This will be a summary of pros and cons raised by both sides of the issue regarding cannabis legalization.
Cons:
Medical Angle:
1. Cannabis can impair judgement, memory, and coordination
2. Cannabis have no medicinal value
3. Cannabis is more addictive than alcohol and tobacco
4. Cannabis has side effects and may lead to greater danger, even death
5. Cannabis use is only through smoking.
6. Studies conducted on Cannabis therapeutic effects are controversial at best. There are studies showing the harm cannabis can do as well.
Law Enforcement Angle:
1. Legalization will increase the incidence of addiction on cannabis
2. Violence related to cannabis use will increase.
Moral Angle:
1. No points were raised
economics angle:
1. no points were raised
-----------
Pro:
Medical angle:
1. Cannabis has multiple medicinal uses, most important would be for Cancer, Pain, And Epilepsy to name a few. - Monty Williams, Morgan Freeman, Charlotte Figi, Rick Simpson, etc...
Morphin has 23% addiction rate with deadly respiratory complications in treating pain, with incremental tolerance. Cannabis can treat pain without respiratory complications and incremental tolerance.
Most Chemotherapeutic drugs for cancer can also cause cancer because they are radioactive. Special equipments are used in administering these meds because they can cause cancer to the people administering it. Cannabis is not radioactive so it doesnt cause cancer.
Anti Convulsive drugs for seizures tend to make the patient still, dull, and loss of energy, but controls the seizure. that is its expected therapeutic effect. however, frequently, the patient will need combination of many drugs to control seizures as well as the sideffects of other drugs which may be fatal for the patient. Cannabis, on the other hand, corrects the rapid firing of brain impulses, stabilizing the patient, making the patient seizure free but still active and energetic.
2. Cannabis can cause 9% - 12% dependency over a lifetime. Alcohol can cause 17-35% dependency over a lifetime. therefore, cannabis is less addictive.
3. Cannabis has side effects, but can be mitigated through proper dosage, proper timing, and proper administration, which is only possible through legalization and regulation.
its severe withdrawal symptoms is likened to caffeine withdrawal, jittery, panicky, insomnia, somnambolism, etc... Alcohol withdrawal symptoms include psychosis, altered cognitive functions, and death. on a weighing scale between the two, which would be heavier on the risk side?
4. Cannabis can be used as medication through many routes of administration. Oil extract can be ingested, applied topically, or as an additive. Cannabis can be vaporized, eliminating inhalation of burnt carbon materials preventing respiratorty irritation. Cannabis can be made into creams, patches, soap, and many other forms. It is not limited through smoking only.
5. Legalization would allow patients and doctors access to correct variety of cannabis for their respective specific need, and potential side effects can be anticipated and mitigated, just like all other medications.
6. Each Cannabis plant has different concentrations of different cannabinoids, just like alcohol concentration in different drinks, and thereby cause varied therapeutic as well as uncomfortable effects.
Law Enforcement Angle:
1. so long as there is demand of a product, it will always be present inspite of prohibition. Just because it is banned, it doesnt mean we effectively eliminated its existence in the market. The next question would be, would you rather have an open market or a black market distributing it?
2. The prohibition increases the price of any prohibited product. Alcohol Prohibition caused alcohol prices to skyrocket in US, 80years ago. When it was ended, prices fell, and organized crime didnt deal with it anymore, the profit no longer was attractive.
3. Prohibition as a solution to cannabis, cause more harm than the product itself. An alcoholic is left alone by law until he commits a crime. A cannabis user is locked up for many years even without causing a crime. Between alcohol and cannabis, alcohol related violence dwarfs cannabis by miles.
4. it was never a principle in law enforcement to prevent a person from harming himself.
5. according to LEAP, drug use is not a criminal issue, it is a public health issue. legalizing drugs is not in any way promoting its usage, drugs are still dangerous. however, more success has been done towards curbing alcohol and tobacco addiction through health education with lesser costs than the prohibition of drugs which now costs over a trillion dollars without any slight dent on organized crime. fight drugs with education, not with guns and prosecution.
6. Jack Cole, former narcotics agent for 3 decades, explained the vicious perpetuating cycle of drug prohibition. Officers penetrate groups of friends, and encourage the group to use an illegal drug like on weekends when people usually want to relax. They organize a drug session and collect evidence against people who participated. Example.
Early 1970's, every police department had a 7 man unit to address drug problems. there was nothing much to do since very few people were using drugs. Few years after, war on drugs was declared, the 7 man unit became 73 man unit overnight. they were given quotas for drug arrests to justify the increased budget on this issue. Police for the first time, actively chase drug users to fill up the quotas. they usually do this as undercover agents infiltrating groups in universities.
they form a circle were pot is puffed one at a time and passed on to the next person. when the person hands it to the undercover agent who organized the drug session, that is considered evidence, and automatic the person who handed the pot would be labeled pot dealer. they make the arrest and throw these people into jail for 7 years, removing all their future opportunities for a normal life. These people were then presented to the media with their chief saying "this is how extensive the drug problem is in this country. thats why we need to be better equipped to control this problem". then the media would write horror stories and instill fear on the public. when a measure to increase police budget was proposed, the general public would readily be agreeable.
When the convicted users come out of jail, they could no longer find work, no university would accept them, and communities would be suspicious of them. the only recourse for most to survive was to go to drugs, but instead for recreation, this time they became real active members of organized crimes.
Jack Cole has imprisoned thousands of people during his entire career as narcotics agent. he said if he had infiltrated Bill Clintons group of friends, Bill will most probably not become President, instead bill might be part of organized crime. eventually, he saw the futility of the war on drugs. People in their prime are incarcerated for trivial guilty pleasures seems to be killing an ant with a hand grenade. He expressed deep regrets on the harm he contributed for being a very effective narcotics agent and vowed to help fight the prohibition.
7. Neil Franklin, former police officer, said that 75% of the time, police are chasing drug users, leaving less resources and time to fight real crimes (theft,violence,rape, murder, etc...) and cops and civilians die needlessly on the street wars prohibition has made. Drug abuse is a health problem, it should not be the concern of police enforcement.
Moral Angle:
1. Person B has no right to decide what Person A can do or not do to himself.
2. Would it be moral for Person/s C to get in the way of what doctor A and Patient B decided when it is Patient B's life at stake?
3. There are people who will abuse just about anything regardless of what they intake. why criminalize responsibile people who can control their cannabis habit? people can definitely control alcohol habit inspite of alcohol being more addictive, why not apply the same for cannabis?
Economic Angle:
1. Cannabis is a trillion dollar industry
2. it has multiple uses, the major are for Energy, Construction, Medicine, and Food.
3. Can generate tens of thousands of jobs from multiple ancillary industries cannabis can generate.
4. tax windfall is only an incidental benefit that must be kept at a reasonable level so as not to give incentives for a black market.
* I find it hypocritical, (picture this on your head) for a prohibitionist with a beer on his hand and a cigarette on his mouth, defending his position ayeah, it has medicinal use, but...duhhhh... its risky. (gulp, gulp, gulp, smoke, smoke) and saying cannabis is more addictive and dangerous, when he is consuming the most abused substance (alcohol), and a substance that has direct causation for Lung Cancer, COPD, throat cancer, stroke, Emphysema, and Cardiovascular disease, while watching tv commercials promoting alcohol and cigarettes from time to time?
get your heads out of your asses. if we are going to be talking about prerequisites in discussing this issue, then prohibtionists should be holier than thou, absolute risk free (they must never consume or use anything that has even the slightest hint of risk) to avoid being accused of applying double standards... if you have the right to manage your own risk (like how much alcohol you drink, how much sticks you are smoking, etc..), then other people also have the right to do the same. Cannabis has risks, get over it, as if there is a susbtance on earth that pose no risks at all.
** a degree higher than the typical hyprocrite is the prohibitionist who agrees that cannabis HAS medical use but still wants it illegal ..(.ahhh. it can be dangerous you know...duhhh), inaccesssible to those who potentially needs it. That is being a dog in the manger, somebody should shoo you away... is it the principle of medicine to decrease viable options for patients? is it a principle of medicine to ignore something that has a potential good? is it a principle of medicine to have the final decision for the patient? if you are familiar with the medical profession, doctors and patients always weigh potential benefits over potential harm. what if all conventional treatment failed to treat your disease, is it moral for someone to threaten you of imprisonment just because you will do all you can to survive?
*** then there are the ignoramuses whose points of arguments came from decades of black propaganda, lies repeated enough that it appears to be true. "Pro Cannabis People are paid by pharmaceuticals to advance their agenda! " phuck you asshole, it defies common sense. Are you saying that these big pharmaceuticals would want to put hundreds of their own medications at risk while promoting cannabis? The ongoing RnD's, and the established production of their medications will costs them billions if cannabis is legalized outright. to me, it has more sense them destroying cannabis use for medicine, than promoting it, dont you think so?
funny how some people come up with this allegation, that pro cannabis agenda is being paid by big businesses. Do they even know that cannabis prohibition was funded by businesses in 1930's, by William Hearst and Du Pont? They did not use medical science as grounds for its prohibition, cannabis was in the US pharmacopeia for Gods sakes. They were deceptive too, using the term "marijuana" (a term never heard of at that time) instead of cannabis. if they have used the term Cannabis then they would have been met with a wave of critics.
***** Recent events of the medical profession having a second opinion on cannabis is vindication enough for the pro cannabis side. at the very least, this calls for more research, only possible if cannabis is legalized. as of now, federal agencies allow cannabis research but they impose several conditions thereby making it harder for researchers to conduct specific cannabis research.
****** prohibitionist say "if we legalized drugs, everyone will be drug addicts and it will ruin society." 80 years ago, alcohol prohibitionists said "if we legalize alcohol, everyone will be alcoholics and it will ruin society." when Alcohol Prohibition was lifted in 1930's, people began consuming large quantities of alcohol abusively, everyone became alcoholic in the United States including children, crime and violence skyrocketed and the Americans lost World War 2....oops, that didnt happen, quite the opposite.
******* Prohibitionists like to display circular arguments, as if repitition gives their position more credibility. The following paints a general picture of the arguments between a prohibtionist and cannabis advocate.
a.
Prohibitionist (P): cannabis has medicinal value alright, but it has bad effects too like impaired judgement, loss of coordination, memory loss, etc... it makes people crazy!
Cannabis Advocate(C): What made you say that? Over the counter drugs can cause far deadlier adverse reactions as well like aspirin can cause hemorrhagic stroke, paracetamol can be hepatotoxic, and antibiotics can cause fatal allergic reactions. the issue would then be dosage, not merely the substance itself.
P: But they dont make people crazy! (lets say it is true, is being crazy deadlier than death?)
C: Not necessarily. Look at alcohol, it is the most abused substance by man. it causes liver cancer, cardiovascular problems, kidney problems, depression and violence secondary to altered cognitive functions and perception secondary to brain damage, AND higly intoxicating. Can one beer cause these adverse effects?
P: hahaha. Wrong example, because people can control the amount of alcohol intake.
C: So too with cannabis. If cannabis is regulated like alcohol, then information would mitigate the risks associated with cannabis use, dont you think so?
P: No. Because cannabis make people crazy! (circular argument completed, any subsequent repetition will just sound gibberish)
b.
P: Cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, it should remain illegal.
C: Alcohol is directly linked to thousands of violence and overdosage death, while tobacoo is directly linked to lung cancer, throat cancer,
COPD,Emphysema, and cardiovascular diseases. They are still legal.
Cannabis has no overdosed death, and far lesser violence associated with it than with alcohol and even some pharmaceutical drugs.
P: Exactly, we already have problems dealing with these two recreational drugs, why add one more?
C: Because it is not as dangerous as those two. It has risks but so do everything else. Why not just ban everything then?
P: No, cannabis is dangerous. i have seen many people destroy their lives using cannabis. they go crazy. have you used cannabis? (red herring)
C: nope, is that even relevant?
P: ha! you have no credibility if you havent tried it! i win.
C: Uhmm okay (what a retard).. have you tried it?
P: Yes during my younger days and it is VERY addictive than alcphol i tell you, i tried both! the effects are dangerous. thats why i never used it again. (prepped for shooting his own foot)
C: hmmm, i thought you said it is VERY addictive and very dangerous. you should have not been able to quit, and you should have all the major side effects...so, are you saying you are retarded now?
P: Ah, well..(shit).... I was lucky to escape its addiction. but many people will not be as lucky ( appealing to extraordinary exeption)
C: Well, alcohol is very addictive yet the majority can drink in moderation. Ultimately, it is upto to the person really, isnt it?
p: for alcohol yes (double standard) but cannabis is just dangerous.( circular argument completed)
C: No one died from cannabis overdosage. how could it be more dangerous?
P: it drives people crazy! ( circular argument repeated from A )
C.
P: Cannabis is very addictive. I see people everyday using drugs (no you dont, but you assume from their behavior that they have used drugs, not actually seeing the administration of drugs in all events of seeing them or getting their heredo-familial history for mental problems). Are we willing to put more people to addiction?
C: I see people on the streets sniffing solvents and nail polishes, and those really destroy their brains in medical terms. they are legal, what gives?
P: Yes they are dangerous that is why they are being regulated (isnt this the point C's were making?), we discourage their use by putting age limit and a disclaimer.
C: exactly what should be done with cannabis, dont you think so? Do we imprison people who abuse solvents and nail polish?
P: (gulp) no comment. (owned)
D.
P: cannabis destroys the future of young people by destroying their motivation in life.
C: that is untrue. unmotivated people will remain unmotivated regardless of any drugs they used.
P: I see many people (again, based on a false assumption) whose life cut short because of cannabis and other drugs. Can you name people who excelled regardless of cannabis use? name me ten!
C: Sure. lady Gaga, Morgan Freeman, Conan o brien, Jon stewart, rihanna, justin beiber, seth rogen, joe rogan, jennifer anniston, Oprah Winfrey,
P: they are in the entertainment industry! can you name another ten who are not in the entertainment industry!? ha!
C: sure, George Soros (billionaire), Bill Gates (billionaire, frequent user), Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, Steve Jobs, Ted Turner (billionaire, frequent user), US senator Rand Paul, George Bush, oliver stone, stephen king, and Obama.
P: oh really? they are just responsible enough in using cannabis! how about the millions of irresponsible people out there! (appeal to extraordinary exception) Can you name a million people who used cannabis and never have any adverse effects? (appeal to extraordinary conditions)
C: Are you sure we are not heading to you asking me a billion names somewhere down the line?So, in your reasoning, you based on the potential actions of irresponsible people and use it as legitimate basis to criminalize responsible users for it? (Peter is blamed by the faults of John) Then we shouldnt be allowed to do almost anything, if your argument to be consistent.
P: Screw you. For me, Cannabis is dangerous (circular agument, repeating an assumption which was already dispelled), if you want it then use it! hahaha you will go to jail anyways, lets see how good cannabis can be to save your asses! (appeal to legality, the logic is if its legal it is always true and good, and vice versa).
********
Reasons behind a prohibitionist's mind:
1. the educational system has always taught drugs are bad. Drugs are evil. Drugs cause harm. Drugs turn people to zombies and become scourges of society.
2. Legalization of an illegal drugs means promoting its use, condoning bad behavior in society. we will look really bad, what would other countries say?
3. it is common knowledge that drugs fry up your brain. just look at the street people who lie all day, smoking and doing drugs. it is just clear as day that drugs are just bad.
4. i dont care legalization of cannabis help decrease violence in other countries, it just wont work here in our society, we are just too undisciplined.
5. Smoked medicine!? Wtf. that can never be good.
6. if we legalize it, everyone will smoke it!
Reasons behind a pro cannabis mind (refuting the above):
1. Cannabis was wrongly classified. It is a medicine, and like all medicines, it has its adverse effects which can be mitigated.
2. Legalization doesnt equate promotion, it just means no threat of prosecution from government. if legalization equates promotion, then what about tobacco and alcohol? these are legal but discouraged by government through ads, disclaimers, and health warnings, so the government is promoting and discouraging them at the same time? that doesnt make sense.
3. it is common to have a wrong conclusion from unstudied assumptions. there are countless factors that cause mental disorders, sniffing solvents, constant stress, contaminants, genetics, etc... i doubt seeing alone can be conclusive that cannabis is the reason for their predicament. Smoking tobacco kills nerve cells, but many get to live to their old age without becoming psychotic.
4. So we are disciplined enough to have access to alcohol and tobacco which are far more dangerous than cannabis?
5. Smoking is not the only way to use cannabis. Smoking anything can cause irritation to the respiratory tract, however, cannabis doesnt cause lung cancer. it is not radioactive and it has cannabinoids to kill mutated cells.
6. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal for the longest of time. are everyone drinking and smoking? are all drunkards and chain smokers? Fear mongering is a desperate attempt defend their position.
Originally Posted by noy
red herring? unsa may naka misleading sa akong gisulti? ingun ko wa pa jud diay ka kasuway maski usa ka yop2x, therefore you don't and couldn't possibly know everything there is about addiction to pot. plain and simple diba?
kana nuon muy pettyfogging kay irrelevant man na ilang opinion sa specifics sa atong discussion. wa man ko mu against anang medical use for weeds, so why the heck would you bring that up in our conversation? 
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
