3 ms·

There are plenty of things to be concerned about but that fight has been lost. Here I will quote a scientist. Personally I have plenty of friends and my brother

There are plenty of things to be concerned about but that fight has been lost. Here I will quote a scientist. Personally I have plenty of friends and my brother as examples what over use of pot can do to ruin lives. > Now, as a scientist, I’m unimpressed with many of the widely used arguments for the legalization of marijuana. 1) “It’s natural!” So is arsenic. 2)“It’s beneficial!” The best-documented medicinal effects of marijuana are achieved without the chemical compound that gets users high. 3) “It’s not addictive!” This is false, because the brain adapts to marijuana as it does to all abused drugs, and these neural adjustments lead to tolerance, dependence and craving — the hallmarks of addiction. Conclusion: Still, I’m not against legalization. I simply object to the astounding lack of skepticism about pot in our current debate. Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities? Though the evidence is far from complete, wishful thinking and widespread enthusiasm are no substitutes for careful consideration. Instead of rushing to enact new laws that are as nonsensical as the ones they replace, let’s sort out the costs and benefits, using current scientific knowledge, while supporting the research needed to clarify the neural and social consequences of frequent use of THC. Perhaps then we’ll avoid practices that inure future generations to what’s really important. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/25/feature/legalizing-marijuana-is-fine-but-dont-ignore-the-science-on-its-dangers/?utm_term=.237f9c0773e1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...

leetcrew 8y ago
> Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities? strongly disagree. the only question we should be asking about cannabis (and other drugs) is "do they harm people who haven't freely decided to consume them?". if not, there is nothing left to talk about wrt the law. edit: unless i misunderstand your post and you are making a point outside of legality?
- baldfat 8y ago
  Well I could make the point that pot isn't harmless. Heck smartphones aren't harmless and alcohol is responsible for 6% of all deaths. I see hundreds of kids every week at work where parents are disengaged with their kids and super engaged with their phone. I think we have an issue with the questions we ask as humans. I am just making the point that we need to look past our individual lenses but that's really never going to happen to our community as a whole. PS I am a life long abstainer of all vices minus my addiction to sugar.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mynegation 8y ago
I also believe that marijuana is addicting and harmful and yet I am pro-legalization. When use is criminalized there is no good legal approach to fighting the addiction. It funnels money into organized crime. I'd much rather see sales of marijuana controlled, taxed; addicts being helped; every little pack of this stuff slapped with a warning about health hazards.
kstrauser 8y ago
My inner scientist looks at it this way: 1) It seems to do less personal harm than alcohol. I've known potheads and alcoholics, and the latter was far more disruptive to their personal lives and health. 2) It seems to do less societal harm than alcohol. Alcohol consumption is strongly correlated with violent crime, but weed consumption seems correlated with annoyances (like "let's all sneak into this pool and go swimming when we're not supposed to"). 3) Alcohol is legal. Given that it's at least as bad as pot in every way I can imagine, and often much worse, I can't think of a single continued justification for laws allowing me to go buy a fifth of whiskey but not possess a few joints. It just makes no sense to me.
beatgammit 8y ago
> Astounding lack of skepticism You must not live in a conservative area. Where I live (Utah) is certainly an outlier, but skepticism is all I hear without any talk of the benefits of legalization. I believe that marijuana was wrongfully criminalized. If marijuana were legal today, would you support an initiative for making it controlled? I think the discussion about marijuana is tainted by its current status as a controlled substance. It's currently treated as if it had no medicinal benefits, and that's clearly not the case. In fact, it's pretty clear that it's less bad than alcohol and tobacco, yet it's banned. If we can't come up with a rational reason to ban it, it should be legalized and controlled to the extent that it causes harm.

leetcrew 8y ago

> Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities? strongly disagree. the only question we should be asking about cannabis (and other drugs) is "do they harm people who haven't freely decided to consume them?". if not, there is nothing left to talk about wrt the law. edit: unless i misunderstand your post and you are making a point outside of legality?

baldfat 8y ago
Well I could make the point that pot isn't harmless. Heck smartphones aren't harmless and alcohol is responsible for 6% of all deaths. I see hundreds of kids every week at work where parents are disengaged with their kids and super engaged with their phone. I think we have an issue with the questions we ask as humans. I am just making the point that we need to look past our individual lenses but that's really never going to happen to our community as a whole. PS I am a life long abstainer of all vices minus my addiction to sugar.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mynegation 8y ago

I also believe that marijuana is addicting and harmful and yet I am pro-legalization. When use is criminalized there is no good legal approach to fighting the addiction. It funnels money into organized crime. I'd much rather see sales of marijuana controlled, taxed; addicts being helped; every little pack of this stuff slapped with a warning about health hazards.

kstrauser 8y ago

My inner scientist looks at it this way: 1) It seems to do less personal harm than alcohol. I've known potheads and alcoholics, and the latter was far more disruptive to their personal lives and health. 2) It seems to do less societal harm than alcohol. Alcohol consumption is strongly correlated with violent crime, but weed consumption seems correlated with annoyances (like "let's all sneak into this pool and go swimming when we're not supposed to"). 3) Alcohol is legal. Given that it's at least as bad as pot in every way I can imagine, and often much worse, I can't think of a single continued justification for laws allowing me to go buy a fifth of whiskey but not possess a few joints. It just makes no sense to me.

beatgammit 8y ago

> Astounding lack of skepticism You must not live in a conservative area. Where I live (Utah) is certainly an outlier, but skepticism is all I hear without any talk of the benefits of legalization. I believe that marijuana was wrongfully criminalized. If marijuana were legal today, would you support an initiative for making it controlled? I think the discussion about marijuana is tainted by its current status as a controlled substance. It's currently treated as if it had no medicinal benefits, and that's clearly not the case. In fact, it's pretty clear that it's less bad than alcohol and tobacco, yet it's banned. If we can't come up with a rational reason to ban it, it should be legalized and controlled to the extent that it causes harm.