US Legalization Cuts Drug Cartels' Profits

[Simfan34]

Wow, that word document pasted onto a webpage totally changed my mind.

By that measure, this entire site is worthless.

[Alcon]

Wow, that word document pasted onto a webpage totally changed my mind.

By that measure, this entire site is worthless.

University is going to be hard on you if you formulate arguments and beliefs this way.

[Simfan34]

Wow, that word document pasted onto a webpage totally changed my mind.

By that measure, this entire site is worthless.

University is going to be hard on you if you formulate arguments and beliefs this way.

You mean to tell me that passing judgment based on a website's design wouldn't be? My God, if it doesn't fit with your progressive permissive agenda then it's invalid no matter whatever the means! What you've said has not a smidgen of sense within it, so do explain!

That website's design is plain and not bad, to boot!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Free market- and allow more Americans access to hazardous substances? I'm as much of a economic liberal as the next guy, but there's a point where the common good and moral imperatives kick in.

Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, cigarettes, McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

Well that's not true at all.

How so?  Nothing on that page discusses the relative harm of marijuana to anything else.

[John Dibble]

Free market- and allow more Americans access to hazardous substances? I'm as much of a economic liberal as the next guy, but there's a point where the common good and moral imperatives kick in.

Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, cigarettes, McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

Well that's not true at all.

In comparing the harm between one drug and others, it might help if you actually linked to something that actually does a comparison.

In this ranking, pot is below ten other drugs in terms of being harmful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list

[Alcon]

Wow, that word document pasted onto a webpage totally changed my mind.

By that measure, this entire site is worthless.

University is going to be hard on you if you formulate arguments and beliefs this way.

You mean to tell me that passing judgment based on a website's design wouldn't be? My God, if it doesn't fit with your progressive permissive agenda then it's invalid no matter whatever the means! What you've said has not a smidgen of sense within it, so do explain!

That website's design is plain and not bad, to boot!

Are you serious?  You found one poorly-sourced web site (I don't care how bad its design is) and forwarded it, apparently arbitrarily, indicating no reason to accept its argument over any other given argument.  You did so despite a huge body of empirical evidence that this web site ignores for no apparent reason.  You also did so despite the fact that the web site makes an absolute claim of harm, not a relative claim of harm like we're discussing, and that listing harms in this way without context is akin to listing side effects for a medication without noting their relative frequency or thinking about what that means in terms of disutility.  Also, many of the claims on this web site are too arguable to mention without an asterisk.  Why doesn't the web site note that?  Because it's designed by reaching a conclusion (pot is dangerous) and then fashioning its presented information based on that conclusion.  You are using it as an objective source to reach a conclusion independently -- which is just so obviously intellectually dishonest it's ridiculous.  My problem has nothing to do with bad HTML (whatever), my "progressive agenda" (I don't have much of one), or personal interest in marijuana (never touched it); it has everything to do with how inept your argumentation is relative to the fluffiness with which you're presenting it.

Next time, please save your condescension for someone who doesn't have more idea of what he's talking about than you.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

[slow clap]

[gradually increasing in speed clap]

[outright applause]

[DemPGH]

Prohibition is the really obvious parallel, which created crime empires almost overnight. Same with marijuana: legalize it, tax it, regulate it, I say.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Marijuana is quite analogous to alcohol: The effects are temporary, and most find those effects enjoyable. Yes, it impairs short-term memory, so you probably shouldn't schedule any study sessions within 24 hours of smoking. Serious health consequences can arise if marijuana is abused, but the same is true for alcohol, tobacco, and yes, even food from McDonalds. Casual use is largely harmless, especially when taken via methods other than smoking.

Aside from that, though, there is serious medical use to marijuana beyond cancer patients. Since getting my medical card, I've been treating my anxiety through the occasional low-level smoke rather than through expensive, addictive prescription drugs. Since I lost my health care coverage when I moved, I really don't know what I'd do without it.

[DemPGH]

Recreational use under regulation is fine (again, like alcohol when it comes to public intoxication or driving), IMO, and in no shape or form should medicinal use of Marijuana be prohibited. Reasons why it is illegal, IMO, include: There are 1) so VERY many taboos here in America, and this is unfortunately one (it invokes negative and unrealistic images / stereotypes of hippies, stoners, druggies, freeloaders, addicts, rioters, brawlers, etc.), but 2) is that there is way, way too much money being made by everyone over Marijuana being illegal that it will be a real fight to legalize it.

[Sbane]

One of the things I found funny about the website Simfan posted was them saying there is no medical use for cannabis when there is a C3 drug out there which is a synthetic cannabinoid. Stupidest website ever.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the things I found funny about the website Simfan posted was them saying there is no medical use for cannabis when there is a C3 drug out there which is a synthetic cannabinoid. Stupidest website ever.

Cannabis ≠ Cannabinoid

The former is an unpatentable natural product with varying levels of its compounds; the latter is a patentable synthetic product that can be prescribed at a uniform dosage.  There are advantages to both, with those for the former being mainly its low cost and its relatively easy availability since to get it you don't have to go thru the FDA roadblocks.