcohol and tobacco yes, but Marijuana is still mostly illegal. I am arguing for the position to keep it illegal.
Not a single one of those sources references any kind of experimental data whatsoever. These are baseless claims, and still don't even support your claim.
Additionally, the effects listed that are mind affecting are transient; they occur while under the influence of cannabis, and rapidly correct themselves when levels of chemicals that stimulate the cannabinoid receptors drop to normal levels.
Poor sources that don't even imply any kind of permanent or long-term effect, and don't even back their claims with data aren't sources at all, and even if they were do not support your claim that it destroys the mind.
I contest that tobacco and marijuana remain legal, not because of the tax revenue, but because of the utter disasters that have been met with attempts to ban alcohol at a federal level and to ban either at a state level. You know, the same kind of issues we're dealing with with marijuana- it's illegal, but it's available everywhere with no quality control, with an entire crime culture surrounding it. Your argument is to keep an arbitrary law on the books and throw money we don't have (see the national debt) at a problem that 1) is not going to be resolved outside of ensuring the extinction of the entire cannabis genus and 2) is not really a problem anyway.
Not a single one of those sources references any kind of experimental data whatsoever. These are baseless claims, and still don't even support your claim.
My goodness. So what, you want to actually see data sheets from tests? All of the sources were professionally funded. Saying that all of them were baseless claims, is ignorance.
Additionally, the effects listed that are mind affecting are transient; they occur while under the influence of cannabis, and rapidly correct themselves when levels of chemicals that stimulate the cannabinoid receptors drop to normal levels.
Did you read everything in each source?
Poor sources that don't even imply any kind of permanent or long-term effect, and don't even back their claims with data aren't sources at all, and even if they were do not support your claim that it destroys the mind.
OMFG. Are you really this ignorant? Look at where the sources are from and who funded them.
I contest that tobacco and marijuana remain legal, not because of the tax revenue, but because of the utter disasters that have been met with attempts to ban alcohol at a federal level and to ban either at a state level.
There was a disaster making Marijuana illegal? Please list your source.
I don't want or need to see everything regarding the experiments, but I do want to see the numbers they're drawing conclusions from. There is a significant interest among several groups for keeping marijuana illegal, and very little funding available for unbiased research. What experimental data is readily available is not consistent with the claims in these articles.
I did read your sources thoroughly; they simply don't reference any kind of numbers and make claims without any backing. Wikipedia would have been better, because at least there are source links for most of the articles there.
We're in the middle of a disaster caused by making marijuana illegal. Anti-marijuana spending is increasing. Nearly 50% of all drug-related arrests are for marijuana, and this is increasing. Marijuana charges are the largest group of crimes that our prison population has been convicted of, and is rising. Marijuana usage overall, as I've indicated, is also rising. http://hashexpress.wordpress.com/the-hash-express-news-2010/marijuana-prison-statistics/ (dont hate the site; it is a good collection of info, but everything is sourced primarily from DOJ records).
Understand that- nearly half of the people currently occupying our prisons are ONLY occupying our prisons because this particular substance is illegal. That is a LOT of wasted money, and it's getting worse, while not reducing usage at all.
Last parahraph, I wrote "I contest that tobacco and marijuana remain legal..." and meant alcohol rather than marijuana. I figure from the context that was probably evident to most but wanted to be sure.
I wouldn't trust anyone that says that alcohol doesn't damage the immune system. They also try to say that cannabis is just as harmful as alcohol. How can they even make that comparison? Also this is laughable:
"the immediate effects of taking marijuana include rapid heart beat [...] lack of physical coordination often followed by [...] and sleepiness." Ooooh, the dangers of marijuana misuse!
Seriously these guys have origins in the church of fucking Scientology which continues to sponsor all their programs. Do you have any idea how untrustworthy that makes them?
This page doesn't even provide a reason for your belief that cannabis destroys the mind. WebMD is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies which have very high interest in Cannabis not getting legal. They can't be trusted.
Of all things you could cite you picked NIDA... It's a federal-government research institute so it's should be no surprise that they are biased towards what legislation dictates. They have a monopoly on medical marijuana for research purposes which means that it's close to impossible to verify their whatever they may say about marijuana. To quote Jag Davies of MAPS
"NIDA uses its monopoly power to obstruct research that conflicts with its vested interests. MAPS had two of its FDA-approved medical marijuana protocols rejected by NIDA, preventing the studies from taking place."
Why would they do this, if their science was true? One of the core principles of science is that it needs to be validated by independent scientists. Why would they break this principle?
Seriously these guys have origins in the church of fucking Scientology which continues to sponsor all their programs. Do you have any idea how untrustworthy that makes them?
Can you please provide evidence of this website's tie to the Church of Scientology?
This page doesn't even provide a reason for your belief that cannabis destroys the mind. WebMD is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies which have very high interest in Cannabis not getting legal. They can't be trusted.
Right... Let me guess, the pharmaceutical companies also have some secret benefit from keeping Marijuana illegal. You really sound like a conspiracy theorist right now.
Of all things you could cite you picked NIDA... It's a federal-government research institute so it's should be no surprise that they are biased towards what legislation dictates. They have a monopoly on medical marijuana for research purposes which means that it's close to impossible to verify their whatever they may say about marijuana. To quote Jag Davies of MAPS
"NIDA uses its monopoly power to obstruct research that conflicts with its vested interests. MAPS had two of its FDA-approved medical marijuana protocols rejected by NIDA, preventing the studies from taking place."
Again, do you have any evidence of this? Also Jag Davies, being the head of MAPS, would obviously oppose NIDA; the quote you provided is practically pointless as it is not from an independent party.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana3.htm
Again, where does it say that marijuana use leads to destruction of the mind? I don't see how this supports your contention.
"Cannabinoid receptors are activated by a neurotransmitter called anandamide. Anandamide belongs to a group of chemicals called cannabinoids. THC is also a cannabinoid chemical. THC mimics the actions of anandamide, meaning that THC binds with cannabinoid receptors and activates neurons, which causes adverse effects on the mind and body."
This is mainly a response to the 10th page of the Drug Free World booklet. It says that a single joint is as harmful as chain smoking 5 cigarettes, but they fail to mention that cigarettes are filtered and joints aren't. If you were to smoke a cigarette without a filter it too would be much more harmful. They also point out that marijuana smoke is worse for your lungs than tobacco smoke, and although pot smokers smoke much less than tobacco smokers, smoking is not the only marijuana can be put into the body. Marijuana is mainly smoked due to it being illegal, so most people would rather just quickly smoke a joint rather than spend 30 minutes making tea or 2 hours making brownies. Many people in the legal marijuana industry say that consumable marijuana is the future and smoking will soon be obsolete.
It also notes that the THC stays in your system for a few weeks after it enters. My problem with this is, if the effects usually stop completely after 5 or 6 hours, why is this a bad things? Most things you put in your body leave trace amounts for a while, so what's wrong with it?
Now, as for the intoxicating effects or marijuana, yes, people suffer from anxiety and panic from using too much marijuana, that's not a problem with weed that's a problem with stupid users. If marijuana makes you depressed or tired after using it, couldn't you just choose to stop smoking if you it's bothering you? I mean, it is a non physically addicting substance, users may stop if they want.
Now, there are real risks associated with having marijuana be illegal. Not only does it give police an excuse to invade citizens privacy, it also provides a very profitable market in which gangs and cartels are able to operate in. So much life and money has been wasted on this pointless war and it's not even working. People are still smoking weed, it's still morally acceptable in a good amount of social circles (especially those leaning more toward the counter culture) and most users aren't getting caught.
There's also the fact that a nationwide ban on alcohol has been tried, statewide bans on alcohol and tobacco have been tried multiple times, and in every single case the situation only got worse.
And of course, this overlooks the biggest question: What's the end game here? Does the US government seek the extinction of the entire cannabis genus?
There's also the fact that a nationwide ban on alcohol has been tried, statewide bans on alcohol and tobacco have been tried multiple times, and in every single case the situation only got worse.
Correct, but that is only alcohol and tobacco.
And of course, this overlooks the biggest question: What's the end game here? Does the US government seek the extinction of the entire cannabis genus?
I think the end game would be limiting the harmful usage of Marijuana. Of course there will always be illicit drug activity, but limiting it is a good action to take.
It's not just alcohol and tobacco, but marijuana too; we're just still in prohibition where cannabis is consumed.
Organized crime surrounding its traffic? Check.
Violent crime associated with the above? Double Check.
Lack of quality control resulting in questionable, even dangerous product? Triple check!
High government spending that doesn't even put a dent on the issue? You get the idea.
Government scare-tactic campaigns? Yeah....
The overwhelming majority of US citizens try marijuana at some point in their lives, and nearly a third are believed to use it somewhat regularly- and it appears to be increasing. Some limit!
The overwhelming majority of US citizens try marijuana at some point in their lives, and nearly a third are believed to use it somewhat regularly- and it appears to be increasing. Some limit!
~38% of those polled in 2013 admitted to trying marijuana. Considering that next to no people will lie in claiming they did for a survey, and that many will deny it due to paranoia, and many others will downplay their habitual usage to say they just tried it, I think inflating that percentage by a little under a standard deviation is reasonable; that would put it around 50% trying it.
Even without that, that's still a significant percentage, and the percentage itself is increasing. Further down, numbers are provided for different age groups; since the last poll, the 18-29 crowd has dipped in admitted use slightly, but the other age groups have increase significantly for a net increase.
Those who admit to using it regularly have shown some increase as well. Interestingly enough, overall usage rates do not appear to be affected by income or education levels, which also seems to discredit your claims regarding mental damage.
This one shows trends in usage amongst younger people with more detail, and includes numerous other substances as well, showing a definite upward trend in usage.
It doesn't corroborate the other study in terms of overall percentages of the population, because it doesn't explore that angle. I'm having difficulty locating additional sources one way or another for overall usage, but I'll keep poking around.
It increases your chance of getting psychotic illnesses. Also I think most places have bad enough obesity problems with out people getting fat off being on the munchies.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that obesity rates are no higher amongst users of cannabis than they are amongst non-users; that seems to be a non starter.
I'm interested in hearing more regarding psychotic illnesses though- are there studies you are aware of that establish the correlation? As I understand it, the active ingredients in cannabis are actually beneficial towards some mental conditions, inc. alzheimers.
I believe that, worst case scenario, it's as potentially harmful as it is potentially helpful. More likely, though, is that it is helpful on the whole, if for no other reason than the fact that it is signficiantly more effective at reducing stress (linked to myriad health issues, including psychotic illness and obesity) than just about any legal substance.
Weed will only increase your chances of getting psychotic illnesses if your already susceptible to them or have them already, the manufactured drugs that the doctor will prescribe to treat these illnesses can also make them worse. Weed can also help people with alzheimers, epilepsy and arthritis, the manufsctured drugs for epilepsy are also the same as those for depression and other mental disorders and can also cause depression, psychotic episodes, mood swings, suicidal tendancies the list is too long for here, trust me I've been there it's not fun for the patient or those around them.
