Marijuana Legalize?

"Marijuana isn't the case of their laziness"
"Someone's laziness can become apparent through Marinuana abuse".

Umm whaaaa!?

There is facts that it's effects ones learning ability and it impairs people brains. So yeah, you can go back and find what I posted or choose to disbelieve it. The choice is yours.

 

It's possible that they just didn't have anything lazy that they enjoyed doing until they started using drugs.

If a seemingly nice kid gets a gun and then kills someone, he already had violent tendencies before he got the gun.

What I said here is not that difficult to understand. A trait that someone has can become apparent through a certain activity, but that doesn't mean that said activity caused that person to have that trait. Someone's intelligence might become apparent when they begin going to school, but that doesn't mean that they weren't already intelligent.

 

Part 1) just because someone buys a gun, doesn't mean that they have bad tendencies.
Part 2) Do you smoke weed? It seems like the smokers are always the one to find every single excuse in the book. I understand what you are saying, it just doesn't make any sense. If Marijuana triggered someone's "laziness" then Marijuana is the cause of them being lazy? If they hadn't smoked it then they wouldn't be lazy

 

I never said anything like that. If you thought that that was my stance, I have no idea where you got it from.

No, I've never smoked or used marijuana.

Marijuana isn't necessarily the trigger of someone's laziness any more than school is the trigger of someone's intelligence or guns are the trigger of someone's violence; these things just give people a way to express traits that they already had.

To summarize my stance for you: There is still stuff that is unknown about marijuana, but from all the study summaries and such that I've read, there are not any proven, negative, long-term effects. There is a correlation with decreased grey matter and there might be a correlation with laziness and tendency to try more dangerous drugs, but correlation is not causation. It's entirely possible that people with the traits listed above are simply more likely to use marijuana in the first place, which would not be surprising considering that it has been illegal. If alcohol were made illegal, would you be surprised if lazy and risk-taking people were the main ones that continued to use it? If we legalize marijuana all around, I think it's incredibly possible that it will be like alcohol, able to be and often used responsibly by stable people without causing harm overall.

 

Another round of SuperDyl's giant arguments.


Random arguments in the debate:

*I'd like to be done with this first. In regards to @Blue_marlin98 's lazy, drug using uncles: the argument doesn't show that marijuana makes people lazy as the argument is an anecdotal logical fallacy and doesn't take into account other variables which could have made them lazy. This does, however, show marijuana's abilities to create addictions.

* Guns don't matter in this debate. If you'd like to discuss them, creat a forum thread please. Both have negative impacts, but the government treats both very differently when it comes to regulations. That's because the harms of each come about differently.


Less random arguments in the debate:

*This point is mostly from before between @MeepLord27 and I. @MeepLord27 stated that the government should not be preventing people from dumb decisions, specically becoming addicted to substances such as marijuana. I feel that the arguments became a little confusing. Let's start with a disclaimer: since governmental power is an issue where people disagree on the amount the government should have, I am arguing in this debate based off of the power the United States government currently wields. Based on this, with regulations including banning of otherwise legal cigarette commercials, the US certainly not only does have the right to ban marijuana, but should, as their power is being used to more and more prevent all substance abuse.

*Saying that marijuana is okay in moderation doesn't do any good. Anything in a small enough amount (moderation) is safe. Even poisons! This doesn't mean that people should be allowed access to just about anything. Allowing selling of cyanide just because it can be used safely is silly, because the danger is so great of it being used in more dangerous ways. This is the same with drugs like marijuana.

*I'll agree that there may be less illegal drug dealers with a legalization of marijuana, but at the same time, marijuana is a gateway drug. Here's a good source: Is marijuana a gateway drug? . More research is needed as said before, but out of the 9% who become addicted, there is at least a definite correlation between using marijuana and later using harder drugs.

*Using tax gains as a good reason to increase addictions and substance abuse is disgustingly immoral. It's akin to neocolonialization in that harming some helps others. You're still hurting these others greatly.

*Marijuana could be used more by responsible people, but people don't control whether or not they become addicted past moderating their intake, which isn't any perfect science and is a safety hazard.

 

Your right, based on what the government can currently do, they can make marijuana illegal.
All of that is irrelevant though, because its about what the government should do, not can do. The government is supposed to secure rights, me becoming a degenerate waste of life doesn't fall under what the government should do.

 

I wasn't just talking about what the government can do, but what they should. Currently, the government bans multiple things, such as the before mentioned cigarette advertisements, not because people's rights are removed by these things, but because the government is protecting people from making dumb decisions. Thus, the government isn't just in a situation where they can ban marijuana, but they should, as the government uses it's power to protect people from themselves doing dumb things.

 

This is a complete fallacy, the government does ban cigarette ads. It shouldn't.
You need to justify why the government should be a tool for more than protection of rights. Thats its intended constitutional structure.

 

Marijuana does have a short and long term impact on the body. It can affect society as a whole. (yes I know alcohol can too but good thing we aren't talking about alcohol).

Smoking cannabis really DOES make people lazy because it affects the area of the brain responsible for motivation | Daily Mail Online
Marijuana Use and Its Effects

Also, my stance on cigarettes. Cigarettes don't have hardly any harm and will most likely kill you if you are like 70. Cigarettes should to be smoked around children or any other person who doesn't want to smoke. Also, since I have been catching y'all put "things in for our entertainment" well heres my entertainment: Stand next to a gas pump (gas station tank) and smoke a cigarette/weed. Then have someone stand next to the gas pump and drink alcohol.

 

I am going to assume that you don't think the government should not create protections such as warning labels and drug regulations because you think the government should be more conservative.

People disagree on how much power we should give the government, so instead, I say the government should be able to regulate and ban for the reason of protecting its citizens from dumb decisions which will likely harm them because the government already does these types of regulations, thus showing that the government currently is, and has been, in a state where it not only works to protect specific rights, but also to improve the quality of life for its citizens.

 

Apparently we have to label everything because the typical American IQ is going down. Just like the lady who ordered hot coffee at Mc. Donald's, spilt it on her lap and sued because she didn't know the coffee was hot. Has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Conservative, just have common sense and don't be a complete idiot for everyday life.

I always say, if you don't like the fact that the government is in your life and can regulate what you do. Move to Syria or some place else? you'd beg to come back to America.

 

This case actually had to do less with the coffe being hot, but that the coffe was hot enough to almost instantly creat third degree burns when spilt. She was suing for the danger McDonalds needlessly created which cost her lots of money to fix in the hospital.

 

I am 100% for warning labels, making companies display damaged lungs on there products, etcetera. I am not for the government banning those things however. The government should force full disclosure about the harms of marijuana on the boxes (bags?), but that should be the end of it. If people aren't being told what they are going to buy, (essentially, false advertising) there right to property is being infringed.

The founding fathers didn't.

 

Please tell me you are not defending this lady? Maybe we should put "Caution hot" signs on car doors so we know the metal door handle might be hot due to sun exposure. That way we know to be careful when opening the door.

 

Look into it, in this specific case, the woman was justified. I agree with you that in most cases people are stupid and then sue companies, but the coffee was dangerously hot. The woman needed several skin grafts and her settlement just barely covered the cost of her surgery.

 

I believe once the coffee is handed to the person in the car, its her responsibility.

 

The point is, if I hand you a coffee cup with acid in it, its not your responsibility to expect that it will have acid.
Your point is not wrong, your evidence is, in this specific instance, the coffee never should have been served. It was a hazard, and it mutilated the grandma who had it.

 

She won the case because the cup did not say "Caution hot" on it. The problem is everyone these days is so sue happy they find stupid ways to get money. The they retire young and smoke weed until they day. (Yes, it was just a joke calm down people). Anyway, were getting off topic here. Marijuana is bad.

 

It's not necessarily true that the topic of guns is irrelevant. If someone's stance on guns is hypocritical when compared to their stance on marijuana, it's worth mentioning.

Are you against alcohol?

Also, Study: Smoking One Marijuana Joint Makes You Lazy—but Only While You’re High

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make with the last paragraph of your post.

How can you say

That matters why?

 

It should be legal, along with every other drug, but that doesn't make it at all good, and people under any drug's influence should still be fully culpable for their actions while intoxicated. No pleading insanity (which can happen in some jurisdictions.)