Can someone please remind me the negative side of marijuana?

Juberoo wrote:

I laugh when people comment about how if drugs were legal, they would use it responsibly. OK..lets prove how wrong you really are. Alcohol has been mentioned several times here. And look how that is out of control. Secondly and even more pervasive is the use of the legalized drug TOBACCO. Even with disclaimers and factual data supporting how unhealthy it's use is, "people" are still ignorant enough to smoke and get addicted. So obviously then, many of you DO need "THEM" to come in and regulate these things for you......"you" cannot control yourselves.)

Alcohol and tobacco are both addictive substances, tobacco is HIGHLY addictive....marijuana is about as addictive as caffeine. Even if people do become addicted, why do they need THEM to come in and regulate things? Why do you give a shit if I smoke 40 joints a day?

Juberoo wrote:

The point of all this goes back to a previous poster (sorry don't want to read through for your name) that pot is a gateway drug, just as tobacco and alcohol are gateway drugs. They lead to bigger and better things. Studies abound on this fact. (RAND, University of Pitt, Karolina, APA, NIDA etc)

The whole theory of gateway ANYTHING is a propaganda tool. If I said that breathing leads to death, could you honestly refute that? No.

yes; many actual research methods guidelines would show that gateway drug studies provide heavily skewed results that carry very heavy results, but very light validity.

angelica wrote:

At the same time, people who begin using marijuana, and find it meets their unconscious and maladapted emotional needs enter the world of regular drug use, with the consequences being the stunting of their actual adaptation. That's a big "gateway" issue right there, moving from non maladaptive response into maladaptive response (and in many cases, further maladaptive response). It is on par with using other toxic behaviours maladaptively (like alcohol, food as in eating disorders, even coffee addiction, and workaholism, shopaholism, porn/sex addiction, etc.).

very intelligent, and indeed, very very true. i only argue that if these other behaviors are perfectly legal, there is no reason that marijuana--with its virtually inexistent correlation to deaths per year--shouldn't also be legal. not just because of this 'if those are legal, this should be too!' ideology, but also because of many of the good points raised in the war on drugs thread.

enjoy:
A study of drug use among young men suggests that those who used marijuana before trying alcohol or tobacco were about as likely to develop an addiction problem as those who drank or smoked before using marijuana, according to researchers who say the findings run counter to the "gateway" theory underlying much of U.S. drug policy.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Dec. 5 that researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy found that about a quarter of the 200 young men studied used marijuana before trying alcohol or tobacco. "This is actually quite novel, this idea," said lead researcher Ralph E. Tarter. "It runs counter to about six decades of current drug policy in the country, where we believe that if we can't stop kids from using marijuana, then they're going to go on and become addicts to hard drugs."

Neil Capretto, medical director of the Gateway Rehabilitation Center in Aliquippa, Pa., said some addicted patients' first drug was heroin, not alcohol or marijuana. He said the study "really shows the complex nature of addiction. What they're showing here is what we've been seeing in practice for years."

Capretto added that most people who use marijuana never go on to use harder drugs. "If we could push a button and all the marijuana would go away, by no means will that stop the drug problem in this country," he said.

The researchers did find, however, that marijuana users tended to have less parental supervision, live in neighborhoods where the drug was easily available, and were more apt to be behaviorally deviant, less involved in school, and to hang out with people that their parents didn't like.

The study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was published in the December 2006 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Reference:
Reference:
Tarter, RE, Vanyukov, M, Kirisci, L, Reynolds, M, Clark, DB. (2006) Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis. Am J Psychiatry, 163(12): 2134 - 2140.

Drowned Out wrote:

without getting into one of your debates on the human mind...can you not agree that lumping all recreational drugs into the category of illegal = wrong is what creates and defines that very door or slope? I'm sure you know more than I regarding personality traits that lead to this type of curiosity. Don't you think there will always be a certain 'type' of person that will seek out mind altering substances, no matter the education? Do those people deserve to be persecuted if they are not directly harming any other person?

As I say, I'm for decriminalization. I'm for taking the criminal shame/blame and miscarriage of legal justice out of it. And yet, I personally cannot support something that I don't want continued. Particularly in the realm of substance abuse. To support it, condone it, or turn a blind eye to it is enabling it, which is an equally psychologically maladaptive stance, and a part of the toxic puzzle. So, to return the issue to the realm of the psyche, and address the actual issues is where I stand, and decriminalization is a start.

angelica wrote:

As I say, I'm for decriminalization. I'm for taking the criminal shame/blame and miscarriage of legal justice out of it. And yet, I personally cannot support something that I don't want continued. Particularly in the realm of substance abuse. To support it, condone it, or turn a blind eye to it is enabling it, which is an equally psychologically maladaptive stance, and a part of the toxic puzzle. So, to return the issue to the realm of the psyche, and address the actual issues is where I stand, and decriminalization is a start.

We're somewhat on the same page...
However, I don't think that taking the criminal shame/blame, and miscarriage of justice out of it is akin to supporting, condoning or enabling. It's simply a more just, more humanitarian, more economically sound approach to the issue of substance abuse.

Drowned Out wrote:

We're somewhat on the same page...
However, I don't think that taking the criminal shame/blame, and miscarriage of justice out of it is akin to supporting, condoning or enabling. It's simply a more just, more humanitarian, more economically sound approach to the issue of substance abuse.

I could have been clearer with what I'm saying. I'm completely behind decriminization. And like yourself, I don't feel that decriminalizing it is at all about supporting or enabling. For sure.

I am not on board with legalization. Decriminalization has inherent to it the potential "slippery slope" of further decriminalization which is only beneficial in addressing the real issues. Again, this is not a criminal issue in my mind.

Legalization is a whole different ballgame. I wouldn't support enabling legalization and getting the ball rolling in that entirely different direction. I don't care what people do...I just won't personally support what I know is psychologically maladaptive, like many millions of others.

Drowned Out wrote:

Ok, but is it better to condone criminal activity (cultivation/distribution) by decriminalizing or to condone drug use by legalizing?

Can you please explain how you see that decriminalization condones criminal activity?

angelica wrote:

Can you please explain how you see that decriminalization condones criminal activity?

As I understand decriminalization, it either makes a small amount legal for possession, or changes the laws from an offense that gives you a permanent criminal record to one that carries a fine....but still makes cultivation, production and distribution illegal and punishable by prison, etc. Is there not still a double standard? It has to come from somewhere...if we decrim, it does nothing to address the issues with organized crime or violence associated with vigilante justice in the trade. Some people would see decriminalizing street level use as condoning the crime in the industry.

angelica wrote:

You see a double standard. I do not. People looking to profit from drug "marketing" at the expense of humans, are accountable for their actions. Those who have a psychological substance abuse issue are responsible for their actions--and still having a substance abuse concern is very different than profiting from the fallibility of others.

This is one of those slippery slope arguments that prevents many from agreeing with even decriminalization--because it's clear the justifications that arise, pertaining to trying to set further and further precedents, that actually condone such behaviours. And people see that potential and do not accept that.

are you not contradicting yourself by saying their is no double standard, but there is a slippery slope?
What about this....cultivation, in all suggested decriminalization scenarios I've seen, would still be illegal. If a marijuana user grew his own, and didn't sell or profit from it, he would still run the risk of being sent to jail for growing it. This is all I really care about in the decrim vs legalization debate. Let people grow their own.

I also do not understand this prevalent attitude towards condoning other people's behaviours. I don't overly care what you think about what I do...if it doesn't affect you, why should I care if you support my decision? I'm a grown up and I can make my own decisions. You say I use substances as a maladaptive practice to hide from my problems...that's your opinion. I could suggest that you hide in literature and overbearing grandstanding on message boards for the same reason, no? To each their own.