Marijuana, Legal or Illegal

[xBerzerk]

Marijuana isn't addictive in a physical sense. It's like video games. It's just so good you keep coming back.

[theloconate]

I would have to somewhat agree w/ morningstar on this one. Marijuana isn't really addictive (trust me, i know), and legalizing it would most likely end the market for it. We all know that the government has the technology to create different types of marijuana that would blow other kinds out of the water, thus making the competition virtually nonexistent. Also, it would definitely help bring in revenue to the states.

and canada (where we almost got it legalized until the Reagans screwed it up for us)

[SeddyRocky]

Personally I don't think that any substance that alters your cognitive activities to a greater extent should be legal, especially when it is addictive and causes serious abstinence problems.

I'd like to see evidence for this. I'd also like to know if you think tobacco and alcohol should be legal. If you do then you don't have a coherent position seeing as combined they are responsible for about 53 thousand deaths a year in the usa

You can't have evidence for an opinion. You can have supportive arguments, but not evidence.

Tobacco, while extremely (physically)addictive and not healthy in any way, does not alter your cognitive functions to a greater extent. Alcohol is both addictive, to a lesser extent than nicotine, an causes a severe imbalance in your brain (drains the water from it) which definitely alters your cognitive capabilities.

But, and I think you can agree with me on this one even if you do not agree with my stance, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are other substances which have other effects, (for example alcohol causes lack of judgment and balance causing accidents and violence) it doesn't mean that marijuana is "more ok". By that logic, LSD should be legalized because that it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol. Which is no wonder, because: Alcohol is legal, alcohol can be made by yourself (moonshine) from just about anything, alcohol is available everywhere and more people use it than smoke pot (I am not from USA, I do not speak just for America, I'm talking about the world). So of course, there will be more incidents involving something which is widespread than something hidden/illegal with fewer users. In all fairness, seeing as even though alcohol and marijuana are both classified as depressants (tobacco is a stimulant) they have vastly different effects on our bodies and thus the effect would be different.

To clarify: my first statement was general and meant to encase not just marijuana.

[theloconate]

Personally I don't think that any substance that alters your cognitive activities to a greater extent should be legal, especially when it is addictive and causes serious abstinence problems.

I'd like to see evidence for this. I'd also like to know if you think tobacco and alcohol should be legal. If you do then you don't have a coherent position seeing as combined they are responsible for about 53 thousand deaths a year in the usa

You can't have evidence for an opinion. You can have supportive arguments, but not evidence.

Tobacco, while extremely (physically)addictive and not healthy in any way, does not alter your cognitive functions to a greater extent. Alcohol is both addictive, to a lesser extent than nicotine, an causes a severe imbalance in your brain (drains the water from it) which definitely alters your cognitive capabilities.

But, and I think you can agree with me on this one even if you do not agree with my stance, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are other substances which have other effects, (for example alcohol causes lack of judgment and balance causing accidents and violence) it doesn't mean that marijuana is "more ok". By that logic, LSD should be legalized because that it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol. Which is no wonder, because: Alcohol is legal, alcohol can be made by yourself (moonshine) from just about anything, alcohol is available everywhere and more people use it than smoke pot (I am not from USA, I do not speak just for America, I'm talking about the world). So of course, there will be more incidents involving something which is widespread than something hidden/illegal with fewer users. In all fairness, seeing as even though alcohol and marijuana are both classified as depressants (tobacco is a stimulant) they have vastly different effects on our bodies and thus the effect would be different.

To clarify: my first statement was general and meant to encase not just marijuana.

fair enough. but the thing is that even though two wrongs don't make a right, Marijuana can't be linked to any deaths whatsoever. Marijuana is a massively used substance and provides a huge boon to drug lords, whereas LSD doesn't (although i don't know enough about LSD to say whether it should be legal or not. Im also not saying that how much a gang or drug lord profits from something should determine whether its legal or not but rather that could be.) Here are some quotes from a source I provided in my letter to the editor (here is source http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Effects)


(marijuana and cognition) "In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 685.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221315

[QuantumT]

I don't think that the number of deaths that can be linked to a source is sufficient justification for making something legal/illegal. If it were, cars should probably be made illegal as they're responsible for around 50 thousand deaths a year, around 3 million injuries and over 200 billion dollars in damages.

I also don't think that drug lord's potential gains from marijuana's continuing illegality is relevant. That argument applies to all illegal drugs, from marijuana to cocaine.

I think that alcohol should probably be examined separately from cigarettes. This is because alcohol's number of deaths is about a fifth of smoking's number, and alcohol also has known health benefits in moderation.

If I recall correctly, any use at all of marijuana does impair cognitive function, but if it's used in moderation, these effects are temporary. Marijuana has been shown to cause permanent cognitive issues, but that's only when used excessively, when alcohol will also cause issues . I'm pretty sure that this point is still in contention, but that's not the point. The point is that, at worst, it only causes issues when used excessively, which is true of almost anything.

However, when cigarettes are compared with marijuana, they fail miserably. Proven links to cancer and generally higher levels of addictiveness both make cigarettes generally worse than marijuana. To be fair though, this probably is much more related to the fact that people smoke more cigarettes than that do joints. They both contain similar levels of irritants and carcinogens, and it's mostly that people smoke more cigarettes that makes them worse.

Now on to what I think about the legality of marijuana. I think that marijuana is not entirely safe (this is more a feeling than a fact, take it as such), but its dangers are vastly overstated. The dangers it poses can probably be compared fairly with alcohol and cigarettes, and as such, I have no problems making it legal.

[SeddyRocky]

Personally I don't think that any substance that alters your cognitive activities to a greater extent should be legal, especially when it is addictive and causes serious abstinence problems.

I'd like to see evidence for this. I'd also like to know if you think tobacco and alcohol should be legal. If you do then you don't have a coherent position seeing as combined they are responsible for about 53 thousand deaths a year in the usa

You can't have evidence for an opinion. You can have supportive arguments, but not evidence.

Tobacco, while extremely (physically)addictive and not healthy in any way, does not alter your cognitive functions to a greater extent. Alcohol is both addictive, to a lesser extent than nicotine, an causes a severe imbalance in your brain (drains the water from it) which definitely alters your cognitive capabilities.

But, and I think you can agree with me on this one even if you do not agree with my stance, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are other substances which have other effects, (for example alcohol causes lack of judgment and balance causing accidents and violence) it doesn't mean that marijuana is "more ok". By that logic, LSD should be legalized because that it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol. Which is no wonder, because: Alcohol is legal, alcohol can be made by yourself (moonshine) from just about anything, alcohol is available everywhere and more people use it than smoke pot (I am not from USA, I do not speak just for America, I'm talking about the world). So of course, there will be more incidents involving something which is widespread than something hidden/illegal with fewer users. In all fairness, seeing as even though alcohol and marijuana are both classified as depressants (tobacco is a stimulant) they have vastly different effects on our bodies and thus the effect would be different.

To clarify: my first statement was general and meant to encase not just marijuana.

fair enough. but the thing is that even though two wrongs don't make a right, Marijuana can't be linked to any deaths whatsoever. Marijuana is a massively used substance and provides a huge boon to drug lords, whereas LSD doesn't (although i don't know enough about LSD to say whether it should be legal or not. Im also not saying that how much a gang or drug lord profits from something should determine whether its legal or not but rather that could be.) Here are some quotes from a source I provided in my letter to the editor (here is source http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Effects)


(marijuana and cognition) "In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 685.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221315

With the risk of succumbing to the dangers of confirmation bias, I shall read and digest. But first, I'd like you to provide evidence for that marijuana has NEVER been linked to deaths. Because that basically any substance in the world has somehow been linked to deaths. Everything from water to copper can kill, and it is preposterous to write that marijuana has a sacred position of non-killer. If you have ever seen someone smoking marijuana drive, I find it hard to believe that you say that it cannot be linked to any deaths. Then again, death is not the only effect that a substance can have, and far from the only important one.

By the way, if you want to derive a discussion about making illegal things legal for monetary reasons, I think that belongs in another thread (and besides, it can be said about anything from trafficking to heavy narcotics)

First outsider source reply:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition
cog·ni·tion
   /kɒgˈnɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kog-nish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.
the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
3.
knowledge.

Source quote (abstract): "medicinal use for chronic diseases" (which is not quite the same as legalizing it? We use morphine for patients in alarming amounts of pain, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal to sell in a drug store or something. Then again *insert South Park reference here*).

Quote no 2: "With the exception of both learning and forgetting domains" (in article, discussion the results of cannabis use, divided into 8 categories, then excluding these two. In my opinion, the act or process of knowing, knowledge, etc, is pretty linked to the process of learning and forgetting).

--------------------------------------------------------

Second source: IQ, or intelligence quota, is not directly related to cognitive capabilities. A some extent, it is dependent on them (knowing how to read, mathematics, etc) but it is less about knowing something and more about analyzing and calculating.

Sidenote: The study is also conducted on youths whom have not fully developed brains yet, so naturally their IQ could continue to rise as they mature, even if there was/wasn't a correlation between marijuana use and IQ. For sources on this, simply google something like "when is a brain mature" or something similar.

Sidenote 2: Most IQ tests primarily measure logical, pattern and spacial intelligence, which is but parts of a whole of that which determines a persons true intelligence.

----------------------------------------------

Last source: As I lack knowledge of the test, the age groups etc, I cannot say much about it. To be frank, I find the unquoted part a bit hard to understand (English isn't my primary language either).
As for the result, I really can't say anything against it except that it is only targeting the long-term effects and not the instant ones, and that I cannot see their definition/what is measured. Is there a way to read the whole thing? (couldn't find it).

[Kuross]

Personally I don't think that any substance that alters your cognitive activities to a greater extent should be legal, especially when it is addictive and causes serious abstinence problems.

I'd like to see evidence for this. I'd also like to know if you think tobacco and alcohol should be legal. If you do then you don't have a coherent position seeing as combined they are responsible for about 53 thousand deaths a year in the usa

You can't have evidence for an opinion. You can have supportive arguments, but not evidence.

Tobacco, while extremely (physically)addictive and not healthy in any way, does not alter your cognitive functions to a greater extent. Alcohol is both addictive, to a lesser extent than nicotine, an causes a severe imbalance in your brain (drains the water from it) which definitely alters your cognitive capabilities.

But, and I think you can agree with me on this one even if you do not agree with my stance, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are other substances which have other effects, (for example alcohol causes lack of judgment and balance causing accidents and violence) it doesn't mean that marijuana is "more ok". By that logic, LSD should be legalized because that it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol. Which is no wonder, because: Alcohol is legal, alcohol can be made by yourself (moonshine) from just about anything, alcohol is available everywhere and more people use it than smoke pot (I am not from USA, I do not speak just for America, I'm talking about the world). So of course, there will be more incidents involving something which is widespread than something hidden/illegal with fewer users. In all fairness, seeing as even though alcohol and marijuana are both classified as depressants (tobacco is a stimulant) they have vastly different effects on our bodies and thus the effect would be different.

To clarify: my first statement was general and meant to encase not just marijuana.

fair enough. but the thing is that even though two wrongs don't make a right, Marijuana can't be linked to any deaths whatsoever. Marijuana is a massively used substance and provides a huge boon to drug lords, whereas LSD doesn't (although i don't know enough about LSD to say whether it should be legal or not. Im also not saying that how much a gang or drug lord profits from something should determine whether its legal or not but rather that could be.) Here are some quotes from a source I provided in my letter to the editor (here is source http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Effects)


(marijuana and cognition) "In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 685.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221315

With the risk of succumbing to the dangers of confirmation bias, I shall read and digest. But first, I'd like you to provide evidence for that marijuana has NEVER been linked to deaths. Because that basically any substance in the world has somehow been linked to deaths. Everything from water to copper can kill, and it is preposterous to write that marijuana has a sacred position of non-killer. If you have ever seen someone smoking marijuana drive, I find it hard to believe that you say that it cannot be linked to any deaths. Then again, death is not the only effect that a substance can have, and far from the only important one.

By the way, if you want to derive a discussion about making illegal things legal for monetary reasons, I think that belongs in another thread (and besides, it can be said about anything from trafficking to heavy narcotics)

First outsider source reply:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition
cog·ni·tion
   /kɒgˈnɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kog-nish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.
the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
3.
knowledge.

Source quote (abstract): "medicinal use for chronic diseases" (which is not quite the same as legalizing it? We use morphine for patients in alarming amounts of pain, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal to sell in a drug store or something. Then again *insert South Park reference here*).

Quote no 2: "With the exception of both learning and forgetting domains" (in article, discussion the results of cannabis use, divided into 8 categories, then excluding these two. In my opinion, the act or process of knowing, knowledge, etc, is pretty linked to the process of learning and forgetting).

--------------------------------------------------------

Second source: IQ, or intelligence quota, is not directly related to cognitive capabilities. A some extent, it is dependent on them (knowing how to read, mathematics, etc) but it is less about knowing something and more about analyzing and calculating.

Sidenote: The study is also conducted on youths whom have not fully developed brains yet, so naturally their IQ could continue to rise as they mature, even if there was/wasn't a correlation between marijuana use and IQ. For sources on this, simply google something like "when is a brain mature" or something similar.

Sidenote 2: Most IQ tests primarily measure logical, pattern and spacial intelligence, which is but parts of a whole of that which determines a persons true intelligence.

----------------------------------------------

Last source: As I lack knowledge of the test, the age groups etc, I cannot say much about it. To be frank, I find the unquoted part a bit hard to understand (English isn't my primary language either).
As for the result, I really can't say anything against it except that it is only targeting the long-term effects and not the instant ones, and that I cannot see their definition/what is measured. Is there a way to read the whole thing? (couldn't find it).

Mistaken premise: "Marijuana doesn't cause deaths"

Answer- It can likely be linked, but given Q's eloquant argument, it bares little relavence to whether or not marijuana should be made legal.

Conclusion (and yes, I am being sloppy with my logics): the potential death toll will not, should not, be a factor in the legalization of marijuana.

[theloconate]

With the risk of succumbing to the dangers of confirmation bias, I shall read and digest. But first, I'd like you to provide evidence for that marijuana has NEVER been linked to deaths. Because that basically any substance in the world has somehow been linked to deaths. Everything from water to copper can kill, and it is preposterous to write that marijuana has a sacred position of non-killer. If you have ever seen someone smoking marijuana drive, I find it hard to believe that you say that it cannot be linked to any deaths. Then again, death is not the only effect that a substance can have, and far from the only important one.

I never said that it can't kill anybody im saying that it hasn't been linked to any deaths, thats different.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309071550&page=109
Can you link it to any deaths? Im not saying that its the only one. If you visited the cite I listed It provides a link to a source that supports their claim for everything, which is why i think it is such a good source.
EDIT: When I say can't be linked to any deaths what i mean is that it can't be linked directly to any deaths. This means no one has died from simply smoking too much marijuana, this would exclude people doing stupid things to get themselves killed while high on marijuana

By the way, if you want to derive a discussion about making illegal things legal for monetary reasons, I think that belongs in another thread (and besides, it can be said about anything from trafficking to heavy narcotics)

Well said, but keep in mind that the argument mentioned above is not a primary reason for why marijuana should be legal, rather just a side benefit.

First outsider source reply:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition
cog·ni·tion
   /kɒgˈnɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kog-nish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.
the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
3.
knowledge.

Source quote (abstract): "medicinal use for chronic diseases" (which is not quite the same as legalizing it? We use morphine for patients in alarming amounts of pain, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal to sell in a drug store or something. Then again *insert South Park reference here*).

Quote no 2: "With the exception of both learning and forgetting domains" (in article, discussion the results of cannabis use, divided into 8 categories, then excluding these two. In my opinion, the act or process of knowing, knowledge, etc, is pretty linked to the process of learning and forgetting).

--------------------------------------------------------

Second source: IQ, or intelligence quota, is not directly related to cognitive capabilities. A some extent, it is dependent on them (knowing how to read, mathematics, etc) but it is less about knowing something and more about analyzing and calculating.

Sidenote: The study is also conducted on youths whom have not fully developed brains yet, so naturally their IQ could continue to rise as they mature, even if there was/wasn't a correlation between marijuana use and IQ. For sources on this, simply google something like "when is a brain mature" or something similar.

Sidenote 2: Most IQ tests primarily measure logical, pattern and spacial intelligence, which is but parts of a whole of that which determines a persons true intelligence.

dude. Im not sure where it says that but here's a quote in the article that seems to say the exact opposite
"Finally, it is important not to generalize these findings to
special populations. Many of the studies included in our
analyses were conducted with better-educated. younger individuals.
We do not know if these mostly negative findings
would apply to individuals who have other risk factors
for neurocognitive impairment and are then exposed to
chronic heavy cannabis use. For example, we cannot be
certain if individuals 'with mild head injuries, attention
deficit/hyperactivity diSorder, or other neuropsychiatric conditions
that may affect cognitive capacity, might be equally
resistant to the chronic effects of cannabis. In addition, the
fact that cannabinoids appear to be well tolerated by healthy
adults does not mean that children and adolescents, who are
continuing to undergo neurobiological and cognitive development,
will be similarly unaffected. Data from several human
studies, as well as animal studies examining the effects
on the offspring of cannabis-exposed mothers, suggest that
neurodevelopmental difficulties can occur"

Source: As I lack knowledge of the test, the age groups etc, I cannot say much about it. To be frank, I find the unquoted part a bit hard to understand (English isn't my primary language either).
As for the result, I really can't say anything against it except that it is only targeting the long-term effects and not the instant ones, and that I cannot see their definition/what is measured. Is there a way to read the whole thing? (couldn't find it).

You skipped two quotes (but that's okay, I'm impressed you took the time to look at any of them). As for the final quote I think it's one of those articles were you have to be a member of something too view it (because neither of use are gonna pay for it we can just disregard the last one)
As for the part you have trouble understanding which parts? what i said or the citation for each of the quotes

[SeddyRocky]

Note: I skipped quotes but not sources.

I never said that it can't kill anybody im saying that it hasn't been linked to any deaths, thats different.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309071550&page=109
Can you link it to any deaths? Im not saying that its the only one. If you visited the cite I listed It provides a link to a source that supports their claim for everything, which is why i think it is such a good source.
EDIT: When I say can't be linked to any deaths what i mean is that it can't be linked directly to any deaths. This means no one has died from simply smoking too much marijuana, this would exclude people doing stupid things to get themselves killed while high on marijuana

First sentence, to me, is a paradox. It can kill, but not be linked to deaths? (Could be a language barrier thing)

Overconsumption is but one of many direct links to death. Alcohol doesn't kill you, if you drink enough water hydrate your brain. And getting a psychosis (sp) from smoking marijuana could very well result in something fatal, even if it not the direct chemical reaction that kills you but actions derived from the chemical reactions.  But if you don't mind, we'll leave this part of the discussion as it has been asserted by other posters that it is not directly relevant to the process of legalization.


Which source are you referring to?

I have trouble understanding what the test is and an overall explanation of the study, process, etc. Blind statistics without transparency doesn't speak much to me.
Then again, it is a moot point if it is a pay to view site, so we'll leave it at that.

[theloconate]

Note: I skipped quotes but not sources.

I never said that it can't kill anybody im saying that it hasn't been linked to any deaths, thats different.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309071550&page=109
Can you link it to any deaths? Im not saying that its the only one. If you visited the cite I listed It provides a link to a source that supports their claim for everything, which is why i think it is such a good source.
EDIT: When I say can't be linked to any deaths what i mean is that it can't be linked directly to any deaths. This means no one has died from simply smoking too much marijuana, this would exclude people doing stupid things to get themselves killed while high on marijuana

First sentence, to me, is a paradox. It can kill, but not be linked to deaths? (Could be a language barrier thing)

Overconsumption is but one of many direct links to death. Alcohol doesn't kill you, if you drink enough water hydrate your brain. And getting a psychosis (sp) from smoking marijuana could very well result in something fatal, even if it not the direct chemical reaction that kills you but actions derived from the chemical reactions.  But if you don't mind, we'll leave this part of the discussion as it has been asserted by other posters that it is not directly relevant to the process of legalization.


Which source are you referring to?

I have trouble understanding what the test is and an overall explanation of the study, process, etc. Blind statistics without transparency doesn't speak much to me.
Then again, it is a moot point if it is a pay to view site, so we'll leave it at that.

The first sentence isn't a paradox, you're right it may be a language barrier, it is quite possible. For example you have the ability to kill people by strangulation, but (I hope) you haven't.

Secondly alcohol overconsumption can kill you
"Ethanol in alcoholic beverages has been consumed by humans since prehistoric times for a variety of hygienic, dietary, medicinal, religious, and recreational reasons. The consumption of large doses of ethanol causes drunkenness (intoxication), which may lead to a hangover as its effects wear off. Depending upon the dose and the regularity of its consumption, ethanol can cause acute respiratory failure or death. Because ethanol impairs judgment in humans, it can be a catalyst for reckless or irresponsible behavior. The LD50 of ethanol in rats is 10.3 g/kg"
Marijuana can kill you if you take enough but the amount needed to kill you is so much that it's unlikely that any human has or will die from that (As far as I'm aware. I could be wrong).

I always put my response to something right underneath the quote of what I was referring too

It's alright if we disregard that source because neither of us have access to the full article

[SeddyRocky]

The first sentence isn't a paradox, you're right it may be a language barrier, it is quite possible. For example you have the ability to kill people by strangulation, but (I hope) you haven't.

Secondly alcohol overconsumption can kill you
"Ethanol in alcoholic beverages has been consumed by humans since prehistoric times for a variety of hygienic, dietary, medicinal, religious, and recreational reasons. The consumption of large doses of ethanol causes drunkenness (intoxication), which may lead to a hangover as its effects wear off. Depending upon the dose and the regularity of its consumption, ethanol can cause acute respiratory failure or death. Because ethanol impairs judgment in humans, it can be a catalyst for reckless or irresponsible behavior. The LD50 of ethanol in rats is 10.3 g/kg"
Marijuana can kill you if you take enough but the amount needed to kill you is so much that it's unlikely that any human has or will die from that (As far as I'm aware. I could be wrong).

I always put my response to something right underneath the quote of what I was referring too

It's alright if we disregard that source because neither of us have access to the full article

Using that example, I have never strangled anyone, but I'm pretty sure that others have. (Parallel: marijuana doesn't always kill, but it can so it would be extremely unlikely that it has not, considering the vast usage).

Yes it CAN kill you (but drinking enough water works towards homeostasis which prevents the fatal dehydration). I also find it interesting that you quote this: "Because ethanol impairs judgment in humans, it can be a catalyst for reckless or irresponsible behavior" since  it makes me think: Because cannabis impairs judgment in humans, it can be a catalyst for reckless or irresponsible behavior.

(see source: "In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

If pot can cause a direct chemical reaction that can kill you, I doubt (google did not turn up anything there).

So it is referring to the second source? (just trying to clarify here)

[asymmetry]

I would have to somewhat agree w/ morningstar on this one. Marijuana isn't really addictive (trust me, i know), and legalizing it would most likely end the market for it.

Agree, this needs to be done. The quantity of people living in almost total poverty enslaved by the dealing/consumption market, and the mafias behind that intricate reality saddens me. Personal cannabis farming and possession (small quantities) along with an extensive social awareness campaign, can erradicate that problem, and more marginalized population would have better standards.

Almost all south america has a strong drug-dealing issue, so I'm glad so many people see marijuana not as a taboo, or an unmanageable issue, but as a consumption good.