/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3377179]

What's /sci/'s opinion on marijuana?

[Anonymous No.3377190]

It's good for you.

[Anonymous No.3377195]

addictive (inb4 rabid stoners), but less damaging than alcohol.

[Anonymous No.3377196]

>>3377190
How so?
(note: i'm not anti-pot, just curious :d)

[Anonymous No.3377201]

>>3377195
>addictive (inb4 rabid stoners)
But it isn't physically addictive and to even bring that up is stupid, as any enjoyable thing is addictive. Why.

[Anonymous No.3377202]

>implying it's a gateway drug

>implying contact high is real

>implying marijuana makes anyone who smokes it lazy

>implying marijuana is good for any pain (migraines)

[Anonymous No.3377203]

>>3377196
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

It's not.

[Anonymous No.3377204]

LSD is more beneficial.

[Anonymous No.3377207]

It's bad for you.

[Anonymous No.3377208]

>>3377195
In what ways is it addictive? If you're talking mentally, then by definition most everything is addictive. But I have never personally (nor do I know anyone) who has ever experienced physical withdrawal symptoms.

[Anonymous No.3377209]

>>3377179
I smoke all the time but it's starting to get in the way. I expect to quit when summer is up and I have to start doing homework again.

Integrals are a bitch when you're stoned.

[Anonymous No.3377222]

Deep throating cacti is mentally addicting to some, is it just as addicting as marijuana?
Side note, cocaine isn't physically addictive, so is crack non-addictive too?

[Anonymous No.3377223]

>>3377203
No, you can't link cracked for your arguments. That is unacceptable.

I don't even care what they have to fucking say, retard. They are for humor, not arguments.

[Anonymous No.3377227]

>>3377209
Lol, I'm just the opposite. I quit smoking in the summer to save money and smoke during the school year so I can get through.

[Anonymous No.3377242]

>>3377222
Because humor and arguments never mix?

[Anonymous No.3377249]

420 smoke weed

[Anonymous No.3377268]

I love smoking weed. I also like doing physics while I'm high.

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3377283]

Used to smoke a lot. Still burn every once in a blue moon.

Is weed bad for you?
>Depends on who you are, same as alcohol, sex or fast food.

Is weed addictive?
>Not in the classical sense. I would spend a week straight high and then go two or three sober sometimes. That being said, I think marijuana is "socially addictive." Recreational drug use was huge at my college with a big emphasis on ADHD meds and PKs. I never did any but a ton of my buddies did. There wasn't really a culture to it, it wasn't a social thing. Smoking pot was for me, it was an activity among friends and had a definitive social feel to it, that was the only "addiction" I faced.

Is weed good for you?
>Depends on who you are. I know for a fact weed mellowed me out in college. I never neglected my work because I was high and I think a few times just getting that feeling of ease and relaxation helped me dodge a few bullets some of my nonsmoking friends got hit by (panic/anxiety).

[Anonymous No.3377293]

>>3377268
If you like doing physics in any state of mind you're an autistic nerd. If you like to say you are doing smart things while high to justify getting high to the internet/sound cool, you are an aspie faggot.
So, take your pick.

[AMAZINGDOG No.3377294]

you need to get used to the taste, and make sure you have snacks

[Anonymous No.3377303]

I like it, i don't smoke it often though.

What i do hate is all of the ignoramuses around me that rely on it to rid away their "stress". Though they have no real stress since they're high school drop outs living in their parents spare bedroom with no job.

I just find that the majority of those who smoke it around me are low-lifes who really give a bad rep to the culture of marijuana.


But marijuana alone is a fine drug that's harmless and fun.

[Anonymous No.3377321]

>>3377293
>If you do anything besides breathe, you're an asspie! XD

[Anonymous No.3377348]

>>3377293

This guy is butthurt because he's a mediocre science major (life science) at a mediocre state school. yawn.

[Anonymous No.3377352]

>>3377195
What makes you believe that its addictive (citation would be appreciated)? I'm a heavy marijuana smoker (I wake up with bongs and am fully functional high out of necessity) but I stop at the beginning of the second week of semester (when assignments start coming in) each semester and have never experienced signs of addiction. Obviously I'm not putting this forward as evidence, just providing context for my request.

[Anonymous No.3377367]

>>3377179
I smoke it erryday, its not addictive you can grow a dependency, like "oh i need a spliff to sleep", thats gone after about 3-5 days of no smoking, you wont be on the corner sucking cock for weed like you would heroin or something.

Pic is an example of my excellent rolling skills.

[Anonymous No.3377378]

It helps me eat and it treats my nausea better than promethazine, belladonna/phenobarbital and zofran.
Also, being high is nice.

[Anonymous No.3377384]

>>3377321
>>3377348
Things like programming I can understand because you actually make something. But being "herpa derpa I'm gonna go use some formulas with some numbers, and have a blast!" is clearly in the domain of being an autistic nerd.

[Anonymous No.3377397]

>>3377203
Smoking weed is harmful to you, obviously. Any smoke is.
Vaporizing it is significantly less damaging, and if you make it into food it won't harm any organs at all.

[Anonymous No.3377405]

>>3377384
>Calling someone a nerd on /sci/
>Calling someone a nerd on 4chan
>People (physicians) who make more money and are more successful than me are asspies!

Congratulations, you're the biggest retard I've seen on /sci/ all day. You should kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3377428]

>>3377405
I believe you mean physicists, your point still stands.

[Reiiama Kotsu, Inevitable No.3377970]

Would it kill you weed smokers to wash before you get on board the bus, though? Holy crap you guys stink up the place. The bus I commute with smells like pigeon shit every goddamn day because you guys can't wash the smell out of your clothes.

[Anonymous No.3378009]

>>3377970
That's not really limited to weed smokers, that's just limited to most everyone who rides the bus in America.

[Anonymous No.3378030]

>>3377970
>The bus I commute with smells like pigeon shit

No dude, no. That's the alcoholics. Weed is the guy that smells like armpit and onions. I should know, I'm an alcoholic, and when you're sweating out the toxins, the smell is worst than anything you can imagine.

[Anonymous No.3378038]

weed is dangerous no matter what desperate stoners will tell you. My cousin got so high he forgot to breathe for nine minutes and suffered brain damage. THC may not be harmful in itself but can indirectly have lethal effects, much like alcohol.

[Anonymous No.3378040]

>>3377179

Its kills you.

[Anonymous No.3378041]

>>3378038
>Anecdotal evidence
>Worth anything

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3378050]

>>3378038
fuck man I know what you mean I had a buddy whp had a cousin that OD'd on weed i know they tell you you cant OD on weed but those ediots obviously never actually did OD on weed so who the fuck are they to say
anyway he pretty much died from weed that was laced with cocane powder like 30 secnds after using a marijuana needle

[Anonymous No.3378052]

>>3378050
That's so convincing I can't honestly tell if you're trolling or actually making a point.

[Anonymous No.3378136]

>>3378050
all the kool kidz are freebasing marijuana now. Its called "Crackpot" that shit is ten times more intense as regular marijuana, without having the discomfort and risk of injecting it

[Anonymous No.3378142]

i smoke aprox. 10grams erryday, and im just fat. i have a steady job and im doing well at my uni.

[Anonymous No.3378145]

Anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence everywhere!

I seriously hope you narcotic addicts dont do this.
Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.3378146]

>>3378142
>THC accumulates in body fat.
>get lipo.
>make brownies with your human-fat.
>?????
>profit

[Anonymous No.3378153]

Never cared for it. I don't really like the feeling I get when the high fades.

[Anonymous No.3378161]

>>3378153
you can fix that by smoking more

[Anonymous No.3378163]

this thread made me schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.3378170]

>>3377208
Personally, I think it's mentally addictive in a different way to normal things that can be enjoyed, but even if it isn't, it's a mind altering substance, and spending so much time spaced out and not giving a fuck isn't too good because you start to lose grip on reality.

[Anonymous No.3378178]

>>3377204
Does anyone here know much about LSD? I'm very interested in it. I was under the impression that:

If someone laces it with another drug, it isn't very bad because lsd is a tiny piece of paper soaked in liquid, so there would be trace amounts of the other drug that wouldn't do anything.

It isn't bad for your physical health in any way whatsoever.

The only downside to mental health is that it's possible to get mentally addicted to it and rely on it as an escape, and (although VERY RARELY), some people get caught in a trip for the rest of their life.

[Anonymous No.3378185]

>>3378178
if you have a weak personality it isn't really a good thing to do, even once.

by weak personality I do mean a personality disorder of any sort. Depression doesn't seem to go well with it either.

results vary though. dosage and surroundings are important.

[Anonymous No.3378197]

>Marijuana less harmful than alcohol
Alcohol has positive health effects, even at not-so-moderate consumption levels

>Marijuana isn't Addictive
There is no such thing as "physical addiction", only physical dependency. ALL addiction is PSYCHOLOGICAL dependency, and marijuana produces comparable levels of dependency as cocaine(which like marijuana and meth does not produce physical dependency)

>Sure, smoking marijuana is harmful, but vaporizing is fine!
>>MAPS study on different smoking methods
>the electric hotplate vaporizer turned out to have a lower THC/tar ratio than the unfiltered joint, while the hot air gun was still marginally higher.

>Marijuana is Harmless
>>Cannabinoid modulation of hippocampal long-term memory is mediated by mTOR signaling
>We found that CB1 cannabinoid receptor (CB1R) activation transiently modulated the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)/p70S6K pathway and the protein synthesis machinery in the mouse hippocampus, which correlated with the amnesic properties of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). . .we found that THC long-term memory deficits were mediated by CB1Rs expressed on GABAergic interneurons through a glutamatergic mechanism

[Anonymous No.3378198]

>>3378185
Ah yes. I was told that it was pretty easy to have a bad trip if you're not relaxed and in an environment where you feel safe when you take it.

Is it true that anti-depressants cancel out the effect of LSD (and vice versa)? If so, why?

Sorry if I am ignorant/misinformed/unintelligent, you can tell me to shut up any time. (Although, at this point, I don't think I have any more questions.)

[Anonymous No.3378204]

>>3378178
If someone gives you fake LSD it will probably be a DO-x chemical, which is less visual and more like a stimulant in my opinion.

Most people accept that it isn't physically harmful.

I can't imagine someone trying to use it for an escape, because if you're having some shitty day or trying to block out something negative your negative emotions will bleed into your trip, giving you a shitty trip.

Also that whole "tripping forever" thing is bullshit. Yes, it can make schizophrenia and other mental disorders more apparent, but no amount of LSD will make you trip forever.

Personally I think LSD sucks though. Shrooms are much more visual in my opinion (and DMT is even more than that.

[Anonymous No.3378208]

>>3377201
FYI: Most people don't realize they have an addiction.

A lot of the times it can be such a subtle experience, you'll never notice it.

[Anonymous No.3378209]

>>3377208
>then by definition most everything is addictive
Yeah? People can be addicted to just about anything depending on the person. Your point?

[Anonymous No.3378213]

>>3378204
>I can't imagine someone trying to use it for an escape, because if you're having some shitty day or trying to block out something negative your negative emotions will bleed into your trip, giving you a shitty trip.
I knew that, but I didn't make the connection...

Is it possible to get stuck in a trip for significantly longer (4+ hours) than the 'standard' trip length?

And I guess shrooms would be better based on what you say and because it's (apparently) rediculously easy to get. (They're the first mushrooms that grow in cow maneur after it rains, I heard from a few places... I might have been being trolled though.) Not to mention how expensive LSD is.

[Anonymous No.3378224]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jpYB2zvrkI

[Anonymous No.3378238]

>>3378038
>>3378050
>>3378136
samefag

[Anonymous No.3378241]

>>3378213
I've had a bad marijuana trip last around 5 hours.

[Anonymous No.3378248]

>>3378213

>standard trip length 4 hours
wat? a standard trip on real LSD should range from 6-10 hours. my experiences have lasted around 8 or 9ish hours
>how expensive LSD is
WAT? where do you live and who is trying to steal your money? acid is the cheapest drug in my city, cheaper than weed (hard to compare but)

[Anonymous No.3378267]

>>3378197
>Alcohol has positive health effects, even at not-so-moderate consumption levels

[Anonymous No.3378269]

>>3378248
he said 4+ hours longer
LSD in my country is expensive as fuck (New Zealand)
But a friend of mine bought a sheet of about 100 tabs or so for like $250 and we sold each tab for around $30-70
Depending on the person.
That summer i got high as fuck and made a ton of money.

[Anonymous No.3378273]

>>3378269

how is $2.50 a tab expensive..........?

[Anonymous No.3378275]

If I have it at home, it will be smoked.
Not much more addiction than that, when all the weed is gone there is nothing more to it.

Weed is great for watching documentaries, gaming, listening to music, walking in the forest, surfing the nets.

Not very good for doing homework (unless its something really interesting to study), nor meeting a bunch of people you half-ass know.

I do prefer smoking alone, gives me so much more. It sometimes makes me socially blocked but mostly it works great with nice friends.

[Anonymous No.3378279]

>>3378273
That was a one off thing, the guy who was selling it was moving to Europe and needed to get rid of it fast.

[Anonymous No.3378281]

>>3378248
4 hours longer, and where I live it's 25-30 dollars per tab.

[Anonymous No.3378288]

>>3378281
Sorry, I meant to include that that's the cheapest you'll find it. Not sure what the standard price is though.

[Anonymous No.3378291]

>>3378273

Drugs are very expensive in Aust & NZ. Something about population size and being islands I think

[Anonymous No.3378295]

>>3378291
And having so many abos/maoris not knowing how to cook anything and just grow heaps of weed.

[Anonymous No.3378300]

>>3378295
>>3378291
Weed in NZ is probably easier to acquire than alcohol (for minors)

[Anonymous No.3378308]

>>3378291
This.
>>3378295
Apparently if you go to Darwin, you see passed out Aboriginals on roads and shit from sniffing paint/petrol.

Also, if you ever see an aboriginal (passed out or not) while on a low populated road, speed up. (not to hit them, obviously.) Apparently if you slow down, they'll open your car and 10 of his friends will run out from behind bushes and shit and rob you.

[Anonymous No.3378310]

>>3378300
Average price per gram, quarter or ounce?

[Anonymous No.3378317]

>>3378308
>Apparently if you go to Darwin

read in a local rag Darwin locals can pay up to $100 per gram of weed!

[Anonymous No.3378322]

>>3378310
$20 a gram.
Like $250 an ounce

[Anonymous No.3378323]

>>3378300
I live in Brisbane, and weed is probably easier to get than alcohol when you're underaged (to an extent).

Obviously, if you have an older brother or sister or a friend does, then that's easier than finding a dealer. But let's assume you don't.

Dealers don't really give a shit, it's not like they won't sell it to you if you're not "cool" enough. Some of them will probably try to rip you off though, but i've never encountered that. All the drug dealers i've talked to are pretty cool and actually give me like 5 bucks extra worth sometimes (because it's better than cutting parts off a perfectly intact bud). Obviously it's a little harder when you're not in highschool.

It's also very easy to get cigarettes. Just go to wherever the smokers smoke cigarettes and ask anyone if they're selling. But, I digress. This isn't about cigarettes, I just thought it was interesting.

[Anonymous No.3378328]

>>3378317
Holy fuck! Now I know what to do if I ever need money. Of course it's quite a drive, but it'd be worth it.

[Anonymous No.3378329]

>>3378323
Back in High school in my last year i turned 18 around April, bought a few packs of cigarettes and went to the smokers are and sold the packs at twice the price.
It was a lot cheaper than what they were buying them for, made me some nice money.

[Anonymous No.3378331]

>>3378310
Depends, 20 nzd (17 usd) per gram from average dealers, but if you got hookups you can get 3-4 grams for 50 bucks.

And yeah, about 250 for an ounce

[Anonymous No.3378336]

>>3378267
>Alcohol has positive health effects

Alcohol dosing and total mortality in men and women: an updated meta-analysis of 34 prospective studies.

RESULTS:
A J-shaped relationship between alcohol and total mortality was confirmed in adjusted studies, in both men and women. Consumption of alcohol, up to 4 drinks per day in men and 2 drinks per day in women, was inversely associated with total mortality

[Anonymous No.3378339]

>>3378329
That sounds about right... Last time I was in highschool (2 years ago), cigarettes sold for 1 dollar each. Since most of the kids don't care if you give them cheap brands, if you buy a 50 pack of longbeach, that's probably over a 100% markup (I don't remember how much they cost)

[Anonymous No.3378383]

>>3378197
>Alcohol has positive health effects, even at not-so-moderate consumption levels

Is this supposed to be an argument against marijuana being less harmful than alcohol?
Long-term use of alcohol in excessive quantities is capable of damaging nearly every organ and system in the body, whilst long-term use of weed in excessive quantities makes one incredibly apathetic, satisfied with next to nothing and overall lazy.

We're hardly talking about the effect of alcohol/weed in low-moderate doses.
Alcohol is far more addictive and has horrible withdrawal symptoms.

[Anonymous No.3378608]

>>3378383
>Marijuana is good because it's safer to abuse!
Yes, stoners love to champion its low acute toxicity while 'conveniently' ignoring long-term mental impairment and association with increased psychosis.

>Alcohol is far more addictive and has horrible withdrawal symptoms.
As I said before, addiction is PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY. Most drugs of abuse do not produce physical dependency, nor is physical dependency a major contributing factor in addiction. The half-life of alcohol is so short, for example, that one would already need to be addicted(i.e. psychologically dependent) before physical dependency came into effect.

Your contention that alcohol is vastly more addictive is not bore out by the data, and while the fact that marijuana has comparable dependency rates as alcohol could be used as "proof that marijuana is no worst than alcohol" this, in truth, clearly only shows the benignly of alcohol. As the criminal penalties, social disapproval and inflated price of illicit marijuana invariably contribute to more moderate usage(e.g. heroin has 1/3 the dependency rate as tobacco, but somehow I doubt this will be used as proof of that its "not addictive")

[Anonymous No.3378622]

Enough of the justifications. Everyone just needs to admit that they either want weed legal so they can smoke it freely, or they don't want weed legal because the stoner stereotype pisses them off.

[Anonymous No.3378643]

It's habbit forming rather than addictive. Insted of thinking "i need a joint i need a joint i need a joint" it's more "i'm bored what's the first entertaining thing that comes to mind...joint". But don't let that make you think it's harmless. Habbits are hard to break.
Sooner or later you'll spending $100 a week on bud.

[Anonymous No.3378662]

>>3378643
>habbit forming
>habbit

[Anonymous No.3378678]

after smoking weed everyday for about 6 years, im clean now for the last 17 months. And fuck yeah it feels amazing!

[Anonymous No.3378685]

Marijuana's medical properties are renowned in the health communities and it's medical uses are aknowledged for various diseases such as brain & lung cancer, MS-disease, Alzheimer's, Dementia and other neurological disortions.

I reckon that it's not beneficial to use marijuana for a longer time period frequently, but then again that goes with almost any drug and food product. Moderation is the key.

There has been various studies for long term use of marijuana. Researchers found out that long term use reduces certain cannabinoid receptors in the cerebrum, but the original state (the pre-use state) is regenerated in a month after quitting marijuana. Some studies have found out that CBD reduces alcohol's brain destroying properties by 60%.

http://kannabisuutiset.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/kannabis-ja-aivot/

[Anonymous No.3378724]

Concerning contact high:

The lungs absorb THC almost instantly when inhaling a hit. (Fun fact: exhaling quickly expels more carcinogenic compounds than "X-ing out" or "holding" your hits).

So, if a sober person sits in a room with 5 people taking rips from a bong or passing around a bowl, he or she is not going to experience a contact high, as almost no THC is in the public air.

But, if the hippies are smoking a blunt or a joint, excess THC is burning off into the air. There is potential to become contact high from this.

Personal experience. Sitting in a closed off room with 6 people smoking a quarter-once blunt. Didn't matter if you were hitting it or not, just being in the room you were fried.

[Anonymous No.3378727]

>>3378724
quarter-ounce*

[Anonymous No.3378873]

>>3378643
>I'm not fat, I'm just big-boned!

[Anonymous No.3378880]

>>3378643
It's psychological addictive, but not for everyone.

[Anonymous No.3378885]

Great drug.

Most people who smoke it are irritating, annoying, lazy, mindless losers who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

[Anonymous No.3378887]

>>3378885
That's obviously a good idea considering urine is full of flammable solvents. Idiot. Where'd you hear that phrase before? The 80's? Fuck! Idiots everywhere!

[Anonymous No.3378893]

>>3378887

>taking a phrase literally

At what age did you begin wearing a helmet around the house?

[Anonymous No.3378894]

>>3378893
>At what age did you begin wearing a helmet around the house?
Another zinger!

GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

[Anonymous No.3378959]

>>3378880
>It's
hurrr
>psychological addictive
For the last fucking time. There is no such thing as "physical addiction" and "metal/psychological addition". There is only addiction, which is PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY.

[Anonymous No.3378965]

>>3378959
nope, there different kinds of depenency dude.

[Anonymous No.3378967]

i prefer it rolled

[Anonymous No.3378969]

>>3378880
>It's
hurrr
>psychological addictive
For the last fucking time. There is no such thing as "physical addiction" and "metal/psychological addiction". There is only addiction, which is PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY.

[Anonymous No.3378973]

>>3378969
still nope. nice change of pic tho

[Anonymous No.3378992]

>>3378969
Physical and psychological addictions are distinctive. You don't get physical withdrawals from psychological addiction.

[Anonymous No.3378993]

>>3377204
>LSD is more beneficial.
>psychosis is more beneficial

It is precisely because you don't take it as often, so it enables you insight into some of your life circumstances that are otherwise obscured by your integration into everyday reality or the social order. But I'm sure you'll agree that psychosis, even if simulated, is not beneficial in the long run.

Marijuana causes schizophrenia as well in the long run, but it usually takes a decade of more of constant use to manifest.

[Anonymous No.3378996]

>>3378993
You know nothing of Psychosis. Personally, we enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.3378997]

>>3378992
Withdrawal contributes nothing to the state of your addiction, though, it is just an unimportant phyisiological reaction that happens to accompany the psychological process of withdrawal.

[Anonymous No.3379000]

nope, MANY different types of addictions

[Anonymous No.3379012]

>>3378993
>Marijuana causes schizophrenia as well in the long run, but it usually takes a decade of more of constant use to manifest.
[citation needed]

Psychosis is associated with radical abnormalities in the neural substrate. Prolonged exposure to serotonergic agonists and cannabinoids are not know to generate the extreme cortical thinning due to excess synaptic pruning as seen in schizophrenic psychosis for instance. It's true that marijuana can <span class="math">induce[/spoiler] psychosis, but only if the neural substrate gives the person a predisposition to developing psychotic episodes. That's something different than actually <span class="math">causing[/spoiler] psychosis though.

[Anonymous No.3379020]

>>3379012
Have you considered that most habitual marijuana users have this predisposition anyhow?

[Anonymous No.3379023]

>>3379012
My friend's car is stuck in the snow. I get out and push from behind and the car takes off, killing someone.

My friend is not responsible because I pushed the car to begin with. The car was going to kill that person anyway because of my initial push.

[Anonymous No.3379026]

>>3379020
>Have you considered that most habitual marijuana users have this predisposition anyhow?
Yes. I'm not denying there's a correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia, but as we all know: correlation does not imply causation.

[Anonymous No.3379027]

>>3378965
Physical dependency is not addiction! Anyone who's treated with opiates for any length of time(a few weeks for most opiates) will develop physical dependency. Are they addicted? Of course not! How ludicrous! Further, it should be noted that non-addictive drugs can produce physical dependency, SSRI for example.

Methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, tobacco, what do these have in common? They're all addictive and none produce physical dependency!

Addiction is Psychological Dependency
Addiction is Psychological Dependency
Addiction is Psychological Dependency

[Anonymous No.3379035]

>>3379023
Your analogy is flawed. Schizophrenia is not a dichotomous as killing someone and not killing someone.

[Anonymous No.3379037]

I smoke and code.

I cannot design well while high, but coding pre-solved algorithms isn't really a problem.

p.s. I barely smoke any. Maybe two or three puffs of good stuff. Maybe one real good stoning on the weekends. Puffing like p-diddy will definitely stagnate you in life and leave you with future regrets.

[Anonymous No.3379050]

Even if it's bad for you, even if it's addictive, there is no reason for it to be illegal.

Why? Because prohibition COSTS A LOT OF MONEY AND DOESN'T WORK. Maybe some people are happy to pay a premium to punish drug users. But most people would be happier to pay less and reduce drug use and the black market.

[Anonymous No.3379058]

>>3379035
Uh, yeah. Sure dude. Being a schitzo is a lot like killing somoene with a car. the analogy is dead on. pot makes you schitzo

[Anonymous No.3379074]

>>3379058
Christ, at least try to formulate some sort of an argument. If what you're saying is true, you would be able to provide us with some sort of research article backing up your horse-shit claim, now wouldn't you?

[Anonymous No.3379090]

>>3377203
I'd link to cracked more if it was actually correct in it's assumptions.

Policing marijuana is a terrible waste of money we don't have even without considering taxes.

The plant does have plenty of non-recreational uses which become available by allowing the recreational use of it. Not to mention research on it's actual effects instead of mid 1900s propaganda.

Arguing against it's possible health benefits with 'it raises your heart rate' is rather retarded considering exercising (that thing we really really want amerifats to do) also does that.

The legality of things that are usually worse is important, the scheduling of marijuana for example is all fucked up.

>addiction
everything is addictive, including being retarded.

[Anonymous No.3379110]

Pro-marijuana arguments are bullshit.

Until there is a decent anti-marijuana argument we shouldn't even be discussing this.

Should we ban all recreational drugs? If just some, justify why some people get to choose for everyone.

Should we ban everything that is bad for you? If not, justify why skiing is allowed but MDMA is not.

Should we ban everything that is addictive? If not, justify why working out and gambling are permitted but cocaine is not.

Saying that we should ban XYZ drugs but leave ABC drugs is arbitrary. Wasting everybody's money on failing to enforce a ban is stupid. I thought we were living in a free country. Drug prohibition makes everyone less free, the taxpayer because they burn your money, the common citizen because the excesses of a black market are well established and bad for the community, drug-users because you are made into a criminal, and drug-abusers because you are forced into criminal activities.

[Anonymous No.3379114]

>>3379074
why? you can't know something is true unless someone else says it? i'm that someone else.

[Anonymous No.3379127]

>>3379114
I don't accept a claim until I see some empirical evidence which backs it up. Being a neuroscientist just makes you skeptical that way.

[Anonymous No.3379137]

>>3379114

Okay. Pot makes you schizo. How many people who habitually use pot go schizo? Everyone? How much pot do you have to smoke to go schizo? One joint?

Saying that something is bad for you is not a good argument for making it illegal. McDonalds is bad for you. It causes obesity. Ban it?

[Anonymous No.3379143]

>>3379137
>Pot makes you schizo.
It doesn't though.

[Anonymous No.3379144]

>>3379137
Yes Joe Rogan wannabe. Ban McDonald's. Spoons make Rosie fat, too. Ban spoons, too.

I didn't say ban pot, mind you. I love pot. It just makes you schitzo.

[Anonymous No.3379146]

>>3378997
>Withdrawal contributes nothing to the state of your addiction

The fact that you develop physical pain and discomfort from not using the drug contributes nothing to the state of your addiction, it is an unimportant physiological reaction that in no way influences the psychological process of withdrawal.


You have a very simplistic view. Fact of the matter is, everyone can hypothesise all they want about what physical dependency and psychological addiction are, but at the end of the day ADDICTION is something very subjective.
It is NOT something that can be easily quantified and it is not something that can be understood unless you've been there yourself. Just as you cannot understand what a cannabis high feels like until you've tried it, you cannot understand what true addiction is (and what the distinction between physical dependency/psychological addiction is) until you've been there.

I agree with you though to the extent that all addiction is in some shape or form psychological addiction. But not all drugs are the same and not all drugs affect your neurochemistry the same.

[Anonymous No.3379157]

>>3379144

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were for continuing the prohibition. If not, then I have no problem. People should know the possible risks of what they are doing.

But I don't think pot does that, man. People have been smoking pot for centuries and there's no sign of this. Heck, a third of people over here smoke it and there's no correlation.

[Anonymous No.3379165]

>>3379157
> Heck, a third of people over here smoke it and there's no correlation.
Yes there is. There is no causal link however. Protip: having a psychosis is not the same thing as being schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.3379199]

>>3379027
>physical dependency is not addiction!

Perhaps, but physical dependency directly leads to addiction, there is quite a bit of overlap.

>tobacco is not physically addictive
Seriously, wat? You're honestly telling me you think nicotine isn't classified as a drug that causes physical dependence?

[Anonymous No.3379252]

>>3377202
The gateway drug hypothesis is truer than some would think, people whom I know who have abused hard drugs/have friends who have used/died from hard drugs said that pretty much everyone they knew who had gone onto hard drugs had started out smoking weed. That said Alchohol and Cigarettes are also gateway drugs.

I smoke weed by the way.

[Anonymous No.3379284]

>>3379252

That doesnt imply that you did hard drugs BECAUSE you smoked weed. I believe those with a propensity to do hard drugs, would see no reason NOT to do weed.

The reasons not to smoke weed preclude the reasons not to do hard drugs, if that makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.3379286]

>If someone laces it with another drug, it isn't very bad because lsd is a tiny piece of paper soaked in liquid, so there would be trace amounts of the other drug that wouldn't do anything.

I wouldnt worry about this, the dose you take of LSD is very small so there isnt too much to worry about in terms of getting spiked or anything


>It isn't bad for your physical health in any way whatsoever.
True

>The only downside to mental health is that it's possible to get mentally addicted to it and rely on it as an escape, and (although VERY RARELY), some people get caught in a trip for the rest of their life.

Dont do it a lot, there are a lot of patients in mental institutions who have done waaaay too much acid and are now insane as a reuslt of it. Do it once every blue moon.

[Anonymous No.3379294]

Side effects of marijuana:
>Euphoria.
>Relaxation.
>Stimulates growth of new neurons.
>Increased appetite.
>Increased heart rate and blood pressure.
>Drowsiness.
>Slowed reaction time.
>Short-term memory loss.
>Anxiety/paranoia in some people.

Marijuana has been shown to have very few negative effects. Minors and those with a family history of schizophrenia should avoid it, as it can cause symptoms of schizophrenia to show up sooner than they might otherwise - but everyone else should be fine. There's also the possibility of becoming addicted, although the effect is purely mental. This can include depression, insomnia, and lack of appetite for up to a week after stopping (for heavy users).

In general, I'd say that it's harmless. There's no real reason why it should be illegal. In my opinion, smoking a joint is not much different from smoking a cigarette - except that it's more enjoyable and not as bad for you.

[Anonymous No.3379299]

>>3379252

I think 'gateway drug' misses the point.

It's the drug you use before you use harder drugs. But is this meaningful? Does it whet your appetite for harder drugs, or is it simply the first step for someone who in interested in drugs?

I mean, is 'gateway drug' a good reason to prohibit something in and of itself, or should you base the analysis on the intrinsic properties of the drug.

[Anonymous No.3379302]

>>3379284
True. But tolerance to weed generally leads to users seeking greater highs, so in that sense many people do end up being hooked on Heroine or other such things because of excesive Cannabis use. A phenomenon which would probably increase were Cannabis to be legalized.

[Anonymous No.3379306]

>>3379252
I think lies are the gateway drug.
>"Dont smoke, weed, you'll lose your mind and kill someone"
puff, puff, "This is pretty mellow."
>"Don't do Heroin, you'll get hooked and OD"
"You've been wrong before"

[Anonymous No.3379308]

>>3379302

Except that this hasn't happened in places where drug laws have been relaxed.

[Anonymous No.3379317]

I saw a video on youtube a long time ago.
Probably Faux News or similar.
Pro-legalisation guy quoted a study that said the main gateway drugs were alcohol and tobacco.

No source, but he did seem sincere.

[Anonymous No.3379319]

>>3379302
As a once heavy (and I mean heavy) MJ user I can safely say tolerance levels off at a reasonable level, your theory is flawed, try it yourself.

[Anonymous No.3379327]

>>3379302

I dont think the high from weed can be substituted easily. Each drug has their own effect.

Maybe one could go from one drug to the next out of boredom. But one could also get into Karate out of boredom.

[Anonymous No.3379333]

>>3379317
That's because gateway drug is a fucking retarded concept, invented by the prohibition crowd.

Why not draw it back further. Caffeine is a drug that people use way before alcohol or nicotine. Coca Cola? Gateway drug.

[Anonymous No.3379334]

>>3379327

Karate is a gateway martial art?

[Anonymous No.3379336]

I fucking hate stoners.

[Anonymous No.3379341]

>>3379333
+1
Spinning in circles? Gateway drug!

[Anonymous No.3379345]

>>3379341

vomiting on yourself for fun? Next youll be doing COCAINE

[Anonymous No.3379347]

>>3379336
Hate you too.

[Anonymous No.3379366]

So why do people want to keep drugs illegal?

We know it can't be to reduce drug use, since their efforts have little to no effect.

It's because there is money in it. Stoners always talk about how much money would be made from taxing it. Well guess what? Taxing people to pay to police makes some people more money than that. Yes, it costs the working man more, but fuck them, right?

Besides, almost half of people in America support ending prohibition, at least on marijuana. Almost half, and that's with few prominent politicians and neither of the major parties pushing it. We can see that it is a costly social program that is getting nowhere. By all rights, Democrats should oppose the war on drugs because of civil rights, and Republicans should oppose the war on drugs because of small government.

[Anonymous No.3379390]

>>3379366
It's actually because the vast majority that are in power are afraid that legalisation will cause the little worker bees to lose the motivation to work and be satisfied with simple things.

[Anonymous No.3379396]

>>3379366

I think most governments are against it, because they believe that it would be more difficult to prevent home-growers than an all-out war like most of us have at present.

But most people don't have the time to grow their own weed even if they could afford to purchase all the necessary equipment.

Or they think that the entire national economy would grind to a halt after everyone becomes a stoner - which is about as detached from reality as it can get.

Selling weed at an affordable price will just bring it in line with alcohol and tobacco.

Tax it, sell it and use the profits to fund the police service.

[Anonymous No.3379407]

>>3379390
Yes, and contrails from airplanes have chemicals that make you sheep, maaaaan.

[Anonymous No.3379411]

>>3379396

Or tax it and use the profits in drug rehab programs.

And besides, we know that the war on drugs does very little to prevent people from smoking. End prohibition and you'd get a small increase in use that goes back to normal in a few years. And you'd get a big drop in underage use that stays steady.

[Anonymous No.3379435]

>>3379411

I don't think use will go back to normal (if you meant present day normal), rather I would expect normal to be redefined.
Further, I suspect that should weed be legalised, alcohol and tobacco use would decrease (alcohol more-so)


Does anyone know what the proceeds of crime are used for?
That is, if the cops confiscate £1million from a drug dealer, does that money just get put into the same bucket as taxes, or is it used for something specific?

[Anonymous No.3379447]

>>3379435

It's just, I don't know anyone who doesn't smoke right now, who would if it were legal. It's not an issue whether you use it or not, it just means supply is uncertain and requires you to deal with drug dealers.

[Anonymous No.3379448]

>>3379366

Politicians often find support through fearmongering. They promote the war on drugs, they say they'll be tough on crime, they say they need money to protect the childrens from evil drugs. It's one of the most tried-and-true ways to get elected - and no politician wants to give that support up. It gets them votes, and it gives them an excuse to raise taxes. Not enough manpower to enforce these stupid drug laws? Hire more police! Not enough prisons to house all these drug offenders? Build more prisons! Something like 90% of drug arrests are marijuana-related. Without those arrests, the war on drugs would be smalltime.

Not just that, but it's because the majority of voters are old or middle-aged. This demographic is almost universally against the use of ANY illegal drugs, probably due to the propaganda fed to them by Reagan and the like during the cold war.

[Anonymous No.3379467]

>>3379447

Did you mean "you know people who would not smoke if weed was legalised" ?
If so, that's pretty strange.

[Anonymous No.3379484]

>>3379467

He's saying that he doesn't know anyone that abstains now, but would start smoking if it were legal.

[Anonymous No.3379503]

>>3379447
Most people don't smoke because they assume there is a good reason why it is illegal. That is to say, they trust in the government/associated bodies to regulate substances depending on their safety.

People are easily led and misinformed. I would imagine that informing them that something that was once illegal is now legal would likely cause them to double-take and re-evaluate their decision (or at least try it).

Presumably.

[Anonymous No.3379515]

>>3379199
>physical dependency directly leads to addiction
No, it doesn't. All protracted use of opiates will result in physical dependency, is everyone who's every been treated with opiates an addict? All use of SSRIs will result in physical dependency, yet SSRIs aren't addictive at all.

>You're honestly telling me you think nicotine isn't classified as a drug that causes physical dependence?
Nicotine does not produce physical dependency, this is not a matter of contention.

[Anonymous No.3379538]

>>3379467

I don't know anybody who only abstains because it's illegal. Except in so far as they maybe can't actually purchase weed because they don't have a hook-up, or they're living at home and their parents are DAREfags.

The war on drugs is not effective at the one thing it would need to do in order to win. People want to get fucked up. I don't know why, but they do, so they use drugs. When your life sucks, you want to get fucked up more, and you might start abusing drugs. And serious drug abuse can make your life suck even more. But it's not drugs that cause it, because people usually start abusing them only when their life already sucks. Making drugs illegal adds to the persons problems, not subtracts from them.

I know this from experience. When my life sucked, I got fucked up all the time. When I got my shit together, I cut down dramatically. Not on purpose, not by deliberate effort, and not with difficulty. I just was no longer bothered doing it every day.

[Anonymous No.3379543]

>>3379503
>People are easily led and misinformed

People are informed and misinformed by authoritative bodies.
If you tell these people that weed isn't that harmful, they then have two authorities telling them contrasting information.
So they immediately have no way to determine which one is correct.

The solution is obviously education, but most people don't have the time (or ability/confidence) to do it.
Which is why they rely on authority in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3379553]

>>3379515

>Nicotine does not produce physical dependency
Bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3379559]

Marijuana needs to be legalized, but even if it does, I really don't smoke it. I have only done so twice in my life. It's a nice feeling, but I don't really need it.

It's definitely not addictive in the sense that your body craves it. It can be addictive in the sense that it can turn into a bad habit, though, kind of like how someone may want to eat ice cream everyday.

[Anonymous No.3379561]

love it

Morally speaking, I think its the equivalent of anything* humans spend their time doing in order to escape reality. Whether it be reading novels, watching movies, praying to god, or masturbating.

*Anything not excessively dangerous or reckless

[Anonymous No.3379567]

>>3379515
>Nicotine does not produce physical dependency, this is not a matter of contention.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/255/23/3277.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0306460378900242

And many more studies exist. Think before you speak god damn

[Anonymous No.3379568]

>>3379515
Eh, calling semi-bullshit on this one with the opiate issue. Coming from an ex-opiate addict, They are in fact, very addictive and do lead to physical dependency.
The only way to get physically dependent on them is if you take them constantly. And I can promise you the world itself, that most people who have become addicted to it physically AND mentally, have done so because they really liked the high at first. That is with most cases of it.

[Anonymous No.3379569]

>>3379515
>Nicotine does not produce physical dependency, this is not a matter of contention.

I beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence#Drugs_that_cause_physical_dependence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Dependence_and_withdrawal

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/nicotine/addictive.html
>Nicotine’s pharmacokinetic properties also enhance its abuse potential. Cigarette smoking produces a rapid distribution of nicotine to the brain, with drug levels peaking within 10 seconds of inhalation. However, the acute effects of nicotine dissipate quickly, as do the associated feelings of reward, which causes the smoker to continue dosing to maintain the drug’s pleasurable effects and prevent withdrawal.

[Anonymous No.3379570]

>>3379543

Misinformation can have a larger effect, though.

Teenagers who hear that marijuana is this terrible drug are nevertheless pressured into taking some. They do, and they find it is not harmful. They meet people who have used it for years and are not crazy or sick. And now they don't believe good advice quite as readily, like don't do meth.

Keeping some drugs illegal while other, equally harmful drugs are legal, means that you do create a slight gateway drug effect. Because now people don't know what to believe about any drugs.

[Anonymous No.3379598]

>>3379570

I agree, just an interesting side note. Saw a guy give a talk on a similar topic. It was about pirating digital media. And he says we have a whole generation that doesnt respect the law because all the copywrite laws are too strict, like when you see a song get taken off someones amateur youtube video. Its really not necessary, and it teaches people to not respect copywrite laws. So nobody does.

An extreme law produces an extreme counter-culture.

[Anonymous No.3379616]

>>3379570

Exactly.

Kids go to health class and learn that drugs are bad and they'll kill you and make you go crazy and all this other stuff. They're fed this propaganda with the intent of keeping them from trying drugs in the first place - but as with abstinence-only education, it just doesn't work. They try it anyway, find out that it's not as bad as it was made out to be, and immediately disregard everything else that they were taught. Weed wasn't so bad, so they reason that the other stuff probably isn't that bad either. By lying about marijuana, the government is losing all credibility. What's needed is good, accurate information - not fearmongering.

[Anonymous No.3379618]

>>3377348
What's wrong with life science?

[Anonymous No.3379629]

>>3379598
The piracy arguments make sense, at least. The profit models these companies had genuinely WERE the best way to distribute and publish in the market ten years ago. It's understandable that there would be some momentum there.

But drugs, man. Marijuana hasn't changed in centuries.

[Anonymous No.3379632]

>>3379570

Mostly agree.

Journalistic spin is an important factor too.
After all, it is hard to discredit the work of a professional and well respected scientist.
It's a lot easier to just discredit the scientist and/or fire him if he isn't walking the line.

[Anonymous No.3379653]

>>3379568
I think he meant people using opiates legitimately, for pain.

[Anonymous No.3379737]

pot feels good.
You get a good feeling for doing nothing.
Using pot conditions you to do nothing.

I smoked for many years and was shocked at how much easier life was and how much more I was able to do when i stopped.

It was like being reborn.

[Anonymous No.3379753]

>>3379737

That is a good reason not to smoke it.

But it's no reason at all to ban it.

[Anonymous No.3379754]

>>3379737
this is bullshit. i smoked pot for 6 years, from 15-21, then i got arrested for assault, and as a condition of my release, i would be put on probation and be drug tested. i never went back to the stuff after my six months of probation was over either, been clean for two years now. Its pretty much the same, just more boring now.

[Anonymous No.3379771]

>>3379411
>End prohibition and you'd get a small increase in use that goes back to normal in a few years. And you'd get a big drop in underage use that stays steady.

I like how legalization advocates argue that legalization would result in a minor, temporary, increase or that it would actually decrease consumption, unambiguously conceding that drug use is socially destructive and undesirable.

[Anonymous No.3379798]

>>3379771

But the choice isn't between having something that might be bad for you or not.

The choice is between spending a load of money to arrest and lock up people who use something that might be bad for them, or to spend money on treating people who abuse those things that are bad for them.

The war on drugs is ineffective. It costs everybody a lot of money, infringes on civil rights, and doesn't work.

And besides, the slight increase is use point is only to counter those people who dislike drug use in itself. They need to realise that the current methods do not reduce drug use, they just cost a lot of money.

[Anonymous No.3379802]

>>3379771

Except that that's fucking wrong.

They're arguing that it's a moot point, since it doesn't matter either way.

[Anonymous No.3379841]

>>3379771
>unambiguously conceding that drug use is socially destructive and undesirable.

Sure, I do. And? Legalization would greatly reduce that social destruction.

[Anonymous No.3379846]

>>3379771

People engage in destructive behavior everyday. You're defending fascism.

[Anonymous No.3379956]

>>3379567
>misconstrue the effects of ceasing a voconstrictor as physical dependency
>Oxymetazoline is now physical dependence forming
>mfw medical doctors can't into science

[Anonymous No.3380008]

The only negative effects of pot are seeing the depth of madness in our sickened society. You get mentally re-balanced to a solid psychological state that you've never been before. That forgetfulness is caused by the increase of inner reflection. That paranoia is caused by the fact that you are realising what the people around you value, and how far that is from what's really valuable. I would reccomend chronic smoking to anyone who's like a farmer or middle of nowhere resident, someone who's practically a modern tribesman, otherwise it's just gonna open your eyes too wide. Also what the fuck is with so many people smoking with tobacco? So retarded.

[Anonymous No.3380011]

Ctrl + F " Obviously "

Far too many results

[Anonymous No.3380017]

>>3380008

>rebalanced
>never been before

I'm not even going into the rest of the post.

I'm for legalization, and morons like you are why it's never going to happen.

Post when you're not high, please.

[Anonymous No.3380025]

>>3380008
You don't smoke wit cigarettes?

[Anonymous No.3380033]

lol @ the retards in this thred

cannabis shrinks ur hippocampus and amygdala if you smoke regularly
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/6/694

good luck getting yo brain shrunked.

[Anonymous No.3380038]

While drinking -> High chance of positive thoughts with no or limited probability of negative outcome. This is why we become "sociable".

While high -> high chance of negative thoughts with limited probability of positive outcome. However, if you let Intuition take over, long term memory kicks in and outcomes tend to surprise you.

Really fascinating stuff.

[Anonymous No.3380041]

>>3380017
>I'm for legalization, and morons like you are why it's never going to happen.

I agree. Most anti-legalization people just lazily ad hominem advocates as "potheads," and that sort of thing is why.

I have smoked pot maybe 5 times in my life, have not done so in years, may well never do so again, and am 100% in favor of legalization.

[Anonymous No.3380052]

>>3380033
"Smoke" is bad for you, what a revelation. That study doesn't hold much weight in this argument.

[Anonymous No.3380056]

It is retarded that bacon is legal. Don't you retards know that it clogs your arteries? Retards.

[Anonymous No.3380059]

>>3380033

Well if you smoke every hour of every day, shit's going to happen. There must always be restraint.

Smoke once a month and it'll open your eyes to the world around you.

[Anonymous No.3380065]

>>3380052
nope, its about the effect of cannabis on the brainz. it doesn't matter how it's delivered

[Anonymous No.3380067]

>>3380056
And God doesn't like it much, we should get the government involved in this moral issue.

[Anonymous No.3380068]

Haven't taken it, would never want to take it recreationally, would like to try it.

[Anonymous No.3380069]

It is retarded that it is legal to go out in the sun without a parasol, sombrero, or other suitable mobile shelter. The sun causes permanent damage to your skin, not to mention cancer. It is clearly damaging to society, and everything that is damaging to society ought to be illegal.

[Anonymous No.3380073]

>>3380065
You're retarded. Decreased oxygen can result in the same shrinkage, effect does not equal cause. Learn logic.

[Anonymous No.3380108]

Study of men suffering from gynecomastia revealed high usage of marijuana. Conclusion was that marijuana causes gynecomastia. Scientists were retards. If I had bitch tits I'd be getting high too, cause ya know it's gotta suck.

[Anonymous No.3380113]

EVERYONE:

"Is cannabis harmful to one's health if consumed?"

=/=

"Is the prohibition of cannabis harmful to society?"

This distinction ought to be obvious, but the fact that it eludes most of the public is the reason our laws are incredibly stupid.

[Anonymous No.3380124]

Y'all are pussies smoke some DMT

[Anonymous No.3380131]

>>3380124
Have you tried mixing a DMT extract with an MAOI extract and vaporizing them together? With an MAOI at the same time it makes the trip last at least twice as long.

[Anonymous No.3380133]

alcohol is a mind altering substance and is harmful to health, and thus should be illegal.

[Anonymous No.3380134]

>>3380124
>implying DMT is recreational

[Anonymous No.3380145]

>>3380113
GTFo u all american cunts whining all day about your marijuana.

u are the most retarded spescies o nthis planet. u ask for permission from your government to smoke pot. gtfo, cunts.

[Anonymous No.3380147]

>>3380134
>implying DMT isn't recreational

Those thousand of recreational DMT smokers are going to be amazed to find that out.

[Anonymous No.3380148]

>>3380145
> obvious troll

[Anonymous No.3380153]

>>3380145
I never thought about it like that.
I am enlightened.

[Anonymous No.3380186]

>doing physics

[Anonymous No.3380223]

>>3379802
>They're arguing that it's a moot point, since it doesn't matter either way.

>a small increase in use that goes back to normal in a few years. And you'd get a big drop in underage use that stays steady.
Somehow a massive fall in price and greatly increased availability will result in no increase or a decrease in use. They're arguing in essence that legalization is just a more efficient means of Prohibition!

>People engage in destructive behavior everyday. You're defending fascism.
Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Washington, Sagan, Feynman can the social fabric really bare the weight of more degenerates like this?

[Anonymous No.3380241]

>>3380223
I see what you did... wait what?

[Anonymous No.3380251]

>>3380241
He made a few logical fallacies, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.3380355]

>>3380251

And simultaneously avoided making a point, seemingly arguing both sides.

[Anonymous No.3380498]

>>3380223

It's not about more efficient prohibition. The point is that;

If your goal is to reduce drug use, end prohibition. Since we know that relaxing drugs laws does not increase drug use.

If your goal is to reduce drug abuse, end prohibition. Since money can be spent on rehab rather than incarceration.

If your goal is to promote civil rights, end prohibition. Since people should be allowed to do things that are bad for them.

If your goal is to save taxpayer money, end prohibition. Since everybody has to pay a lot of money on a policy that doesn't work.


No,w if your goal is to punish people who use drugs, then fine, support prohibition. But other arguments have no justification.