A link between marijuana and schizophrenia is the reason why marijuana, despite how much it has helped people, should be illegal? A link? There's a link between George W Bush and Al Queda. There's a link between crying and AIDS. There's a link between salad dressing and Mustard Gas. The chances of getting schizophrenic from marijuana are very slim. I'm not sure you'd understand how slim because I doubt you've ever had marijuana. To even get to the point of being so high you hallucinate to that extent is nearly impossible. But no, there's a link, therefore we should illegalize it, even if it's a natural, harmless (if taken in moderation) way to ease the pain of chemotherapy, quickening the recovery of thousands of cancer patients.

And don't throw the word enslavement around. People have hyperbolized the effects of softer drugs enough. Yeah, I've seen Scarface, I know effects of hard drugs like Cocaine, but I'm not talking about Cocaine. If you read above, you'll understand that marijuana does not chemically bond with the brain. There are many psychological ways to become addicted the marijuana, but the funny thing is, Marijuana is less addictive than Orange Soda. It is a perfectly helpful, and homeopathic medicine that a small portion of the population abuses.

You talked about advertizing and marketing of drugs, well we live in that world. Pharmacutical corporations produce synthetic drugs that make people more sick so they become addicted to the drug. The pharmacuticals are the ones that are "enslaving" people and we ought to turn our attention toward them, not Pedro and his little marijuana cartel. Want to see some real physical bonding between dopamine and receptors, look at Zoloft or Paxil. If you gain a dependency on one of those then the same occurance happens with nicotine, you find the drug to be your only source of really good relief, and the depression you had before gets worse when you're off it. I see them advertized on TV all the time, why aren't we turning our priorities on them?

In a study done by botanists they proved the effects of natural and homeopathic chemicals are much less harmful on the human body than synthetic ones, and yet most of the doctors in this country are on such a tight leash by these pharmacutical companies they swear by the synthetic, brand name merchandise. Talk about enslavement look at the money line between most doctors and pharmacutical companies.

In conclusion, I don't advocate abuse of narcotics, but I believe illegalizing medicine with less side-effects than most medicine on the market and less chance of dependency than an antacid is the wrong approach to solving the problem.

Let's try and stay civil here, shall we?

Do people need narcotics to stay alive. No. Have narcotics been shown to be harmful, yes. Therefore there's no case for legalisation.

Do people need fast food to stay alive, NO. Has the fast food industry been proven to be harmful, Yes. therefore why is that institution still standing if we follow your logic.

anyways in the case of some drugs, the benefits out weigh the harm. or even better, when certain chemicals in the drug are isolated becuase it has shown certain medical value, it is then put in some ingestable form. and behold the user does not even have to use the narcotic.

Yeah good poiont. I mean, sure, marijuana has been proven to fight one cause of blindness, and therefore for certain people they need marijuana to stay "able to see," but that's not actually "alive." Read some chemotherapy horror stories too, it's just hell on Earth for the people that go through that, and marijuana lessons the negative effects of chemotherapy. It settles their stomache, it makes them feel less sick all the time, it helps their headaches. That's not alive, even if it is evasion from torture. Oh wait, I just realized, some people do use marijuana to stay alive. Malignent brain tumors have been shown to slow or be stunted by the use of medical marijuana long enough for doctors to be able to act upon the tumor. Oh my god, what do we have here? Peiople using a drug to keep themselves alive? But that can't be, I mean it's a natural drug, no pharmacutical company produced it, and because of that obviously no doctors are going to stand behind its use. You're fighting the wrong battle.

I'm sorry but your post makes no sense to me O.o I can't tell whose side your on and it sound sarcastic, bu then doesn't. i'm very confuzzled.

I was arguing with slayer, don't you worry that head of yours.

HEEY! No need to be rude to Megil! Stay civil here.....please...


Edit by Stargelman: May I just squeeze in here? I'd just like to add this:

One more such outburst, and the thread will be locked.

Though I may seem like a bit of a jerk by saying this, but please don't make this discussion seem so black and white. There's more to drugs than highs and death.

Right now its my turn. yey!

Ok i drink, i smoke cigs and i used to be into weed in my uni days. I ditched the weed soon after i left uni because the immediate effects it had on my friends who also smoked it was evident. They became reclusive and unresponsive and i realised that was where i was gunna end up.

The problem is that legalising weed is all fine and dandy until it becomes abused by people to the extent that our social lives are saturated with all 3 drugs: alcohol, nicotine and marijuana.

Alcohol and cigarettes (in UK at the very least) have been a staple diet for our tax-loving government, and the financial benefits outweigh the health problems (in the eyes of the government) by quite some margin. Ironically its these kind of drugs that pay our health service. Odd eh. The institutionalisation of alcohol and cigarettes means that its virtually impossible to illegalise it at this point.

But don't get me wrong. Its a nice idea to have weed legalised. The chances are that once it is available then the market will slow down somewhat (generalising here but i figure us Brits probably do more weed than the residents of Amsterdam, for instance) as its no longer a 'naughty' drug.

Most weed smokers here mix their joints with tabacco anyway, so right there you have the worst of both worlds. Mental problems are immediately apparent with weed and there is a degree of dependency as many people need the drug just to get through their day (note: i do not mean addiction). One of my old flatmates used to spark up a new joint as soon as he woke up.

So, im for controlled legalisation of weed. Any way to prevent it saturating a market that is already screwed from alcohol abuse and nicotine addiction. Legalising it will probably (over time) lead to a lower amount of usage. Speculation i know., but thats how i see it.

minque, I wasn't being rude. He couldn't tell if I was being sarcastic or not, so I told him don't worry that head of his about it. I have been perfectly civil this entire debate. Civil is my middle name. I am DoomedOne "Civil" Rodriguez.

Darkwing: I understand the chances of seeng a government official lobbying against tobacco or alcohol is very rare because of the finacial benefits, but there are plenty who attempt to push their "moral values" in this country by raging against the legal use of Marijuana IE Medical marijuana, which is a drug that has helped thousands of people with serious illnesses. I find that marijuana is so harmless it's an exhaustion of funds to spend all that time trying to cut down the trafficking of it.

But I'm curious, if Marijuana and all is so harmless why is it illegal?

This post has been edited by Channler: Aug 10 2005, 03:45 AM

Because #! some people share different views than others and #2 it's hard to get votes when most of a country is against one of your views, so some people change some of their views.

If thats true then how comes Cigs and Alcohol are legal then? There must of been some sort of smart reasoning when they outlawed the stuff..

I've explained why,m two reasons:

After prohibition, when alcohol was legalized again, the FBI basically had nothing to do.

A very rich business man had invented a synthetic replacement for hemp, and lobbied for the illegalization of hemp around the same time.

Politicians got behind this new idea and started pushing for its illegalization. Film-makers were paid to make movies where they invented effects of the drug, turning it into this evil substance.

It's not 100% harmless, but less harmful than advil. With prolonged use it does turn you into a bit of a loser with no goals and aspirations in life. That seems pretty harmful, but that's not a legal issue to me.

Oh i absolutely agree with medicinal marijuana. Its a very good reagent for dulling various affects of illnesses. This is why i would vote for controlled legalisation, rather than total legalisation.

MAybe because they contribute to presidential and senatorial campaigns in america. And why would the executive and legislative branches get rid of one of their biggest contributors?

Alcohol and cigarettes were legalised back in the day when the health risks were unknown and so it became institutionalised. i think.

Slayer, although I agree with you please settle down, you're doing more harm than good.

About the addictivness, although technicaly marijuana is phsicaly addictive, that doesn't mean that you can't get hooked. Sure its not like crack were it can become the only way to get dopamine, but the rush of dopamine that you get from marijuana can be mentaly addictive.

Another reason why alcohol and tobacco have been illegalized is because it would be to difficult. one of the major reasons why prohibition failed was because alcohol was so popular that all it did was make half the country outlaws. If they legalize marijuana it would be nearly impossible to illegalize it if things got out of hand.

Finaly, although medical marijuana has some uses, many things it does can be substituted for other treatments. Chemotherapy is in no way a reason to legalize pot. My mom went through chemo 5 years ago, and although she still has lots of pain from the damage that chemo causes, there are other ways to help it. And incase you're saying that my mom my not have had as tough of a treatment as some people, she had one of the toughest regimens for her type of cancer.

Actually, most of the risks of cigarettes were known, just not by most of the people that used them. Plus it was a good chunk of money for the government.