I actually have a blanket license. But those are items that are intended to be used for a specific beneficial purpose if you're not retarded. And accidents happen all the time. We(normal-thinking people) understand that. Marijuana's intended use is um...well, depends how you really use it. Medicinal? Whatever. You're probably a druggie, but whatever makes you stop whining about your stubbed toe. Recreational use? No. That's something we can prevent. And you can bubble wrap your sharp corners if they're really getting to you, Fbu.
Anyone can argue that elements necessary to life are dangerous, oxygen explodes, water can kill, drowning and water intoxication. So yes pillows, blankets, anything is dangerous. You sir, are stereotyping, too. So why dont we both stop, and get over it. I will if you will. And if this just turned into a big joke, ill just laugh and go along. I have officially stopped caring.
Oh so you did get the point? Satire is a common writing technique to mock and draw attention to the ridiculousness of other people's behavior or ideals. Take it however you want: a way to defensively escape from continuing the debate, or a gradual realization of misconceptions in your loose belief.
The reason I'm not debating anymore is that you seem very certain in your mindset. If I tried to change yours, then it would cause more problems then it solved. Simple as that. I hope this turns back into a real debate.
I'm pretty sure Marijuana can only be psychologically addictive, almost anything can be psychologically addictive so your point is moot. Also Marijuana won't kill you. I'm not too sure if Marijuana should be 100% legalised but it should at least be decriminalised in the states like it is here. It should definitely be used more in medicine and that sort of stuff. If it is fully legal then there would definitely be more people abusing it and at the end of the day people will be high at work and **** things up. However I haven't smoked it before so my opinion probably isn't that valid. Also stoners are annoying.
Stoners are annoying? How can you tell a stoner from just someone walking down the street? I know plenty of people who smoke on occasion that if you say them, you would never be able to tell that they have smoked pot. So I don't agree with that generalization. As far as people showing up to work stoned, how many people do you know who show up to work drunk?? It's the same thing. Just because something is legal or not, does not mean that people are going to do it at the wrong times. You say that if it were legal, then more people would abuse it. I don't really know if that is true. Booze is leagal, and I hardly ever drink..
The annoying ones are, but what I can tell is that it is just a ampliflcation of their personality. (This is my own personal claim, I have no scientific evidence to back this up) This all depends on how the public reacts I guess. You can't really predict what would happen, look at Amsterdam Your not trying to change my mindset. Your trying to debate a point using misinformation, no sources, personal anecdotes, and bias. It is a real debate, and it's evident that one side is clearly winning.
I love how when people get owned in this debate, they tend to just try and defuse it and save as much of their reputation as possible...
"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit...unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the ****ing law?" - Bill Hicks from my sig. I agree with that.
Bill Hicks was a comedian, he was making a joke. A joke is not a valid argument. It's true that it is a part of nature, but isn't fire? I should be able to go and light up my neighbors house, it's beautiful and part of nature. That post was just as bad as zander's and madz's silliness.
So from that quote, you obviously believe everything natural should be legal and commonly practiced. Probably a bad idea considering many harmful drugs are also naturally grown. That argument is ridiculous...
Yea, use marijuana medically, not to get high. We have skewed the definition of what is natural use of things. I doubt nature intended for anyone to light the plant on fire. I believe it's uses were for medical purpose only, so stop using that as an excuse.
Actually, I can't find real evidence to support medical marijuana. Studies are being done and theories have been made, but reducing pain is available in a lot more forms than marijuana. The only people who would really request it are potheads.
Medicinally using it has always been iffy for me. I tend to see medicinal marijuana as a loophole, one that allows for the general public's acceptance. California is always on the forefront with this kind of stuff. I can see the legitimacy of it though. I can't really say I have a definite opinion on it.
Evolution would say that a plant would not make itself addicting so that more people can kill it. Creationism obviously points towards medical uses, herbs are used to cure illnesses or relieve pain, not to be sold so that people could get high. Neither side points that Marijuana is to be used as a method of feeling good. That's interesting, but in older times it probably was much more useful.
Interesting outlook, is there research suggesting that plants evolve similarly to humans in regard to staying alive? And this is if you are assuming marijuana is physically addicting. I'm just throwing it out there but the plant would have to evolve in such a way that if it were to be burned then it would produce something that could not become mentally addicting. In essence, it would have to know how the smoke interacts with the human lungs and brain (which are completely independent). I could really only see this theory to be true if it was physically addicting, but even that is a stretch. Creationism isn't valid in any debating format. (lol its true because i said so) And even if it was, why do they allow alcohol? And for your final point: why do you have to compare the relation between belief systems, aren't you able to come to a conclusion based on your own opinions? How does neither side promote the use marijuana? Why do humans have a sense of euphoria, not only from marijuana, but also from other things? If evolution has condemned weed then why is it still growing? I can't comprehend why we have this feeling, but we aren't allow to access it. :/
It comes down to culture, because Marijuana has been legal for so long there, people don't feel the need to use it excessively. But if you were to all of a sudden legalise it in the US people would be constantly smoking purely because they can. This would obviously be a very unproductive time and it could last for a while. For example, in Australia there is a huge underage binge drinking culture, but in parts of Europe there is no age limit yet the youth drink less than us. So we should legalise Cocaine, Opiods, Mescaline, Shrooms and LSD? A lot of painkillers have very negative side effects and people may be allergic to them. Marijuana also calms people and has proven to be effective in reducing symptoms of cancer and HIV/AIDS. It has also been effective in treating those with post traumatic stress. Also, stop comparing weed to alcohol, they are different and a weak basis for an argument.