Posted on 07/20/2009 11:11:12 AM PDT by cryptical
A New York Times article on Sunday discussed the debate over whether more and more potent types of cannabis affect the levels of addiction to the drug. This particular issue has become part of the larger debate over whether marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized.
Antidrug activists say that if the drug is legalized, more people will use it and addiction levels, made worse by the increased potency, will rise too. Legalization advocates note that pot addiction is not nearly as destructive as, say, abuse of alcohol. What would be the effect of legalization or decriminalization on marijuana abuse and addiction?
(Excerpt) Read more at roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Hey..., I’m not the one who is trying to change all the pot-smokers... LOL...
It looks like the pot smokers are trying to change me... I’m just for keeping it illegal... :-)
Get help, please.
Most of these people that are responding to this thread have no idea what they are talking about. They haven’t tried it but they read something about it. Pot is about as harmless a drug as there is. And I’ve tried them all.
Well..., this thread is hilarious, seeing all the pot smokers come out and try to convince everyone to make their illegal habit legal... LOL...
You seem to be under the impression that I am some sort of drug-warrior or anti-drug alarmist. I am not. I’ve used pot in the past and probably will again. I know that for many people it is nothing more than a pleasant diversion. But some people who become chronic users go through really quite unpleasant withdrawl symptoms. The worst of these are probably the sleep disturbances, which can be bad enough that one can be tempted to go back to smoking pot just so they can some decent sleep. That sure seems like physical dependence to me.
Pot is not particularly addictive - dependence, if any, takes a long time to develop. I believe if it was legal we could then probably take a more balanced approach as a society to discussing its good and bad points. As it stands now we have the drug-warriors on one side with scare tactics, and people on the other side who make it out to be a panacea.
Would you agree with the following?
1. No government is perfect. Governments are made up of flawed human beings, and they have a tendency to mess up and/or abuse their power pretty often.
2. Therefore, the government should not have *any* power beyond that which is absolutely necessary to fulfill its appropriate responsibilities.
3. Any law on the books gives the government at least a little bit of power. It also gives the government another way to abuse that power.
4. Laws that take the form of a complete government prohibition are a pretty serious form of law.
5. Therefore, every single law should have a valid justification for being a law. Especially if the law is a complete government prohibition. And if any law does not have a valid justification, then we should get rid of it. Otherwise, the government will have too much power.
If you agree, then you should see why the burden of proof should be on YOU since you want to keep a questionable law on the books.
It’s like I said — the pot smokers are the ones who are trying to change me... I’m not trying to change them. I agree with it being illegal. They’re the ones breaking the law, not me... :-)
Threads such as this remind me that half the population has two digit IQs.
Your analysis, simple and straightforward as it is, is approximately a mile over the head of some posters.
Do you want to provide anything of substance to this thread, or are you just here to crack wise and make exaggerated statements? I'll be disappointed if you are but I'd rather know now so I won't continue to waste both of our time.
The fact that people who used pot before they used heroin should be about as shocking as the fact that people who ride roller coasters rode a merry-go-round before the roller coaster.
Apparently smart people abuse the comma.
Here you go ladies and gets. The epitome of a worthless brain dead argument.
Here’s an idea.
Respond with this :-)...LOL
Then, use a comma, like, with each, other, word, and other, word.
Then go back to this :-)...LOL
Then say, something, more completely, worthless.
Then go back to this :-)...LOL
See? You can, respond to anything! :-)...LOL
Are you an idiot, too? check my homepage. And no, I don't want to leave my 2nd Amendment rights or "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" to the discretion of the states. Do you?Translation: I missed the point entirely.
I never gave my friend ANY grief for smoking pot. To this day he smokes and is still my friend.
I am a conservative libertarian. Stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of yours.
On that score, I don't see that you have much of a choice. The constintution that protects those rights was enacted by the States, and they can collectively rescind it, at their discretion. Your argument makes no sense in the context of our republic, under our constitution.
Nice catch. Definitely should have included that in the list, and with that in mind, my first was also nicotine.
Yes, but probably not if you had been drunk the nite before.
Sounds good to me. I try to follow the golden rule. I don’t want anyone to give me grief for something I do, and likewise.
Nice, I like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.