Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Marijuana


blind_synergy

Smoke?  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Smoke?

    • I smoke regularly...
      19
    • I smoke on certain occassions, like parties...
      62
    • I've tried it or would like to...
      54
    • I've never tried it and never will...
      99


Recommended Posts

 

And this is why I say governments wont ever openly declare it illegal, just make it very difficult for users. In this regard, I suppose the government could legalize weed but prohibit its use anywhere except for private residences.

 

This is exactly what should happen. You should be able to smoke weed, just not anywhere that affects the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't buy the precautionary principle defense. At best its a smoke screen. Almost everybody with any kind of knowledge about weed knows that its relatively safe and knows many many people that use it safely. It would be stupid for a person to say "oh but we don't know, it could be harmful, therefore we can't test it." Thats total BS, considering the huge population base to draw significant correlations from. I'd argue that alone would indicate no significant risks correlated with smoking (I didn't do the study myself but I'd bet money this would be the result), and therefore clinical trials should be allowed. I don't even think they have to pay people for the trials. Just advertise "blaze for free legally" and there would be thousands showing up. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You might want to check out the medschool relationship thread on the Medical Student subforum, to give a little perspective on where the values UTPeople possesses are coming from (hint: China).

 

this is just a low blow. I in no way condone the practices of china. I am jsut inclined towards cautious behavior. After all, given our healthcare system, if weed smoking does turn out to harm health, the government (and by proxy the non-smokers also) will have to pick up the tab.

 

This is exactly what should happen. You should be able to smoke weed, just not anywhere that affects the general public.

 

This would be ideal, but its hard to define this area. is smoking on the street okay? etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy the precautionary principle defense. At best its a smoke screen. Almost everybody with any kind of knowledge about weed knows that its relatively safe and knows many many people that use it safely. It would be stupid for a person to say "oh but we don't know, it could be harmful, therefore we can't test it." Thats total BS, considering the huge population base to draw significant correlations from. I'd argue that alone would indicate no significant risks correlated with smoking (I didn't do the study myself but I'd bet money this would be the result), and therefore clinical trials should be allowed. I don't even think they have to pay people for the trials. Just advertise "blaze for free legally" and there would be thousands showing up. ;)

 

perhaps the precautionary principle defense is a bunch of bull, but in this litigation happy society, this is the only way that governments can proceed without potentially inviting class-action lawsuits down the line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell, the guy doesn't want weed to be legal and you say it's because he's Chinese. How about not label the guy but use an argument instead.

I'm against legalizing it because more potheads is not what we need in this country. Especially since people will have to pay their welfare check after they get fired or choose not to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell, the guy doesn't want weed to be legal and you say it's because he's Chinese. How about not label the guy but use an argument instead.

I'm against legalizing it because more potheads is not what we need in this country. Especially since people will have to pay their welfare check after they get fired or choose not to work.

 

^ Usually when I see people post stuff like that I tend to ignore it. But I dunno, I feel like highlighting it today. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell, the guy doesn't want weed to be legal and you say it's because he's Chinese. How about not label the guy but use an argument instead.

I'm against legalizing it because more potheads is not what we need in this country. Especially since people will have to pay their welfare check after they get fired or choose not to work.

 

He didn't say that. I made a comment about UT's ridiculous apparent support of healthism and Tango merely brought up the fact that the Chinese culture has a tendency to favour such views. Let's face it, there's not much emphasis placed on recreational activities in the Chinese culture.

 

I'd also like to congratulate you on your oh-so-very erudite and well-reasoned argument. I mean, who their right minds could disagree with that?

 

Also, I HATE the precautionary model. Nothing gets done. I firmly believe government should be dynamic and fast-moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against legalizing it because more potheads is not what we need in this country. Especially since people will have to pay their welfare check after they get fired or choose not to work.

 

Oh come on, that's not necessarily fair. I can't say that you're definitively wrong (I don't have data one way or the other), but you can't necessarily equate pot with deadbeats. It might be fair for more harder drugs, but I don't know that it necessarily applies to casual weed smoking.

 

My parents smoked weed pretty often when we were growing up, so my brother and sister and I never really thought of it as criminal activity, especially since they held down pretty respectable jobs. My dad always told me that it was like alcohol - everything in moderation. My siblings and I started smoking it in our mid-teens, and I can modestly say we've all done pretty well (my brother went to grad school, and is now a 2011 med student at UWO, my sister is a 2013 at U of T, and I've applied this year with good success). You'd be surprised at the people that I have smoked with; including med students, residents, docs, profs, cops, etc. etc. To me, it's equivalent to having a drink with someone at the bar.

 

I haven't really heard a strong argument against the legalization of marijuana, especially in light of the fact that both cigarettes and alcohol are legal (and there's no evidence to suggest pot is more deleterious for your health than those two). Imagine the tax benefits for the gov't, as well as the reduced government spending in pursuit of shutting down illegal narcotics. If you've ever been to Holland, drug culture is pretty open, and the people are just fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell, the guy doesn't want weed to be legal and you say it's because he's Chinese. How about not label the guy but use an argument instead.

 

I have been using arguments. I was saying that the fixation on "cultural damage" and emphasis on only allowing behaviours which encourage productivity shouldn't be surprising considering he's an immigrant from China, where the interests of the State supercede the interests of the citizenry. His arguments are flawed for the reasons myself and others have explained earlier in the thread. I was just trying to put things in perspective for blind_synergy. I'm happy to hear he doesn't support the practices of a nation like China, but it's pretty clear that there's a definite rift in what constitutes the best interests of a society, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been using arguments. I was saying that the fixation on "cultural damage" and emphasis on only allowing behaviours which encourage productivity shouldn't be surprising considering he's an immigrant from China, where the interests of the State supercede the interests of the citizenry. His arguments are flawed for the reasons myself and others have explained earlier in the thread. I was just trying to put things in perspective for blind_synergy.

 

Naw, its fine, everyone is just having a nice harmless debate. But, i do need to point out that I do not believe that the state supercedes that of the citizens. Instead, my arguments stem from a naturally cautious attitude towards anything that might adversely affect health, especially considering that you cannot exactly constrain second hand smoke. It was just misinterpreted as fascism/communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw, its fine, everyone is just having a nice harmless debate. But, i do need to point out that I do not believe that the state supercedes that of the citizens. Instead, my arguments stem from a naturally cautious attitude towards anything that might adversely affect health, especially considering that you cannot exactly constrain second hand smoke. It was just misinterpreted as fascism/communism.

 

Isn't there already more than enough research? Marijuana has gone through much more rigorous testing (and has a large user base) than most prescription drugs currently on the market. Espousing such an over-cautious attitude is surefire to promote stagnation. Eventually you have to say yes or no, and we have more than enough facts to make an educated opininion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to congratulate you on your oh-so-very erudite and well-reasoned argument. I mean, who their right minds could disagree with that?

 

Also, I HATE the precautionary model. Nothing gets done. I firmly believe government should be dynamic and fast-moving.

 

Thanks, surprisingly enough there is enough strange people on this world to disagree with me on many topics ;)

 

But seriously, I guess I just have the opposite view. There is no need for us to experiment with pot laws. Let's just stick with what works. There are more important things to focus on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there already more than enough research? Marijuana has gone through much more rigorous testing (and has a large user base) than most prescription drugs currently on the market. Espousing such an over-cautious attitude is surefire to promote stagnation. Eventually you have to say yes or no, and we have more than enough facts to make an educated opininion.

 

I would like to add, there has also been tons of research done in Jamaica on this topic as well. Including longitudinal correlational studies for life-time "potheads". I clearly remember one from my neuropsych class. The result of the study: people who smoked weed for their entire lives compared to nonsmokers tended to have slightly more runny noses. Thats it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, surprisingly enough there is enough strange people on this world to disagree with me on many topics ;)

 

But seriously, I guess I just have the opposite view. There is no need for us to experiment with pot laws. Let's just stick with what works. There are more important things to focus on.

 

You mean banning a pretty harmless substance that is, by virtue of it being illegal and creating a demand in the blackmarket, currently being used to fund gangs, violence, guns, etc. is what "works"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, surprisingly enough there is enough strange people on this world to disagree with me on many topics ;)

 

But seriously, I guess I just have the opposite view. There is no need for us to experiment with pot laws. Let's just stick with what works. There are more important things to focus on.

 

It's a pretty improtant topic when you look at the strain on the legal system, the moral issues regarding government interference in personal choices (affecting nobody but the individual), and the possible massive economic implications of legalization.

 

Additionally, you can't just say "I have the opposite view" and think people will respect that. To me, until you start backing it up with rational reasoning, I get the notion you were brain-washed by a lot of that anti-drug propaganda we saw as kids.

 

Lastly, the current system DOES NOT work. You have large numbers of people being arrested and charged with victimless crimes, gangs financing their operations with marijuana sales, and, most importantly of all, a majority who believes marijuana should be legalized. Don't we live in a democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seann, that was the most hilariously hypocritical post yet in this thread, you deserve a cookie.

 

I knew this thread would eventually come down to people sticking with their biases regardless of how strong of a counter-argument is provided, but I find it truly interesting how strongly certain people feel about the subject (on both sides).

 

Marijuana should and will be legalized, eventually. Once our generation is in power, it'll be taken a lot more seriously in the government. I give it about 20 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While weed might not have as serious effects of second hand smoke as cigs, their cultural damage is still appreciable. Weed is a precious commodity, and begs illegal trafficking (even when legalized, like with tobacco), with all the associated damages of gangs and violence (and technically infringing on the rights of others to a safe environment). Furthermore, people under the influence of weed will have reduced inhibitions, and will certainly cause an increase in disorderly conduct and other public safety violations. I would not support the legalization of weed unless there is an age requirement of at least 25-30 (so that there are less young adult hormone driven incidents)

 

Are you trolling? I can't believe anyone would spout such senseless drivel. You have not answered the main point of my post, which is that it is immoral to imprison people for the simple possession of a substance. The negative consequences you refer to ('cultural damage') do not necessarily stem from my possession of a substance, they are the result of other crimes committed by other people. The fact that these crimes may occur does not justify my arrest and imprisonment. The government may justifiably take action to stop violent criminal gangs and idiots who are disorderly in public, as you correctly pointed out that they infringe on my right to a safe environment. If cannabis were legalized, we would still have laws against public intoxication, disorderly conduct, smuggling, etc. You claim that legalization will certainly increase public disorder and public safety violations. Really? Certainly? I assume you have hard evidence for this, because only idiots make unsubstantiated claims as an excuse to perpetuate an unjust system.

Your age limit idea is stupid. What magical events occur at age 25-30 that make someone able to get high safely, but justify denying freedom to a 24-year old? What hormones, exactly, drive so many young adult incidents? Is it possible that it is not the role of government or law enforcement to decide which adults should be allowed to engage in certain private behaviours?

As a final note, it needs to be pointed out that not all dope comes from this vast, illegal network that prohibitionists seem to believe in. Lots of weed is grown right here in Canada, by genuinely good people. Would you support my right to grow my own weed on my own property, thus bypassing any violent criminal gangs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the "never tried it, never will" category, but as far as adverse effects, there's far worse things out there right now (besides, if I remember my Drugs of Abuse class from last semester, in order to OD on THC, you'd need to smoke your weight in marijuana... in like an hour or something. Much safer than some of the prescription drugs out there...). I'm in favour of legalizing it as long as there are tough laws against use by children/teens (ie tougher than cigarrette laws for teens. What a joke. I think I've seen more young kids/teens smoke than adults. Seriously.). For one thing, since so many people have used it (estimates are >60% of adults have tried it at least once) it would be better to control exactly what goes in to them. For example, currently if Bob were to buy from his dealer, Bob would have no idea what the heck was in the bag of weed he just bought. It could be laced with Death or some other chemicals (which could account for some of the crazy things people have witnessed). However, if it were legal, Bob could either go to the store and pick up a pack of the Mary J brand with x,y,z ingredients in it, or he could grow his own in his backyard and know that the only crap that could be in there is the crap he used to fertilize it with.

 

As for the driving while high- you don't think that happens now? It's just like driving drunk- it's illegal and people still (stupidly) do it. Toughen up THOSE laws, and direct the police officers that would be busting grow-ops to catching the drunk/high drivers on the road instead, and I can almost guarantee you'd see a decrease in the number of fatalities on the road. Because I'm sure if you looked at the stats the number of people killed by impaired drivers is much higher than the number of deaths/crime caused by marijuana smokers.

 

For those interested... this was the beginning of the "War on Drugs". It was a movie called "Reefer Madness" released in the 30s basically campaigning against "marihuana" use. It is actually absolutely ridiculous, which makes it REALLY funny (we watched it in the Drugs of Abuse class I took actually). At one point they say that it's more addictive and damaging than heroin! lol. It's an hour long, so I don't know if you want to take THAT much time out of your studying, but maybe waiting for May 13/14 it can kill some time for you:p

 

Enjoy!

 

Entire hour long movie (not the greatest quality at all): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhcNegZgU&feature=related

 

Part 1 (of 8) (MUCH better quality... and I think all 8 parts are up):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trolling? I can't believe anyone would spout such senseless drivel. You have not answered the main point of my post, which is that it is immoral to imprison people for the simple possession of a substance. The negative consequences you refer to ('cultural damage') do not necessarily stem from my possession of a substance, they are the result of other crimes committed by other people. The fact that these crimes may occur does not justify my arrest and imprisonment. The government may justifiably take action to stop violent criminal gangs and idiots who are disorderly in public, as you correctly pointed out that they infringe on my right to a safe environment. If cannabis were legalized, we would still have laws against public intoxication, disorderly conduct, smuggling, etc. You claim that legalization will certainly increase public disorder and public safety violations. Really? Certainly? I assume you have hard evidence for this, because only idiots make unsubstantiated claims as an excuse to perpetuate an unjust system.

Your age limit idea is stupid. What magical events occur at age 25-30 that make someone able to get high safely, but justify denying freedom to a 24-year old? What hormones, exactly, drive so many young adult incidents? Is it possible that it is not the role of government or law enforcement to decide which adults should be allowed to engage in certain private behaviours?

As a final note, it needs to be pointed out that not all dope comes from this vast, illegal network that prohibitionists seem to believe in. Lots of weed is grown right here in Canada, by genuinely good people. Would you support my right to grow my own weed on my own property, thus bypassing any violent criminal gangs?

 

why is this even an issue? Under current ontario laws, police no longer arrest people who are caught with an "individual" portion of weed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the driving while high- you don't think that happens now? It's just like driving drunk- it's illegal and people still (stupidly) do it. Toughen up THOSE laws, and direct the police officers that would be busting grow-ops to catching the drunk/high drivers on the road instead, and I can almost guarantee you'd see a decrease in the number of fatalities on the road. Because I'm sure if you looked at the stats the number of people killed by impaired drivers is much higher than the number of deaths/crime caused by marijuana smokers.

 

yeah, I think there's an interesting case with the driving while high issue.

 

I smoke pot every now and again, but I've always maintained a "if I have to drive today, I'm not smoking pot" ideology, just for personal beliefs. However, I know a LOT of guys that drive while BAKKKKKED. I don't advocate it, nor do I support it, I just think there is very different physiological effects of weed vs alcohol, and they manifest as two totally different phenotypes of driving behaviour.

 

Of course, looking in the media about it instances of accidents of people while drunk or while high is pointless, as I'd be willing to bet there's just more drunk drivers than high drivers, and as a result there's just more accidents.

 

But my prediction is still that compared to alcohol, I don't think driving while high is as bad. Once again, not a supporter of the idea, just an opinion. I also don't support inexperienced drivers driving with music on/people in the car, low working-memory people driving with a cell phone, and old people driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean banning a pretty harmless substance that is, by virtue of it being illegal and creating a demand in the blackmarket, currently being used to fund gangs, violence, guns, etc. is what "works"?

 

You're right, gangs are so scary, we shouldn't expect our law enforcement to deal with them. And since we are giving up, why don't we legalize hard drugs and guns too? After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is this even an issue? Under current ontario laws, police no longer arrest people who are caught with an "individual" portion of weed

 

I don't live in Ontario, and the distinction between 'individual'/not individual is arbitrary. According to the proposal to decriminalize currently in Parliament (C-359 I believe), 1g of hash is the maximum limit. This is a ridiculously small amount. Police shouldn't arrest people for the possession of any amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favour of legalizing it as long as there are tough laws against use by children/teens (ie tougher than cigarrette laws for teens. What a joke. I think I've seen more young kids/teens smoke than adults. Seriously.)

 

Tougher laws? In what respect? Putting a bunch of kids in a juvenile corrections centre won't accomplish anything except for completely screw up someone's childhood worse than weed ever could. Keeping kids from doing excessive amounts of anything falls at the feet of the parents, not the government. Kids should be properly educated about this sort of stuff in school and at home, and their parents should instill in them an understanding of the consequences of doing too much weed when they're young, and curb their behaviour if they step out of line. But beyond that, we shouldn't be trying to clap irons on kids for doing, really, the same sorts of stuff they're doing right now.

 

You're right, gangs are so scary, we shouldn't expect our law enforcement to deal with them. And since we are giving up, why don't we legalize hard drugs and guns too? After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people ;)

 

Where have you been? The War on Drugs is over. We lose. Law enforcement is incapable of halting the production and smuggling of drugs. It's time for societies to rethink their approach to drugs, because the one we're on right now is completely ineffective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...