There are six possible adverse effects of regular marijuana use, though the evidence for them isn't conclusive:
1. Lowering of plasma testosterone levels in males
2. Possible adverse influence on the immune system
3. Tachycardia (rapid heart rate)
4. Amotivational syndrome
5. Short term memory problems
6. Respiratory damage due to smoking.
As is often the case, the studies that seemed to support these claims are not conclusive nor are the results easily replicated. In other words, one case supports the theory, another refutes it. If you're basing all your arguments on any of these, stick to #6.
Here's some ammo for you with regards to your "makes the user stupid" argument: it is thought that THC binds to the receptors that are particularly dense in the hippocampus, basil ganglia, cerebellum and neo-cortex. (the hippocampus being the memory center of the brain) However, the evidence for it being addictive isn't at all conclusive. Even with heavy users, physical withdrawl symptoms are rare. In light of the research, marijuana is neither dynamite nor a .22 to the brain.
Do you ever drink? Because alcohol use is potentially damaging. It is a poison and does do damage to the long-term user, though it is thought to be beneficial in moderation.
We, as a society, allow its use because we learned the folly of regulating against the very strong tendancy (human nature) of humans to seek certain pleasures. That is human nature. Have you never heard the idea of avoiding pain and seeking pleasure? Unfortunately, anything that causes us to experience pleasure is potentially addictive.
I'm of the opinion that regulating against human nature is more damaging to society because rational law abiding human beings will become law breakers. Teens who try drugs that were billed as "killer drugs" that turn people into violent, drug-crazed criminals who rapidly becom addicted to heroin, find out they were lied to. If the government lied about marijuana, then why should they believe what they were told about cocaine or heroin or worse, ecstasy. Those three truly are dangerous! Lying about marijuana isn't helping win the fight against dangerous drugs any more than handing the kids ritalin and prozac and while at the same time telling them not to take drugs.
Where did I get that figure of "thousands of years"? From my Biopyschology text. Written records of marijuana use goes back 6,000 years in China, including medicinal uses. As far as Westerners go? Blame it on the Mexican immigrants in the early 1900s. They seemed to be the first US smokers and its use then spread to subgroups like city ghetto poor. If you're using the 80 year figure, then you're probably thinking of the article that appeared in the NOLA newspaper in 1926 about the "menace of marijuana". Alcohol was getting bad press then too.
My point in all of this is to tell you that the camel's already in the tent, but so what? If you can grow it in your back yard, then who is going to buy it from a drug cartel? They aren't going to make enough on it to bother with it or they would be importing tomatoes and melons along with cocaine. Economics 101.
This is the history repeating itself part that I don't understand. Prohibition against alcohol taught us nothing. The drug war is history repeating itself with the same relults. And now if they tax cigarettes high enough perhaps the North Carolina and Kentucky cartels will start bootlegging tobacco. THAT is the folly about regulating against human nature.
The numbers tell you you've already lost the war on marijuana. We now have random search and seizures with no probably cause, eroding our constitution. The facts make me wonder why we bothered to fight it at all, especially considering what drugs are available and truly are dangerous. If you're basing all of your objections to marijuana on lies, then you're lost, no matter how emotionally attached you are to your point of view. (By the way? I'm not a pot smoker. I just think the war on it is worse for us than the drug itself.)
Here's some ammo for you with regards to your "makes the user stupid" argument: it is thought that THC binds to the receptors that are particularly dense in the hippocampus, basil ganglia, cerebellum and neo-cortex. (the hippocampus being the memory center of the brain) However, the evidence for it being addictive isn't at all conclusive. Even with heavy users, physical withdrawl symptoms are rare.>>
PHYSICAL withdrawal. That's the key. We're not talking physical dependency in terms of addiction; we're talking the psychological bliss of being stoned all the time and not having to confront reality. Marijuana is a wonderful cushion from the real world.
In light of the research, marijuana is neither dynamite nor a .22 to the brain.>>
Maybe not. But it's still unnecessary and dangerous.
Do you ever drink? Because alcohol use is potentially damaging. It is a poison and does do damage to the long-term user, though it is thought to be beneficial in moderation.>>>
Drinking alcohol is and has been a part of universal human history and probably prehistory for 5000+ years. Pot is not.
We, as a society, allow its use because we learned the folly of regulating against the very strong tendancy (human nature) of humans to seek certain pleasures. That is human nature. Have you never heard the idea of avoiding pain and seeking pleasure? Unfortunately, anything that causes us to experience pleasure is potentially addictive.>>
True, but some pleasures have such a high cost in terms of social externalities that we prohibit it.
As for alcohol, we found the negative side effects of alcohol prohibition was higher than the negative side effects of legal alcohol use. We would not find the same if we legalized marijuana.
I'm of the opinion that regulating against human nature is more damaging to society because rational law abiding human beings will become law breakers. >>>
Well, that's your opinion, but it is wrong. Regulating against human nature is EXACTLY WHAT CIVILIZATION DOES. It is human nature to want pleasure. It is the job of civilization to moderate, direct or as necessary prohibit that pleasure to maintain civilization.
Example: sexual intercourse is a universal pleasure. HOWEVER, unlimited sexual intercourse with whoever and whenever you want without limit or consequence causes disease, pregnancy, fatherless children, and physical combat between competitive members of the same sex (usually but not always men).
It may well be "futile" to legally prohibit, say, 40 year old men chasing 16 year old girls, but we damn well need to do it anyway in order to protect ourselves from the external costs of that pleasure. Pot is the same.
Teens who try drugs that were billed as "killer drugs" that turn people into violent, drug-crazed criminals who rapidly becom addicted to heroin, find out they were lied to.>>>
Oh, they don't find out the government was right right away. I don't know any 14 year old heroin addicts. But one advances in drug abuse, very often, much in the way another advances ones' career, through time and reptition. There may not be very many 14 year old heroin addicts but I'm willing to bet you'll find 100% former 14 year old pot users among your pool of 20-30 year old heroin addicts.
If the government lied about marijuana, then why should they believe what they were told about cocaine or heroin or worse, ecstasy. Those three truly are dangerous! Lying about marijuana isn't helping win the fight against dangerous drugs any more than handing the kids ritalin and prozac and while at the same time telling them not to take drugs.
Where did I get that figure of "thousands of years"? From my Biopyschology text. Written records of marijuana use goes back 6,000 years in China, including medicinal uses.>>
We aren't China, are we?
As far as Westerners go? Blame it on the Mexican immigrants in the early 1900s. They seemed to be the first US smokers and its use then spread to subgroups like city ghetto poor. If you're using the 80 year figure, then you're probably thinking of the article that appeared in the NOLA newspaper in 1926 about the "menace of marijuana". Alcohol was getting bad press then too.>>>
Maybe but irrelevant. Alcohol is universally human; pot isn't.
I've buried several "externalities." This is proof enough for me.
My point in all of this is to tell you that the camel's already in the tent, but so what? If you can grow it in your back yard, then who is going to buy it from a drug cartel? They aren't going to make enough on it to bother with it or they would be importing tomatoes and melons along with cocaine. Economics 101.
>>>
If it's freely grown in the back yard for "medicinal use," then commercially bred 100% pure stuff will be available commercially because there's a zillion dollars to be made from it, once the drug dealers come out of the closet and pay enough lobbyists and run enough ads in the newspaper. That's Politics 101.
This is the history repeating itself part that I don't understand. Prohibition against alcohol taught us nothing. The drug war is history repeating itself with the same relults. And now if they tax cigarettes high enough perhaps the North Carolina and Kentucky cartels will start bootlegging tobacco. THAT is the folly about regulating against human nature. >>>
Once again: regulating against human nature is PRECISELY WHAT CIVILIZATION IS ALL ABOUT. It is human nature to kill. It is human nature to steal. It is human nature to rape. It is human nature to lie. Civilization is the bulwark against all these tendencies of human nature.
Besides, as I said, sucking on a bhong or roach is not human nature. It's a habit, nothing more.
The numbers tell you you've already lost the war on marijuana. ... I just think the war on it is worse for us than the drug itself.)>>>
Oh really? Pot is not nearly as freely available as it was in 1980, the year of peak use. IIRC a "dime bag" costs about $250 now. That proves that somebody is doing their job at the USG. And if drug dealers are rotting behind bars as a result? So much the better.
Pot. A bad idea, and making it legal is a hideous idea. And thanks be to Christ most Americans agree; given the coming continued rightward swing of the national government this is not likely to change.