Can someone please remind me the negative side of marijuana?

decides2dream wrote:

that's quite the assumption on your pat.

My interpretation of the facts is because every time I mention valid information about harmful marijuana effects, people have tried to segue into the "alcohol is worse" argument. People have tried to get me to stop sharing my view. And others have used personal attacks, degradation, and false arguments (logical fallacies). It has seemed that certain people are not comfortable with hearing the harmful effects of marijuana.

i will not pretend to speak for others who have posted, but i know why *I* brought up alcohol and tobacco in my posts. i was using said substances as examples that are completely LEGAL to use. seems a fair point of comparison to make. even you in some of your quoted sources, have direct links comparing tobacco and mj for example...so even these trusted sources of yours see fit to compare and contrast.

The alcohol arguments are completely valid on their own--100%. I've agreed all along that alcohol is comparable.

When people are drawing conclusions that I'm for alcohol and prohibition and are therefore tying up their own arguments with mine, attributing to me things I did not say, that's where I have distanced myself from the alcohol issue, and questioned the intentions of the posters with my personal assumptions.

it does seem however, read other posts...we are talking of 2 different things. it seems to me, and this is ony my impression...that you are not? arguing a for/against stance for the legalization of mj? merely discussion the possible negative ramifications of use? is that it?

Yes.

I stated my purpose awhile back in this thread...that I was speaking to the "the negative side of marijuana" as the original poster asked for (whether with ironic intent or not).

as i've said here a couple times already, i fully agre with the possibility of abuse, and negative consequences. i then compared such to LEGAL substances in use/approved for use...today...such as cigarettes and alcohol b/c i DO believe it is an excellent compariosn to make. for me, it is ALL about LEGALIZATION...and an adult's right to choose what substances he/she sees fit to use for their own highly personal reasons. if one is allowed the legal choice to do so with alcohol and cigareetes..i firmly believe the same right should be afforded for mj use b/c i see them as very similar substances.

I hear you. And I hear your point about the alcohol argument, because you are not tangling it up with my issues.

For me, the legalization issue comes in when I point to my understanding of why many are not for legalization--that they feel in good faith they would compromise their own values in an unhealthy way to support such a thing. Therefore the opposing forces prevent legalization. I support the empowerment of all people. And when there is a majority in terms of thought/word/deed, the law reflects that. And I can understand that given the reality at this time. Ultimately, I see humanity moving into less win/lose positions which ironically are characteristic of co-dependency. We will learn to have win/win ones as we learn to resolve these conflicts, where each person becomes empowered and when we change our laws to support that.

in regards to all the 'other stuff'.....possibilities for self-abuse, trying to second-guess why someone wants to use said substances...honestly, none of my business.

I agree 100% in my personal life. In terms of public debate, the known and understood dynamics of substance abuse at this time (in terms of expert psychological/medical opinion) are a valid negative aspect of marijuana use.

btw - it ain't all black and white. all this 'maladaptive practices' etc...well it should be ANYone's choice how they live their life. what one sees as 'maladaptive' another sees as how they want to be.

What is maladaptive is what is maladaptive. I agree however that we all do the best we can, and make our own choices, and no one individual holds the market on authority or truth.

personally, i think a LOT of what is said here, while not entirely dismissing it...i also say, it is not 100% true, or at the very least...not 100% agreed upon nor even considered by all in the scientific/pshcological/medical community. not saying one cannot value perspectives outside of said fields....but it also holds true that SOME of us look to said fields, and said educated experts in such fields.....and not these other outside sources. bottomline..we ALL can find varying sources to support our beliefs. some i would argue to hold more 'truth' than others, but i will simply say...one should not hold their personal sources/beliefs as the ONLY ones for all. and yes..i've read about this 98% numerous times...and seen the sources of said information a few times as well...and yet, i still dismiss it. so no, i don't see that or a lot presented here as 'fact'....and honestly, for me, it takes the idea of legalization a bit too far.

but hey, if that is the course this discussion is taking, c'est la vie. no more interest. i have no desire to discuss ad nauseum, and in circles...about 'human potential' etc, etc. i wantedreal reasons for/against legalization....not hypothesis and possibilities, not living to potential, etc, etc. THAT is a personal choice...not something that should be legislated. haha.


btw - john bradshaw is not the end-all be-all of sources, especially for me. great you hold his work and opinion to such high esteem...many of us do not. i look to more educated scientists, and i think this has come up in the past as well. not to say one who is NOT a scientist cannot come up with knowledgeable/informed hypothesis, disseminate information, etc....but yes, i do look towards those who have the terminal degrees in their fields...the true scientists....for what i would consider the truly educated, expert opinions.

And I completely support people hearing the information AND discerning for themselves what works and what does not. I support people gravitating towards information they resonate with depending on where they are, and depending on their own inner purposes, which outsiders are not privy to. I support people making choices they are comfortable with for their own purposes and letting go of what does not appeal to them.

soulsinging wrote:

how do you know you're not paralyzed and just don't know it now? and who made you the judge of what behaviors paralyze people and what behaviors do not? and who said paralyzing our emotions ipso facto prevents us from living in a very productive manner. i see no evidence that a behavior that paralyzes emotions is by default maladaptive. and your measure of human potential is utterly subjective... some abstract and shadowy concept of internal peace (or condescending smugness in your case). by many other barometers, those who behave in ways you consider maladaptive still thrive in society. you're still judging based on your own preconceived ideas and values and trying to pass them off as absolute fact or truth.

and you still have not offered one shred of evidence as to why marijuana should be held to a much more restrictive social stigma than other substances that play into maladaptive behaviors.

It sounds like you've got some issues with the going knowledge on co-dependency and substance abuse. I'll let you work out your own issues.

I'm fully aware that I have issues I am unconscious of that will unfold as my life progresses. It's you (and apparently Drowned Out) who have elevated me to the position of arrogance or "perfection" with your personal and erroneous judgments. It's always valid for me to share my point of view, and to present information I have learned through experience, or have found through research--it's called being *me*. When you don't get how balanced and fair that is, it shows me your imbalanced perspective.

Drifting, do you mind if I start randomly dropping this in threads where I see fit?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

holy shit!

::slams head in to wall repeatedly in disbelief::

holy motherfucking shit!

decides2dream wrote:

again, none of this supports your stance that marijuana should be deemed more dangerous and thus controlled more closely than other substances.

EXACTLY....EXACTLY.....EXACTLY.
pages and pages of 'stuff'....and ALL of it, personal CHOICE issues. i am not arguing in the least that mj is NOT harmful, of course it is! however, all this other 'stuff' it being maladaptive, balh, blah blah.....if you even believe/support such line of thinking, doesn't even MATTER in ths discussion of legality. i'd love to read actual, valid reasons why an adult should not be allowed the CHOICE for legal access to mj, especially given ALL the info out there that yes, shows it has possible negative consequences, possible 'issues' for some....but overall, is in line with a few currently LEGAL substances.



btw - all this pseudo-science.....i really find it difficult, hell, impossible to believe...that b/c mj is legal in the netherlands, that a good portion of the country is 'maladapted'. or not living up to their potential - man i'd love to see a study demonstating any such thing, of course won't happen b/c it isn't true!.....nor the MANY people on this board, hell, a few highly respected posters right in this forum, who i know from posts who indulge regularly...are 'maladaptive'...so yea, i just don't buy it. some may believe in all that, and hell, for truly hard-science issues, i do too.....but all this soft/fuzzy/pseudo science errrr....stuff.....just doesn't fly with me. i see no 'proof'...just b/c a few people want to call it maladaptive, doesn't make it so.


c'est la vie....i was hoping for more than just personal opinion, and actual rationale. your personal choices or rationale are just that....personal, and have no business in legislation. beyond the negative affects/possibilites that we know of, what honest answer does one truly believe for being against legalization? i haven't seen one iota of a realistic reason. eh well.

Okay...you guys continue to deceive yourselves about what I am saying so that you can be "right". The fact is there is no "right". You are transplanting false ideas into what I am saying.

I dare you....both of you...to find one place in this thread--or any thread on this board, for that matter--where I have personally said marijuana is more dangerous than any other substance.

This is typical of codependent behaviour. You have both confused your own arguments with my own, and therefore cannot discern what I've actually said. Go ahead...I dare you............


No matter what I say, you continue to show are unable to hear.

angelica wrote:

Oh, that's right soulsinging and dream....you CAN'T find where I've personally said marijuana is worse than any other vice, because I've NOT said it. Ever.

Because I am supporting a different view than your own, doesn't mean I am degrading your view. If you are taking the information I am presenting personally, I'm not responsible for that. I'm responsible for sharing it. If you are internalizing that information and feeling inner conflict, that's not about me. That's about your own inner conflict.

i never suggested you did. i agree with much of what you present for 'negatives' of mj use.....the medical side anyway. the pseudo-sceince stuff, which is unproven and at most an informed opinion....just holds no weight for me, so i disagree with it. i also see no 'purpose' for it in regards to legalization. i am seperating personal choice and rational efrom legislation..as i personally believe should be done. i see NO evidence presented yet that you or anyone has provided as a valid reason to deny legalization.

and you can support whatever view you want, makes no difference to me. i may view your sources with a critical eye and thus they hold little to no weight for me...or your reasons, which of course you are entitled to...and of course express.....hold no weight for me either. that's debate. i was hoping for more is all. no one else seems to be offering an arguement i actually have to counter. i don't have any *conflict* merely expressing my opinions on information presented/shared. anything else......that's your inference, not mine.


you seemed to miss MY point...and i didn't even try and dress it up with psychobabble. not once, ever, did i say you said it was worse. i simply countered that it isn't...and therefore...if we agree it's no worse...well then, why not legalization? it's not a difficult question. for all the 'other stuff'....about maladaptation, not meeting human potential or anything else....firstly, makes no difference to me, b/c all THAT falls under 'personal choice' in my book...thus no place in legislation. which i think, i have repeated numerous times.

i am well and happy and quite well-adjusted, thank you.

Oh, and another reason I thought you were agreeing with soulsinging when he was falsely and delusionally disputing an argument I did not make was when you said this:

decides2dream wrote:

*edit - WOW...conor and i agree, again..... hahahaha.

decides2dream wrote:

you seemed to miss MY point...and i didn't even try and dress it up with psychobabble. not once, ever, did i say you said it was worse. i simply countered that it isn't...and therefore...if we agree it's no worse...well then, why not legalization? it's not a difficult question. for all the 'other stuff'....about maladaptation, not meeting human potential or anything else....firstly, makes no difference to me, b/c all THAT falls under 'personal choice' in my book...thus no place in legislation. which i think, i have repeated numerous times.

i am well and happy and quite well-adjusted, thank you.

No, I didn't miss your point. I read it over and over in this thread along with the similar ones. I merely support a different view. Both views stand.

Kat wrote:

Does anyone have a match?

xo

Kat wrote:

Does anyone have a match?

xo

post of the day right here, and yes i do have a light do you have papers..

Derrick wrote:

The following may sound dumb, but it's how I feel a lot of the time.

I started this thread as a bit of a joke and a bit of a complaint. If you don't get the joke, just go read the OP again. My personal view on MJ is that:

-it is less destructive than alcohol and tobacco.
-daily abuse of MJ can be unhealthy, but not as unhealthy as daily abuse of tobacco/alcohol
- the primary reason it is kept illegal is because cigarettes are profitable to the economy. MJ would cut into those profits and not add as much to the economy due to the homegrown factor.
- the mental health benefits of MJ outweigh the negative aspects if used in moderation (by far)
- you should not ever get high then operate a vehicle nor large machinery...just like alcohol
- I think it would be a good law (albeit impossible to enforce) that states legal consuption of alcohol and marijuana would be limited to weekends. I know everyone's schedule is different, but it would be cool if the government could find a way to allow people the privilege of getting high/drunk but still take a firm action against addiction.

And the irony is I live in Waterloo also.