Medical Marijuana--

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by PanTheMan

And I do understand those with addictive personalities must use EXTREME caution or avoidance but that is up to the person to know where they are when it comes to the substance or behavior.

The very existance of an "addictive personality" is still actively debated in the medical, neurobiological and psychology communities. Some would say that EVERYONE has the ability to develop an "addictive personality".

Personally, in my own experience, I don't believe that such a blanket personality trait exists at least in the sense that either you have it or you don't.

[innerSpaceman]

I must have missed the argument that marijuana is harmless. Rather, I think the argument goes more like it's so relatively harmless compared to legal drugs and all other illegal drugs that it's de facto harmless.

Eh, maybe I skimmed. But I think the harms have been laid out and admitted. Smoke of any kind is bad for your heart and lungs and other biology. Pot can be habit-forming. Pot can adversely affect your ability to handle a car or other heavy machinery, and thus be dangerous. Pot can make someone either lethargic or paranoid, depending on their individual reactions ... but those are not uncommon adverse reactions.

I think I've covered it. How many pages do you have for the list of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, valium, vicodin, and on and on and on?



I don't think anyone's saying marijuana is harmless. But it's likely less harmful than milk.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But it's likely less harmful than milk.

Got Pot? (tm)

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by PanTheMan

Addiction to pot is purely a mental addiction rather than chemical. And it is rare.

Originally Posted by PanTheMan

Tobacco and Alcohol are actually quite hard to produce. Easier to control and tax by the government.

The call Marajauna, weed, because it can be grown anywhere.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I don't think anyone's saying marijuana is harmless. But it's likely less harmful than milk.

I just scrolled back a page and didn't review the entire thread. I believe there are other blanket statements which are profoundly ignorant.

I think pot should be legalized, but, really, to deny or dismiss the negative effects that smoking pot has on a person's mental and physical well being is just irresponsible.

[mousepod]

I wonder if my frustration with this thread parallels the incredibly slow action in the movement to decriminalize or even legalize pot.

You have, in me, a person who has lots of first- and second-hand experience with drugs. You have someone who believes wholeheartedly in everyone's right to choose.

I believe that the argument of the potential negative effects of THC have nothing to do with the argument at all.

But if you need to convince me that pot is "less harmful than milk", or that there are "zero pot-related fatalities" or that "alcohol is worse than pot because it's physically addictive," then you're trying to make me agree with something that I just don't think is true - or need to believe is true to have me on your side.

If you want to enjoy your drugs - go for it. But please don't make me have to agree to the above pro-drug arguments to support you in your pursuit of happiness.

“You know, I went to Haight-Ashbury expecting it to be this brilliant place, and it was just full of horrible, spotty, dropout kids on drugs.” - George Harrison

[innerSpaceman]

Whoa, I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I just wanted to express disagreement with your blanket statement that Pot is being portrayed by its proponents in this thread as a completely harmless substance.

I will admit some people have downplayed any potential harms, but I don't think even the most ardent proponents have claimed there is zero harm. The closest thing I recall reading was Pan's claim to have read a statistic that there have been no deaths attributable solely to marijuana use.


But when I babble on, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion ... merely stating my own.

[Not Afraid]

I always find the worse thing about "pro" arguments is the complete dismissal of the cons of said argument . I find that sort of approach tends to invalidates the original pro argument

[PanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I always find the worse thing about "pro" arguments is the complete dismissal of the cons of said argument . I find that sort of approach tends to invalidates the original pro argument

here...

Pro and Con...

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/

[innerSpaceman]

But who has done that here?

I think many people have posited that Morrigoon's personal experiences are extremely unique, but I don't think anyone else has dismissed the "con" side. The drawbacks enummerated in my post above have been recognized, but claims that strain credulity or the vast resevoir of personal experence have been challanged.

That's not the same as dismissed.

[mousepod]

Pan, thanks for all your research. You have convinced me.